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: Smoking Restrictions Amendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution 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: August 2066
Description[?]:
| While we will not allow the purchasing of cigarettes by minors, we will allow for the citizens of Likaton to smoke in public places. However, citizens may not light up in office buildings, health institutions or places of commerce. Citizens of Likaton may only smoke in restaurants and bars that have either a designated smoking area or out door patio. In sporting venues, smoking shall not be permitted in the stands or in the bathrooms. There shall be designated smoking areas inside, if any, and outside of the sporting venue. Out door areas and one's home are exempt from this bill. Lastly, any place that has been permitted to allow smoking is not required to let patrons smoke. The choice to have a smoking section is completely voluntary. They are free to make the choice as to whether or not they would like to have a section for smokers. |
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 everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
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 | 19:24:32, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I'm proposing this as an amendment to an earlier bill of mine. I'm also loosening one of my previously legislated restrictions. |
| Date | 00:10:33, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | We won't support this. Public health is important. Without health, nothing can be enjoyed. |
| Date | 02:03:11, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Oh boy. Thank you, LFP, you have managed to insult me on a personal level. I'm amazed. I one of the unlucky jerks in this world to have two different diseases, both of which can't be cured but can be treated and knocked into remission. Your insensitivity is amazing. Would you like to take that back or shall I rant about how that statement is not true? |
| Date | 03:15:52, June 04, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I don't feel that a roll back is desirable...but if you can accomodate me, I can accomodate you. |
| Date | 05:15:23, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Football Stadiums? |
| Date | 06:14:18, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Explain what you mean, PP... you've caught my attention. |
| Date | 13:35:51, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I don't understand how I insulted you. If those two diseases are in remission, then you are - if only temporarily - healthy. Are you saying that things aren't significantly better when they are in remission? Does not their being in remission make it easier to enjoy life? I'll apologize for one thing - I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry. Feel free to rant, though, because I want to understand the insult I caused. If I don't know what I'm apologizing for, I can't be certain not to do it agian. |
| Date | 17:41:24, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Simple... Even before they were in remission, it didn't stop me from having pleasure in life. Your assumption is that if one is unhealthy, and you didn't specify how, that they can't get pleasure from anything. My best friend has medical problems as well and is worse off than me, but she still gets a lot out of life. My problem was that you were far too assuming. |
| Date | 19:57:53, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Actually, I was just repeating an old turn of phrase. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it before. My own health is consistently uncertain enough that I know it's not true - but I also know, that if my health were perfect that life would be far more fun. I can't really defend myself well on it, and I won't try. I made a mistake. I also can't apologize a second time - it'd be insincere, and I won't insult you with an apology I can't stand behind. |
| Date | 21:48:52, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Sometimes illness can make you appreciate life more. However, that is not a justification for encouraging the pollution of public air. |
| Date | 22:36:21, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | If we're worried abput the pollution of public air, let's outlaw cars, buses and all methods of transit that make gas emissions. Then, let's make it illegal for factories for emit any sort of green house gas or dump anything. Oh, and garbage burning cannot be allowed anywhere on Likatonian soil... |
| Date | 05:16:02, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Mmm. If we had the money and authority (it would require complete government control of construction agencies for a period of time) to build the sort of all-reaching public transit that would be required once cars, buses, and such were outlawed, then we'd support. Since there's no possible way to make that feasible, no support. On factories, we can't restrict them that way because we'd kill them. Unless you intended to turn our country into the high-tech capital of the world - but we've a few years to go, first. On garbage burning, many communities -already- outlaw that, it wouldn't be so terribly extreme. Not that we're promoting such an extremist green policy, just pointing out that they are technically, albeit barely, possible. I think the biggest idea to restricting cigarettes is to make them unprofitable for big tobacco companies and thus discourage the market. When the product becomes unprofitable, then the companies will vanish. Of course, there is the problem that supply-side solutions aren't historically known as working... We must also work to decrease the demand. Will this help to decrease demand somehow? |
| Date | 11:29:41, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | By doing that we would just be encouraging the smuggling of tobacco. |
| Date | 13:19:20, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I will vote use to this. |
| Date | 22:24:54, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | LPE: I'd like to point out that your statement was non-targetted. WHAT were you responding to? I can't tell if you've got a point or not if you don't specify which point you're addressing. |
| Date | 04:15:17, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I have added a new phrase. It is noting that having a smoking section in the permitted locations is voluntary. |
| Date | 05:30:25, June 06, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Much appreciated. It ensures a property right to the owner. I still want to know what effect changing this would have on the demand for tobacco. |
| Date | 11:55:25, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | LFP: sorry. I was adressing the idea of making cigarettes unprofitable to tobacco companies. Presumably we would do this by taxing the industry and/or imports, which would just lead to an increase in industry moving abroad and in smuggling of tobacco into Likatonia |
| Date | 13:53:20, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Tobacco use depends on whether or not a person has already tried. If they have, then they will probably either contiue use or they won't. We (likely) already have education programs, so use won't increase. We're just making it less of a stigma if someone wants to light up. |
| Date | 23:10:55, June 06, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I don't think we should do anything to de-stigmatize tobacco. It shouldn't be seen as socially acceptable. |
| Date | 23:44:06, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Oh, so you're saying that these people should feel ashamed of themselves? That isn't right. They have the right and freedom to choose if they want to smoke. You're being too controlling. |
| Date | 02:10:33, June 07, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I'm not being controlling. We can't force people to feel ashamed. The government can't change popular culture, it just doesn't happen. Attempts to do so result in rebellions. Yet at the same time, long term policy alters cultures. No one today will feel ashamed of lighting up in public. A hundred years from now, THEN it'll be stigmatized. That's when the industry will cease to be an industry - and isn't that what you want? The thing I quoted above, it's why prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition attempts to force a change NOW while gradual restrictions take longer and accomplish the goal better. We'll never make tobacco smoking disappear entirely, but we can make it seem "uncool" if we maintain an anti-tobacco stance for long enough. That will prevent teenagers from starting the habit, and the industry will fade away. |
| Date | 02:58:50, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | That is still NOT democratically fair. Those are cheap underhanded tactics that do NOT serve the population. You seem to work on the assumption that people are so stupid. The government has no right to use policy to change culture; it's ethically immoral. The people make the culture and it our job to set the rules, and making it fair and public makes it less cool. |
| Date | 10:22:00, June 07, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | In this matter, if I am wrong I have harmed none. If I am right I have helped many. Hence, my actions are morally flawless. I resent being called cheap, underhanded, and immoral - it was insensitive of you and discounted the possibility of a varying opinion. There are many different ethical standards, and I operate within a very strict code of honor. I would ask you to respect it. If you proved this is costly and fiscally irresponsible, then I will switch stances on it. There's nothing immoral about influencing people when the option to change is always left as voluntary. However, there is much that is immoral about taking their money and then throwing it down the drain. We have different values. You won't change my basic ideals, but you might influence the conclusions I draw from them. I pride myself on being open to persuasion. |
| Date | 13:19:54, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | PEL: I don't follow your argument. Smoking is dangerous, therefore the government has a perfect right to discourage it, just like they have a right to issue guidelines on childcare. It is another debate whether it is right for them to actively control it, but in this case the decisions are still left to the individual, so there is no harm to peoples social rights. Culture is an organic thing which is constantly changing to encorporate new ideas and ideals. It is determined by many things, amongst others the law and the official stance, sometimes adversely and sometimes favourably. I would say that not only is it perfectly moral to attempt to influence social values, it is actually one of the responsibilities of a good government - to govern by suggestion rather than by force. |
| Date | 14:04:32, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | That's my reasoning. The government should only regulate the sale and protect the places that are most vulnerable. I prefer to let people make their own choices. Just because we're elected doesn't mean we know what's best for an entire population. |
| Date | 11:42:55, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | I have totally lost track of which side i am arguing now :-s |
| Date | 18:36:23, June 11, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Well, first you took my side, and then PEL said that you were agreeing with them. This sounds like a confusion tactic, although it could just as well be a misunderstanding on the side of one of you. |
| Date | 21:05:04, June 11, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | No...I employed my double-logic tactic, which is the best way to get people to agree with me. And I nver used a confusion tactic, just a logic one. ^_^ |
| Date | 11:09:14, June 12, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Smoking Restrictions Amendment |
| Message | Mm. It's usually called twisting people's arguments, and it IS a confusion tactic. It is not a logical tactic - I believe it's a logical fallacy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 29 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 171 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "Don't listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do." - Nguyen Van Thieu |