[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco Advertising

[Yodle]

Category: Recreational Drugs
Area of Effect: Outlaw
Proposed by: Yodle

Recognizing the damaging long term health effects that all forms of tobacco use can have on the body, including, but not limited to, cancers in almost all parts of the body, respiratory disorders and complications, cardiovascular disorders and complications, lower life expectancy and a wide range of other harmful effects;

Acknowledging that many individuals who suffer health effects from tobacco use may not be aware of the health risks, or may simply be too addicted to the nicotine inside the tobacco product to stop;

Concerned by the severe lack of legislation regarding this pressing matter;

Believing that this is both a global and national health issue, given the widespread use and availability of cigarettes and other tobacco products in almost every nation.

Hereby:

Defines “Tobacco Products”, as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for consumption, including any component, or part of a tobacco product. This includes, among other products, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. Nicotine extracted from tobacco plants (or related species) falls under this definition, unless it can be shown that the health and addictive effects commonly caused by tobacco products are not also caused by the isolated nicotine extract.

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.

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).

[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.

[Willania Imperium]

I'm willing to vote for it. It has a good argument, good reasons, and a sensible way to handle it. You got my vote.

[The Hundred Worlds]

What exactly do you have in mind by "tobacco products that are safe for consumers"?

I would be all for this bill based on the mandate alone, but with a minor change: why not create an international board to determine exactly what the health effects and addictive risks different tobacco products have? That way, all warnings will be the same and no country will be able to avoid labeling their products.

As it is, "tobacco companies" is not well defined, and governments that don't wish to obey this law can simply avoid it by requiring the simplest, least scientific and least-harmful-to-business warnings on their packaging.

I'm glad to see the healthcare paragraph go. I think if you removed the last paragraph and focused more on how to implement a universal system to make companies put warnings on their products, that would be a great resolution!

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this could have benefited from a full retrofit, given the opportunity for additional drafting. It's a shame that opportunity wasn't taken.

I don't believe the category is correct. Health | Healthcare might have been better as there isn't any prohibition on tobacco.

[Wallenburg]

I don't believe the category is correct. Health | Healthcare might have been better as there isn't any prohibition on tobacco.

OOC: Given that even the author stresses that "all it does is tweaks the packaging of the tobacco product to reflect the health realities of long term usage"--which definitely belongs under the health category--that could be grounds for a legality challenge.

Since this new version does next to nothing, I will vote against it.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: I don't believe the category is correct. Health | Healthcare might have been better as there isn't any prohibition on tobacco.

OOC: Does that mean that the GenSec will take the issue under consideration without the need of a Legality Challenge?

[Ponyi Meridia]

No offense to the author: While I certainly agree there should be regulations on tobacco advertising, this particular resolution looks quite rushed. Although it is suppose to be short given its nature, the idea doesn't seem to suggest exactly how this resolution will be enforced. Sure it "mandates and requires," but what if the WA nations don't comply? Who will enforce this bill?

I just feel that even a resolution small as this should be given a lot more time being worked on in drafts as opposed to submitted after very few posts relating to its thread. As it stands this is a very flawed an ineffective bill, and I hope the author will realize what is wrong and submit a future resolution which reviews and handles their own debate more carefully. Until then I have to oppose this, and good luck to the author on a better piece in the future.

[Wallenburg]

No offense to the author: While I certainly agree there should be regulations on tobacco advertising, this particular resolution looks quite rushed. Although it is suppose to be short given its nature, the idea doesn't seem to suggest exactly how this resolution will be enforced. Sure it "mandates and requires," but what if the WA nations don't comply? Who will enforce this bill?

IC: "Compliance is mandatory. World Assembly gnomes make sure member states comply. The means they use to achieve this goal are nebulous, but they work rather well."

OOC: You are technically allowed not to comply with WA resolutions, but regular GA players usually tell violators flaunting such noncompliance to screw off to a different forum.

[Europe and Oceania]

We oppose this piece of totalitarianism.

I'm a Liberal Socialist, Social Libertarian, Cynic, Pessimsit, Nihilist, and Agnostic-Atheist

[Wallenburg]

We oppose this piece of totalitarianism.

"Today I learned that putting health risk information on tobacco products is totalitarianism."

[Yodle]

Honestly, I've pretty much given up on this resolution. Perhaps one day in the future I will redraft it into something more acceptable, but for now I've had way too many people telegram me saying that they disagree with it because it "outlaws tobacco." It does not, and if there was an option under Recreational Drug Use that said "Regulate," it would be under that. Actually I am not completely sure why it was never added, they have a "legalize," a "promote," and an "outlaw," but no "regulate"? Beats me.. the thing is, if I put it under "Health/Healthcare," people would just as equally call for a legality challenge since it does not promote healthcare or increase its funding. There is no acceptable category for regulating an industry's marketing/advertising...

Anyways, comment your concerns and suggestions, I will get back to them sometime in the future when I revisit this.

[New Democratic Spain]

I would vote for a law to allow the consumption of drugs with the regulation by experts of the effect caused by such drugs to avoid addiction and in the case of withdrawal syndrome treat it (although this would fall into a global database for, in case of mistakenly generating addiction in Someone or to avoid this error, control the amount consumed by each person from time to time)

[Ponyi Meridia]

We oppose this piece of totalitarianism.

I'm a Liberal Socialist, Social Libertarian, Cynic, Pessimsit, Nihilist, and Agnostic-Atheist

Thank you for introducing yourself and for voicing your opinion on this piece of totalitarianism. I oppose this as well, but for different reasons. What do I know though? I'm a liberal progressive furry who watches MLP and prefers looking on the bright side of life whenever he can and enjoys red velvet cake.

Back on topic: The author shouldn't feel too bad about this: Everybody makes mistakes and I likely would've done worse considering I've never even tried submitting legislation. I genuinely wish them the best of luck on their next WA project.

[Otaku Stratus]

This is positively asinine. Ban tobacco, by all means. There are no safe uses, and no way to use it that doesn't hurt others (and perhaps more importantly, electronics)... but the idea that banning advertising will somehow help strongly implies that people aren't responsible for their actions and choices.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I don't believe the category is correct. Health | Healthcare might have been better as there isn't any prohibition on tobacco.

OOC: Does that mean that the GenSec will take the issue under consideration without the need of a Legality Challenge?

Ooc: it's not a legality challenge thread, so that's so personal opinion. GenSec posts aren't anything but dicta until the greentext comes out.

Besides. We have the proposal page tool that lets us weigh in without a challenge for submitted proposals.

[Separatist Peoples]

Honestly, I've pretty much given up on this resolution. Perhaps one day in the future I will redraft it into something more acceptable, but for now I've had way too many people telegram me saying that they disagree with it because it "outlaws tobacco." It does not, and if there was an option under Recreational Drug Use that said "Regulate," it would be under that. Actually I am not completely sure why it was never added, they have a "legalize," a "promote," and an "outlaw," but no "regulate"? Beats me.. the thing is, if I put it under "Health/Healthcare," people would just as equally call for a legality challenge since it does not promote healthcare or increase its funding. There is no acceptable category for regulating an industry's marketing/advertising...

Anyways, comment your concerns and suggestions, I will get back to them sometime in the future when I revisit this.

Forgive the double post. My phone struggles with multiple quotes. I think your problem will go away with a category change. I wouldn't give up too soon.

[United Massachusetts]

Honestly, I've pretty much given up on this resolution. Perhaps one day in the future I will redraft it into something more acceptable, but for now I've had way too many people telegram me saying that they disagree with it because it "outlaws tobacco." It does not, and if there was an option under Recreational Drug Use that said "Regulate," it would be under that. Actually I am not completely sure why it was never added, they have a "legalize," a "promote," and an "outlaw," but no "regulate"? Beats me.. the thing is, if I put it under "Health/Healthcare," people would just as equally call for a legality challenge since it does not promote healthcare or increase its funding. There is no acceptable category for regulating an industry's marketing/advertising...

Anyways, comment your concerns and suggestions, I will get back to them sometime in the future when I revisit this.

You have my support, good sir

[Covenstone]

We oppose this piece of totalitarianism.

"Today I learned that putting health risk information on tobacco products is totalitarianism."

Free speech, man! If I want to write "These cigarettes will improve your brain power and take you to a magical land run by elves and unicorns" then I believe The WA protects my right to do so

-x-

Holy Goddess, how did this come to vote again so FAST? I really hadn't realised it was already at vote.

[Brittanis]

I agree with this propourse. this is not about freedom. It's about healthy of the people.

[Vitami]

We literally already had this vote, like the pervious one I will have to reject it on the basis that this matter is best left to the national and regional governments not the World assembly

[Yodle]

Holy Goddess, how did this come to vote again so FAST? I really hadn't realised it was already at vote.

Through the power of mass telegrams

[Zorg Wes]

This might be a naïve question from a newcomer, but what if a nation does not have an appropriate regulatory body with the authority to assess the advertising on tobacco products? Furthermore, what constitutes "rigorous testing," or "safe alternative[s]?"

Nicotine extracted from tobacco plants (or related species) falls under this definition, unless it can be shown that the health and addictive effects commonly caused by tobacco products are not also caused by the isolated nicotine extract.

Does this not mean that a nicotine replacement therapy (i.e. the nicotine patch) to wean an addict off would have to be labeled accordingly? The nicotine in such a treatment is being used specifically because it still has the addictive quality, right? As I understand it, the treatment provides a set amount of nicotine, a highly addictive substance, to meet the body's required amount of nicotine to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms. The amount administered is gradually lowered to hopefully adjust the body's need for lower levels of nicotine, until the patient can easily stop taking doses of nicotine altogether. I'm not a doctor, so if I have this wrong, please do correct me. I fear that if there is no difference between labeling these nicotine-based products and labeling other tobacco products, an individual may be dissuaded to avoid treatment for their nicotine addiction in favor of a "cold-turkey" method of quitting, which seems less reliable.

Altogether, this proposal seems to possess several flaws that could be exploited by opportunistic governments or tobacco companies. There are no regulations of the requisite warning aside from its presence. There isn't anything to say that the warning needs to be legible to most literate people in a nation. A company could print it in very small print or in an obscure foreign language and play it off as a decorative choice.

[Athroniak]

I screwed up by using drugs to control the population. My intention was only to control the population. I don't support recreational drug use regardless, its damaging to the workforce and life-expectancy.

[Yodle]

This might be a naïve question from a newcomer, but what if a nation does not have an appropriate regulatory body with the authority to assess the advertising on tobacco products? Furthermore, what constitutes "rigorous testing," or "safe alternative[s]?"

Nicotine extracted from tobacco plants (or related species) falls under this definition, unless it can be shown that the health and addictive effects commonly caused by tobacco products are not also caused by the isolated nicotine extract.

Does this not mean that a nicotine replacement therapy (i.e. the nicotine patch) to wean an addict off would have to be labeled accordingly? The nicotine in such a treatment is being used specifically because it still has the addictive quality, right? As I understand it, the treatment provides a set amount of nicotine, a highly addictive substance, to meet the body's required amount of nicotine to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms. The amount administered is gradually lowered to hopefully adjust the body's need for lower levels of nicotine, until the patient can easily stop taking doses of nicotine altogether. I'm not a doctor, so if I have this wrong, please do correct me. I fear that if there is no difference between labeling these nicotine-based products and labeling other tobacco products, an individual may be dissuaded to avoid treatment for their nicotine addiction in favor of a "cold-turkey" method of quitting, which seems less reliable.

Altogether, this proposal seems to possess several flaws that could be exploited by opportunistic governments or tobacco companies. There are no regulations of the requisite warning aside from its presence. There isn't anything to say that the warning needs to be legible to most literate people in a nation. A company could print it in very small print or in an obscure foreign language and play it off as a decorative choice.

These are all good observations and arguments, I should've went into greater detail on the requirements for the warning labels, what to do when a nation lacks a regulatory body, and making exceptions for products which are made to help wean people off their addiction. I'll be sure to make provisions for all of these if I am to redraft the proposal in the future