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: The Protectorate Policy on Purchases
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
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: April 2195
Description[?]:
Our regulations are constraining our system and imposing the wrong morals on our people. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Current: All advertising is permitted.
Proposed: All advertising is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards alcoholic beverages.
Old value:: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased only from licensed sales outlets, and can only be available to adults.
Current: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased and consumed anywhere, but only by adults.
Proposed: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased and consumed anywhere, but only by adults.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Food safety policy.
Old value:: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Current: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Proposed: Local governments determine food safety standards.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: There are certain restrictions on the sale of tobacco and only adults may purchase tobacco.
Current: The sale of tobacco products is regulated by local governments
Proposed: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 22:44:38, March 02, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | We agree with all but Article 1. Sometimes, standards are necessary in regards to advertising. |
Date | 23:20:20, March 02, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | 1) Acceptable. 2) Licensed sale outlets are easier to control, alcohol is still a dangerous substance. 3) We made our opinion on this proposal clear in the Health Reform Act. 4) When we changed this law, the restrictions were stated as being warnings on the packets and general quality control of the products. Why change this? |
Date | 18:27:38, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | In response to the SDL on Article 4, that is a blatant lie. It was changed by the IRP and they never gave any reasons. Please recall that we had debated about what these "restrictions" would entail; however, they were never given before vote. It was only until after a vote that the IRP messages us privately in response to our inquiry and they said: ----------------------------------------------------- Message Details Date 03:49:38, February 21, 2006 CET From Imperial Republican Party To Malivianese Militarist Party Message Malivianese Militarist Party: What does the IRP intend with regard to restrictions of the sale of tobacco? Just like a some proof of being an adult and such. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Date | 21:30:31, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | During the debate: SDL: "I guess they are restrictions on the tobacco companies themselves, fe only a certain amount of a certain harmful product is allowed in tobacco products, health warnings on the packets, etc." MMP: "If they are just health warnings on the packets, we can agree." Doesn't this count then? |
Date | 21:57:24, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | If the SDP will support the bill otherwise we will remove this provision, we simply wished not to impose laws on who or where they could be sold. These packaging and content are acceptable. |
Date | 22:24:42, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | We'll support it if article 4 is removed, yes. If what we said the restrictions were, are true. Otherwise we don't see the difference between the current law and the new one, the IRP said it was just identification of adulthood, but that's the law anyway. |
Date | 02:39:51, March 04, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | No! Whatever parties say the law says is NOT admissible in court as they were never part of the actual wording of the law duly passed by the Assembly. |
Date | 10:14:37, March 04, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the The Protectorate Policy on Purchases |
Message | Agree with some of the articles don't with some but will vote for because I can always propose to change the others I want fixed back. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 187 | ||||||
no | Total Seats: 36 | ||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 36 |
Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
Random quote: "Idealism is fine; but as it approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive." - William F. Buckley, Jr. |