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 Bill 4744
Details
Submitted by[?]: Alliance 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: January 4745
Description[?]:
| This policy has previously been agreed by our SDP coalition partners |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is only allowed in private homes and clubs.
Current: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
Proposed: Smoking is prohibited.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Current: There are certain restrictions on the sale of tobacco and only adults may purchase tobacco.
Proposed: The sale of tobacco products is prohibited.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:39:27, April 20, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | This bill is a shockingly severe restriction on the civil liberties of the people of this nation. How exactly does the government intend to enforce this, and can they explain why the people are in an apparent need of a Nanny State to protect them, or rather to control them? |
| Date | 21:36:01, April 20, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | We ask the LDP to be honest, if they held government, would they allow for citizen's to commit suicide? The SDP would certainly hope not. Smoking is not a right of our citizens, we should not allow for people to because of a smoking addictions they cannot get out of. We must rehabilitate those who have these addictions and not allow for these productions to harm others with second-hand smoke, and themselves. |
| Date | 22:51:23, April 20, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | This is an insult to the intelligence of the citizens. Smoking is fundamentally a choice. Those who wish to quit can get help if it is a challenge, those who wish to smoke, that is also their prerogative. This idea of committing suicide, need we remind the government that alcohol is as poisonous, if not more so than smoking cigarettes. Should we therefore ban alcohol? The government does not need to intervene in all aspects of individuals lives. They are there for security, public services and as a safety net for the vulnerable. This is excessive big brother esc, legislation. |
| Date | 23:54:07, April 20, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | The Alliance can understand the LDP viewpoint, and appreciates that there are two schools of thought not just within Parliament, but across this nation and Terra. That is because the boundaries between the policy options on smoking address the balance of the rights and obligations of citizenship head on, and in any non black and white scenario there is always a value judgement to be taken. The Alliance trusts that the LDP can also see the other side of the coin they are presenting as incontrovertible. The current law appears to allow citizens their rights - but only on the surface. Children live in homes where the LDP would happily accept that parents have the right to smoke - but the children have no way of enforcing their right to not be brought up in an atmosphere in which passive smoking is likely to cause irreperable health issues. And in clubs, unless the club entirely exists for no other reason than for smoking - which we doubt the LDP have in mind - it either subjects non-smoking members of that club to passive smoking or effectively bars certain members of society the right to belong to that club if they object to being subjected to smoke-filled rooms. The Alliance suggests that drawing parallels with alcohol does not add validity to the LDP argument. In the case of alcohol, the damage is to the individual concerned - it would take a lot of convincing to persuade most people that the potential threat of a drunken melee resulting in injury or death to another, or the cost of policing areas where drunken behaviour is displayed, should outweigh the rights of the individual to drink in the first place. It is not a like-for-like comparison (in the opinion of the Alliance Party). Though, as we have acknowledged, there will always be two viewpoints on this. |
| Date | 00:59:43, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | The issue of passive smoking is of course an important one, and something which sufficient education and government guidance on can help to reduce as much as possible. However we stand by the point about alcohol. The LDP would like the government to just explain their views on how the following points regarding alcohol and why it is any better than smoking; With alcohol in its chemical sense being strong solvent, and causes damage to the liver, causes addiction in a way as damaging as smoking, can lead to brain damage, cancers of the mouth, breast and throat, and lead to terrible birth defects for the children of pregnant women who drink. This last point is surely hugely comparable to the principle of passive smoking? The fact is that alcohol is in itself a poison with as much potential for damage as tobacco. We think if this government really wants to take the health argument, then they will surely introduce a ban on alcohol. Otherwise their ban on smoking is simply a massively restrictive law, that will not only be hugely disapproved of, but begs the question of what further social restrictions may be put in place. |
| Date | 10:45:27, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | The Alliance is not sure that further debate will pacify all parties - as we have acknowledged there are two sides to the argument. The primary question for the Alliance is - should the default position be one which allows citizens the freedom of choice for their own habits, but which simultaneously harms other citizens who cannot then exercise their right - especially children living in smoke-filled houses. (There is also an economic argument - the Alliance estimates that over 1 billion MRD is spent in the public health care service as a direct or indirect result of smoking - and an estimated further 5 billion MRD impact on employers and wider society. However, it is not the economic argument which is being used here). The LDP still fails to acknowledge the difference between smoking and alcohol - there is not a condition caused by "passive alcohol consumption" - any damage done (health-wise) is done to the individual who has exercised their choice to do so. That is not the case for passive smokers - they have been stripped of their rights entirely. The LDP's appeal to a comparison of potential birth defects of children born to pregnant women who drink and passive smoking is informative, and worth reflecting upon. Surely the LDP would, as would the Alliance, prevent pregnant women from drinking (certainly excessively) if that could be enforced without turning into a police state - yet we have the ability to do what the LDP says is "comparable" - passive smoking - and that is to ban the sales of tobacco as the effect of this Bill will be.. Though, in fact, the Alliance thanks the LDP - as a result of the Alliance's last sentence, another article will be added to this bill to make the selling of tobacco illegal too. |
| Date | 11:25:45, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | The government does have the ability to prevent such things; That would be through banning alcohol. The point we have evidently made is the government is more focused on its ability to control, rather than for the betterment of its people. Surely we can assume the vast majority of adults have the understanding of such recreational drugs as alcohol and cigarettes? Surely the vast majority of citizens are responsible enough to not smoke in front of children, or others who wish not to be exposed? It is worth pointing out that this government does not have a mandate to deliver any of its policies. The alliance majority is a result of the vacating of more than 40% of the seats in parliament from the presidential party. But more fundamentally, is it the role of government to police every citizen in this way? We strongly suggest otherwise. This is a gross exploitation of the chance position the alliance party as found itself in. However we are sure future governments will consider revoking any such police state measures imposed in the bill. A last question; The prohibiting of these products makes their sale, position and use illegal. Therefore the government is effectively criminalising the actions of around 15% of the population. Does it plan on giving these people a criminal record? Does it plan on explaining how illegal sales of inferior products would be sold, thus causing potentially greater harm to those around the many people who will continue to smoke, effectively giving the finger to the governments legislation. This will likely become a social crime, and one the government simply won't be able to deter. |
| Date | 11:26:34, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | OOC: population % comes from statistics of uk population, as have been used in previous bills by the alliance party. |
| Date | 11:55:14, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | The Alliance once again recognises that that there are two sides to this argument - and that it appreciates the one which the LDP has taken. In other words, the Alliance does not dispute that a case can be constructed either way - as the LDP has continued to do. The question for the LDP would be - would they be able to reciprocate by acknowledging that their's too is not the only point of view? As the Alliance said in its last contribution to the debate - we are "not sure that further debate will pacify all parties" and certainly not in the case of the LDP. At least it appeared that the SDP were in favour, so the LDP is unable to claim it is picking a fight only with the Alliance. And if both parties vote in favour, we would argue that there is considerably more of a mandate for doing so than the LDP can claim in voicing its opposition to the proposals - as it has zero parliamentary representation. Wait until the next election (which will be in the order of only six months after this bill passes) to have your say via your place in government. |
| Date | 19:04:01, April 21, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill 4744 |
| Message | Can the alliance actually answer the question we have posed above? " A last question; The prohibiting of these products makes their sale, position and use illegal. Therefore the government is effectively criminalising the actions of around 15% of the population. Does it plan on giving these people a criminal record? Does it plan on explaining how illegal sales of inferior products would be sold, thus causing potentially greater harm to those around the many people who will continue to smoke, effectively giving the finger to the governments legislation. This will likely become a social crime, and one the government simply won't be able to deter. " |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 202 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 7 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt |