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: Public Health Freedom Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic 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: November 4750
Description[?]:
The aim of this bill is to revoke what we consider to be highly invasive legislation, which criminalises a recreational habit held by a significant proportion of our nations citizens. To stress to the house, this is not an advocation for the consumption of tobacco products. The scientific and health advisor to mr right honourable friend the Science Minister would ike the LDP to restate the fact tobacco increases chances of respiratory illness and cancer. And further more, that this legislation in the bill will be accompanied as shown below with a public health initiative. We will be proposing this bill, and in the hope parties fully understand why we are choosing to. The right to tobacco is something our citizens have enjoyed for millennia. The revoking of this is simply against the liberal principles of this party. If the public health argument is to be viable (in support of the introduction of the smoking ban) then this should've been accompanied with a ban on alcohol which according to the advice of the Scientific Advisor to the Science and Tech Minister, is of equally significant health risk when consumed in high or sustained quantity. The following sub articles are to accompany the articles proposed in the main section of the bill. ARTICLE 1; GOVT POLICY TOWARDS SMOKING As well as what is laid out below the following will also apply. - It is illegal to smoke in a car with a child under the age of 18. - This is to be enforced by at state level. state transport police will have the right to stop vehicles if suspected or spotted committing this act. - Police will have the powers to confiscate tobacco, order fines of up to $10 000 , and the power to arrest if citizens fail to cooperate. - clubs and outdoor locations will me obliged to have clear notices displaying smoking helplines for those wishing to quit. ARTICLE 2; SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS As well as what is laid out below the following will also apply. - Tobacco is to be sold in plain packaging with clear health warnings and clear guidance on where to seek help for quitting. - Tobacco companies are to pay a premium to the government of 25% of profits made from products sold. This money is then to be redistributed to private addiction and health charities .- A new, Public Health Smoking Initiative is to be launched. The government will fully support those wishing to quit, through public health service. This will include counselling, substance addiction consultations and medication control. The aim of this legislation is to effectively allow the public to make informed decisions about their own lives. If they know the risk, then the government has done its bit. If the vulnerable are protected, then the government has succeeded. But ultimately if someone wants t consume these products then they will. We should not be trying to criminalise it. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 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:: 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 | 00:26:41, May 03, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Public Health Freedom Act |
| Message | This Parliament has had this discussion very recently. The Alliance does not like to have to keep repeating its position, but it feels it needs to rebuff the quite illegitimate comparison between tobacco and alcohol. Of course there are similarities and the issue is not whether one is more detrimental to health so regardless of whether the LDP's Scientific Advisor is correct the Alliance is not choosing to take issue with that. BUT - despite any similarities which the Alliance concedes to the LDP, there are diferences, which unfortunately the LDP seems unable (or unwilling) to concede in return. The significant difference is that while both substances endanger the health of the partaker, smoking ADDITIONALLY endangers the health of those who choose not to smoke - and such people have THEIR rights restricted if they are unable to belong to private clubs without inhaling the smoke of others. Finally, above all else, the Alliance believes in upholding the rights of children who cannot stand up for their own rights, nor can they vote the LDP out of government. Yet, the LDP would allow homes to be filled with smoke. There are two sides to the argument, but the Alliance believed that the points made above tip the balance in favour of a total ban. The Alliance would further argue that, once the ban has been put in place, restoring legislation to that proposed is effectively an encouragement to start smoking again for those who have managed to stop because the law impelled them to. Please - even if the LDP cannot see this, may other parties do so - and join the Alliance in overturning this legislation in a future parliamentary session (should this Bill pass) when the opportunity arises. Regardless of the number of seats you hold, let's send a message to our citizens that this Parliament believes in protecting everyone's rights, and where that is not possible - as in this case - at least it protects those that do no harm to others. |
| Date | 13:21:08, May 03, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Health Freedom Act |
| Message | We accept the view of the alliance and fully accept the differences in viewpoint. However we wish to point out this was a manifesto pledge of the LDP and so it is only right that out of principle we proposed a workable compromise to parliament. This evidently has alas failed. We do not wish to keep old arguments going so will accept defeat on this bill. However would ask parties to consider the fact we have proposed genuinely effective legislation to compromise between liberties and public health. |
| Date | 13:46:05, May 03, 2020 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Health Freedom Act |
| Message | Upon consideration of the stance from the opposition, the prime minister would like to confirm to the house that the government will be introducing legislation to prohibit the use of alcohol. This is to make the current legislation more effective in the hope that no harm is caused due to passive exposure to toxic substances. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 124 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 241 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |