NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban on Tobacco
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw
Proposed by: Resistancia

Description: This is a proposal aimed at banning tobacco and tobacco related products*. So far, there has been no proof of medicinal purposes of tobacco, even further, it is a health risk. The strain that tobacco-related illnesses have put on health systems is equal that to the combination of deseases. That, coupled with the affect it has on those around users should warrent its banning.

With this resolution, we:

RECOGNISE that nations get revenue from taxes on tobacco and related products*, but doesnt always get spent on education about the product

RECOGNISE nicotine in tobacco and related products* serves no medicinal purpose

KNOW THAT BANNING WILL remove the strain of illnesses caused by tobacco related products* from the health system

RELIEVE the people who do not use these products from the the illnesses associated from being near uses, also known as 'passive smoking'

In conclusion, without medicinal proof to support its use, and in fact support condemming it, tobacco and related products* should be banned

Appendix I: Related products. the definition of this term relates to Cigars, Cigarettes and any product that uses tobacco as an ingredient. this does not, however, include smoking pipes, as they can be used for other purposes in countries where certain drugs are legalised

discuss

It's a very, very bad idea. A real life comparrison would be the wonders of the 18th Amendment that lead to Prohibition, and a rise of organized crime in the USA.

while the people of my nation are not large users of the product, and while our economy is not based on it, i would have to say that this resolution will most likely not pass. There are many economies based on the exporting of tobacco products, and this law would, quite obviously, cripple those economies. Also, many nations are led by people who (or have a plethora of citizens who) are quite fond of recreational tobacco use. This seems to be too large of a first step, as after scanning through previously passed resolutions, i could not find any mentioning any sort of limit on tobacco usage.

Also, i'm sure many will take issue with the fact that the proposed ban is based largely on the grounds that it has no medicinal purpose, as many things consumed on a daily basis have no real medicinal purpose.

I would suggest that an idea that would possibly work better would be to propose a resolution mandating that a percentage of the money raised from tobacco exporting or from taxing tobacco sales be used towards funding programs education citizens about the dangers of tobacco use, and towards funding for helping those already addicted quit.

I also think this would be an unwise move to make.

I hate it when this happens.

This is a well-written resolution. You define what you're talking about, give examples of problems, say what you mean to say and propose a solution.

Unfortunately, I cannot support it, for reasons stated by others above. I apologize.

Completely outlawing tobacco - as stated above - is not likely to get passed. Perhaps you'd want to try something about outlawing smoking in public places? I don't know if there would be any more support for that sort of thing, but it would still allow people to choose to smoke - just in the privacy of their own homes. And, of course, you could always throw in a clause about encouraging citizen education about the use of smoking cessation products, such as (but not limited to) nicotene inhaler, patch, lozenge, and gum, as well as Zyban which is a prescription medication. (I assume that referencing such items would not be a violation of inserting RL objects into proposals, but you may want to double-check with someone who knows more about such things before you add those in!)

ALSO! I wanted to say that I think this is very well written and formatted and just - yay! Much more easily readable and understandable that previous drafts you've come up with. You're definitely making progress. :D

Completely outlawing tobacco - as stated above - is not likely to get passed. Perhaps you'd want to try something about outlawing smoking in public places?

That's an Issue already.

I agree with all of the above sentiments. Outlawing a drug will just cause a black-market in that drug to arise to serve public demand. Thus it was with alcohol during Prohibition in the US, and thus it is with marijuana, heroin, etc. now.

That is a crazy idea.

Which idea? Mine or Resistancia's?

Banning tobacco is a great idea and a great topic to discuss. I believe all types of tobacco should not exist anywhere. If this does happen...every nations would be healthier and have a much higher success rate.

I've always hated smoking ban resolutions. I've yet to see any justification for international involvement. Nothing about tobacco, with the possible exception of smoking on international flights, crosses national borders.

On the national level:
You can restrict or deny imports of tobacco products.
You can forbid the growing of tobacco in your nation.
You can forbid the use of tobacco products in your nation.
Your nation will therefore have healthier, more productive people than smoker nations, giving you a competitive advantage.

Explain, preferably in words of two syllables or less, what interest is served by passing such a proposal on the international level? Smoking bans make a certain amount of sense on a local level. From a health care perspective, I could make a case for regional and (barely) national levels. On the international stage, there is no compelling interest. Zero. Zip. None.


'Splain it to me, 'cause all I see is your morals poking into my business.

the argument is not only the fact that it serves no medicinal purpose, but also the strain that it puts on health systems. funds gained by aleviation of this strain can not only be used on genuine cases, but also on finding alternative industries. banning smoking in public places doesnt protect young children from the affects, as it means parents can still smoke at home. since the product does not provide the same affects as most common, in some countries illegal, drugs, the black market will die because the recipients would not pay the cost for such little reward.

the argument is not only the fact that it serves no medicinal purpose, but also the strain that it puts on health systems. funds gained by aleviation of this strain can not only be used on genuine cases, but also on finding alternative industries. banning smoking in public places doesnt protect young children from the affects, as it means parents can still smoke at home. since the product does not provide the same affects as most common, in some countries illegal, drugs, the black market will die because the recipients would not pay the cost for such little reward.
All good reasons to stop smoking. You can do that in your nation, and I won't object. Have at it.

However, I like smoking, and so do quite a few of my citizens. We've segregated our smoking areas so that second-hand smoke for non-smokers isn't an issue, we don't sell to minors, and we've agreed that we'll soak up the cost of additional health care because we like the effect of this legal and relatively mild adddictive drug.

Now, tell me again, why do your reasons require my nation to give up smoking? Nothing that happens to my smokers affects anyone in your nation in any way that I can see. What is the international interest?

C'mon, I'm waiting.

I've always hated smoking ban resolutions. I've yet to see any justification for international involvement. Nothing about tobacco, with the possible exception of smoking on international flights, crosses national borders.

On the national level:
You can restrict or deny imports of tobacco products.
You can forbid the growing of tobacco in your nation.
You can forbid the use of tobacco products in your nation.
Your nation will therefore have healthier, more productive people than smoker nations, giving you a competitive advantage.

Explain, preferably in words of two syllables or less, what interest is served by passing such a proposal on the international level? Smoking bans make a certain amount of sense on a local level. From a health care perspective, I could make a case for regional and (barely) national levels. On the international stage, there is no compelling interest. Zero. Zip. None.


'Splain it to me, 'cause all I see is your morals poking into my business.
there is the resolution of Required Basic Healthcare, which all nations must abide by. this also covers smokers who become ill from such practice. the strain that these people put on already ailing health systems could put those nations in violation of this. we all know that the less people in the system, the less strain there is, and since a large proportion are tobacco related illnesses, the banning of tobacco products will go a great way towards improoving healthcare conditions.

this is not a argument based on morals, it is in the intrest of improoving health and healthcare systems

Again, none of the health care resolutions are funded by the UN. All costs are absorbed by the individual nations. Your health care may be failing. Ours is a for-profit corporation, and doing quite nicely, thank you. We haven't found tobacco-related costs to be all that high, actually. Overindulgence of food and alcohol carry much higher risk factors. Were you planning to ban those next?

You have noticed, haven't you, that the UN has no source of income? Not even annual dues. There is zero cost to nations to join the UN, apart from the unfunded mandates ... which are, once again, entirely the responsibility of the member nations. So I ask again, how do my smokers affect your health care system or bottom line?

our healthcare is fine, but it is more concern for the healthcare systems of less prosperous nation. and in saying that our healthcare system is fine, it can be better if such un-necessary burdons are released from it. in the case of food and alcohol, both are a double-edged sword in that they have risks as well as benifits. since there are no benifits with tobacco, in the debunking of myths like stress relief, it has no pros to support it, and many cons to condem it. we could tell nations to refuse treatment of patients if they smoke, but this is illegal due to resolutions prohibiting discrimination. i realise and know that the UN does not bear the costs of heathcare, but nations do bear the costs through aid funding to poorer nations. and this also means that if you do not care to give aid, other nations have to chip in more, thus it affects all nations

We don't give aid. We don't accept refugees. We don't have open borders. Our citizens enjoy a higher standard of living than many on NS, and that's the way we like it. Your arguments about an unequal burden fall on deaf ears. You make your choices, and we'll make ours.

You also seem to have missed a prior statement. We like smoking. Never claimed it was for stress relief, either - just that it is an addictive drug that we enjoy. I don't care what studies you pull out of your universities - that's not going to change the fact that some people smoke because they LIKE it. They know the risks, and do it anyway.
our healthcare is fine, but it is more concern for the healthcare systems of less prosperous nation.
With that statement you once again indicate that your primary motivation is imposing your moral code (being helpful to the underprivileged) on other nations. You're not doing it for economic self-interest, you're doing it "because you think it's right", and therefore everyone should do it too.


I don't care if you do it for moral reasons, but it annoys me greatly to see people hiding behind a fallacious health care argument. Come out and say "I don't think you should smoke, and I'm gonna pass a law about it!" You'll have my respect, even though you'll never get my support.

I don't need to be sold on the idea that smoking is bad for you. I know that. You need to sell me on why this is in front of the UN, and you still haven't touched on that. In fact, nobody has ever addressed that to my satisfaction in over a year here ... and it's been tried lots of times. Until you do, count me among the fervent opposition.

discuss
I have nuked countries for far less than this.

We don't give aid. We don't accept refugees. We don't have open borders. Our citizens enjoy a higher standard of living than many on NS, and that's the way we like it. Your arguments about an unequal burden fall on deaf ears. You make your choices, and we'll make ours.

You also seem to have missed a prior statement. We like smoking. Never claimed it was for stress relief, either - just that it is an addictive drug that we enjoy. I don't care what studies you pull out of your universities - that's not going to change the fact that some people smoke because they LIKE it. They know the risks, and do it anyway.

With that statement you once again indicate that your primary motivation is imposing your moral code (being helpful to the underprivileged) on other nations. You're not doing it for economic self-interest, you're doing it "because you think it's right", and therefore everyone should do it too.


I don't care if you do it for moral reasons, but it annoys me greatly to see people hiding behind a fallacious health care argument. Come out and say "I don't think you should smoke, and I'm gonna pass a law about it!" You'll have my respect, even though you'll never get my support.

I don't need to be sold on the idea that smoking is bad for you. I know that. You need to sell me on why this is in front of the UN, and you still haven't touched on that. In fact, nobody has ever addressed that to my satisfaction in over a year here ... and it's been tried lots of times. Until you do, count me among the fervent opposition.

OOC: while we recognise your status as a forum moderator
IC: we question the reason you are involved in this debate, when your nation is not an UN member, and would not be affected by this resolution.

we question the reason you are involved in this debate, when your nation is not an UN member, and would not be affected by this resolution.
If you look around, you'll find that many UN forum posters are not UN members themselves.

In our case, the Frisbeeterian colony of Gnomewatchers keeps an eye on the place and casts votes for our entire Oligarchy, but they're not particularly gifted debaters. They've asked me to speak on their behalf ... a common practice.

this brings me to question their participation in these debates. we do recognise that some proposed resolutions invite non-UN nations to partcipate in the specified resolution, but generally, debates on subjects that affect only UN nations should be restricted to those nations. if this was a resolution that affected countries outside the UN, then i would support participation from those nations. since it does not, it should be left for UN nations to debate. if a nation is not good at debating issues, it makes me question their role as regional delegate, but we would also prefer a UN nation debate on behalf another UN nation, not a non-UN nation

this brings me to question their participation in these debates. we do recognise that some proposed resolutions invite non-UN nations to partcipate in the specified resolution, but generally, debates on subjects that affect only UN nations should be restricted to those nations. if this was a resolution that affected countries outside the UN, then i would support participation from those nations. since it does not, it should be left for UN nations to debate.
As author of Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48), I believe I have a right to be heard, and a duty to speak. I'd also like to point out that I speak as a representative of the UN nation of Gnomewatchers, as I already clearly stated. I'm just wearing a different uniform today. I see no reason to change it to suit your objections today.

MJ Donovan,
[i]UN Ambassador Designate, Gnomewatchers.
CEO Emeritus and Former UN Ambassador
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States


[OOC] You want me to log out of my Mod nation and into my UN nation every time I want to anwser a post? Not gonna happen.

OOC: sorry for trying to correct a mod, but isnt it against the rules to have 2 nations?

You can have as many nations as you want, as long as only one of them is in the UN. That'd be Gnomewatchers for me.

Some players keep over 200. Most are more reasonable.

okay, thank you for clearing that one up for me

Some players keep over 200. Most are more reasonable.
I think I've got around 10 by now.

This resolution inflicts upon the civil rights of the common man. It also resembles the 18th Amendment which did not work. Every person should have the right to slowly kill themselves, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

I am already an irritable NS with few pleasures in life.
If you presume to leave me with a glass of scotch and no cigar
then it will not be a desire for revenge that compels me against you. But a reckoning.

I whole heartedly agree with this proposal. While theoretically people should have the right to "slowely kill themselves", the original choice to use tobacco is usually made at an age before they know what they're doing, so its for they're own good, and they're lives are our responsibilities first, they're lives are our responsibility as well as they're rights. However, you should probably aproach the problem differently. Start with something more discreet and allude back to this.

At the heart of this debate is not whether smoking is bad but whether or not the UN has the authority to ban tobacco. The obvious answer is that it does not. The only war less successful than the war on drugs is the war on poverty. You can't stop drugs of any sort by banning them or making them illegal. It just never has and never will work. It is a pointless waste of time, effort, and funds.

At the heart of this debate is not whether smoking is bad but whether or not the UN has the authority to ban tobacco. The obvious answer is that it does not.
Wrong, the UN can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't break any rules of go against any passed resolutions.

Wrong, the UN can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't break any rules of go against any passed resolutions.

Um...no. The UN can do anything it wants as long as the Nations bend over and take it. I have all drugs legal in my nation and that will not change and if need be I will resign from the UN to protect my nation's freedom.

Chewing tobacco (disgusting as it sounds) does not harm anyone other than the chewer. Yet it contains tobacco. And under this resolution it would be banned, partially because it harms others. Explain.

Um...no. The UN can do anything it wants as long as the Nations bend over and take it.
That's what I said, the UN can pass resolutions on whatever it wants as long as their legal.

I am in full support of this resolution. When somebody smokes tobacco in public, they make the people around them miserable because the repugnant smell of smoke fills the air. Maybe we could let people smoke in the privacy of their own homes, but I certainly shouldn't have to be forced smell cigarette smoke in a public place.

I am in full support of this resolution. When somebody smokes tobacco in public, they make the people around them miserable because the repugnant smell of smoke fills the air. Maybe we could let people smoke in the privacy of their own homes, but I certainly shouldn't have to be forced smell cigarette smoke in a public place.

This resolution would ban all tobacco. Not just smoking in public - all tobacco.

Is that something you REALLY want to do?

That's an Issue already.

I agree with all of the above sentiments. Outlawing a drug will just cause a black-market in that drug to arise to serve public demand. Thus it was with alcohol during Prohibition in the US, and thus it is with marijuana, heroin, etc. now.

then we must severely punish, torture, and kill all criminals.

then we must severely punish, torture, and kill all criminals.

So you are going to create more criminals, then torture them?

then we must severely punish, torture, and kill all criminals.

Oh alright. So we're going to have the police overstressed in that now they must monitor all Tobacco use. Oh wow. May I remind you that in our society today Tobacoo is widely used amoung peoples under the age of 18 and those individuals are seldom convicted. Now to enforce no use of Tobacco period. It's violating rights of those people who want to smoke, it's foolish to think it will work, and it will require mass amounts of funding. Ever heard of Supply and Demand? Well, those people who are smoking will still demand Tobacco (because they are addicted). Therefore there will be a much higher demand for it and people will be doing more to get it (including selling it illegally for more money because there is a higher demand). Smokers don't stop buying tobacco products even with the huge increase in how much they cost and how its illegal for peoples under the age of 18. So what is going to stop them from getting tobacoo if we ban it?

Nothing is going to stop it.

So Vastiva taxes the crap out of it and riders life insurance about tobacco use and "voluntary health effects".

We make money, insurance pays less, tobacco users are happy, we're happy, everyone is happy.

This is a violation of a civil rights, and an example of people who want to force thier will on everyone else. It doesn't matter whether or not it is good for them, it is THEIR decisions, not the GOVERNEMENTS.

So sayeth you.
Other nations think differently.

we do not believe that this is a violation of civil rights, because this is a health issue that affects all nations

we do not believe that this is a violation of civil rights, because this is a health issue that affects all nations

True, very true, it is a health issue.

But Crydonia's health issues, and health budget are our own business, and I really can't see how either affect any other nation in any way.

Our citizens are'nt encouraged to smoke or use tobacco products, and we have subidised aids to quitting for those that want to, education against the habit, a ban on sales for those under 18, and feel thats all we need to do. Banning tobacco products in our nation would just cause a massive black market to start thriving, and give crime gangs a new illegal drug to peddle. I am rather proud of the fact crime is unknown in my nation, and want to keep it that way. Our police officers (the few we have, that are'nt directing traffic), have better things to do than chase up smokers.

it seems that some nations, in opposing this proposal, have used the 'black market' approach. if the item in question had hallucinatory or other properties that so called 'hard drugs' have, then i can understand. but since it has no such properties, the black market for it would collapse due to the effects not being worthy of the risks in obtaining the products

I am in full support of this resolution. When somebody smokes tobacco in public, they make the people around them miserable because the repugnant smell of smoke fills the air. Maybe we could let people smoke in the privacy of their own homes, but I certainly shouldn't have to be forced smell cigarette smoke in a public place.
Now we get to the truth of the anti-smoking crusade.

Forget about the second-hand smoking junk science. Forget about the lung cancer junk science.

This is about people objecting to the smell.

Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion and extend the proposal to outlaw farting in public and to mandate a shower (with soap) at least twice a week?

well, there brings up the subject of tobacco smoke causing pollution...... and i dont mean by the smell....

it seems that some nations, in opposing this proposal, have used the 'black market' approach. if the item in question had hallucinatory or other properties that so called 'hard drugs' have, then i can understand. but since it has no such properties, the black market for it would collapse due to the effects not being worthy of the risks in obtaining the products
baloney.
there's a very effective black market for it now among teenagers.

marijuana doesn't have any effect for a first-time smoker either, but somehow there's a thriving black market for that. and it's not even addictive.

well, there brings up the subject of tobacco smoke causing pollution...... and i dont mean by the smell....
Right. The resolution should be expanded to outlaw diesel fuel too.
That causes fine-particulate pollution which has been shown to be far more deadly than second-hand smoke, and it smells even worse.

we do not believe that this is a violation of civil rights, because this is a health issue that affects all nations
Even if you believe the junk science about lung cancer, it is still a violation of civil rights.

We still prefer Vastiva's solution.

Legalize it, whack their health care benefits, tax the hell out of it, and be done with it.

As to the "children smoking" - regular check ups (manditory for school age children) will catch the smoking. We don't prosecute underage smokers, we just zap their health benefits accordingly; selling to minors is prosecuted by the court.

The minor just gets a permanent removal of any protection against certain health problems to show up later.

it seems that some nations, in opposing this proposal, have used the 'black market' approach. if the item in question had hallucinatory or other properties that so called 'hard drugs' have, then i can understand. but since it has no such properties, the black market for it would collapse due to the effects not being worthy of the risks in obtaining the products

It does'nt matter if there are hallucinatory effects or not. One undisputable fact is that nicotine is addictive, very addictive, and addicts will do whatever it takes to get a fix.

If tobacco is banned, smokers won't automatically get over their addiction. I'm sure a some will use the banning to give up, but there will be a lot who can't or won't, and the black market will be ready, willing and eager to make money off their addiction. As someone else said in an earlier post, if there is a demand for a product, there will always be a supplier, legal or illegal.

(OOC)
I am wondering if you have ever smoked?:)

I'm an ex-smoker, and it was'nt easy to quit. One of the hardest things I've ever done. It took over 12 months of stopping and starting before I was finally able to stop for good. That was over 2 years ago. Even after all this time, I still occasionally get cravings. I have read (can't remember where, or I'd link it), that nicotine is harder to beat than heroin. I don't know if its true, but after my experiences giving up smokes, it would'nt surprise me.

It is a person's personal decision, not the governements. Don't think that you know what's best for everybody. Smoking is VICTIMLESS, and therefore the governement has not right to regulate it. People who are scared of secondhand smoke shouldn't be sitting around the smoker.

The best governement is yourself.