NationStates Jolt Archive

From here on out, public tobacco smoking shall be illegalized. Whether a person wishes to destroy their own body or not with tobacco, they should not subject others to an early death because of their decision. Second-hand smoke accounts for many, many deaths annually… deaths to which the now deceased had no say to while living. Now we must redeem the dead and outlaw public smoking for the good of the public.

Support from a UN delegate is support for a cleaner world. How is it legal that people can murder other people? It should not be. If a person wishes to slowly end their own life painfully, then that is their choice, but to assume the power of destroying others is corrupt.

On the concession that you are correct, smoking tobacco in public does endager the lives of others, this is still very much a national issue and does not deserve the attention of the entire UN.

Perhaps there is a UN nation that believes whole-heartedly in tobacco, and encourages its citizens to use the product openly and often. How is it our place to tell that government that they must stop their citizens from doing so?

Pretty much, if you have seen an issue come at you from the issues list, then it doesnt require the consideration of the UN for international law.

From the last three or four times this has been proposed: (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363343)

You'll get my cigarettes only when you pry them from my cold, dead, stinking, yellow-stained fingers.

Do what you want with your nation's air quality. Ours is fine. Tobacco is one of our better exports, and the UN shouldn't be sticking its fragrance-challenged nose into our business practices.



... Are you still here? * blows smoke in Ambassador's face *

Delegates, please, remain civil!

There must be a way to enact a resolution to make all parties happy. Perhaps by creating mandatory smoking areas, or something of that nature. If a person is able to have the choice to marry whom they want and if a woman can choose to have an abortion, then sure an individual can choose whether they wish to smoke or not.

How about not making a proposal about it at all? That would make everyone happy and leave the cigarettes up to the local governments to control. The best way is to not grow tobacco or buy it from the international market, as my nation (which does not have tobacco as a plant in it) has done. If they can't buy it, they can't have it.

I think this is a national soverigntiy issue.

From here on out, public tobacco smoking shall be illegalized. Whether a person wishes to destroy their own body or not with tobacco, they should not subject others to an early death because of their decision. Second-hand smoke accounts for many, many deaths annually… deaths to which the now deceased had no say to while living. Now we must redeem the dead and outlaw public smoking for the good of the public.

Support from a UN delegate is support for a cleaner world. How is it legal that people can murder other people? It should not be. If a person wishes to slowly end their own life painfully, then that is their choice, but to assume the power of destroying others is corrupt.

What about other smoking?

Delegates, please, remain civil!

There must be a way to enact a resolution to make all parties happy. Perhaps by creating mandatory smoking areas, or something of that nature. If a person is able to have the choice to marry whom they want and if a woman can choose to have an abortion, then sure an individual can choose whether they wish to smoke or not.

That is not the arguement this proposal is making. They are not trying to ban smoking fullstop - just smoking in public places, where there might be children, or people who don't smoke.

I get that the freedom to chose to smoke is a freedom that most people would think is reasonable. But - for example - if I am sat on a train for a journey that will take five hours, why should I not have the choice as to whether or not I have someone smoking opposite me? Do I not get a freedom of choice just because someone else does?

The smell of cigarette smoke makes me feel physically ill, and I have actually been sick a number of times when subjected to it. Surely no one has the right to force this on me - to make me feel ill just because they want to smoke?

I know what you are thinking - why don't I move somewhere else? Well - I could. But if the whole train is filled with smokers, which is not beyond reason - then what choice do I actually have?

Having said that I am more likely to support limited, closed off areas. For example a smoking carriage on a train, and only in that carriage can you smoke. Or a room in a pub/resteraunt that can be taken out of the main area so that it does not affect it. The only places I would totally ban it are on underground stations and trains, and on aircraft, but not because I want to ban it on the grounds it makes me sick, but on the grounds that having anything that could cause a fire in such a small enclosed space is total lunacy!

I am willing to support this proposal in it's current form, but would prefer if it was modified so the more "hard line" elements of the UN would be willing to support it too.

From the last three or four times this has been proposed: (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363343)

You'll get my cigarettes only when you pry them from my cold, dead, stinking, yellow-stained fingers.

Do what you want with your nation's air quality. Ours is fine. Tobacco is one of our better exports, and the UN shouldn't be sticking its fragrance-challenged nose into our business practices.



... Are you still here? * blows smoke in Ambassador's face *

What if the smoke you are generating drifts across the border to another country? That would make it more of an international issue :}

What about smokeless tobacco and chewing tobacco or is this proposal only for the smoking form of tobacco?

Seriously, this should be a national issue, not a worldwide ban on it. If you don't want it in your country, that should be confined to your country. The UN dictating some things is alright, but when miniscule things such as tobacco smoking in public are starting to get regulated by the UN, things definitely need to be evaluated.

What if the smoke you are generating drifts across the border to another country? That would make it more of an international issue :}
When you muzzle those gas guzzlers of yours that foul our air, which we keep clean via nuclear-generated, grid-powered, electrical vehicles, then perhaps you'll have an argument. If we stood a Frisbeeterian on every inch of border soil with a carton of butts and a propane lighter, we still couldn't pollute beyond about 50 feet of your territory. It's a specious argument, and you know it.

Since folks don't seem to appreciate the humor value of my first comment, I guess I'll have to explain for the slower members of the audience. I'm a smoker. I don't like having secondhand smoke in my face. I don't smoke in my own home or office. I don't light up on trains and elevators. There are even polite signs scattered about public places, and designated smoking areas in almost all of our workplaces. But it's NOT LAW in Frisbeeteria, because we are a civilized people.

It's not an international issue. It's not a national issue. It's not even a local issue. It's a PERSONAL issue, dammit. We don't need you to legislate away rudeness. We know enough not to shit where we eat. We don't need a nanny national government to tell us that. We most assuredly don't need a UN government to tell us that. We can figure it out on our own.

Since folks don't seem to appreciate the humor value of my first comment, I guess I'll have to explain for the slower members of the audience.

I admit I was being a touch sarcastic. Maybe we should ask the Mods to add sarcasm tags to the posts so it's more clear in future :}

Is there a glossary or should AP make this its motto:

All murder is killing, not all killing is murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being! By definition, murder is illegal. Unlawful=not legal=illegal

How is it legal that people can murder other people? It should not be.

AAAHHH! Maybe the UN should adopt mandatory educational standards.

All murder is killing, not all killing is murder.


"I could murder a burger"

(smirk)

Sorry - it just popped in to my head and I could not stop myself :}

Good one... on two counts.

Favorite burger joint used to be called murder burger.
They had to change their name to redrum because some parents found the title offensive.

When you say ban public tobacco smoking - do you mean people having a quick smoke at traffic lights on public highways?

It all depends on the exact nature of the smoking. There is a difference between having a cigarette on a public sidewalk with people passing by briefly and puffing a cigar for hours in a day care.

The fact is that aside from the small number of people that are allergic to tobacco smoke, it takes prolonged, repetitive exposure to smoke to introduce any sort of health risk, even non-fatal, even for first-hand smokers.

I think the issue needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and ultimatly the owner of the property should get the final call. A sweeping law from either end will infringe on liberty. People do not have the right to blow smoke into an unwilling person's face, and people do have the right to smoke when it is not infringing on the rights of any unwilling persons.

It all depends on the exact nature of the smoking. There is a difference between having a cigarette on a public sidewalk with people passing by briefly and puffing a cigar for hours in a day care.

The fact is that aside from the small number of people that are allergic to tobacco smoke, it takes prolonged, repetitive exposure to smoke to introduce any sort of health risk, even non-fatal, even for first-hand smokers.

I think the issue needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and ultimatly the owner of the property should get the final call. A sweeping law from either end will infringe on liberty. People do not have the right to blow smoke into an unwilling person's face, and people do have the right to smoke when it is not infringing on the rights of any unwilling persons.

But if you take pubs, trains, aeroplanes, submarines, boats, work places, buses and cinemas (to name but a few) then there is an issue about unwilling persons. I am not suggesting that a law is passed that says someone can come off the street and smoke in my house without my permission, but if I go to the cinema to watch a film, should I be forced to spend the entire time with my hand over my nose to avoid the smell of cigarettes?

Further more, if I and my husband decide to have children, and we go on holiday to another country (which is not beyond reason) - are we going to have to limit the places we can go to to those that will not make our child sick through smoke?

I think I said previously I am happy as this proposal stands - it is not attempting to outlaw smoking across the UN - just to limit it. But I also said that I would accept modification to allow various nations to feel like they retain the right to poison their own people.... sorry - to allow freedom of choice.

Just a few observations I have on the arguments that I have seen.

1. The Tampa International Airport in Tampa, FL was remodeled a few years ago and added large indoor enclosures for the smoking public to use. The air inside was self contained, and used its own ventilation system to prevent the filtered air from making its way into the air system for the remainder of the air port. Following the passing of the Florida Clean Air Act where all public smoking was made illegal, those enclosures are now obselete. Smokers cant even use the self-contained air system rules.

2. THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE FOR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Im not exactly sure how else to say this, but for some reason people have decided to debate the issue anyway which I feel is highly pointless. If there is such a resolution currently in the proposal lists, I hope people have enough sense to pass it up or the staff to throw it out as it does not deserve the attention of the UN. If I recall correctly, there is already a national issue that deals with smoking in public and offers choices between allowing it, not allowing it, AND getting rid of cigarettes completely from your nation.

I am a smoker. However in all public situations I am aware of who is and who isnt smoking. When I want to light up a cigarette and I am in the company of a non-smoker, I ask politely if I may do so. I have such courtesy to so. Im sorry that you must subject yourself to cigarette smoke while riding the train, however IF you want to change this real life problem, I suggest you speak to the company who manages the trains and ask them about possible resolutions.
Passing a UN resolution here on NS will not give you cleaner air on that train ride home, but it will anger those nations who execute their sovereign right to allow cigarette smoking everywhere.

Let this remain a national issue.

I admit I was being a touch sarcastic. Maybe we should ask the Mods to add sarcasm tags to the posts so it's more clear in future :}
You have my support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The problem of public smoking is easily resolved by allowing economic competition. A train company which does not take measures to separate smoking and non-smoking travelers will soon lose the majority of their non-smoking customers to a rival company who does take those measures. This is just an example. So what should be done is not prohibition of smoking, but encouragement of economic competition.

And anyway, it is not an issue for the UN to decide.

The problem of public smoking is easily resolved by allowing economic competition. A train company which does not take measures to separate smoking and non-smoking travelers will soon lose the majority of their non-smoking customers to a rival company who does take those measures. This is just an example. So what should be done is not prohibition of smoking, but encouragement of economic competition.

And anyway, it is not an issue for the UN to decide.

What about those nations that haven't privatised all the state services?

*sighs and shakes head*
Just when I thought that the convo was dead...

Ok. I dont want to argue about why we should or shouldnt allow public smoking. Its pointless. The simple fact is this is a national issue. Case closed.

The simple fact is this is a national issue. Case closed.
Nah. The simple fact is that not enough of us want it voted on to Approve it.

Location: Page 1
Status: Approvals: 38. Lacking Support (requires 100 more approvals)

Now THAT'S case closed.

as a person that lives in ireland can i just say that you dont know what you're missing without a smoking ban! being able to sit anywhere and not have to smell that horrid stuff is bliss.

but i agree it is a national issue but i think the UN should voice its concern on second hand smoke...it does have swayings of human rights violations etc.

All drugs are legal here. Everywhere. We will vote to keep it that way.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

as a person that lives in ireland can i just say that you dont know what you're missing without a smoking ban! being able to sit anywhere and not have to smell that horrid stuff is bliss.
[OOC] As a person who lives in the States in an area that has smoking bans all over the place, can I just say that you don't know what you're creating by imposing a smoking ban. Being forced to sit for hours without being able to indulge in a legal drug (that also happens to be horribly addictive) is torture.


There are two or more sides to every story, Lucydom. Don't assume yours is right just because you like it that way.

does anybody have a light, please?

nope....

What about those nations that haven't privatised all the state services?

Seems you are getting to the core of the problem. Make sure as many businesses as possible and sensible are privatized, and market demands will solve many problems. Such as public smoking. Being an example.

Seems you are getting to the core of the problem. Make sure as many businesses as possible and sensible are privatized, and market demands will solve many problems. Such as public smoking. Being an example.

I am sorry, but that is insane. I am not privitzing all my national services just so people can smoke in comfort. Privatization is one of the worlds most insidious evils and TilEnca will not be a part of it, not even to defend the rights of those who wish to poison their own bodies.

Seriously - you really think that the best way to solve the public smoking issue to make all national services privately owned?

what makes you think that i dont have any people close to me that smoke, my boyfriend smokes..i have experience of the "torture"! you seem to infer that i dont know what i'm talking about with regards to the smoking ban...in ireland you cant smoke anywhere full stop. there is a full ban in all restaurants, bars, shops, if anyone works there you cant smoke, this includes vehicles used for work.


[QUOTE=Tarnak-talaan] Make sure as many businesses as possible and sensible are privatized, and market demands will solve many problems. Such as public smoking. Being an example.

in ireland it doesn't matter if its a privatised business, anywhere that you work, you cant smoke. if you have a plumber into your home, you cant smoke (thats his work place)

didn't mean for all of that to be quoted...oops

*spits baccy juice in QR's direction*