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 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: July 2174
Description[?]:
| 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. This proposal has received wide support in the past. We hope that this support is maintained. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 | 16:10:31, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | We agree that smoking should be legal at the discretion of the property owner in all commercial buildings such as shops and bars, due to the fact that competition will trigger many of these places into providing for non-smokers. However, we believe that this freedom should not extend to the workplace, because demand significantly outstrips supply with regards to employment in many professions, therefore meaning there is no such incentive. As such, many will be forced to compromise their health by residing in smoky workplaces due to a lack of alternative. |
| Date | 16:58:58, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | Most employers will continue to ban smoking in their premises, both to enhance productivity and to reduce health insurance premiums. But if some employers, for whatever idiotic reason, want to allow smoking in their workplace, it is their right. We cannot legislate intelligence. OOC: At least in the US and the UK, smoking is banned in most workplaces by the companies themselves, and for good reason. |
| Date | 21:37:53, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | We agree with the reasoning given by the RDP with respect to a ban in government offices. We consider that employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace environment. Since the health risks of smaoking are well documented, this would emply that workplaces should be smoke free. If all employers are bound by this, then there is no competitive disadvantage involved. We would prefer to see a tightening rather than a relaxation of regulation in this area. We will oppose. |
| Date | 22:47:51, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | This provision received a majority vote, including that of the Green Party, a few short months ago. Therefore, we are moving to a vote. We are appalled by the demagogic about-faces of the Green Party. |
| Date | 04:29:44, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | We think this change in legislation is genius. Of course if an owner wishes to optimise their services (and therefore profit) they are likely to provide a non-smoker section, but this would be entirely at their own discretion. |
| Date | 13:13:39, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Smokers' Rights Act |
| Message | Are the RDP really so naive as to take compromise votes on omnibus bills as indicators of core policy? We had thought better of them. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 35 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 53 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 12 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant." - Planned Parenthood advertisement |