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: Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179
Details
Submitted by[?]: Mouvement des Conservateurs
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 2181
Description[?]:
| Honorable Colleagues, With the Reexis Act we want to scale some of the restrictions on recreational liberties of our Rildanor Citizens. "Legalize in order to Control" In order to maintain the invidual freedom we must gain every single person the liberty to use recreational products, we believe it is not the governments job to forbid the use of it, only to make sure the socio-economical situation of our country is favourable enough not to drift the users of those recreational products into an addiction. Regards. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The recreational drug policy.
Old value:: Recreational drug use is forbidden.
Current: Recreational drug use is forbidden.
Proposed: The use of cannabis is legal.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is prohibited.
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. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: The sale of tobacco products is prohibited.
Current: There are certain restrictions on the sale of tobacco and only adults may purchase tobacco.
Proposed: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:22:01, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Lutte Féministe de Libération | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | I suppose we'd support. |
| Date | 15:25:57, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | Against. All these products are detrimental to one's health and to the society at large. It affects the life of everybody, since youth would see others using it. And not just youth, anybody of any age category would see activity in this branch. This influences those who see it, and through possible pressure from others this may cause addictions where one currently would not even consider to use of this. Addiction will come with these products if allowed. They are addictive products, and ofcourse people will become addicted. It is possible to ruin people's life, because they become so dependant on the drug that they would pay more for the drug then for more basic needs. It would ruin their lives, and introduce a wrong way of life in society. Also the health of these people would be negativly affected and not just these people. People who would never smoke would still breathe in the smoke of others for example. Drugs could be offered innocently, and there goes another soul lost to drugs. And more people would fall pray on it's clutches, just because they see others using it and would be tempted to try. The legalisation of this to get so called control is just a spawn of one's imagination. Sure, one might "control" it opposed to black market, but that just means that you are making the work of criminals legal and easier. It still means that the use would sky rocket compared to how it is currently. We can not allow this stimulus for a worse way of life to enter our society. It has a far effect, on short and on long term. It can ruin more lives then you want to have on your conscience. |
| Date | 16:10:57, February 02, 2006 CET | From |  Front Canrillaise | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | We'd be willing to support articles 2 & 3, but not 1. If you'll drop # 1 we will support this 100%. |
| Date | 16:16:27, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | We removed article 1 to reach a consensus. |
| Date | 16:29:47, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | An illigal drug does not necessary stop the addicted to use, we feel that forbidding is giving a wrong signal, that would be rather destructive solution, the problem with the use of soft- & hard drugs, such as alcohol, is that addiction often is a result of socio-economical problems, not of the drug itself. It is not the regulation of the government that will determine if people use drugs or not. The drug policy of this nation will not change anything to the reality of drug use, only to the stipulation. Thats why a over-simplified repressive policy concerning drugs will result into a bigger social exclusion and a marginal existence of the problematical user, while a less repressive policy will result into sincerity and a debatable matter concerning the use of drugs, that is something that will simplify the work prevention and the social assistance. |
| Date | 03:09:52, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Lutte Féministe de Libération | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | Actually, I'm opposed to the new Article 1 as well. Sorry for the change, I didn't read it. |
| Date | 16:31:26, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | It is the regulation of the government that will determine how many people use drugs. Not if people use drugs, because there only needs to be two people illegally using drugs and "people are using drugs". It is the amount that will use drugs. I do not get what you are trying to say with the last paragraph after the first sentence 23CC, what are you trying to say? An illegal drug may not necessary stop the addicted to use it, but will make it harder to obtain to drug to such a situation that one can not get the drug anymore. When one can not get the drug anymore, one has to stop. Also, more importantly, when drugs are illegal like they are now, the amount of people that will start using drugs are nihil. When allowed, the amount of people using drugs will be extraordinarly higher compared to how it is currently. And it will not easily decrease from there. Besides, if there are socio-economical problems, shouldn't you be fixing those problems, instead of allowing the drug? Drugs are bad for one's health and have unwanted consequences with the use of them for the population and society. |
| Date | 20:56:31, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | "Also, more importantly, when drugs are illegal like they are now, the amount of people that will start using drugs are nihil." That is a dangerous statement in my opinion, one that needs to be ratified by statistics in order to be convincive. We do not believe that forbid the use of drugs will result into a decrease in drug use, it will only change the 'stipulation' (modulation, the looks of it -, the outside, ...) of the drug use policy of our nation. Restrict drug use can also result into a larger iligal and criminal milieu, something 'normal' addicted drug users can turn into criminals. |
| Date | 21:32:38, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | But there is one thing there working in our advantage. Drugs have been illegal for some time now. To introduce it again would mean a definate increase in the use of drugs. Now, I can agree on that you found my statement dangerous. But it is only logical. When drugs are not a part of the socitial image, there is no stimulus for them to start. Plus, one does not have the means. So our current situation (no drugs) can be prefered above a public legalisation of drugs. Besides, we have police and the like for any existant criminal drug users. I am quite confident that there are currently less drug users then there would be if drugs are allowed. Besides, speaking about that socio-economical problem you talked about. Why not focus your attention on improving that? |
| Date | 23:17:51, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | "Now, I can agree on that you found my statement dangerous. But it is only logical. When drugs are not a part of the socitial image, there is no stimulus for them to start. Plus, one does not have the means." Again a dangerous statement, nothing is logical, if you want your policy concerning drugs to be called 'logical' then I call that pretentious as you are enforcing us your 'political correctness'. "So our current situation (no drugs) can be prefered above a public legalisation of drugs. Besides, we have police and the like for any existant criminal drug users. I am quite confident that there are currently less drug users then there would be if drugs are allowed." That is a zero-tolerance policy? You imply that every drug user is a criminal, not with those words but as I said, a drug user will not stop if the government forbids the use of it, the drug uses the user, not the other way round. The current regulation makes a criminal out of every drug user. "Besides, speaking about that socio-economical problem you talked about. Why not focus your attention on improving that?" First of all, in our opinion, creating an improved socio-economical situation is first getting rid of taboos, that will allow all social institutions to develop their preventative methods. Second, the socio-economal situation is not a predictable matter, a government may improve it but never for all of the Rildanor citizens. |
| Date | 04:03:02, February 04, 2006 CET | From | People's National Unity Movement (RDL) | To | Debating the Leexis Recreational Freedom Act of 2179 |
| Message | we support wholeheartedly |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 175 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 164 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 161 |
| Random fact: "Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned. |
| Random quote: "The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building." - Benito Mussolini |