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 regulation, 2179
Details
Submitted by[?]: KSP - Kazulia Socialdemokratisk Parti
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: January 2180
Description[?]:
| We know that tobacco products are bad for health, and we want to reduce their use on our country. In this way, also the Healthcare budget will be helped. |
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 all places of employment.
Proposed: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: There are no regulations on the sale of tobacco.
Current: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Proposed: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:44:07, February 01, 2006 CET | From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | Although I am a non-smoker, I find nagging little laws like this oppressive. If there are enough non-smokers the market will create smoke-free venues. A tax on smokes could be used to offset any health costs and this leaves the individual free to make their own choices, and freedom ought to be preserved where at all possible. Let us save the "illegal" designation for crimes worthy of it, rather than this trend toward coercion and state control of minor details. |
| Date | 00:01:46, February 02, 2006 CET | From | KSP - Kazulia Socialdemokratisk Parti | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | It will be very difficult. Make sites for smokers is a cost, and if the companies are not constrict to do them, it will not make them. A tax on smokes could be interesting, but if we want to give the cost of healthcare on smokers for smoke cures, the cost of cigarettes will be too high and the smoke affair will be picked up by crime. |
| Date | 01:41:05, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Northern Light | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | Freedom to doing stupid things is overrated. |
| Date | 01:57:36, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | Ah, so who defines stupid? The state? Societies become mired in dependency when they are prohibited from taking risks - and there are many risks, it is true. Were the state to begin regulating each and every one of them it would be occupied (or is bogged down a better term) for a very long time. Of course that suits controlling ideologues perfectly. A nation bound by fear and reactionary legislation will stagnate and eventually be overthrown . . . er, overrun - in one way or another. |
| Date | 15:44:30, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Konservativ Monarkistpartiet | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | Ja this bill is ill thought out. Did the SL stop to think just how much revenue the government raises from the tax on tobacco? Enough, if not more than, the amount needed to pay for smokers in the Health Service, which is private anyway, I think. Besides, in the last 150 years the poisenous content within cigerettes has successfully been reduced, removing most of the toxins within that smooth wholseome bacca. |
| Date | 18:29:41, February 02, 2006 CET | From | KSP - Kazulia Socialdemokratisk Parti | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | If I want to smoke tobacco, I smoke also dioxine, clorus and other interesting thing. We want to protect nonsmoker from passive smoke. |
| Date | 18:35:08, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Northern Light | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | Smoking has been proved definitly dangerous, with only a 16% increase in cool factor and a 2.1 pleasure ratio. There are better things to do, like drinking absinthe and watching 1956 dolgarian movies. Also, we dont care about raising money on morally wrong products. |
| Date | 20:06:43, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Konservativ Monarkistpartiet | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | So you increase general taxation? Nice? When money from morally wrong products goes towards paying for health care, surely that is a good thing? |
| Date | 06:10:19, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Smoke regulation, 2179 |
| Message | "There are better things to do . . . " Yes, this is why anti-smoking laws have been successful. Smoking is, to a large extent, the simple pleasure of a poor. And so the elitist middle-class-who-think-they-are-upper-class (well I hate to use "bourgeois," it has ideological connotations that are offensive to true Kazulianianianans) tramples on the rights of the poor to enjoy their simple pleasures. Then they traipse off to dinner and a concert believing they have made the world a better place and patting themself on the back. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 34 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 33 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 33 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "He who will not economize will have to agonize." - Confucius |