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: Cosmetic Safety Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist 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: May 2073
Description[?]:
| As shallow as a "cosmetics industry" may be, it does exist. As per such, we must do our best to ensure that it presents the greatest benefit and the least harm to society. Animal testing does not occur on a large enough scale to present a distinct harm to the environment. Furthermore, it can present significant gains on safety by assuring that none of the new cosmetics that go onto the market cause significant health problems. Companies found to be conducting reckless tests after discovering obvious hazards will be heavily fined. Repeat offenders will be barred from this method of research. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Current: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Proposed: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:59:31, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | Products are not going to be put onto the market unsafe. Think of the legal consequences. Human testing, with consent and prior research, is not illegal, so there is a way to ensure the safety of any product entering the market. |
| Date | 17:07:19, June 26, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | Products have historically been put onto the market many, many times while of questionable safety. Legal consequences rarely materialize, with the court battles being pre-empted when companies recall their products. Except, think of the people who use the product before it gets recalled. Someone always suffers when research avenues are closed off. |
| Date | 18:12:19, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | Alright. I am not a huge animal rights activist, but it seemed a little uneccesary. However, I will support if you add a clause saying that scientific research is undertaken prior to testing, and if this uncovers an obvious hazard (eg. it inhibits an important enzyme: wonders can be done nowadays with computer simulated compound structures) then no animal or human testing will be undertaken. This prevents companies using testing as a cheaper alternative to research, rather than alongside it to vindicate their hypotheses. |
| Date | 19:23:15, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | Screw animal rights. (and yes, I'm a vegetarian). |
| Date | 23:32:23, June 26, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | There are other ways of testing cosmetics. We vote no. |
| Date | 11:19:01, June 27, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | LPE: That's a reasonable amendment; I see what you meant now. We added in the clause you requested. |
| Date | 12:07:04, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Edelweiss Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | As a green party we vote no on testing cometics on any living animal or human being. Modern technologies allow us to use alternative testing methods (as said by LPE) |
| Date | 14:10:47, June 27, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | Alternative testing methods have not yet reached the efficiency of testing upon certain animals. Mice, for instance, are biologically extremely similar to humans. If it doesn't hurt a mouse, it almost certainly won't hurt a person. Are you really that interested in protecting mice? |
| Date | 06:28:49, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | And yet cloning technology has??!! (and yes, I'm bringing it up just because it seems kind of silly to say we're advanced in one way but primitive in another, which would've been perfected long before). |
| Date | 14:28:32, June 28, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Cosmetic Safety Act |
| Message | That's not necessarily true. Without outside intervention, the market takes the most efficient possible course. That most efficient course is not machines, but mice. Mice are cheaper, they require minimal maintanence and no repair, and unlike machines, when they finally break there aren't any prohibitively expensive disposal costs. By the way, if you REALLY want to stand on that argument, you'll need to legalize cloning. The only way to improve testing methods while still outlawing animal testing will be to allow companies to grow cloned human organs and test upon those. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 102 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 41 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato |