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: Prevention of the intoxication of our public
Details
Submitted by[?]: Faithful Believers Of Malivia
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: May 2321
Description[?]:
| These proposals aim on a healthier public living by restricting or prohibiting several intoxicants. We know that there are cultural and historical developments, that are responsible for the present regulations. Nevertheless, intoxicants are one of the biggest, maybe even the biggest risk for our public health. They are not only ruin our citizens health, they cause high expenses on our health system and exposure to tobacco smoke endangers even our children. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The recreational drug policy.
Old value:: There are no laws regulating what citizens can put into their bodies.
Current: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Proposed: Recreational drug use is forbidden.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Current: Smoking is only allowed in private homes and clubs.
Proposed: Smoking is only allowed in private homes and clubs.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Current: The sale of tobacco products is prohibited.
Proposed: There are certain restrictions on the sale of tobacco and only adults may purchase tobacco.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:10:50, November 20, 2006 CET | From | Leftsocialist Party | To | Debating the Prevention of the intoxication of our public |
| Message | Overall we can't support it, but maybe some restrictions regarding tobacco should be enforced. |
| Date | 17:43:56, November 20, 2006 CET | From | Faithful Believers Of Malivia | To | Debating the Prevention of the intoxication of our public |
| Message | So which proposal(s) would cause the refusal of this bill? I think proposal 2 and 3 are senseful and plausible, when we are trying to protect children from smoking and all citizens from passive smoking. |
| Date | 11:11:26, November 21, 2006 CET | From | Leftsocialist Party | To | Debating the Prevention of the intoxication of our public |
| Message | Article 3 is okay in our view . |
| Date | 03:09:57, November 23, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Prevention of the intoxication of our public |
| Message | What sort of restrictions did you have in mind for article 3? We cannot support article 1, as we feel that a person's body is theirs to do with as they wish, once they become adults. Article 2 we can go either way, and for that reason we are inclined to leave it to the local governments to decide what is best for a community. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 4 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 125 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |