NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[Corenea]

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I would advise the senator to watch his language and conduct the appropriate decorum in this chamber...

The door for non NSG Senators is that way ------------------------------>

[Lamaredia]

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I would advise the senator to watch his language and conduct the appropriate decorum in this chamber...

You aren't even part of the senate...

Also, overruled on my authority as the secretary.

[New Bierstaat]

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I would advise the senator to watch his language and conduct the appropriate decorum in this chamber...

I'd like to point you in the direction of the application thread...

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=244924

[Elemental North]

I am a member of this senate Secretary...

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I am a member of this senate Secretary...

I don't believe you are, I can't find an application anywhere.

[Ainin]

I am a member of this senate Secretary...

You're not.

-Senate Admin

[Elemental North]

I am here in place of Sengrial...

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I am here in place of Sengrial...

Then please switch to that account or mention it in your posts.

[Lamaredia]

I am here in place of Sengrial...

Can you prove this?

[Geilinor]

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I just found it humorous that that many people die from sun-based power.

Rooftop solar installations combine roofing, carpentry, and electrical work, some of the most dangerous jobs. http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/08/worker-injuries-deaths-mount-amid-boom-in-wind-solar-energy-projects/

[Elemental North]

I am here in place of Sengrial...

Then please switch to that account or mention it in your posts.

yes sir...

[Regnum Dominae]

I just found it humorous that that many people die from sun-based power.

Rooftop solar installations combine roofing, carpentry, and electrical work, some of the most dangerous jobs. http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/08/worker-injuries-deaths-mount-amid-boom-in-wind-solar-energy-projects/

Anyway, here are the deaths per twh stats.http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... e.html?m=1

[The Nihilistic view]

I would advise the senator to watch his language and conduct the appropriate decorum in this chamber...

The door for non NSG Senators is that way ------------------------------>

Oi you, copying my signpost

[Corenea]

The door for non NSG Senators is that way ------------------------------>

Oi you, copying my signpost

We should use this signpost whenever a non-NSG Senator shows up

[The Nihilistic view]

No. Everyone else likes it this way. Stop whining, and stop trying to make the senate more dull.

No Senator, I just think there is a time and place for everything. Something you clearly don't understand.

Rather like your current actions senator. If you want a "yes it is no it isn't" argument go to the lobby and do it please. The Chamber is not a panto even if it is the season for it. This is not the time or the place for arrogantly dismissing the views of others.

If on the other hand you have actual evidence behind your view please provide it as RD has already asked then maybe we can have a constructive debate about the issue rather than a panto. Oh and i'm not behind you.

[Skeckoa]

I would like to add this to the queue please under ORDER.

First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act

Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP), Robert Sovcan (ND), Spénser de Troyye (Ind), Eileen Pope-Langley (ALM); Category: Order; Urgency: Low

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith

to be null and void.

Code: Select all

[box][u][b][size=150][align=center]First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act[/align][/size][/b][/u]
[size=85] Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP), Robert Sovcan (ND), Spénser de Troyye (Ind), Eileen Pope-Langley (ALM); Category: Order; Urgency: Low[/size]

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

[i]Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith[/i]

to be null and void.[/box]

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

I would like to add this to the queue please under ORDER.

First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act

Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith

to be null and void.

Code: Select all

[box][u][b][size=150][align=center]First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act[/align][/size][/b][/u]
[size=85] Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low[/size]

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

[i]Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith[/i]

to be null and void.[/box]

Done.
~ Secretary of the Senate

[Aragon-Francho]

I would like to add this to the queue please under ORDER.

First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act

Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith

to be null and void.

Code: Select all

[box][u][b][size=150][align=center]First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act[/align][/size][/b][/u]
[size=85] Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low[/size]

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

[i]Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith[/i]

to be null and void.[/box]

Shut up and take my sponsor!

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I would like to add this to the queue please under ORDER.

First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act

Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith

to be null and void.

Code: Select all

[box][u][b][size=150][align=center]First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act[/align][/size][/b][/u]
[size=85] Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low[/size]

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

[i]Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith[/i]

to be null and void.[/box]

Will sponsor, actually. Never saw that you were trying to null that point.

[The Saint James Islands]

I would like to add this to the queue please under ORDER.

First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act

Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith

to be null and void.

Code: Select all

[box][u][b][size=150][align=center]First Amendment of the Name Control and Registration Act[/align][/size][/b][/u]
[size=85] Author: Benito Calvino(LPA) Sponsors: Jan Stuaart(LPA), Jen Coren (RefP), James Lu (ALM) John Hawthorne (IP); Category: Order; Urgency: Low[/size]

•Believing that a number of valid names are unfairly deemed illegal by the Name Control and Registration Act, The Senate of Aurentina shall consider "Section 2, Part 1, Phrase e" of the Name Control and Registration Act, which currently reads:

[i]Section II - Prohibited Names
1: All names that are deemed fall under the following categories are not deemed legal and will be required to be changed upon the registration of the birth.
e) Legally Valid Prefixes (e.g/Doctor Jones, Second Lieutenant Smith[/i]

to be null and void.[/box]

Will sponsor, actually. Never saw that you were trying to null that point.

As I would like to do as well.

[The Nihilistic view]

These are the bills currently up for debate.


Section B:
- Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) Act
- Vaccination Act
- Compulsory Vaccinations Act

[Resora]

The Alcohol Act is designed the punish the poor for being poor -- allowing them access to a substance that makes their circumstances somewhat more bearable, then jacking up the price to ensure they have even less income for creature comforts. The increased prices will not harm the wealthy -- just the downtrodden. The Ministry of Health will inevitably have to take the quality of the alcohol into question when setting the MSU, which means the increased cost of alcoholic beverages will drive the poor to lower-grade, riskier spirits, as poverty has done in countries like Russia.

It won't discourage drinking. It'll just make the poor poorer and force them to consume lower-grade substances for the same price.

Fuck that bourgeois moralism.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

The Alcohol Act is designed the punish the poor for being poor -- allowing them access to a substance that makes their circumstances somewhat more bearable, then jacking up the price to ensure they have even less income for creature comforts. The increased prices will not harm the wealthy -- just the downtrodden. The Ministry of Health will inevitably have to take the quality of the alcohol into question when setting the MSU, which means the increased cost of alcoholic beverages will drive the poor to lower-grade, riskier spirits, as poverty has done in countries like Russia.

It won't discourage drinking. It'll just make the poor poorer and force them to consume lower-grade substances for the same price.

Fuck that bourgeois moralism.

The act is in no way trying to punish the poor, it's trying to get them off of the alcohol and help them. With higher prices, it discourages getting addicted to alcohol and allows them to better spend their money. This act also guarantees more taxes for the government to start programs to alleviate poverty and alcoholism and to prevent the problems that come with those issues such as for the recently passed Treatment of Drug Users Act which would treat victims of alcoholism. The government shouldn't be allowing the poor to use alcohol as something of a necessity that creates more problems. Also, the poor won't have to turn to dangerous alcohol, all alcohol that's legally sold in Aurentina will be safe and of good quality for human consumption.

[Resora]

The Alcohol Act is designed the punish the poor for being poor -- allowing them access to a substance that makes their circumstances somewhat more bearable, then jacking up the price to ensure they have even less income for creature comforts. The increased prices will not harm the wealthy -- just the downtrodden. The Ministry of Health will inevitably have to take the quality of the alcohol into question when setting the MSU, which means the increased cost of alcoholic beverages will drive the poor to lower-grade, riskier spirits, as poverty has done in countries like Russia.

It won't discourage drinking. It'll just make the poor poorer and force them to consume lower-grade substances for the same price.

Fuck that bourgeois moralism.

The act is in no way trying to punish the poor, it's trying to get them off of the alcohol and help them. (1) With higher prices, it discourages getting addicted to alcohol and allows them to better spend their money. (2) This act also guarantees more taxes for the government to start programs to alleviate poverty and alcoholism and to prevent the problems that come with those issues such as for the recently passed Treatment of Drug Users Act which would treat victims of alcoholism. (3) The government shouldn't be allowing the poor to use alcohol as something of a necessity that creates more problems. (4) Also, the poor won't have to turn to dangerous alcohol, all alcohol that's legally sold in Aurentina will be safe and of good quality for human consumption.

(1) That doesn't happen -- if it did, poor people would consume less illicit drugs than the wealthy, as they can less afford them. As you well know, the inverse is true; the downtrodden use drugs as escapism from the dehumanizing nature of poverty despite the fact that drugs are much harder for them to afford.

(2) No, it guarantees more taxes. Period. In a highly regressive way that harms poor drinkers far more than wealthy drinkers. There is nothing in this act that introduces an anti-alcoholism program and, because it is regressive, it actually worsens poverty.

(3) Taking more income from the poor will not help the poor, and banning the symptoms of poverty doesn't address poverty.

(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20636660 Most low-grade alcohols, despite being "safe", contain higher levels of toxic chemicals - generally speaking, the more you spend on your booze, the healthier the booze is for you. This compounds that problem by further prohibiting the poor from buying higher-grade alcohols. In addition, it drives the worst-off, those who suffer from alcoholism, towards illicit sources of alcohol (again, the current epidemic of deaths from poor alcoholics drinking perfumes in Russia comes to mind).

In short, it's (a) a regressive tax, (b) does nothing to address the social causes of substance abuse, (c) increases health risks for the poor.

[Britanno]

The Alcohol Act is designed the punish the poor for being poor -- allowing them access to a substance that makes their circumstances somewhat more bearable, then jacking up the price to ensure they have even less income for creature comforts. The increased prices will not harm the wealthy -- just the downtrodden. The Ministry of Health will inevitably have to take the quality of the alcohol into question when setting the MSU, which means the increased cost of alcoholic beverages will drive the poor to lower-grade, riskier spirits, as poverty has done in countries like Russia.

It won't discourage drinking. It'll just make the poor poorer and force them to consume lower-grade substances for the same price.

Fuck that bourgeois moralism.

Let me provide you with some figures in Britain.

Around half of violent crime including homicide and domestic violence is attributable to or aggravated by alcohol and over 700,000 children live with an alcoholic parent. Britain's casualty departments are overflowing and over a million people are admitted to hospital annually as a result.

Now, I am not blaming those who's' situations are so bad that they turn to alcohol for what they are doing, I respect them greatly for what they go through. Now, people don't just turn to alcohol straight away, many have mental debates against themselves, weighing out the advantages and disadvantages of what they will do. With the possibility of higher costs, they will become less tempted to take the easy option

As well as this, the bill tackles another problem: young people who want to get as drunk as possible because it entertains them. However, they will only have a certain amount they can spend, a figure most likely set by their parents. If they can buy less alcohol with the money they have, then they will consume less alcohol, thus reducing the chances of alcohol related health issues.