[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco

[Kinar Stand]

The reasons I'm voting against this is because of the fact that it requires WA members to give healthcare to the citizens addicted to the product. I'd vote for this if it only had to do with putting warning labels on the product. Everything else feels a little too over controlling and expensive.

[Coaequales]

Good that we're getting around to it though. Unfortunately it seems that at the moment the resolution isn't getting that much support. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this. This is tantamount to any other consumer rights legislation, and the only nations I can see opposing this are ones that don't care about the health, safety, and rights of their populace.

[Covenstone]

What about the government funds if nicotine should be banned. The question is does this GA resolution at vote include a ban of electronic cigarettes with nicotine?

With HPLC and for example flash chromatography a purity of 99,9% is possible. That's safe and this resolution is easy to circumvent by the total organic synthesis of pure enantiomeric nicotine.

Suppose that nicotine is banned then chemists replace a -H atom by another atomic bond and this new substance is maybe even more addictive and/or more dangerous.

The WA is not a place for nuance.

[Nasser El Sonbaty]

The question is: what about electronic cigarettes that might contain synthetic nicotine?

The subject is "banning natural tabacco or natural nicotine extracts."
Legal status of synthetic nicotine: unknown (?)

[Yodle]

The question is: what about electronic cigarettes that might contain synthetic nicotine?

The subject is "banning natural tabacco or natural nicotine extracts."
Legal status of synthetic nicotine: unknown (?)

What are you talking about? I never once mention banning nicotine or tobacco anywhere in my resolution.

[Yodle]

Good that we're getting around to it though. Unfortunately it seems that at the moment the resolution isn't getting that much support. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this. This is tantamount to any other consumer rights legislation, and the only nations I can see opposing this are ones that don't care about the health, safety, and rights of their populace.

I completely agree, I imagine people failed to actually read it and just assumed "Hey he must be banning tobacco! I am against!"

[Tengu Minor]

Or perhaps we read the resolution and view this as a pointless piece of bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is that this will really change nothing. Common citizens are naturally self-destructive in their actions and so must be told what they can and cannot do for their own safety. The only way to accomplish what your going for would be to actually try and ban tobacco products.

[Yodle]

Or perhaps we read the resolution and view this as a pointless piece of bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is that this will really change nothing. Common citizens are naturally self-destructive in their actions and so must be told what they can and cannot do for their own safety. The only way to accomplish what your going for would be to actually try and ban tobacco products.

Everyone has a right to destroy their own body as they wish, so long as they know that they are. The resolution assumes that tobacco companies have been using convincing and malicious advertising (which they do in real life) to make it appear as if their product is somehow safe compared to other tobacco products. It's the right of a consumer to know what they're putting in their body and how it is going to affect them.

[The Greater Libertalian Islands]

Outlined here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=825515

The Greater Libertalian Islands has never been too fond of government intervention when it comes to consumer choice. Allow the people to buy and sell whatever they so wish (be it to the determinant of their health).

Place some faith in your citizens, I'm sure they are all fully aware of the copious amounts of health risks involved in smoking, they just don't care!

[Yodle]

Outlined here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=825515

The Greater Libertalian Islands has never been too fond of government intervention when it comes to consumer choice. Allow the people to buy and sell whatever they so wish (be it to the determinant of their health).

Place some faith in your citizens, I'm sure they are all fully aware of the copious amounts of health risks involved in smoking, they just don't care!

They are allowed to buy and sell whatever they wish, this resolution does not infringe on that ability to do so.

[Samsteinia]

I don't think that any organization should govern one's behavior to such a magnitude. If someone wants to be dumb and smoke, it is likely that they know it is damaging to their body and could lead to death. Also, it is generally accepted that smoking is bad for your health and that you should not participate in such behaviors. The results of the knowing destruction of the your own body though smoking should not be surprising.

[Victornia]

The issue at hand is that no world assembly government entity should dictate to other nations what they can and can not allow their citizens to do. This legislation undermines the sovereignty of the nations.

Furthermore, for the citizenry, it is immoral to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies so long as it doesnt harm another directly.

This resolution should be abhorrently disregarded and voted against as it is anti-sovereign nation, and anti freedom. No matter what the well intented consequences, allowing governmenta of any size to dictate what a peraon does with their body means that the goverment has more of a claim to your body than you do. RESIST!

[Tzorsland]

Wouldn't that outlaw tobacco altogether?

OOC: The "outlaw" doesn't mean literally that, it's just the side of the argument that the proposal falls on. If you want to restrict, regulate or even ban, then it's the outlaw area-of-effect.

OOC: Honestly I'm disappointed that a legality challenge wasn't made. Requiring "warning labels" is not "restrict, regulate or ban" by any stretch of the imagination.
To quote the Gospel of the GA:

Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, "Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms; "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs, "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs. "Promote" will also increase overall Civil Freedoms, but will not push it past the centre.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think this was the reason for the choice of category and strength: viewtopic.php?p=31675793#p31675793

[Furnifold]

Furthermore, for the citizenry, it is immoral to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies so long as it doesn't harm another directly.

OOC: From the World Health Organization:

"Scientific evidence
has firmly established that there is no safe level
of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke
(SHS)…. There is also indisputable evidence that
implementing 100% smoke-free environments
is the only effective way to protect the population
from the harmful effects of exposure to SHS”
Source: http://www.who.int/tobacco/resources/pu ... on_SHS.pdf

IC: Evidence clearly states that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful to all nearby. Therefore, it gets past the above argument, because it is harming another person directly. However, this is all moot, because nowhere in the resolution is it requiring nations to ban smoking. Please, and this is for anyone else reading this comment, make sure your arguments are specific to the text of the resolution.

I don't think that any organization should govern one's behavior to such a magnitude. If someone wants to be dumb and smoke, it is likely that they know it is damaging to their body and could lead to death. Also, it is generally accepted that smoking is bad for your health and that you should not participate in such behaviors. The results of the knowing destruction of the your own body though smoking should not be surprising.

Many people actually don't. There is a huge disparity between people's knowledge of smoking, based on income and education, among other factors. So, even though it may be apparent that there are ramifications to smoking, many people are not aware of how serious they are. And, to counter the "well they should search for it" argument, they have to know to search for information in order to search for information. And how are you going to get them to search? By putting labels on packages indicating there are some warnings they should take note of.

[Felscombe]

Tobacco’s deleterious health effects are not news. Passing this bill would be a public health victory. Defeating it would be genuflecting to an industry whose product hastens people’s deaths while taking their money—literally making them pay their killers to kill them. It would also be grossly unscientific not to pass this bill.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tobacco’s deleterious health effects are not news. Passing this bill would be a public health victory. Defeating it would be genuflecting to an industry whose product hastens people’s deaths while taking their money—literally making them pay their killers to kill them. It would also be grossly unscientific not to pass this bill.

OOC: What do you believe this resolution does?

[Bakhton]

"We stand in favor!"

[Ru-]

The reasons I'm voting against this is because of the fact that it requires WA members to give healthcare to the citizens addicted to the product. I'd vote for this if it only had to do with putting warning labels on the product. Everything else feels a little too over controlling and expensive.

These are our exact thoughts. Ru was fully ready to vote "For" until we read that section. We do not feel it is practical, and that the resolution's author overreaches by adding that further mandate in. A pity. Against.

If another resolution was written that only required WA nations to put health warning labels on tobacco products we would likely find little reason not to support it. We feel as though that would just be good common sense.

[Cowwgirl]

We VOTE FOR this resolution.

It's not about banning anything.

Labelling is positive for the public health care and smokers think twice
Tobacco have no benefits
Quality control will increase safety so that heavy metals (some are radioactive) aren't inhaled


Any feedback ?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is all already done?

[Templar Republic]

1.

Mandates that WA Members task their appropriate regulatory bodies to require tobacco companies to put warning labels on all tobacco products sold in the nation which inform consumers of potential health and addiction risks.

Our Nation support this point.

2.

Further Mandates that WA Members provide easy access to affordable health services for citizens who are suffering from the health effects of long-term tobacco usage, as well as for vulnerable citizens who are currently suffering from addiction to tobacco products.

It's going to far for a resolution about recreational drug use. For us, it must be limited to mandate providing access to anti-addiction centers.

3.

Requires that WA Members task their appropriate regulatory bodies to guarantee that all future tobacco products claiming to be safe for consumers undergo rigorous testing proving the claim before they can go on the market with that advertising. If proven to be a safe alternative to current tobacco products, the product can qualify for a health/addiction risk labeling waiver. Tobacco companies may retroactively appeal for a health/addiction risk labeling waiver for tobacco product(s) that were in existence prior to the passage of this resolution, but only if it can be proven that no harm to consumers is caused by the tobacco product(s).

That's a nonsense and heavy bureaucracy : none Tobacco product can claim to be safe for consumers. Some could eventually be "safer" but not "safe".

4. So our nation will not support this resolution.

[Little Tralfamadore]

Good that we're getting around to it though. Unfortunately it seems that at the moment the resolution isn't getting that much support. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this. This is tantamount to any other consumer rights legislation, and the only nations I can see opposing this are ones that don't care about the health, safety, and rights of their populace.

adding a warning label will not prevent a single person from using tobacco.

That would just make the resolution silly. The problem is that it mandates "easy" access to "affordable" health care.

So we're supposed to warn them about dangers they already know about. We then tell tobacco users that while there are health risks, we'll pay for any healthcare you need due to those risks.

Also the cost of providing the care would be excessive for many of the WA members. Since you are so concerned about the need of this resolution would you be willing to pay the costs for other members? Of course not.

[Covenstone]

Tobacco has been known to be harmful for decades. Most countries have known it will kill you for more than half a century. And yet people still smoke it. Putting giant messages on it that say "THIS WILL KILL YOU" is not going to change anything.

Either ban it completely or leave the hell alone. Because this proposal is a half-arsed measure that will do nothing to affect anything.

[Yodle]

Good that we're getting around to it though. Unfortunately it seems that at the moment the resolution isn't getting that much support. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this. This is tantamount to any other consumer rights legislation, and the only nations I can see opposing this are ones that don't care about the health, safety, and rights of their populace.

adding a warning label will not prevent a single person from using tobacco.

That would just make the resolution silly. The problem is that it mandates "easy" access to "affordable" health care.

So we're supposed to warn them about dangers they already know about. We then tell tobacco users that while there are health risks, we'll pay for any healthcare you need due to those risks.

Also the cost of providing the care would be excessive for many of the WA members. Since you are so concerned about the need of this resolution would you be willing to pay the costs for other members? Of course not.

The point of the proposal isn't to try and stop people who know what they're doing, it's to stop people who have genuine misconceptions about tobacco. Also, mandating access to healthcare is not the same as mandating healthcare... the effects of tobacco take decades to show up, this isn't as simple as you put it. The idea is, the people who have already been smoking for decades may have misconceptions about the product due to clever, convincing marketing by tobacco companies. You're better off paying for their healthcare now before they get cancer, because their healthcare costs will skyrocket once that happens. The more people who can treated before their poor decisions catch up to them, the less of a strain there will be on your healthcare system.