NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this before, and didn't get very far....having just discovered it in my mountains of junk documents, I thought it might be a good idea to dust it down, and let it see the light of day again....also partially inspired by recent RL research on the effects of passive smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1330168,00.html).

The General Assembly:

Determined that no individual has the right to inflict passive harm upon another, and recognising article 5a of “Universal Freedom of Choice” which forbids an individual harming another through their own actions;

Fully aware of individuals personal right to consume any toxins legal within their nation;

Aware that non-smokers generally do not want to experience second-hand smoke in the workplace;

Resolute that no infant, child or adult should be exposed to secondhand smoke;

Determined to balance the potentially conflicting rights of individuals;

Noting that the effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated, and further noting that research does need to be continued within the field;

Resolves the following:

Resolved that smoking is not permitted within any internal place of work – including but not limited to: offices, educational establishments, bars, restaurants;

Resolved that Smoking within public locations (excluding those listed above) remains under the legislative control of member states, as does legislation on all external locations;

Urges member states to contribute to research the health impacts of smoking and passive smoking;

Determined to remain seized on the matter.

suggestions, observations welcome.

I respectfully suggest that the above draft overreaches, attempting to impose upon all nations the desires of one, and removing from individual nations the ability to make such determinations as best serves their own populace, economy, and concerns.

Listed in the guidelines for proposals is the following: "Because of this restriction, it is difficult to write policy within certain categories. Gun control, recreational drug use, gambling, and moral decency proposals are especially hard to justify. The gambling habits of Komokom’s citizens will not have a direct effect on the people of Vastiva, just as people being nude in Sophista won’t harm anyone living in Mikitivity." I propose that the recreational drug use caveat can be construed as applying to smoking, i.e., an issue of the use of harmful substances and the right of the individual nation to determine restrictions, if any.

I respectfully suggest that the above draft overreaches, attempting to impose upon all nations the desires of one, and removing from individual nations the ability to make such determinations as best serves their own populace, economy, and concerns.

So does many of the resolutions that have been passed. National soverignty has been wheeled out several times in the past as an arguement against to resolutions....But the UN is there to impose it's will upon nations. It's what it does.

This draft accepts there is nothing wrong with smoking on a strictly personal level (and makes no effort to legislate on that), but asserts that it is unfair to inflict second hand health on others....the proposal seeks to protect the rights of others from having their bodies involuntarily polluted by others. It's their rights I seek to protect. Nations can decide if smoking is banned outright or not.

So does many of the resolutions that have been passed. National soverignty has been wheeled out several times in the past as an arguement against to resolutions....But the UN is there to impose it's will upon nations. It's what it does.

This draft accepts there is nothing wrong with smoking on a strictly personal level (and makes no effort to legislate on that), but asserts that it is unfair to inflict second hand health on others....the proposal seeks to protect the rights of others from having their bodies involuntarily polluted by others. It's their rights I seek to protect. Nations can decide if smoking is banned outright or not.

The Honorable Representative of Hirota makes very valid points.

National soverignty is the fall-back catch-all for governments when a proposal hits the floor they do not like.

The Munkinskian Government would support this proposal.

I can also assure you the support of the government of dunno001. We don't care what you're doing while in your house, but the act of harming others who don't desire such is not tolerable. As someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke, a ban on all public smoking would be well appreciated.

I fully support this proposal. Smokers have no right to shorten the life expecatancy of others through their habits. Anyone deliberately blowing smoke in anyone's face, even outdoors, should be jailed for at least 12 months with no access to tobacco products.

It should not be a government decision to remove smoking from a private envirenmont(sorry spelling). Just like smoking is a choice for an individual person, allowing smoking in the workplace is the choice of that preticular place. The maneger, landlord or who ever is incharge of a preticular place should get to decide what is in the best interests for his employees and clients. Therefor The Empire of Flassu is against this resolutoin.
With Regards,
The Esteemed High Majesty of the Flassunese Empire

I respectfully suggest that the above draft overreaches, attempting to impose upon all nations the desires of one, and removing from individual nations the ability to make such determinations as best serves their own populace, economy, and concerns.

Listed in the guidelines for proposals is the following: "Because of this restriction, it is difficult to write policy within certain categories. Gun control, recreational drug use, gambling, and moral decency proposals are especially hard to justify. The gambling habits of Komokom’s citizens will not have a direct effect on the people of Vastiva, just as people being nude in Sophista won’t harm anyone living in Mikitivity." I propose that the recreational drug use caveat can be construed as applying to smoking, i.e., an issue of the use of harmful substances and the right of the individual nation to determine restrictions, if any.

I was going to suggest that the category of this proposal be Moral Decency, with the idea being that one person's right to smoke is not a right to put another person's health at risk. The restriction on civil freedom here would be you couldn't smoke in public.

However, cigarettes are a recreational drug, there is no doubt about that in most medical minds. And a resolution to limit the use of cigarettes for public health benefits of others is a good use of the recreational drug use category.

I see a case that could be made for either category.

I see a case that could be made for either category.

It does straddle both arguments, and that's why I had not made any effort to put the draft into a category....I'm leaning towards recreational drug use personally.

Do bear in mind that your choices are limited here to:

Recreational Drug Use: Outlaw
Moral Decency: Mild
Moral Decency: Significant
Moral Decency: Strong

This body has shown with the passage of two Moral Decency laws that the category is not the athema that many of us once believed it to be (though a few delegates still react with hostility towards the category and not the resolution text).

But ultimately I think it depends if you are restricting the use or outlawing the use (again, an argument can be made that restricting use in certain situations it a limited form of outlawing something).

I'd actually suggest run a poll here and see what most nations like, that way if a trigger happy moderator thinks strongly that it should be the other category, you can point to this thread. Include an option for "either".

I'm paranoid here, because a moderator did unfairly zap my proposal / resolution arguing that it was inappropriate, but never made a suggest why. Cog later helped me out to clear it though. :)

My cigarette doesn't affect your citizens. My nation's secondhand smoke doesn't cross national boundaries in sufficient concentration to cause health problems for your citizens. Frisbeeteria is perfectly capable of assessing the risks imposed by secondhand smoke, and taking appropriate measures to protect our own citizen-employees. We don't need yet another Moral Decency crusade to interfere with our local, state, and national laws.

We are one of the nations hostile to Moral Decency legislation, as Mikitivity clearly knows, but we do not oppose such measures when they apply to a problem which is clearly international in scope.

This is not such a clearly identifiable problem. There is NO international scope.

This is interference for purely busybody reasons, and we WILL oppose it.

:headbang: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :fluffle: :mad: :confused:

Does the U.N. truly have nothing better to do than legislate on a personal and national issue?

Remember this Everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

damn smilies
If the author of this proposal wants to tackle a problem of truly international scope, perhaps he can address the issue of smilie infestation. Or maybe we should invoke the Epidemic Prevention Protocol immediately. If it can get to Texan Hotrodders, then NONE of us are safe.

If the author of this proposal wants to tackle a problem of truly international scope, perhaps he can address the issue of smilie infestation. Or maybe we should invoke the Epidemic Prevention Protocol immediately. If it can get to Texan Hotrodders, then NONE of us are safe.

Actually, those smilies were just a representation of the U.N. I swear! It's not an inbferedfdf :mp5:

OMG thertyertdfcgh :gundge:

WTF this is cfedraghngmgm, :headbang:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

*Dons HAZMAT suit*

My cigarette doesn't affect your citizens. My nation's secondhand smoke doesn't cross national boundaries in sufficient concentration to cause health problems for your citizens. Frisbeeteria is perfectly capable of assessing the risks imposed by secondhand smoke, and taking appropriate measures to protect our own citizen-employees. We don't need yet another Moral Decency crusade to interfere with our local, state, and national laws.

We are one of the nations hostile to Moral Decency legislation, as Mikitivity clearly knows, but we do not oppose such measures when they apply to a problem which is clearly international in scope.

This is not such a clearly identifiable problem. There is NO international scope.

This is interference for purely busybody reasons, and we WILL oppose it.

Quoted because he said what I think