NationStates Jolt Archive

Defines Cigarette as “Any entity containing tobacco in a form producing a smoke”
Smoking Such products is no longer a suitable act for any citizen to follow, as it is no longer the only solution to the problems it solves. In it's wake it only leaves more problems.

Cigarettes are a danger, not only to those that use them but also to those that don't, as the resulting products are airborne and affect their surroundings like a virus, and leaving behind unsightly residue and fautatious odor.

1. Suggests that corporations in production of cigarettes be given financial reprieve for (6) months in order to transition from product;
2. Calls for member states to help those affected by cigarette smoke and it's adverse affects by a national counceling campaign;
3. Asks nations to outlaw the further production of cigarettes and related products, and;
4. Asks nations to outlaw the import and export of these goods


Proposed by the Armed Republic of Crystilakere.

I suggest we lend support for this Proposal and take it up in front of the entire UN.

To arrive at this proposal, simply type "Cigarette" in the Find Proposal Box.

Defines Cigarette as “Any entity containing tobacco in a form producing a smoke”
Smoking Such products is no longer a suitable act for any citizen to follow, as it is no longer the only solution to the problems it solves. In it's wake it only leaves more problems.

Cigarettes are a danger, not only to those that use them but also to those that don't, as the resulting products are airborne and affect their surroundings like a virus, and leaving behind unsightly residue and fautatious odor.

1. Suggests that corporations in production of cigarettes be given financial reprieve for (6) months in order to transition from product;
2. Calls for member states to help those affected by cigarette smoke and it's adverse affects by a national counceling campaign;
3. Asks nations to outlaw the further production of cigarettes and related products, and;
4. Asks nations to outlaw the import and export of these goods


Proposed by the Armed Republic of Crystilakere.

I suggest we lend support for this Proposal and take it up in front of the entire UN.

To arrive at this proposal, simply type "Cigarette" in the Find Proposal Box.

Over my dead body!! (Quite literally if I don't stop smoking :shock: )

:?
Cigrattes should not be banned. I mean, in the real world, they aren't banned due to the fact is puts money into our economy. I know it kills people, but in a way that is good...
Prevents Earth from being over-populated
Heh... Saying "I want cigrattes gone" is like saying i want a major damn blow to our economy

I believe that people should be able to harm there own bodies.

This proposal does not have my support.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

It should only be banned in public spaces.

Do you not feel it should not at least be brought in front of the general assembly for a vote?

I believe this is a matter best left to individual nations to legislate on.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

Oh no! Something that might cost me a fiteen dollars in per-capita GDP until my entire economy adjusts for the change in markets and recovers!

Yeah, jerk me off all you "oh no, not the factories!" whiners. Sure, I don't like this proposal because it deals with paternalistic belief that the government has to tell you whats good for you, but thats irrelevant. Please, come up with something other than "Money? Bah!"

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

This infringes on the freedom of my Nation and my people. If you wish to outlaw cigarettes in your own country, feel free. You can expect no support from me on this issue.

I would be happy to vote for this propostion, not only would it save the lives of the smokers themselves but the people who have to passively inhale the secondhand smoke of the disgustin, vile smokers. If the point of smokers rights is brought up then I think smokers threw away their rights when they lit up for the first time, dont the people in the community have a right to live SMOKE FREE and they drain our health systems, so innocent no-smokers cant get treated as quickly!!!!

Thank you
Latinum Gerababant

1. Suggests that corporations in production of cigarettes be given financial reprieve for (6) months in order to transition from product

Can we assume that Vilita and Latinum Gerababant will be paying for this financial reprieve?

When you throw out something that involves the expenditure of monies... you need to specify how it will be accomplished.

:?
... but in a way that is good...
Prevents Earth from being over-populated


Don't even say that crap, the world is not over populated!

We should point out, in the proposal author's defence, that this doesn't actually mandate a ban but merely requests nations to take action to reduce smoking. But we still won't be supporting it. We like smoking.

Cigarettes are a danger, not only to those that use them but also to those that don't, as the resulting products are airborne and affect their surroundings like a virus, and leaving behind unsightly residue and fautatious odor.

What does "fautatious" mean?

We, the people, of Wakwakawakapoop, find ciggarettes to be quite usuless, if people have the time to take a break and smoke, I feel that laws should be enacted so that work is manditory and if a person refuses to get a job, they will be executed.

Oh jeeez, I was with much hope this would not happen, I am going to be sounding like the record which is broken with the continuing things I must be saying about these proposals...

There is already an N.S. issue which deals with cigarettes, and to my memory I thiink it gives the option of:

Banning cigarettes completely,

Allowing them to be smoked where-ever, or,

Only allowing them to be smoked in the privacy of the home!

So why on earth should this be an U.N. issue?

Also, it seems nothing more then the proposed paternalistic bullying by the U.N. of nations, telling them what they can and cannot buy or can and cannot make! WJhat next, prohobition of alchohol?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Thank you. Only 138 more approvals needed and we can have a real v ote on it.

*The representative of Givitago sits in his study by an open fire, reading the proposal. He finishes and sits in silence for a while, absently twisting the paper. The fire crackles.

Quietly, he leans forward, lights the end of the paper spill in the fire and uses it to light a cigarette.

Sits back and blows a smoke ring.*

Also, it seems nothing more then the proposed paternalistic bullying by the U.N. of nations, telling them what they can and cannot buy or can and cannot make! WJhat next, prohobition of alchohol?


Well said!

Groan, we're agree-ing on something? Uh-oh...

:wink:

But eh, will wonders never cease?

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hopefully you will see it in you to SUPPORT THE ISSUE as important enough to Approve for Voting in front of the entire UN.

last day to approve!

What gives government (national or international) the right to tell its citizens that they cannot do something to their own body? Sure, ban smoking in public if you must, educate your people about the dangers of smoking if you want, but don't interfere with the individual's sovereignty over his/her own body.

We'd feel kind of silly outlawing tobacco when cocaine's legal.

What gives government (national or international) the right to tell its citizens that they cannot do something to their own body? Sure, ban smoking in public if you must, educate your people about the dangers of smoking if you want, but don't interfere with the individual's sovereignty over his/her own body.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane tells them what they can and cannot do all the time. Since our leaders are the only ones who can read the Holy Scriptures in their original language, it is not simply their right to tell the citizens what to do, it is their duty. Of course, our way is not the way of others... and with the large variety of civil liberties that differ from our's (Rehochipe, for example), Gethamane does not acknowledge this as viable for International involvment.

This will never make it to the floor, and if it does, I'll resign from the UN.

Hopefully you will see it in you to SUPPORT THE ISSUE as important enough to Approve for Voting in front of the entire UN.

The only thing I see in me is the fact I remember there is a N.S. issue that already deals with this and your posting an U.N. proposal is a show of blatant ignorance for the idea of countries being able to handle this in the past as they have for quite a while without your sudden thrusting of this pointless proposal in our faces.

Thats it, once my Sanctity of Mass Media proposal sinks or floats I'll get working on my halt contradictions proposal. This is just getting silly now, next they'll be telling us we cannot build dams, or mine gold, or own cars, or that we must legalise all addictive drugs, or follow a certain religion.

Granted, these proposals appear alomst regularly I admit, but this does not mean we should oppose them, if only to buy a little quiet time from them...

- The Rep of Komokom.

First and foremost this is blatant discrimination against those addicted to cigerettes. Medical professionals have likened the smoking addiction to that of the heroin addicition, and addiction is classified worldwide as a disease. Recent attempts at controlling the product, such as enourmous tax increases, have only resulted in creating a class of poverty stricken smokers. If you want to get a real handle on this issue propose that chemicals not indicitive to the tobacco plant be removed. This would at least improve the health of the smoker and those around them. While bans on public smoking are certainly valid control to improve the public health, bans on private smoking would be infringing on the rights of an individual. Your proposal is basically an attempt to destroy a trillion dollar industry, which would; 1) leave millions out of work, 2) flood your welfare and unemployment systems which would in turn bankrupt said systems 3) Destroy a large portion of your economy. It's great that you have this puritanical need to purge the world of cigerettes, but you need to come up with a more subtle route. A complete ban would create global chaos.

Not to mention how annoying my husband get s without his pipe.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Of course people should be free to choose, what else would a world as evolved as ours do. Please, support this bill my brothers.

dont the people in the community have a right to live SMOKE FREE

Certainly. Just not at the expense of others.

That means that if they don't want to allow smoking on their property, then they don't have to. But they don't get to make that decision for others. If other people want to allow smoking on their property, that's their prerogative. If the people who want to avoid smoking don't like it, then they can simply abstain from entering that property.

That way it's fair for everyone.

It wouldn't just cost money, think on the savings in healthcare!
Also, less garbage on the streets because people throw their tobacco-sticks on the ground, etc!

I'll vote in favor!

Speaking as someone who no longer smokes (so yes, I know what it is like and just how difficult it is to stop-took me 3 years), CrisMar (me) feels that this is wrong on some many levels.
It has been stated that "the people of the community have a right to live smoke free". You are right, they do. But the people who smoke have just as much right to smoke if they so chose. That is what many forget - to give rights by banning then you are taking the rights of others.
I think that those who smoke (I did) should consider not smoking in front/around those who don't smoke - like in a restaurant. office, etc. but what they do in their own cars or homes is their business.
I hope this doesn't make it to the UN and if it does I will be voting against it. Remember each vote counts.

its a terrible idea. as someone said, it puts a ton of money into the economy of countries. theyre already so highly taxed in most states that the govt is making a huge profit. also, it isnt the government's place to say that someone cannot smoke. i dont see why restaurants cant just have a smoking or non smoking section. in my state (CT) the governor supported a "smoking in restaurants" ban, and no nobody can smoke. personally, that doesnt bother me, cause i dont smoke. but it harms the businesses because people may want to go into a place for a drink and to have a cigarrette or cigar or whatever, but they cant. so instead they just stay home more often. the results of this proposed ban would harm businesses and take away the rights of smokers.

but it harms the businesses because people may want to go into a place for a drink and to have a cigarrette or cigar or whatever, but they cant. so instead they just stay home more often. the results of this proposed ban would harm businesses and take away the rights of smokers.
But instead of a cigarette, you can still have cheese with your whine... :wink:

i dont see why restaurants cant just have a smoking or non smoking section.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section of the swimming pool...