NationStates Jolt Archive

It is time that globally we reached a standard with regards to passive smoking.

It has been long known that smoking is detrimental to our health, not only smokers, but also the people situated around them.

The Global Ban on Smoking is defined as follows

1. Smoking of any form shall be banned from all non-residential address.

2. Smoking between the flags on a beach, or up to 10 metres from the flags is banned.

3. Smoking is banned 10 metres from children's play equipment in community parks.

4. The area allowed in shopping centres for the selling of cigarettes shall be reduced to 1m x 1m.

Fines of $1500 will be enforced for breach of these rules for the smoker

Fines of $10000 will be enforced for the owner of any commercial address who allows smoking to commence on their property.

This money will then be used to help the sufferers of smoking related illnesses. (i.e. lung cancer, throat cancer, brain tumors , etc.)

NB: If this resolution is passed the rules will be taken into affect immediately, however a one month amnesty period will apply to the penalties. During this amnesty period, warnings shall be given out by police officers who catch anyone in breach of the rules defined by this resolution.

Anyone caught smoking hereafter will have their names placed on a smoking register, and will face a penalty fine (if after the amnesty period).

Repeat offenders will face double the penalty fines.

*looks into crystal ball*

I'm seeing a NO in there.

[I'm really tired right now so this post may not have made any sense.]

[Edited because it really didn't make sense.]

I Completly Agree.

NO.
This act is too enforcing to make any sense, and does not at all account the smoker's strong dependence from this drug.
There is no point which explains how the present smokers shall overcome their addiction.

The fines are ridiculously high, and a blanket ban on smoking in ALL public places will not work. You seem most interested in protecting children from the effects of smoking, but you won't find children in bars and clubs, where arguably a smoking ban would have the greatest effect.

Wethinks not.

NO.
This act is too enforcing to make any sense, and does not at all account the smoker's strong dependence from this drug.
There is no point which explains how the present smokers shall overcome their addiction.

Smokers can feed their filthy addiction elsewhere. Heavy fines would help encourage smokers to quit.

This proposal has my full support.

Edit: My only complaint is that the funds go to help sufferers of smoking-related illnesses. This can encourage smokers to let the government foot the bill for their lung cancer, etc.

Therefore, only passive smokers should receive these benefits.

I must say no to this proposal.

Banning smoking in all places, except a persons own home (I'm asuming thats what you mean by "Smoking of any form shall be banned from all non-residential address"), is unenforcable. I really don't want any of my citizens feeling or being treated as a criminal because they sneaked into a back alley to have a quick puff during lunchtime at work etc.

Quite frankly, my Police officers have better things to do, and real crime to worry about, rather than chasing people up for lighting up.

I also refuse to either put tobacconists out of business, or force them to trade out of broom closets. They are legitimate buisnessmen/women selling a legal product. Also by the wording of the proposal, it seems that only one broom closet is allowed to opperate per shopping centre. That will again close business, or put people out of work, which is unacceptable to my nation in regards to a legal product.

I believe that education and awareness of the detrimental effects of smoking will work a lot better than an outright, no exceptions, blanket ban.

I do like the bits about banning smoking on the beach, and around childrens playgrounds. Though this was'nt mentioned in the proposal, I also agree (in real life) to smoking bans in any enclosed public place, whether that is resturants and places food is served, workplaces, shoppingcentres, pubs, clubs, etc, unless they provide a totally separate smoking area. I also liked the part that put the fine money back into funding the health system, but also would have liked to see anti-smoking campaigns and education included.

What flags would be on the beach?

I'm not sure where Erroneous Errol Island is from, but in Australia, the lifesavers put up flags on swimming beaches to show people where its safe to swim, away from rips etc. We are very heavily encouraged to always "swim between the flags".

In one state (New South Wales I think), a new law was brought in recently banning people from smoking on the beach between the flags. As I don't live in that state, am not sure whether its had much effect or not.

Smokers can feed their filthy addiction elsewhere. Heavy fines would help encourage smokers to quit.
Very sensible. You are talking like smokers would be lesser life-forms.
This all reminds me strongly of the prohibition time in the USA, and we all know how that went out.

Therefore, only passive smokers should receive these benefits.
You are really talking like smokers would be lesser life-forms. What you propose is like debar car-drivers from medical treatment, should they become accident victims.

Smokers can feed their filthy addiction elsewhere. Heavy fines would help encourage smokers to quit. Therefore, only passive smokers should receive these benefits.

Very sensible. You are talking like smokers would be lesser life-forms.
This all reminds me strongly of the prohibition time in the USA, and we all know how that went out.
You are really talking like smokers would be lesser life-forms. What you propose is like debar car-drivers from medical treatment, should they become accident victims.

I think you are both wrong. the money should spent on commercials against smoking, espacially through the youngsters. that way you acheive the aim of reducing smoking in the future. in the real world this tried and worked succesfully.

the money should spent on commercials against smoking, espacially through the youngsters. that way you acheive the aim of reducing smoking in the future. in the real world this tried and worked succesfully.
I didn't oppose that. I only said that this proposal doesn't make sense, because it is too enforcing and doesn't offer smokers a realistic possibility to overcome smoking (like your suggestion does, for example.)

thank you. I am sorry if I was too ofensive.

1. The fines are ridicuslously high, and in many cases will cause bankruptcy of the 'offending' party as well as leeching on social welfare. Keep in mind that not every nation in the UN has citizens that can lightly throw out $2500. Conversely, there are those that wipe their arses with it.

2. Smoking within 10 meters of child play equipment...does that include a toy truck lying somewhere in the woods?

3. What does size matter in the selling of cigarettes? Clearly cigarette stands will not get too large in stores, so the only need for this rules would be to penalize someone with more space than allotted in the resolution.

4. If you really want to ban smoking, why not deny all medical benefits to smokers? Otherwise a smoker can smoke all they want, assured that the fines they and others paid will sustain them in the future, or give them free medical treatment to whatever illness they care to attribute to smoking.

If you really want to ban smoking in your nation, go ahead and do it. Don't try to ban it with the UN. Keep in mind this is an issue to be resolved by the people, not the UN, and also keep in mind all the countries with tobacco-sustained economies you will demolish in passing this kind of resolution.

I think you are both wrong. the money should spent on commercials against smoking, espacially through the youngsters. that way you acheive the aim of reducing smoking in the future. in the real world this tried and worked succesfully.

Wrong. In the real world, the commercials failed. It was active antidrug programs in the schools using basic brainwashing techniques that succeeded. Most of the commercials now are because of cigarette companies covering their asses.

If you think the "We Card" program is a hit, you have no idea how easy it is to make a fake ID that most store clerks will accept.

Wrong. In the real world, the commercials failed. It was active antidrug programs in the schools using basic brainwashing techniques that succeeded. Most of the commercials now are because of cigarette companies covering their asses.

If you think the "We Card" program is a hit, you have no idea how easy it is to make a fake ID that most store clerks will accept.
I watch TV show about the founder of that system. the results was great, until countries decide to decrease the amount of educational progrrams against ciggaretes through the schools.
anyway, it worked better than the other options.

I find it kind of odd that the fines will go towards treating illnesses caused by smoking. I'm not saying those diseases SHOULDN'T be treated, I just think it kind of funny.

I find it funny that it seems that smokers will get higher priority in treatment over those suffering from the same diseases who aren't smokers...

3. Smoking is banned 10 metres from children's play equipment in community parks.

Does this mean i can smoke 9.953247 meters from childrens play equipment. What defines "play equipment" if i hate my neighbor who smokes can i run at him with a toy car and he wil get a 1000 dollar fine. This to need to be adjusted. Many people live on less then a dollar a day. Does a 3rd world country really need to bankrupt its self even more?

Does this mean i can smoke 9.953247 meters from childrens play equipment. What defines "play equipment" if i hate my neighbor who smokes can i run at him with a toy car and he wil get a 1000 dollar fine. This to need to be adjusted. Many people live on less then a dollar a day. Does a 3rd world country really need to bankrupt its self even more?
Do you realize that if we required this kind of specification in all UN proposals that we would have no resolutions? At some point we have to trust the individual governments to implement legislation properly.

It is time that globally we reached a standard with regards to passive smoking.

It has been long known that smoking is detrimental to our health, not only smokers, but also the people situated around them.

The Global Ban on Smoking is defined as follows

1. Smoking of any form shall be banned from all non-residential address.

2. Smoking between the flags on a beach, or up to 10 metres from the flags is banned.

3. Smoking is banned 10 metres from children's play equipment in community parks.

4. The area allowed in shopping centres for the selling of cigarettes shall be reduced to 1m x 1m.

Fines of $1500 will be enforced for breach of these rules for the smoker

Fines of $10000 will be enforced for the owner of any commercial address who allows smoking to commence on their property.

This money will then be used to help the sufferers of smoking related illnesses. (i.e. lung cancer, throat cancer, brain tumors , etc.)

NB: If this resolution is passed the rules will be taken into affect immediately, however a one month amnesty period will apply to the penalties. During this amnesty period, warnings shall be given out by police officers who catch anyone in breach of the rules defined by this resolution.

Anyone caught smoking hereafter will have their names placed on a smoking register, and will face a penalty fine (if after the amnesty period).

Repeat offenders will face double the penalty fines.
This is the kind of resolution that gets countries nuked.


Congratulations! Your troll proposal pissed me off so much I didn't even stop to read the fine print.

This is a hilariously stupid proposal.

We should allow smoking in stores, but only in a 1mX1m square?
We should put up flags on our beaches?
We should redeploy our police to monitor a 10m perimeter around playgrounds?
Fines should be the same everywhere and payable in some foreign currency?

Do you realize that if we required this kind of specification in all UN proposals that we would have no resolutions? At some point we have to trust the individual governments to implement legislation properly.

No, most proposals are very specific, and do not have blatantly large loopholes. "Child play equipment" can be defined as a toy truck or anything that a child plays with, and thus must be kept away from smokers under this resolution. The individual governments cannot change the legislations once they have already been passed.

But since you are already on that track of mind, why not just admit that individual nations have the right to rule themselves with some despotic legislations ruling them.

If smoking is really so bad, why are you guys leaving it legal in any circumstances?

It would be nice if you could expand that sentence to include who you are addressing with that comment.

To defend myself, I will state that I believe it is up to the people to ban smoking on their own, without government, or UN, intervention on that part.

We support measures that would stop the smokers' ability to abridge the rights of those who don't want to smoke (e.g. creating "smoking sections"), but we don't support an "anti-smoking campaign". If a country does not like a product, make it illegal- don't keep it legal and then promote against it. I don't believe that is fair to the producers of the product, and, hey, it's people's choices if they want to, frankly, get sick from smoking.

NO straight away! As a pro-smoking nation we would have to start a war if this was inforced upon us :mp5:

What flags would be on the beach?

Thanks, TilEnca. I was wondering that myself.

I'm wondering why anyone uses the $ currency.
Many proposals contains amounts of money and it's look very arbitrary.
In Feliz Island, (imploded economy) it ought to be 10000000000000000 Feliz (our currency) for smoking to be equal to 1500 US dollards.
If it has to be a 1500 Feliz, everyone can come to our place and have a cheap public smoke!

If people are stupid enough to smoke then they have to be sheperded like the sheep they are. However there are better ways to curb smoking than this proposal which is just too draconian.

I'm wondering why anyone uses the $ currency.
Many proposals contains amounts of money and it's look very arbitrary.
In Feliz Island, (imploded economy) it ought to be 10000000000000000 Feliz (our currency) for smoking to be equal to 1500 US dollards.
If it has to be a 1500 Feliz, everyone can come to our place and have a cheap public smoke!
Feliz' Economy (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=feliz)
219 Capsules to the dollar.

But you're right, he was wrong to include currency and specific fines in a NSUN resolution.
I think he cut-and-pasted from a summary of the new law that just went into effect in Australia.

p.s. Which, by the way, means he was talking about AUD, not USD. So the fines are only half as big.

It would be nice if you could expand that sentence to include who you are addressing with that comment.

To defend myself, I will state that I believe it is up to the people to ban smoking on their own, without government, or UN, intervention on that part.
i would have, but his name is on another page.

i was addressing the aussie.