NationStates Jolt Archive

Here goes:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: strong?

Scientific studies have shown that use of tobacco in homes with children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in homes with children and in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility or home; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason.

there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason.
What would one of these emergency reasons be? Daddy needs another pack of smokes?

Good idea though. It's one of the most creative I've seen in a while. Wait for some others to comment on it, fix it up and you may have something there.

It's a good idea, but it takes away from peoples right to do what they wish in their own homes. ALso, it would be impossible to enforce. Would you just randomly check in on peoples houses to see if theyre smoking around their children. I think that any method of enforcing this would be a severe violation of personal rights.

Yep, good idea, but with out infered how could you enforce. Perhapse ban smokers from having children till they quit? It would reduce strain on health system form birth defects.

It's a good idea, but it takes away from peoples right to do what they wish in their own homes. ALso, it would be impossible to enforce. Would you just randomly check in on peoples houses to see if theyre smoking around their children. I think that any method of enforcing this would be a severe violation of personal rights.

I agree with the above statement. Essentially, this resolution would enforce no-smoking areas within people's homes. This would be impossible to implement unless you lived in a Nazi-like state with the Gestapo checking up on you every day.

Everybody knows that smoking harms people, it is certainly not something that is encouraged. However, we don't ban smoking, do we? And this step would be going a little bit too far down that road.

Your home is your castle, as the saying goes. It belongs to the owner, not the government, and owners should be allowed to do what they like in their own homes.

This is ridiculous. One established room per home, designated for smoking? And how are you going to check up on this? Perhaps a friendly 'domestic enforcer' that will also check up and see if you are hiding any Jews in your home?

If you want people to stop smoking, you cannot enforce despotic proposals like this, and you cannot try to take down the tobacco industry, for both are strongly against human rights. The only thing you can do, is change the civilian mindset to tobacco, and let them slowly phase out their industry by themselves by avoidance.

If support can be achieved to ban smoking there is still the matter of people addicted to smoking. For this however, the age limit could be increased 1 year of age for every year of time. That way smoking could be slowly phased out and the near impossible task of getting all users to quit could be sloved. So just to clarify lets say the minimuim age for smokign was 21 in 2000. Then the next year it would be 22 ect ect. So in 2100 the age limit would be 121 and smoking would viurtual be phased out. (what smoker lives to be 121?)

If support can be achieved to ban smoking there is still the matter of people addicted to smoking. For this however, the age limit could be increased 1 year of age for every year of time. That way smoking could be slowly phased out and the near impossible task of getting all users to quit could be sloved. So just to clarify lets say the minimuim age for smokign was 21 in 2000. Then the next year it would be 22 ect ect. So in 2100 the age limit would be 121 and smoking would viurtual be phased out. (what smoker lives to be 121?)

Yes...this idea will work just about as well as the prohibition ammendment. If you have a population of 18 or under who want to smoke, most of them will, regardless of laws. If suddenly those population parameters change to 36 or under, you will have an established smuggling organization that is going to do what it can to smoke.

Yes...this idea will work just about as well as the prohibition ammendment. If you have a population of 18 or under who want to smoke, most of them will, regardless of laws. If suddenly those population parameters change to 36 or under, you will have an established smuggling organization that is going to do what it can to smoke.

I said if support can be achieved. My idea is assuming that the smoking ban is popular. This is unlike prohibition which did not have the support of the populace.

Tell me, are any of you smokers, or did you live or were cared for (day care) as a child in homes where people smoked?

REVISION:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: strong?

Scientific studies have shown that continuous use of tobacco in the vicinity of children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason. Emergencies include fires, bombs, floods, etc. The smoking room is to be used only as a last resort to escape.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Private childcare facilities, for those of you who don't know, are homes where people run licensed daycares. I spent six years before and after school in two of them. In one, the people smoked, in the other they didn't. We all disliked the smokers, who were also evil *%!@s. Anyway, those facilities are monitored, so this could be enforced legally.

*negative buzzer noise* if my people want to kill themselves, then I won't stop them! One less person leeching off the medicare system. :D

they'll still leech until they die, and it'll cost more, unless you have a set amount that they can leech. also, they're not just killing themselves. is murder legal in your nation? so, would you rather have a healthy populace or an unhealthy one? which drains more out of medicare? hmm? anyway, it doesn't break any UN rules anymore, although I believe it lacks enough power to do much good :( ... gonna lower to "significant" since something like this is probably already in effect in many nations (real world AND nationstates)

I said if support can be achieved. My idea is assuming that the smoking ban is popular. This is unlike prohibition which did not have the support of the populace.

Support...meaning...51%? What about the other 49%? Same effect applies.

As for the resolution, let it be stated (again) that I am opposed to smoking. I hate the smell, I hate the effects and I hate the drain it causes on the medical system. That is why I would strongly encourage businesses to put bans on smoking in their stores and warehouses, schools to educate children against smoking, and penalties for illegal smoking.

But a government lesislation to ban smoking and tear down the industry (or limit the amount of space in which one can smoke in his own home) is unjust and tyranical. This is an issue to be resolved by the people.

*negative buzzer noise* if my people want to kill themselves, then I won't stop them! One less person leeching off the medicare system. :D

Cynical, try and show a little compassion.

Tell me, are any of you smokers, or did you live or were cared for (day care) as a child in homes where people smoked?

REVISION:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: strong?

Scientific studies have shown that continuous use of tobacco in the vicinity of children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason. Emergencies include fires, bombs, floods, etc. The smoking room is to be used only as a last resort to escape.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Private childcare facilities, for those of you who don't know, are homes where people run licensed daycares. I spent six years before and after school in two of them. In one, the people smoked, in the other they didn't. We all disliked the smokers, who were also evil *%!@s. Anyway, those facilities are monitored, so this could be enforced legally.

I still find the idea of smoking during a fire quite amusing, but if this only applies to businesses, and not to people's homes, then I can't see a problem with it. But once you get in to the area of saying what people can and can't do in their own home you are getting in to a police state mindset. Which is, unsurprisingly, not acceptable to my people.

I know that the UN has annoyed alot of nations by passing laws to legalise prostitution in the past. Attack on nation soverenty was one highlighted point. Now you want to dictate that they must have a non smoking area in their house! No thank you.

Edit- just say that no one is allowed to smoke in schools etc. They may have a room where people can smoke if they wish. This room must be ventalated and exhaust fumes must be discharged well away from where it can cause harm!

Oringinaly posted by Dresophila Prime
But a government lesislation to ban smoking and tear down the industry (or limit the amount of space in which one can smoke in his own home) is unjust and tyranical. This is an issue to be resolved by the people

In most countries virtually all drugs are outlawed save tobbaco, acohol, and sometimes hemp derived drugs. I fail to see why because it has been tolerated in the past baning tobbaco is "unjust and tyranical." If people feel so strongly about somkign let them, but don't let them screw up other peoples lives just so they can light up. Tobbaco kills don't let it kill you with second hand smoke.

Are you really supporting a legislation that would allow the UN to tear down entire economies that depend on the distribution of tobacco? THAT is tyrranical. If the people don't like it, the will get rid of it themselves, without government help.

This is not a national issue, let alone and international one.

you want to dictate that they must have a non smoking area in their house!

did you even read the revision?

Are you really supporting a legislation that would allow the UN to tear down entire economies that depend on the distribution of tobacco?

it's not about destroying tobacco distribution, it's about keeping kids healthy. if you would actually read the proposal, you'd see that it contains nothing about distribution. also, note the part where it says that kids can't smoke... oh yeah... IT DOESN'T. the smoking age is left up to national governments or to future UN resolutions.

EDIT from previous post: WOULD you really support...etc.

I realize that the conversation got off topic...left foot and I were speaking of something different altogether. The resolution is horrible, has no chance of passing, thus we took it a different direction.

What planet do you live on? In Illinois, we've outlawed smoking in childcare facilities altogether, although it was after I spent a year before and after school coughing and hacking. It will work, if I revise it just a little more...

REVISION #2:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: significant

Scientific studies have shown that continuous use of tobacco in the vicinity of children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason. Emergencies include fires, bombs, floods, etc. The smoking room is to be used only as a last resort to escape. To ensure the enactment of this resolution, the nations of this august organization shall create departments to oversee said child-care facilities, with an international group presiding over them.
-------------------
how's that? also, did you guys even bother to read the first revision? that's why I posted it, after all, so that everyone who had commented gets to see what their comments wrought.

If it's to ban smoking in public child-care facilities altogether, and private child-care facilities at any time that facility is being used for child-care, I'd support it. If it's to ban smoking in all homes that contain children at any time, I wouldn't support it. It's too much of an infringement on privacy.

I don't quite get the smoking room. I'm picturing someone running a daycare center out of his/her home and closing themself in a room to chainsmoke while kids run rampant through the rest of the house. If it's a private child-care facility that recieves funds, and is probably subject to some level of regulation, can't/shouldn't the caretaker just not smoke while they're on the clock?

Also, I think being around smokers is damaging to kids' physical health, but I fail to see how it's damaging to their mental health.

Ok, first off, it's now, thanks to the first revision, a resolution to restrict smoking in child-care facilities, or didn't you read it? Second, you can't just closet yourself to chain-smoke while you're on the clock, since that would be neglect, and you'd lose your child-care facility license and go to jail, since all UN nations have made child abuse a crime. Also, with the later revisions, I set out to establish groups, both national and international, that will regulate child-care facilities, if the nation doesn't already have a regulating body, and to monitor, through annual checks, said facilities.

Another thing: It's not about the children's mental health, it's about a previously unknown aspect of tobacco's harm to their physical health. A seven-year-old who lives with chain-smokers will have a less developed brain than a seven-year-old who lives in a non-smoking environment. I'm just gonna tweak this a LITTLE more...

FINAL REVISION:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: significant

Scientific studies have shown that continuous use of tobacco in the vicinity of children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason. Emergencies include fires, bombs, floods, etc. The smoking room is to be used only as a last resort to escape. To ensure the enactment of this resolution, the nations of this august organization shall create departments to oversee said child-care facilities, with an international group presiding over them. These departments will make annual checks of every child-care facility at a different time of year every year. This shall ensure the health and development of children in all countries.

Ok, first off, it's now, thanks to the first revision, a resolution to restrict smoking in child-care facilities, or didn't you read it? Second, you can't just closet yourself to chain-smoke while you're on the clock, since that would be neglect, and you'd lose your child-care facility license and go to jail, since all UN nations have made child abuse a crime. Also, with the later revisions, I set out to establish groups, both national and international, that will regulate child-care facilities, if the nation doesn't already have a regulating body, and to monitor, through annual checks, said facilities.

Another thing: It's not about the children's mental health, it's about a previously unknown aspect of tobacco's harm to their physical health. A seven-year-old who lives with chain-smokers will have a less developed brain than a seven-year-old who lives in a non-smoking environment. I'm just gonna tweak this a LITTLE more...

FINAL REVISION:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: significant

Scientific studies have shown that continuous use of tobacco in the vicinity of children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason. Emergencies include fires, bombs, floods, etc. The smoking room is to be used only as a last resort to escape. To ensure the enactment of this resolution, the nations of this august organization shall create departments to oversee said child-care facilities, with an international group presiding over them. These departments will make annual checks of every child-care facility at a different time of year every year. This shall ensure the health and development of children in all countries.

Ok - seriously - the part about the "last resort" is, with all due respect, foolish. I get that you don't want kids wandering in there any old time, but - honestly - if the building is on fire then I say screw the childrens reaction to smoking, because being burned to death is probably going to do more damage to them. Same with an evacuation due ot a bomb threat, or any other reason. If you have to get kids out of the building, you don't use the room as a last resort if it is the fastest and best way to get people out - you use it as a first means of escape.

did you even read the revision?
Not until afterwards. I skim read the topic. Sorry

Why so may rules relating to this room?
Staff smoking room - a well ventilated room, which prevents smoke from permeating the building, where staff can smoke. This type of room must be provided in all child care facilities. Smoking is only permitted in this room in these facilities. Children are not allowed in this room except in a life threatening situation.
If you want to use any of that go ahead. At the moment I feel the proposal is cumbersome and could do with being more concise.

I was thinking, mabie you can just ban all stores and shops from selling all drugs and lift your police system, thats what im gonna do, ban smoking from my contry all togeather, but im noy sure how well my people will take that, so i need edvise on how to get through this type of thing.

I can understand the idea, and think its a good one. No-one should be blowing smoke over children in a professional child care setting. Parents give their children over to the staff of these facilities to keep them safe, and that includes protecting them from health threats.

The thing I can't understand is the emphasis on the room. Even with the best exhaust system, the smoke is still going to escape back into the rest of the house/building whenever the door is opened and closed. Would'nt it be better to have an area set up outside the building, away from any areas the children can access. For example if the children can access the backyard of the house/building and the back of the facility itself, then set the smoking area up on the front porch. That way, the staff can take their break, have a cigarette, and not be anywhere near the kids.

You come from one of the northen states of the USA?
I know it gets very cold there, but thats the smokers problem, not the facilities. If they want a smoke, they go outside. If they don't want to go outside, they don't smoke while working, simple :).

In most countries virtually all drugs are outlawed save tobbaco, acohol, and sometimes hemp derived drugs. I fail to see why because it has been tolerated in the past baning tobbaco is "unjust and tyranical." If people feel so strongly about somkign let them, but don't let them screw up other peoples lives just so they can light up. Tobbaco kills don't let it kill you with second hand smoke.

*cough* Vastiva legalized and regulates any and all "recreational drugs", with purchases available through any licensed facility with proper ID.

The purchase of such drugs voids some protections under the National Healthcare clauses, but you are free to do with your body as you please.

As to tobacco - if you smoke during pregnancy, you accept the waivers for you and your parasite: when the parasite becomes "a human being person with rights", they may later choose to sue you over your actions.

I said most countries. Also, great have people smoking crack on the street. If nation states was more realistic your nation would have no economy (except the drug industry) whatsoever due to the fact the entire or al least the majority of the population would not care about life just gettting more drugs. Such a law would be disasterous and leave many people to die. I support letting people make their own desicions, but not to condemn the entire country.

I said most countries. Also, great have people smoking crack on the street. If nation states was more realistic your nation would have no economy (except the drug industry) whatsoever due to the fact the entire or al least the majority of the population would not care about life just gettting more drugs. Such a law would be disasterous and leave many people to die. I support letting people make their own desicions, but not to condemn the entire country.

My, but you're malinformed.

Drugs are openly available. Between education and warning labels, there is adequate coverage of "what happens if you do this". The majority of the population is not interested in drugs as a result - there is no "forbidden fruit" aspect, only a national disclosure of what these do and can result in.
We also support rehab clinics and the like.

We see nothing wrong with someone smoking crack in public. We do see something wrong with littering (they should dispose of vials properly).

In short - if you don't have an informed position, please go soak your head. Our system works. And "gloom and doom" prophets are most often wrong.

I said most countries. Also, great have people smoking crack on the street. If nation states was more realistic your nation would have no economy (except the drug industry) whatsoever due to the fact the entire or al least the majority of the population would not care about life just gettting more drugs. Such a law would be disasterous and leave many people to die. I support letting people make their own desicions, but not to condemn the entire country.
Really? And you know this because you've polled the... how many nations is it now?... to see what their drug laws are like?

Our nation has legalized drug use for quite some time now. We have a strong economy and don't have people dying all over the place.

Opinions are a great thing - but presenting them as fact doesn't really accomplish much... other than generate responses like this.

I should be able to smoke anywhere in my house. No support. But I give you credit for originality. It's a good idea. It might pass. If I didn't smoke I'd support it. Well done.

Here goes:

U.N. Tobacco Resolution
type: moral decency
strength: strong?

Scientific studies have shown that use of tobacco in homes with children adversely affects their mental development. Therefore, let it be resolved that the use of tobacco in homes with children and in child-care facilities, both public and private, is restricted to one room per facility or home; there are to be no people under the age their country allows them to smoke allowed within five feet of this room at any time, for any non-emergency reason.
This one I love.

So non-smokers will have to set aside one room in their home for smoking, and then arrest their own children if they go within 5 feet of that room?

I fully support!

p.s. we're supposed to be metric in NSUN. you might want to change that to 1.5 meters, or sth.