[PASSED] On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes

[Furry Things]

We're definitely in favor of this. While some may argue that it violates rights to free speech, slander and libel laws are both limits to free speech. Just as we would not allow prescription medications to claim benefits they did not have or hide side effects, it's important to do the same with nicotine.

[Araraukar]

IC: "As long as we can keep tobacco completely banned within Araraukar, we have no problem voting for."

OOC: Because SP is intent on passing even more IntSec resolutions and I don't want those stat effects on Araraukar, my actual vote will be given on WAKK. Araraukar is still in IC in the WA.

[Rat Piss]

"Just glancing at the title had me worried it'd be heavy handed, but everything here seems to be fair an reasonable enough. We'll support."

[Macsenoedd]

We Are Against This Proposal Because It Would Require The Funds Of Our Government Be Diverted To Something We Do Not See As Requiring Additional Funds. Other Than That, We Are All For This Proposal. If I Have Misinterpreted This, Please Inform Me As Quickly As Possible, And I Will Change Our Vote. ~ Gaius Ap Llewellyn, Macsenoedd's Delegate To The World Assembly.

[Gudmund]

(slightly gross links warning)
OOC: 100% in favor of this, IRL Australia already uses Plain Tobacco Packaging for Aus cig packets (Image). It's very simple and cheap to implement. The packaging greatly lowers the chances of people purchasing cigarettes, yet still give people the choice of buying them anyway. E-Cigs might prolong the smokers habit, but at least you can get nicotine free ones which significantly lower potential damages to users' health. It reminds me of how alcohol is technically a poison/toxin, yet is generally accepted worldwide; except in this case, tobacco/nicotine is literally full of poisonous chemicals and does nothing but give people addictions and health problems.

[Borovan3]

We Are Against This Proposal Because It Would Require The Funds Of Our Government Be Diverted To Something We Do Not See As Requiring Additional Funds. Other Than That, We Are All For This Proposal. If I Have Misinterpreted This, Please Inform Me As Quickly As Possible, And I Will Change Our Vote. ~ Gaius Ap Llewellyn, Macsenoedd's Delegate To The World Assembly.

This is exactly what we have in mind. We we do not like to spend extra money on ad campaigns especially if it eats up space in TV and obscuring public places but we will comply with at the bare minimum smoking is a problem and this will go

[Bona Fidia]

"2. All products that contain tobacco must state, “This product is known to the World Assembly to cause several types of cancer and other long term, serious health problems. If you are currently pregnant, smoking is known to cause birth defects.” This warning must take up at least 33% of the packaging of the product."[/Blocktext][/Blocktext]

While I agree regarding the "other long term, serious health problems", I would be very interested in seeing the empirical evidence that smoking tobacco products, alone, causes cancer in those without a family history of cancer. Not heuristic evidence, empirical. IRL the leading cause of lung cancer at this point turns out to be air pollution...

Essentially the problem is the phrase "is known". Known by whom? Empirical evidence or it's a fabrication.

[Cosmosplosion]

We Are Against This Proposal Because It Would Require The Funds Of Our Government Be Diverted To Something We Do Not See As Requiring Additional Funds. Other Than That, We Are All For This Proposal. If I Have Misinterpreted This, Please Inform Me As Quickly As Possible, And I Will Change Our Vote. ~ Gaius Ap Llewellyn, Macsenoedd's Delegate To The World Assembly.

This is exactly what we have in mind. We we do not like to spend extra money on ad campaigns especially if it eats up space in TV and obscuring public places but we will comply with at the bare minimum smoking is a problem and this will go

OOC: The information campaign can include things like pictures and detailed descriptions. That would go nicely on the front of a cigarette box - thus making your nation compliant.

[Cosmosplosion]

"2. All products that contain tobacco must state, “This product is known to the World Assembly to cause several types of cancer and other long term, serious health problems. If you are currently pregnant, smoking is known to cause birth defects.” This warning must take up at least 33% of the packaging of the product."[/Blocktext][/Blocktext]

While I agree regarding the "other long term, serious health problems", I would be very interested in seeing the empirical evidence that smoking tobacco products, alone, causes cancer in those without a family history of cancer. Not heuristic evidence, empirical. IRL the leading cause of lung cancer at this point turns out to be air pollution...

Essentially the problem is the phrase "is known". Known by whom? Empirical evidence or it's a fabrication.

OOC: The study I am circulating as part of this proposal, offering an insight into the IRL effects of cigarettes versus vaping, is this one, which demonstrates vaping is 95% safer than its tobacco alternative. While that does not directly answer your concern, and further IRL evidence isn't really even a factor here, it's something to consider.

[Cloud Company of Badassia]

I object to the mandatory requirement “... that member nations educate all residents on the long term effects of tobacco use, by funding informational campaigns, targeted at both minor and adult smokers, encouraging them to quit smoking or to replace tobacco products with electronic cigarettes or related products, while also funding informational campaigns targeted at non-smokers, using pictures, detailed descriptions, and/or other forms of media to demonstrate the negative effects associated with tobacco product usage.” The Cloud Company of Badassia does not regulate buisnesses and while we are willing to compromise by forcing warning labels, what is essentially a government ad campaign against an industry can not be tolerated. We would approve this motion if this section was changed to optional.

[Groot]

“I am Groot,” says Groot, as he holds two hookahs in front of him, one with opium, and one with cannibis. He awaits the author’s reply.

"The intent remains the same - hookah pipes are designed for tobacco use...."

Groot shakes his head. “I am Groot,” he says, pointing out that the cannibis hookah, with its earthy green motif, was clearly designed for cannabis use and not tobacco. He rereads the preamble of the proposal, and wonders if his nation could comply with the law in good faith if it were to require such labeling only on hookahs that are sold in conjunction with a tobacco product, and not on hookahs that are sold empty, or sold with other products. “I am Groot,” he says, withholding his vote until he can get a clarification from the author, or perhaps an opinion from another delegation.

[The Sect Meces]

"While we're abit iffy on plastering the World Assembly on our cigarette packages, no less we support this proposal, after all a more healthy populace is a productive populace."

[The New Nordic Union]

'Even though the proposed resolution contains some minor inconsistencies and drafting errors, it is still concise and clear enough in its intent and meaning. The fight against addiction and illness is an important one, and we applaud the General Assembly for their interest in taking up this fight.

Furthermore, the proposal simply reiterates legislation already in place in the Nordic Union, and thus adds no further mandates to our Government and Legislature.

Therefore, the Nordic Union is in favour of the proposal and votes For.'

[Kenmoria]

"The intent remains the same - hookah pipes are designed for tobacco use...."

Groot shakes his head. “I am Groot,” he says, pointing out that the cannibis hookah, with its earthy green motif, was clearly designed for cannabis use and not tobacco. He rereads the preamble of the proposal, and wonders if his nation could comply with the law in good faith if it were to require such labeling only on hookahs that are sold in conjunction with a tobacco product, and not on hookahs that are sold empty, or sold with other products. “I am Groot,” he says, withholding his vote until he can get a clarification from the author, or perhaps an opinion from another delegation.

“The first clause defines tobacco products as a product containing tobacco, and lists some examples, one of which is a hookah. However, the clause mandating advertising against tobacco to be implemented refers back to the definition of tobacco product, which centres around the idea of containing tobacco. It would be as if I said, ‘Defines a Ministerial Car as the many cars the Prime Minister drives in, such as minis’. Although a mini could be a ministerial car, it is only one if the Prime Minister drives in it.

On another note, I of course oppose this proposal for trampling upon the rights of businesses to do as they please. This is one of the few times I am glad Kenmoria is not in the World Assembly.”

[Bears Armed Mission]

"We have voted against this proposed resolution.
"Apart from any doubts about whether this is truly a matter appropriate for international legislation, there is the simple fact that smoking tobacco has never been more than a verrry rare practice among urrs anyhows -- partly because most of urrs find the smell of stale tobacco smoke lingering on people's fur distinctly unpleasant -- and so the required public information campaigns would be a waste of money."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Slackertown]

Should be an outright ban. Or at the very least, add a recommendation for these products to be banned.

As it stands I cannot support a resolution involving tobacco that doesn't stop corporations profiting off of people's deaths.

[Vaxian Imperium]

“As Emperor Of Vaxia, I agree with the proposal to increase regulation and awareness campaigns as the plague of tobacco is spreading among our more impoverished citizens and only increasing their plight in the long run with medical bills,the need to buy tobacco, and decreased air quality”

Vaktus

[Thuzbekistan]

Is the concept of a nation just dead? This is something a local government would take care of. National governments rarely make such a fuss. But has the WA become a nanny state?

[Vrama]

This is an issue best left to individual member-states. Therefore, we vote against.

However, tobacco is already illegal in Vrama (Sec. 602-F Code of Conduct), so this really doesn't apply to us.

[Groot]

Groot shakes his head. “I am Groot,” he says, pointing out that the cannibis hookah, with its earthy green motif, was clearly designed for cannabis use and not tobacco. He rereads the preamble of the proposal, and wonders if his nation could comply with the law in good faith if it were to require such labeling only on hookahs that are sold in conjunction with a tobacco product, and not on hookahs that are sold empty, or sold with other products. “I am Groot,” he says, withholding his vote until he can get a clarification from the author, or perhaps an opinion from another delegation.

The first clause defines tobacco products as a product containing tobacco, and lists some examples, one of which is a hookah. However, the clause mandating advertising against tobacco to be implemented refers back to the definition of tobacco product, which centres around the idea of containing tobacco. It would be as if I said, ‘Defines a Ministerial Car as the many cars the Prime Minister drives in, such as minis’. Although a mini could be a ministerial car, it is only one if the Prime Minister drives in it.

Groot thoughtfully nods at the very plausible interpretation. “I am Groot,” he says gratefully, as he registers his vote in favor of the proposal.

[Tinhampton]

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Whilst Tinhampton has been in compliance with this resolution since 2013¹, we have sought to cast our vote against this resolution, on the grounds that - on an average pack of cigarettes, something like seven centimetres high by eight centis wide or so - you are allowed to place your 29-word warning about how tobacco causes cancer and is discouraged for pregnant woman in an area as small as one centimetre by 1.2 centimetres², and I can't even read text that small with my glasses on! I've had a bit of a talk with Lydia and Saffy and her advisors and apparently they have some sort of plan that I'll be able to tell you lot about at some point during the vote, fuck if I know...

1: Not quite: Tinhampton has its own tobacco health warning, which will have to be scrapped and replaced upon the passage of On Tobacco...
2: Actually 1.05cm high x 1.2cm wide.

[Australian rePublic]

Your excellency, this legislation is too restrictive and leaves no room for countries to use their own descretion. For example, wouldn't you agree that the following packaging designs are more of a deterrent than the words "contains nicotine"? For this reason, I voted against the legislation

[Cosmosplosion]

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Whilst Tinhampton has been in compliance with this resolution since 2013¹, we have sought to cast our vote against this resolution, on the grounds that - on an average pack of cigarettes, something like seven centimetres high by eight centis wide or so - you are allowed to place your 29-word warning about how tobacco causes cancer and is discouraged for pregnant woman in an area as small as one centimetre by 1.2 centimetres², and I can't even read text that small with my glasses on! I've had a bit of a talk with Lydia and Saffy and her advisors and apparently they have some sort of plan that I'll be able to tell you lot about at some point during the vote, fuck if I know...

1: Not quite: Tinhampton has its own tobacco health warning, which will have to be scrapped and replaced upon the passage of On Tobacco...
2: Actually 1.05cm high x 1.2cm wide.

The warning could be bigger if you're government opted for that.

[Kenmoria]

Your excellency, this legislation is too restrictive and leaves no room for countries to use their own descretion. For example, wouldn't you agree that the following packaging designs are more of a deterrent than the words "contains nicotine"? For this reason, I voted against the legislation

(Image)

“That could still take up over 65% of the packaging, since only 30% is required for both of the two required labels, if one were in the mood for oppressing corporations.”

[Araraukar]

on an average pack of cigarettes, something like seven centimetres high by eight centis wide or so - you are allowed to place your 29-word warning about how tobacco causes cancer and is discouraged for pregnant woman in an area as small as one centimetre by 1.2 centimetres²

OOC: 7cm x 8cm x 2 + 2cm (going to assume that as thickness, though they're probably thicker, not a smoker, so dunno) x 7cm x 2 + 2cm x 8cm x 2 = 172 cm², out of which 15% is 25.8 cm², so the minimum size of the warning would be about 5 cm x 5 cm.

They're three-dimensional objects and there are two of each side.