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: Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! 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: December 2076
Description[?]:
| To set a National policy on gambling to provide all Constituencies with the same rules and regulations, as well as to provide better and more defined regulation for the industry. Hours of opening are limited to between 11am - 3am. A maximum of no more than 2 "Super Casino's" per Constituency, which must be granted a licence by Government. Betting Shops are limited to a ratio of no more than 1/25000 citizens. Public Houses, and any other institutions requesting the use of slot machines etc, must request a licence from the Gambling Licencing Authorities. Small scale gambling in Private Homes is legal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: Gambling is illegal unless taking place in a licensed casino.
Current: Gambling is illegal unless taking place in a licensed casino.
Proposed: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:13:59, July 02, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | This is basically the same as the previous ammendment, but now includes private homes and not just casinos...which has to be a good thing, right? |
| Date | 06:40:11, July 02, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | I don't believe the gambling issue poses enough of a problem that regulations are needed. It will be difficult to enforce anti-gambling laws also. I think we should keep the current law rather than trying to enforce new ones that won't have a major impact on or will not limit gambling. |
| Date | 10:17:22, July 02, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | This is what we, and the SDLP, were aiming for in the last bill. We support |
| Date | 21:41:15, July 02, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | We'll accept this amendment, though we would like to enquire as to why opening hours are 11am-3am? |
| Date | 12:42:05, July 03, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | Most casino's sell alcohol, and it was part of the original bill to get it passed. I can change it though if there is popular support for a change. Ideas? |
| Date | 19:53:10, July 03, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | I wouldn't mind reducing it to close at midnight to prevent all night gambling although I would be happy with most times. |
| Date | 01:50:29, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | The new proposal is much better than the current bill so we will support it.However, what our party would really like to see in the future is no restrictions imposed on gambling whatsoever. |
| Date | 22:49:11, July 05, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | To vote after the elections? |
| Date | 02:09:54, July 06, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | As requested...voting |
| Date | 13:28:35, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | I prefer no restrictions to a watered down gambling bill. I will vote no. |
| Date | 16:25:12, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | As the UB has pointed out, this is what we were aiming for in the previous bill. We will support. |
| Date | 19:54:59, July 06, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | "The new proposal is much better than the current bill so we will support it" - one outright lie. I'm not sure we can trust your voting intentions after that. So close otherwise... |
| Date | 20:18:40, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | It comes down to the USM for this vote. Most bills pass or fail without much excitement. This is interesting. I hope the RP doesn't bail on me and switch sides. |
| Date | 21:08:04, July 06, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | Hmmm...the RP switched sides... |
| Date | 22:57:29, July 06, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | It looks like the 'yes' camp will be getting it... PS - sorry for me not contributing to much debate this evening. I've spent all day in Gleneagles protesting at the G8 and i'm absolutely knackered! |
| Date | 23:01:50, July 06, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Gambling Proposal Second Ammendment |
| Message | Nice...how'd that go? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 205 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 155 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 40 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush |