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: The Right to Smoke Bill (2150)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: October 2151
Description[?]:
| No need to spill a lot of ink on this. We know smoking is bad for one's health , but we know many things which are bad but are legal. Our lax drug laws should include smoking. If people want to risk their health and smoke, why are we preventing that choice. Of course only adults will be allowed to purchase and smoke legally, but also we are not going to start rounding up minors who are caught smoking and toss them in jail. Smoking is not a crime. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is prohibited.
Current: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:55:02, December 04, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | I believe we should end this ban on smoking, as it is a bit heavy handed. |
| Date | 21:09:02, December 04, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | "Our lax drug laws should include smoking." - Not if you read them fully "f people want to risk their health and smoke, why are we preventing that choice." - Again please repeal that law first then allow smoking. Why should tobacco be given preferential treatment over any other drug? Also tobacco smoking as been repeatedly shown to cause major harm to those around smokers who cannot chose whether they wish to smoke or not. "Smoking is not a crime." - At present tobacco smoking is. |
| Date | 02:56:25, December 05, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | Of course we'll support. The dangers of smoking are well-known and it should be up to the consumer to decide what he or she ingests. I would suggest adding a clause banning the use of additives in cigarettes to make them somewhat safer. |
| Date | 08:27:06, December 05, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | Again what about those around them affected by passive smoking? They have no choice about inhaling others smoke. Why should they have to suffer as well? |
| Date | 10:48:33, December 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | Their lungs are tough as KRUPP steel due to all the marijuana smoke they have been inhaling for a while now, whether on purpose or trapped in a car with his very big family who enjoy a toke every so often. |
| Date | 11:36:29, December 05, 2005 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | I would rather ban other recreational drugs than allowing smoking. We should also prohibit the purchase of tobacco, which is already proposed. |
| Date | 14:41:23, December 05, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | "Their lungs are tough as KRUPP steel due to all the marijuana smoke they have been inhaling for a while now, whether on purpose or trapped in a car with his very big family who enjoy a toke every so often." - As the law currently states that smoking is illegal, not tobacco smoking is illegal, smoking drugs of any kind is illegal so the effects you describe would not happen. We can't support this bill as though it allows those wishing to kill themselves the ability to do so they should not force others around them to be killed or have their health severly curtailed. |
| Date | 19:06:43, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the The Right to Smoke Bill (2150) |
| Message | How can a Christian socialist party vote for this bill? Doesn't the wellbeing of other citizen count? And when something is not healthy and against all morals, why then allow it? Beats me? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 209 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 191 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "I am loyal to the ideas, not to the institutions." - Cyro Aquila, former Selucian politician |