Advertisement
by Furry Things » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:52 pm
by Araraukar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:53 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Macsenoedd » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:31 pm
by Gudmund » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:34 pm
by Borovan3 » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:36 pm
Macsenoedd wrote: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.
by Bona Fidia » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:03 am
by Cosmosplosion » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:04 am
Borovan3 wrote:Macsenoedd wrote: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
by Cosmosplosion » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:06 am
Bona Fidia wrote:"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.
by Cloud Company of Badassia » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:53 am
by Groot » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:32 am
by The Sect Meces » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:59 am
by The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:19 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:21 am
Groot wrote:Cosmosplosion wrote:"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.
by Bears Armed Mission » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:45 am
by Slackertown » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:46 am
by Vaxian Imperium » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:51 am
by Thuzbekistan » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:02 am
by Vrama » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:13 am
by Groot » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:35 am
Kenmoria wrote:Groot wrote: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.
by Tinhampton » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:57 am
by Australian rePublic » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:33 am
by Cosmosplosion » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:01 pm
Tinhampton wrote: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.
by Kenmoria » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:19 pm
Australian rePublic wrote: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)
by Araraukar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:33 pm
Tinhampton wrote: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
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]
Advertisement