NationStates Jolt Archive

Most esteemed colleagues,

Ambassador Steven McCoy of Knoxvillistan submits the following proposal for your discussion:


Non-Smoker Protection Act
CATEGORY: Moral Decency
STRENGTH: Strong

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that smoking is a public nuisance as well as a public health risk,

ASSERTING that the non-smoker has the right to be free of said nuisance and health risk,

NOTING the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke exposes non-smokers to a higher risk for lung cancer, as well as a multitude of other health risks,

DEFINING non smokers as individuals who do not smoke, or can not legally smoke because of age. This also includes unborn children.

DEFINING smoking as a a recreational activity in which a substance, most commonly tobacco, is burnt and the smoke tasted or inhaled.

The United Nations General Assembly does hereby REQUIRE that all member nations

1. Prohibit smoking in all public areas.
a. PUBLIC areas are defined as areas in which any member of the general public has access. This also includes private businesses that sell goods or services to the public.

2. Prohibit expectant mothers from purchasing smoking paraphernalia or smoking.

3. Prohibit smoking in residences in which minors under the age of eighteen (18) are residing.

4. Inform the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

First let me state that Logopia is completely in favor of taking measures to protect non smokers from second hand smoke. That said, I'm not sure this proposal is the best way to go about it; at least not in it's current form.

Allow me to elaborate:

1. Prohibit smoking in all public areas.
The wording of this clause would include areas such as streets and other "open" places in which I really can't see a reason to ban smoking.

I am also not entirely comfortable with this clause for the negative effect it would have on the profits of bars, clubs, restaurants and similar bussinesses. Non smokers definitely have the right not to be exposed to smoke, but smokers have rights too. We find this clause too restrictive. We would be much more conmfortable simply requiring properly ventilated and exclusive areas for smoking. We would support an outright ban in certain but not all public places, such as schools, day-care centers, hospitals.

2. Prohibit expectant mothers from purchasing smoking paraphernalia or smoking.
While I heartly agree in that expectant mothers should be discouraged from smoking, I sincerely doubt preventing them from buying cigarretes, cigars, etc., would be an effective way to do so.

3. Prohibit smoking in residences in which minors under the age of eighteen (18) are residing.
Many nations in the UN are actually not human, nor age at the same pace as humans. I am certain that specifying the age of 18 will find several objections.

On a diferent note, I am almost certain many nations will question if this is an issue worthy of UN intervention. It could be argued that this is not an international issue, and that as such, the UN would have no business legislating about it.

Finally, I would recommend arguing against smoking not only from a health perspective but also from the ecnomic side. The increased costs of healthcare and health insurance should definitely be considered when addressing the issue of smoking.

I have to agree with Logopia on the matter. I don't believe the UN can rightfully interfere with smoking habits of citizens. I also agree with the statements about clauses 2 and 3, that if this should reach the floor, they would need to be removed. I will gladly support if need be.

This is most definitely something which should be decided at local levels and international laws are hardly necessary in this matter, particularly ones so specific and intrusive into the daily lives of average citizens. A proposal of this nature simply is not worth the consideration of the United Nations.

CATEGORY: Moral Decency
STRENGTH: StrongThe category looks good, but the strength doesn't. You're making some hefty changes, but to a very narrow area of application.

ASSERTING that the non-smoker has the right to be free of said nuisance and health riskPersonally, I would question that, but I take a narrow view of what is and isn't a right.

NOTING the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke exposes non-smokers to a higher risk for lung cancer, as well as a multitude of other health risksThis sort of thing works better with softer language.

DEFINING non smokers as individuals who do not smoke, or can not legally smoke because of age.So an underage person who smokes 10 packs a day is a nonsmoker? This clause is unnecessary.

This also includes unborn children.Walkin' into a mine field here...

DEFINING smoking as a a recreational activity in which a substance, most commonly tobacco, is burnt and the smoke tasted or inhaled.Unnecessary. We all know what smoking is.

a. PUBLIC areas are defined as areas in which any member of the general public has access. This also includes private businesses that sell goods or services to the public.As mentioned above, this is a very broad definition. The middle of the Gobi Desert is a place where anybody has access, but I doubt I'll run into many non-smokers. Also, it's a little weird to include private businesses with public places.

Then again, that's a gripe I have about real laws like this...

NOTING the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke exposes non-smokers to a higher risk for lung cancer, as well as a multitude of other health risks,

This statement implies that every nation has done research on this and reached the same conclusion. It really verges on a RL reference IMO.
Speaking for the Government of Sturmholm,our scientific community has found no such link.

1. Prohibit smoking in all public areas.

I would clarify this part. Currently this bans smoking outdoors



We also feel that this is a matter best left to individual nations. I hate to drag out the old "Nat Sov" arguement but this sort of thing belongs within an individual nations scope of legislation.

The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm will gladly support the proposal as soon as a few matters are dealt with and those are:

- specifying the "public areas"
- deleting the point about age, as the age barrier in our nation should be put much higher

We are looking forward to seeing the new version of Your proposal.


SIGNED: The Grand Duke of Elven Realm

The Ambassador notes the concerns of his colleagues. Should the proposal fail to garner enough support, it will be revised to reflect the concerns of his colleagues.

We also feel that this is a matter best left to individual nations.
I don't even think it belongs at that level. Hell, I don't think it belongs at the LOCAL level.
The idiotic local Health Board passed a regulation banning smoking in private homes if you employed anyone, ever. So if you get the babysitter in once a month, or have somebody do some cleaning, you can't smoke in your own home even when they're not there. Needless to say, it's widely ignored and probably removed by now.
If you want to create segregated areas where smokers can puff away without disturbing others, fine. If you want to limit it to a painted square in the middle of a field ten miles from the nearest town ... well, screw ya, buddy. Expect some smoke blown in your face next time we meet.

But smoking is good! It helps weight loss, prevents sore throats, makes men stronger, women sexier, spaniels waggier, and children taller. Passive smoking is natures way of telling you that you need to start smoking.

This has been a public service announcement from the Cobdenian Board of Health.
Sponsored by Player's Senior Service - the smooth smoke preferred by Sailors (TM)

"The Great Commonwealth will ignore this issue on the grounds that we consider it irrelevant."

We would not be inclined towards an anti-smoking measure such as this. While our scientific findings do endorse the Knoxvillistani statments, it is our opinion that bans such as this are rarely effective. Indeed, history tends to show such bans being actively counter-productive, adding a mystique to the banned substance that attracts the young and impressionable rather than repelling them. If you wish to discourage smoking, we would recommend instead a sustained educational campaign advising the public of the dangers of smoking, and applying social pressures (simply put, basic politeness) to reduce the incidence of passive smoking.

OOC: Smokers are national benefactors who voluntarily lay down their lives for the rest of us; ne'er should smoking be restricted! :D

So sayeth Sir Humphrey Appleby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1hXmuf_uo&eurl=http://fb.ilike.com/facebook/artist/Yes+Prime+Minister/song_frame?thumb=http%3A%252F%252Fimg.youtube.com%252Fv).

OOC: Smokers are national benefactors who voluntarily lay down their lives for the rest of us; ne'er should smoking be restricted! :D

So sayeth Sir Humphrey Appleby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1hXmuf_uo&eurl=http://fb.ilike.com/facebook/artist/Yes+Prime+Minister/song_frame?thumb=http%3A%252F%252Fimg.youtube.com%252Fv).

OoC: What's scary is that that is pretty much true; smoking is incredibly beneficial to the British economy.

ASSERTING that the non-smoker has the right to be free of said nuisance and health risk,.Drop the word "smoker" add any word and this is where this will lead to a rush to see who can ban or limit just about anything that they don't like. As it is good to try and protect those who may choose not to do something but you must not forget others have rights to and in most cases that right includes, smoking, drinking, driving, eating meat, eating chocolate, rubbing noses or other body parts, or about anything somebody might want to come along and ban or limit folks doing it because some don't like it or feel it does some harm to them.

It would be easier to find a safe tobacco product that harms nobody but gives folks the same feeling as they do now than to enforce such a law as no smoking wherever one feels it shouldn't be done. Also a lot cheaper in the long run as those who choose to smoke would use a safer tobacco product thus reduce their health problems due to smoking also.

Still we see this leading to NSUN dealing with all those little things folks don't like because they don't... Look out there goes your large burgers and fries from the local Fast-Food-Joint...

No. Just....no.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

*Trey Dreizehn stands at ease, his pistol at his hip. He holds an unlit cigar tightly between his lips as he looks up to the podium*

Ladies and gentlemen, once again I find myself defending this institution from the predations of members who inhabit a world where only they matter.

Signs are a relatively simple and effective manner in which you can inform a non-smoking public of the existence of such dangers, in both theory and reality.

While I certainly understand that the UN has both the power and ability to regulate the lives of it's member states, one wonders why a collection of nations would be so intent on dictating the actions of each citizen. There is a certain level of regulation which is understandable. I will not however see the tobacco industry suffer at the hands of your resolution. A much weaker version including only item 4, would receive my limited support. Assuming of course we solve world hunger, cure HIV, cure cancer, and truly unite together in peace in the meantime.

I will move onto the fact that in effect, the honorable delegate from Knoxvillistan is saying that as a smoker I am somehow sub-human and deserve less rights as an individual.

*Trey pulls the gun from it's holster and holds it up*

I respectfully ask that he say that to my face.

*Trey pulls the trigger, a spark and then tiny fire issue forth from the end of the "gun". He puts the lighter to his cigar, takes a puff, and blows it out*

If he can stand the smoke that is.

Drop the word "smoker" add any word and this is where this will lead to a rush to see who can ban or limit just about anything that they don't like. As it is good to try and protect those who may choose not to do something but you must not forget others have rights to and in most cases that right includes, smoking, drinking, driving, eating meat, eating chocolate, rubbing noses or other body parts, or about anything somebody might want to come along and ban or limit folks doing it because some don't like it or feel it does some harm to them.

It would be easier to find a safe tobacco product that harms nobody but gives folks the same feeling as they do now than to enforce such a law as no smoking wherever one feels it shouldn't be done. Also a lot cheaper in the long run as those who choose to smoke would use a safer tobacco product thus reduce their health problems due to smoking also.

Still we see this leading to NSUN dealing with all those little things folks don't like because they don't... Look out there goes your large burgers and fries from the local Fast-Food-Joint...

The ambassador must realize that the true spirit of this legislation is not to punish smokers, or any other group, for that matter. The government of my nation only seeks to protect the rights of the nonsmoker. My nation bears no ill will to smokers. To the matter of of all the other cases you list, I only note that driving and drinking affect other individuals. I fail to see how the ambassador draws the distinction between smoking and eating fast food. One clearly affects the health of others, one clearly does not.

*Puffs on his Cigar*

I fail, Delegate, to understand how such concern should extend beyond your own borders. Let each nation decide the smoking issue. Don't do it for them.

*Trey Dreizehn stands at ease, his pistol at his hip. He holds an unlit cigar tightly between his lips as he looks up to the podium*

Ladies and gentlemen, once again I find myself defending this institution from the predations of members who inhabit a world where only they matter.

Signs are a relatively simple and effective manner in which you can inform a non-smoking public of the existence of such dangers, in both theory and reality.

While I certainly understand that the UN has both the power and ability to regulate the lives of it's member states, one wonders why a collection of nations would be so intent on dictating the actions of each citizen. There is a certain level of regulation which is understandable. I will not however see the tobacco industry suffer at the hands of your resolution. A much weaker version including only item 4, would receive my limited support. Assuming of course we solve world hunger, cure HIV, cure cancer, and truly unite together in peace in the meantime.

I will move onto the fact that in effect, the honorable delegate from Knoxvillistan is saying that as a smoker I am somehow sub-human and deserve less rights as an individual.

*Trey pulls the gun from it's holster and holds it up*

I respectfully ask that he say that to my face.

*Trey pulls the trigger, a spark and then tiny fire issue forth from the end of the "gun". He puts the lighter to his cigar, takes a puff, and blows it out*

If he can stand the smoke that is.

Ambassador McCoy stands to speak

I assure my colleague that I do not believe him to be sub-human. Perhaps he would think of his fellow members before he lights up, however. (reaches for inhaler)

*Ambassador McCoy proceeds to have an asthma attack.*

I respectfully ask that my colleague be removed from the floor. For his own safety.

Until such a time as he is able to function in the presence of smoke, he should not be able to return. If he is not able to do so naturally I would suggest Knoxvillistan either appoint a new delegate or provide him with breathing apparatus.

This United Nations can, but should not infringe upon a member nation's right to govern it's own people in whatever way it sees fit. If one makes a choice to enter a smoking car, it's inhabitants should not have to stop smoking to accommodate them unless the nation has expressed that opinion.

*Puffs once more*

While the Dominator of Kalashnivoka feels that this proposal needs review, and definitely in its finer elements needs serious refinement, He feels that this proposal, or something to a similar effect, should be passed.

Of course, by doing so we must take care for the level of intrusion into the rights of the smoker, which is the point in need of most revision. A smoker's rights to smoke in his own vehicle for instance should not be in question, except in cases where the smoker may be transporting children who have no choice but to remain in the vehicle and bear it.

At the same time, a if a non-smoker is waiting at a bus stop which is 'open', but in reality is not well-ventilated, then they should not be forced to be exposed to harmful second-hand smoke. However in the middle of a public park, where the area is completely open, smoking should not be restricted unless its of course a fire hazard. So of course a better definition of open space needs to be found.

I respectfully ask that he say that to my face.

*Trey pulls the trigger, a spark and then tiny fire issue forth from the end of the "gun". He puts the lighter to his cigar, takes a puff, and blows it out*

If he can stand the smoke that is.

Cigarette smoke is inarguably a toxic and harmful substance, and no person should be forced to withstand it. As such...

*Dominator of Kalashnivoka takes out a flamethrower, and aims in in front of himself*

The Dominator of Kalashnivoka will withstand your smoke, if you can withstand his flamethrower.

While the Dominator of Kalashnivoka is almost certain to offend someone with the following outburst, He will still not withhold himself from speaking what he considers to be a truth.

Tobacco smoke has no benefits to the smoker whatsoever. The numbers of people in developed nations that begin smoking after they have reached the legal age is rapidly decreasing, meaning the majority of people who begin smoking are underage and, assumably, do so due to the belief it is "cool". Furthermore, the majority of these people feel trapped by the addiction in later life, when they realise that killing themselves for no good reason isnt as cool as initially thought.

The effects to non-smokers, as well as the costs to the public healthcare system in all our nations is a great price to be paid in the name of purely 'being cool'. As such, while trying not to question the rights of smokers, and excluding those who became addicted in a time when the harmful effects were not known, I hereby declare that addicts of tobacco are stupid for becoming addicted in the first place, and therefore deserve no concessions for making a decision with such costs to a nation that they themselves later regret in the name of 'being cool'.

The Dominator of Kalashnivoka has Spoken!!

This proposal contradicts a resolution that has already been passed and is currently in force, namely the UN Drug Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192): It is therefore illegal, no matter how much support it might gather, and simply can not be voted upon by this assembly.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

Can someone approve of a proposal? I dont know because Im new please help me out. so how do I 'approve' of any proposals?

This proposal contradicts a resolution that has already been passed and is currently in force, namely the UN Drug Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192): It is therefore illegal, no matter how much support it might gather, and simply can not be voted upon by this assembly.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

Beat me to it.

Besides, how am I supposed to tell 93% of my population that they can't smoke in public places? I'd have rioting on my hands. Smoking is one of my nation's proudest traditions.

Can someone approve of a proposal? I dont know because Im new please help me out. so how do I 'approve' of any proposals?

Step 1: become the delegate of your region

... oh, never mind, you're from Gatesville. Gatesville delegates tend to have been created several years ago and have long and honorable careers before achieving the Delegacy.

Step 1: get a time machine and go back to 2003 to create your nation, then run for the Delegacy of Gatesville.

... oh, never mind. You can't alter the past. Everyone knows that.

Step 1: form your own region and get several friends to join the UN too. They endorse you, you become the delegate, and then the approval process is obvious once you visit the proposal queue.


... In short, you need to go back to Step 1, one way or the other.

Can someone approve of a proposal? I dont know because Im new please help me out. so how do I 'approve' of any proposals?

If you mean "approve of" in the sense that you like it and want it to pass, you have to wait until it comes to vote. It works like this:


Someone submits a proposal.
It goes into the approvals queue and, if it's legal, it stays there while ...
Regional delegates vote on whether it should be discussed (that is, they give their approvals).
If it gets enough approvals -- reaches quorum -- it goes into the queue for discussion.
Finally it becomes the AT VOTE resolution. This is where nations who aren't regional delegates can vote as well. You do it by ...


Clicking on United Nations in the left panel of your nation's home page. This takes you to a page that shows you the Resolution At Vote.
Scroll down the page until you see a line that says "Jermatia's position: Undecided", with two clickable links beside it that say Vote For and Vote Against.
Do it do it do it ...

:D
You will prevent your own indigenous population from practicing their rituals using their weeds that they inhale for religious reasons!

People who wish to continue smoking will claim to be in a religion that allows a person to smoke to receive wisdom thereby using a UN right to continue smoking!

Scientists who constantly agree that scientific discoveries change currently held assumptions will have to admit that perhaps a day may come where smoking tobacco is considered healthy for x or y reason.... Look at the history of science in the service of food consumption, when in one decade something was considered unhealthy while in another decade it was re-classified as healthy. Stop using science as a shield or propaganda device to propose a law, be more direct in proposal: "Smoking is a time waster for those who count on an employee's time", "Receiving smoke from a smoker is a form of assault and it should not be tolerated".... those are imperfect suggestions but they do not play with commonly held assumptions which are often erroneous even if the evidence is not immediately apparent.

In other words, this proposal is more rhetoric/sophistry than factual.:p

Nanny does not always know best, my friend. The people of Dashanzi have a long tradition of inhaling the fragrant issue of a lovingly rolled bundle of plant matter. Our rural communities often use local flora as a reward for their elders, as if to say: "Thank you, gentle friend; your long service to village life has not passed unnotice. Put your feet up and take a deep drag of this soothing, healing cheroot." It is a most gentle and sweet tradition.

And you would take this away from us? You po-faced non-smokers with your holier-than-thou attitude; know you not of the benefits of smoking: camaraderie, exquisite sublimity and downright stylishness?

Shame on you.

Maledictions,

You po-faced non-smokers with your holier-than-thou attitude; know you not of the benefits of smoking: camaraderie, exquisite sublimity and downright stylishness?Hard as it is, I have to agree with the hippy here. Keep yer hands off my smokes.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The National Annex has been dealing with this issue literally since the day they were first founded. In all of the years before the National Annex, it was left up to the local governments to decide their stance on the issue. It's moved up to where the National Annex now decided for the entire nation.

However, this issue has not ever and will not ever reach the Subistratica.
This is an issue best left for individual governments to argue over, not the UN.
Besides, the St Edmundan Antarctic ambassador has already pointed out that this proposal is illegal.

Obviously, it does not receive the support of Subistratica.

Good day.

Eros Tatriel
UN Rep. for Subistratica