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: Smokers' Rights Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Imperial Kalistan Party
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: November 2053
Description[?]:
| This bill is to lighten restrictions on public smoking. While smoking is prohibited inside public buildings, a smoker ought to be able to smoke outside of buildings without punishment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: 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.
Current: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:20:39, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Interstate Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | OOC: I think "public locations" in this proposal refers to cinemas, bars etc as well as outdoor spaces - thus I will probably reject it IC. |
| Date | 15:25:42, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | We are in agreement with this bill |
| Date | 15:40:43, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Interstate Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | You want to be in a cinema full of smoke? |
| Date | 15:44:28, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Establishments will still have the ability to regulate their own smoking, unlike what the KNP wishes, the state does not own and operate all businesses in this great land. If a cinema wishes to allow smoking, then so be it, that is between them and their patrons. If they designate the cinema as non smoking, they have every right to do so. What this bill does is allow smokers to light up in say, a park (unless posted otherwise during a fire safety emergency) which being a citizen of this great land is their right to do. |
| Date | 15:47:59, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Interstate Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | We agree with smoking outside - thats fine with us. But smoking inside public buildings should not be allowed. Who picks up the tab for the healthcare of the people affected? |
| Date | 15:51:38, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | I would imagine the same people who have to pick up the tab for the children who are affected when their parents are restricted to only smoking in their homes. |
| Date | 17:21:36, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Cinemas are not publicly owned properties and therefore would not be considered "public" in the language of this bill. It is still up to private enterprises to regulate their own standards of smoking. Otherwise we are intruding on private property rights. |
| Date | 17:49:08, May 16, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Again, the SoG wonders what the NDP was doing when the current bill was voted into effect. It was clearly defined what "public locations" means, in that debate. And - quite obviously - it does *not* mean outside. We find it a bit bemuzing how such a conclusion could be made? In fact, the bill currently in effect states that smoking is not prohibited in public locations for adults (bars, pubs, dance halls, etc.) - they have the right to decide for themselves. Smoking in restaurants is still allowed as well, with the restriction that a section of the restaurant needs to be kept smoke free. While the SoG is generally not in favor of heavy restrictions, we found this a very acceptable compromise, taking public health, especially that of our children, into account. We see no reason for this proposal to even exist. Except, of course, if it is based on "polls". (OOC: I know some of you weren't around when the smoke bill was voted on - but the NDP was, so they should know better at least) |
| Date | 17:54:34, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | And we ask SoG, what about public parks, and outside public areas. Outside on ones porch and outside in a park is very different after all. |
| Date | 18:01:25, May 16, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | No specific mention was made of parks, so under the current bill, smoking outside - anywhere - is allowed. (apart from private properties which specifically don't allow smoking, of course, such as gas stations). |
| Date | 19:37:37, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | "Current: Smoking is not allowed in public locations; cigarettes may only be purchased by adults." Yup. It's quite clear, in the LETTER OF THE LAW, that smoking in public is currently allowed, right? |
| Date | 22:39:23, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | The FRP agrees with this bill. Right now, smoking in public is not allowed, period. With this bill, the decision will be left to the individual institutions. |
| Date | 01:26:23, May 17, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Smoking costs the state millions of dollars every year, if we are going to alter our current stance, we should ban it. Pollution, sucking government funds up, it's a practice that needs to be stopped. |
| Date | 02:17:29, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Smoking is, indeed, a disgusting practice. But not all of us are as willing to strip away rights as your party is. |
| Date | 03:30:04, May 17, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | NDP said: "Current: Smoking is not allowed in public locations; cigarettes may only be purchased by adults." Yup. It's quite clear, in the LETTER OF THE LAW, that smoking in public is currently allowed, right?" (OOC: Obviously that's not the point. We just had long, intense discussions about this late last week, after which we clearly defined the specifics, allowing us to come to a compromise to vote this bill into effect. You were part of that, you voted for it. What's the point in debating and compromising if we're just going to ignore all that 4 days later, and bring up the same bill? The "debating" should be the fun part of this game. Not looking at the sliders to figure out what gets you votes, and then suggest as many bills as possible to that effect.) |
| Date | 18:35:21, May 17, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Bill |
| Message | Due to lack of funding, the TDPK has not been active of late, but this attack on the human species can not be allowed to go unnoticed! The TDPK position is as follows: Humans do, and should, have the right to kill themselves. It's their body, and their choice. That said, humans should NOT have the right to kill each other, which is exactly what this bill proposes. If I had a lump of plutonium, and decided I wanted to kill myself by giving myself cancer with it, fine. But if I go walking around in the streets, exposing countless others to that same radiation, and putting them at risk of the same cancer, then that is no longer fine. The situations are not so different, are they? We of the TDPK believe that smoking in public places should be banned, with exceptions being made for casinos, dance halls, pubs, and the like. This allows smokers to have a life, and not be bound up in their house every night smoking, because they can’t go out on the town. But it also ensures that no one else is going to suffer because they make that choice. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 343 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli |