[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco

[Yodle]

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 ... /wntd/2007


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... nd-cancer/

Large scale university study over ten years show no significant health link to second hand smoke. Typically a way to give way for government to regulate what people do.

The study doesn't cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else's cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease. I called Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute's Screening and Prevention Board, and he said the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed.

"What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great," he said. "While that's good news, it shouldn't stop anyone from saying, "I don't want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking." http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... nd-cancer/

Cancer isn't the only illness that you can get from secondhand smoking...

[Covenstone]

"Regulation of Tobacco" was defeated 9,391 votes to 7,543.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: The person who smokes cigarettes is has the conscience about the risk they are having. There is no need to waste millions in addition to prevention programs.

fixed

The idea that all cigarette smokers know what they're doing to their body is naive. It wasn't until the last few decades that it became widely known in developed countries of its effects. You go to a third world country and everyone smokes and I guarantee they don't know what they're doing to their bodies. You mustn't assume that everyone knows the same as you do.

Giulia Maccini: This is a problem in EDUCATION, and as I mentioned earlier, only awareness programs are enough for the population to know how to choose what they want. Harming companies to produce is not extremely ridiculous but also as a stab in the chest of many nations that only have tobacco as generator of various jobs both in the countryside and in the city.

[Yodle]

Given that I am relatively positive this will get to quorum once again, I would quickly like to outline the changes I made to the resolution. After hearing of everyone's various complaints with the original proposal, I decided to make several major changes that hopefully will convince those originally opposed to vote FOR this time around.

The first change was removing the clause that said this: "Further Mandates that WA Member nations provide health services to citizens who are suffering from the health effects of long-term tobacco usage, as well as vulnerable citizens who are currently addicted to the nicotine in tobacco products."

This clause seemed to be the main source of a lot of people's problems, given that it produced an undue burden on healthcare budgets and seemed somewhat unfair to put the burden of people's life choices (and their consequences) on the shoulders of the state to take care of. Given these comments, I have decided to completely get rid of the clause altogether.

The second major change was the title of the proposal. The original title was "Regulation of Tobacco," which I made the mistake of making it sound like I was regulating the tobacco itself, and not the advertising for the tobacco. Now that I have learned my mistake, I have made the decision to alter the title to "Regulation of Tobacco Advertising," which is a much more accurate representation of what this proposal regulates.

I would like to point out that this resolution, under no circumstances, does NOT ban tobacco products or tobacco. It does not even touch a companies ability to sell these products, all it does is tweaks the packaging of the tobacco product to reflect the health realities of long term usage. ... Hopefully no one writes in here assuming that it bans tobacco, because I've explained far too many times that it doesn't.

Those are the changes, if you have any questions or concerns please let me know, thank you.

[Wallenburg]

You'll need to make a separate thread for this new proposal. If this goes to vote again, it will be a separate resolution, and will need a separate thread for commentary. Please revert the OP to the proposal we saw at vote, and post this as a different thread.

[Frisbeeteria]

You'll need to make a separate thread for this new proposal

Quite correct. We Archive all the [PASSED] and [DEFEATED] proposals. I've already fixed your thread title and un-stickied the thread.

Please revert the OP to the proposal we saw at vote, and post this as a different thread.

^This.

[Dogemony]

In Doge, we trust!

[Yodle]

You'll need to make a separate thread for this new proposal

Quite correct. We Archive all the [PASSED] and [DEFEATED] proposals. I've already fixed your thread title and un-stickied the thread.

Please revert the OP to the proposal we saw at vote, and post this as a different thread.

^This.

Should be completely reverted back, new thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=412500

[Wallenburg]

Quite correct. We Archive all the [PASSED] and [DEFEATED] proposals. I've already fixed your thread title and un-stickied the thread.

^This.

Should be completely reverted back, new thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=412500

Thank you.