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: Further restrictions on animal testing
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
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: August 2077
Description[?]:
| The MLP are aware of the bill Ban on Animal Testing (passed a few years back) by the then-MLP leader Thomas Douglas. Back then, the best thing possible was to regulate animal testing. With new options available to the Government, the MLP now seeks, for the well-being of animals and their right of life, to ban outright the testing of animals for cosmetic products. |
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: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:46:44, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | I will support this bill if it advances. |
| Date | 05:54:55, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | The MLP will not move this to a vote until after fresh elections have gone through. |
| Date | 06:03:12, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | Can we suggest that the MLP and Equitista confer and decide which of the two bills: this or http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8561 they wish to present to the house. A suggestion would be for Eqitista to deal with the research side while MLP deals with just the cosmetic side. |
| Date | 06:09:03, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | The second article has been removed. |
| Date | 15:54:18, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | We will support this |
| Date | 18:47:40, July 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | We suggest you move this to a vote, most parties support it already. |
| Date | 21:25:42, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | Against, as with the original bill on this issue. |
| Date | 22:12:23, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | Why should living animals be used for testing unnecessary cosmetics AC? This does not prevent the production or sale of cosmetics, it does not make these products dangerous. It just creates a value statement |
| Date | 22:13:52, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | We would like to make it clear to the MLP that animals do not have rights. To have a right is to have an obligation to extend this right to others, and to understand that you have this obligationb. We have an obligation not to abuse animals, but they have no rights. |
| Date | 06:11:09, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | We will support our comrades in the MLP on this issue. |
| Date | 07:05:56, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | Why should they not, ASP? Testing on living animals allows for more data as to how a particular product might affect a human. If the product is harmless, then no foul. If the product is harmful, then we have lost a rat rather than losing a citizen. |
| Date | 16:43:29, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Further restrictions on animal testing |
| Message | We have however lost a rat for no benefit. This is about cosmetics, not about medical or other essential research. If vain people wish to risk their health to look better, then they are welcome to. What they do not have the right to do is to impose potential suffering on another living thing just to satisfy their vanity. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 337 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 47 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." - Bob Wells |