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: Back Off Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
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 2172
Description[?]:
| The State should stop nannying grown-up individuals "for their own good": -We believe that industrial health and safety should be regulated by local governments, which can better take into account each region's attitude to risk and degree of economic development. -A property owner should have the right to determine if smoking is allowed on the premises or not. If smoking is permitted, nonsmoking customers are free to seek alternative venues, and nonsmoking employees are free to seek alternative employment. But the State should not be allowed this right, as it is a monopoly and its "customers" cannot seek an alternative. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health and safety legislation for industry.
Old value:: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Current: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Proposed: Health and safety laws are to be determined by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: 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.
Current: Smoking is prohibited.
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 | 18:55:48, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Back Off Act |
| Message | We oppose. Corporations and in particular industries need to be told what to do in the area of health and safety for workers, and we cannot leave it to chance that local governments will not do this. The current smoking laws provide a good compromise between the rights of the smoker, and the rights of the non-smoker, and therefore need not be changed. |
| Date | 05:08:06, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Back Off Act |
| Message | Why do you assume that local governments will ignore health and safety? Local governments are as democratic as the federal government, and much more directly accountable to their voters. |
| Date | 06:13:20, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Populist Islamic Workers' League | To | Debating the Back Off Act |
| Message | We are opposed for the same reasons as the DPPI. |
| Date | 10:23:07, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Back Off Act |
| Message | In reply to the RDP, we did not assume that local governments would ignore health and safety, we merely said we cannot leave it to chance. Also, we dislike the idea that something as important as health and safety regulations could vary across the nation. Such regulations need to be stringent and universal. |
| Date | 14:48:32, January 17, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Back Off Act |
| Message | We are in agreeance with article 2 but not article 1 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 42 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 54 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 4 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "I'm not a leftist; I'm where the righteous ought to be." - M.M. Coady |