We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Aloria Party (NAP)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3146
Description[?]:
| Senator Mike Lee takes the floor "Fellow Senators, this proposed law is a compromise and one that should be truly passed. It allows smoking outdoor and indoor of private homes, but does not allow smoking in employed buildings except for places that primely sell liquor like a bar or a pub. This protects customers from second hand smoke and other employees but gives patrons the right to smoke freely in a bar. I ask for your I vote on this important issue I yield" |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, and is legal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Proposed: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:32:52, July 02, 2011 CET | From | Social Democrats Union | To | Debating the Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145 |
| Message | This is much better than what the "scientists?" proposed. It is better for this one to get through than the other one. |
| Date | 20:08:56, July 02, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145 |
| Message | Our concern with the proposal is that it would make smoking illegal even within the four walls of a corporate office. Though I understand the concern of the PP regarding the health of the customers, we have to consider the fact that not all places of employment involve the presence of customers. Also, how would one be able to regulate such a matter? If, say, a security guard smokes in a building inside a subdivision or village that he is tasked to guard, would he be considered as breaking the law for smoking indoors in the village that he has been employed (or contracted) to protect? |
| Date | 20:11:11, July 02, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145 |
| Message | We would be more open to making smoking illegal (or, rather, prohibited) in government buildings. |
| Date | 00:08:58, July 03, 2011 CET | From | New Aloria Party (NAP) | To | Debating the Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145 |
| Message | He would have to go outside smoking, if he's on break he would go outside and be covered. |
| Date | 16:16:00, July 04, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 3145 |
| Message | After further debate, we decided to vote yes with this. OOC: Honestly, the proposals available are a bit insufficient for my own taste. I simply don't like the idea of making smoking in EVERY office illegal, since that's not something you could easily regulate. It would've been better if it was similar to what we have here in the Philippines, wherein it is illegal in public vehicles, schools, health centers, elevators, cinemas, malls, places where fire hazards are present, and recreational facilities for minors. It doesn't cover EVERY employment building in the country. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 618 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." - Kary Mullis |