NationStates Jolt Archive

Can people pls give me feedback on this... I wanna propose a no smoking in public places resolution.

The thinking behond it is:

It's bad for your health
Second hand smoke is a big killer, something secondary sufferers have no control over
It's smelly
It's anti social.

Such a proposal would probably be illegal for contradicting the UN Drug Act (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=190), but in any case, it sounds more suitable for national than international legislation.

Although in no way do I endorse such national laws, he adds grumblingly.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

It's bad for your health
Not as bad for you as sodomising yourself with a sharp object

Second hand smoke is a big killer, something secondary sufferers have no control over
Far, far more people die from the results of someone else drinking in one year then people have from passive smoking

It's smelly
So's poo. Wanna ban that?

It's anti social.
Sending smokers outside doesn't strike me as very sociable...

This is a national issue, and thus I insert this sword rectally into the Hildegaarten delegates posterior orifice...

Can i point out that non smoking ban is a kind of double negative. It suggests banning non-smoking. whatever that may implicate.

... something something ... pry ... something something ... cold, dead fingers.

If you want honest feedback, here it is. This is going to be a very tough sell in this crowd. The biggest problem is going to be national sovereignty opposition. There are a plethora of things that are logical rational and true, but few people want to have them imposed from above.

Then you have a potential category problem. In the end I think this would have to be a Recreational Drug Use – Outlaw category and even then it has a good chance of being thrown out by the average mod. “Write a resolution to the category.”

The problem is that it’s hard to be specific and it’s hard to be generic. Concentrating on tobacco smoke alone will be a great way to collect more enemies than friends. Making a more generic resolution is going to have incense using clerics hard on your back with separation of Church and State. Yes it’s a great idea but it’s hard to make a good resolution from it.

If you want honest feedback, here it is. This is going to be a very tough sell in this crowd. The biggest problem is going to be national sovereignty opposition. There are a plethora of things that are logical rational and true, but few people want to have them imposed from above.

I don't see that National Sovereignty even needs to come into it. The UN legislating against smoking in public places just isn't practical, nor is it worth the time of this illustrious body. We have serious awards to hand out.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Not as bad for you as sodomising yourself with a sharp object


Far, far more people die from the results of someone else drinking in one year then people have from passive smoking

Somehow I doubt that. But if you have proof that more people have died as a result of drinking than second hand smoke show it

OoC: Look at the drink driving statistics alone - around 20,000 people died in the US due to drink driving. Confirmed passive smoking deaths in the US is still less then 100. Indeed, you are more likely to die from a house burning down due to a cigarette then you are passive smoking. Even the statistics the British Government sticks out, whilst fairly scary sounding, when looked at carefully are pretty pathetic. For example, passive smoking increases your chances of dying of lung cancer by 20%. Sounds scary, but when you think the chances of someone who has never been near smoke in their life (already a dubious statistic, because I very much doubt that anyone has never been near smoke) dying of lung cancer is is around 1 in 14 million, a 20% increase in the chances is still minimal - you are still more likely to die from a lightning strike...

Don't get my hopes up; we were all for banning non-smoking...as it is, we don't support any smoking ban anywhere. And frankly, I can't imagine this becoming a UN issue, unless people are building nuclear bombs out of cigarette butts.

Now a ban on chewing tobacco? That's something we would support.

Don't get my hopes up; we were all for banning non-smoking...as it is, we don't support any smoking ban anywhere. And frankly, I can't imagine this becoming a UN issue, unless people are building nuclear bombs out of cigarette butts.

Now a ban on chewing tobacco? That's something we would support.

Well, that's perfectly logical... :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well, that's perfectly logical... :rolleyes:


It seems logical to me. After all third hand smoke can easily linger in the air and easily be removed by a simple fan. Chewing tobacco's waste product requires the presence of a plethora of spitoons which must be emptied and cleaned properly.

OoC: ... Confirmed passive smoking deaths in the US is still less then 100. Indeed, you are more likely to die from a house burning down due to a cigarette then you are passive smoking. Sheesh, where are you getting your statistics, The Tobacco Institute? Secondary smoke results in over 3400 deaths due to lung cancer per year in the U.S.. In addition, it raises a nonsmoker's chance of coronary artery disease by 25% (hey you can die from that too) and is a major contributor to respiratory infections and asthma in children, which when uncontrolled can lead to death. From here. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Hildegaarten: I think you've gathered such a ban isn't going to fly... sometimes it's more important for people to do what they want than what is good.

OoC: Notice the word confirmed, i.e. where no other solution exists apart from passive smoking. The 3,500 statistic is just poeple who have died of lung cancer and have been exposed to passive smoking - it includes people who have been to other carcinogens. The 25% figure about heart disease is just as dodgy as the lung cancer statistics because I cannot think that nobody in the US has not been exposed to second hand cigarette smoke, and therefore nothing to compare it too. Plus, notice the wording "up to 25%". I could say smoking makes you grow up to 8 foot taller, makes you up to 200% more attractive to the opposite sex and decreases obesity by up to 75% and not be lying...

Smoking is terrible for your health and not only affects the smoker, but others around. Cigars, cigarretes, pipes, and all forms of tobacco must be banned. After the youngest generation of smokers is dead, it will be a smoke-free world.