NSG Senate Chamber: I came, I saw, I cleaned up after myself

[Beta Test]

We will have debate on the bills at hand continue for another 15 hours.

[Illuminination]

I fourth this excellent addendum.

I fifth the motion.

I sixth it.

[Great Nepal]

I will be voting against the bill in its current form due to the OOC notes on composition of appellate and supreme court specifically "[OOC: 5 admins, head admin = chief justice]" and "[OOC: 3 admins, one of them = head of panel]" respectively. The judges should either be appointed by president, elected by people or mixture of these - allowing admins to be appellate court judges and then for same admins to sit in supreme courts judging the same decision is absurd.
Further if admins are rping as police leads then they preside over decisions they made while executing police decisions. Judges should be appointed in IC manner not permanently consisting exclusively and permanently of an OOC group.

Since this got buried, I would like to reraisr this point - as it stands supreme court is nothing more than kangaroo court.

[The Nihilistic view]

I will be voting against the bill in its current form due to the OOC notes on composition of appellate and supreme court specifically "[OOC: 5 admins, head admin = chief justice]" and "[OOC: 3 admins, one of them = head of panel]" respectively. The judges should either be appointed by president, elected by people or mixture of these - allowing admins to be appellate court judges and then for same admins to sit in supreme courts judging the same decision is absurd.
Further if admins are rping as police leads then they preside over decisions they made while executing police decisions. Judges should be appointed in IC manner not permanently consisting exclusively and permanently of an OOC group.

Since this got buried, I would like to reraisr this point - as it stands supreme court is nothing more than kangaroo court.

Hum yes.

I say keep the supreme court as admins whilst admins appoint other people to RP as judges for lower courts.

[Britanno]

If we can't trust the admins not to be biased, what's the point of having admins at all?

Seriously, give the admins some credit and accept that they won't be biased.

[Great Nepal]

Since this got buried, I would like to reraisr this point - as it stands supreme court is nothing more than kangaroo court.

Hum yes.
I say keep the supreme court as admins whilst admins appoint other people to RP as judges for lower courts.

I dont see why admins should exclusively sit in supreme court - especially if some are also RPing as police constables.
How about we have supreme court of ten judges - five admins + five people as nominated by president, they collectively elect chief justice who in event of tie casts another vote and appoints other judges.

[Great Nepal]

If we can't trust the admins not to be biased, what's the point of having admins at all?

Seriously, give the admins some credit and accept that they won't be biased.

Its not necessarily about being biased - its the fact that in the bill as it stands 3/5th of the supreme court has already heard and decided on a case before case went to supreme court. Why will they - to presumably similar arguments make different decision when they are in supreme court?
Plus again I dont see why admins and admins alone should sit in the supreme court - just follow the traditional model for supreme court (appointed by president) and maybe have equal number of admins there to prevent overly partisan decisions.

[The Nihilistic view]

Hum yes.
I say keep the supreme court as admins whilst admins appoint other people to RP as judges for lower courts.

I dont see why admins should exclusively sit in supreme court - especially if some are also RPing as police constables.
How about we have supreme court of ten judges - five admins + five people as nominated by president, they collectively elect chief justice who in event of tie casts another vote and appoints other judges.

You won't have some. there will be one maximum. And that's if Kour is made head of the police. If he is not there will be none.

That's far too many people for the size of the RP.

[The Nihilistic view]

If we can't trust the admins not to be biased, what's the point of having admins at all?

Seriously, give the admins some credit and accept that they won't be biased.

Its not necessarily about being biased - its the fact that in the bill as it stands 3/5th of the supreme court has already heard and decided on a case before case went to supreme court. Why will they - to presumably similar arguments make different decision when they are in supreme court?
Plus again I dont see why admins and admins alone should sit in the supreme court - just follow the traditional model for supreme court (appointed by president) and maybe have equal number of admins there to prevent overly partisan decisions.

Indeed, why would they? That's why they should not sit on both. I have no problem with them being one or the other but not both.

The president should not appoint as that could make it political.

[Great Nepal]

I dont see why admins should exclusively sit in supreme court - especially if some are also RPing as police constables.
How about we have supreme court of ten judges - five admins + five people as nominated by president, they collectively elect chief justice who in event of tie casts another vote and appoints other judges.

You won't have some. there will be one maximum. And that's if Kour is made head of the police. If he is not there will be none.

Assuming we dont have grenadiers or likes as we did and no admin will be head prosecutor. At least can we agree that if someone is heading police or other similar law enforcement or prosecution team they dont get to seat at supreme court?

That's far too many people for the size of the RP.

We have 100+ people in RP though.

Indeed, why would they? That's why they should not sit on both. I have no problem with them being one or the other but not both.

I would not be opposed to your proposal of admins sitting in supreme court and appointing lower court judges, assuming we had disqualification criteria (such as no chief of law enforcement or prosecutor etc). Someone (president) makes appointments for seats where admins are disqualified.

The president should not appoint as that could make it political.

Its fairly standard practice - supreme courts aren't bastion of impartiality in reality either. President is theologically an impartial body, an impartial body appointing judges keeps the appearance of propriety.

[The Nihilistic view]

You won't have some. there will be one maximum. And that's if Kour is made head of the police. If he is not there will be none.

Assuming we dont have grenadiers or likes as we did and no admin will be head prosecutor. At least can we agree that if someone is heading police or other similar law enforcement or prosecution team they dont get to seat at supreme court?

That's far too many people for the size of the RP.

We have 100+ people in RP though.

Indeed, why would they? That's why they should not sit on both. I have no problem with them being one or the other but not both.

I would not be opposed to your proposal of admins sitting in supreme court and appointing lower court judges, assuming we had disqualification criteria (such as no chief of law enforcement or prosecutor etc). Someone (president) makes appointments for seats where admins are disqualified.

The president should not appoint as that could make it political.

Its fairly standard practice - supreme courts aren't bastion of impartiality in reality either. President is theologically an impartial body, an impartial body appointing judges keeps the appearance of propriety.

Maybe that could be a thing I support if Kour does become the person controlling them.


I think we should have an impartial commission that consults with all relevant people then suggests somebody for the president to appoint. I don't know why people try and even pretend that presidents are ever impartial. It's stupid.

[Great Nepal]

Maybe that could be a thing I support if Kour does become the person controlling them.
I think we should have an impartial commission that consults with all relevant people then suggests somebody for the president to appoint.

I could go for that. How about we just have it on recommendation of the bar association - we are bound to have one so might as well use that for double purpose.

I don't know why people try and even pretend that presidents are ever impartial. It's stupid.

They are in theory supposed to be someone who unifies the nation by transcending partisan differences and politics.

[Heraklea-]

I fifth the motion.

I sixth it.

Seventh.

[Atlanticatia]

I'd like to submit this for the Queue now:

---

Smoking and Tobacco Use Reduction Act

Author: Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
Sponsors: Mari Castro (Gothmogs | LDP), Jean-Luc Martin (United Provinces of Atlantica | WA), Jean-François Rochefort (Soviet Canuckistan | LDP), Eugenia Malgrave (Malgrave | DL), Encarnacion Diaz (Lykens | LDP), Pierre Desjardins (Ainin | LDP), Regina Marino (Arkolon | LDP), David Vera Cruz (Heraklea- | WA)
An act to reduce smoking, protect people from secondhand smoke, and regulate the use, sale, and advertising of tobacco products.

---

Definitions

• tobacco - Any product, smokeable or smokeless, made with tobacco.
• Cigarettes - Any smokable tobacco item..
• Smoking - The smoking of cigarettes, cigars, or other smokable products that contain tobacco.

Purposes

The purposes of this Act are as follows,

• To reduce the rate of smoking.
• To reduce health costs and raise life expectancies.
• To protect people from secondhand smoke.
• To allow people to enjoy a smoke-free environment.
• To protect children from tobacco.

§ 1 - Labeling of Cigarette Packaging

a) All cigarettes for sale, that are packaged, must be in a package that meets the following regulations.

i.) A warning about the ill effects of cigarette smoking/tobacco usage, to be determined by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health, or equivalent, will mandate a list of warning labels. The warning must be in bold font, on a plain background, and must take up at least 40% of each side of the packaging. Different warnings must be present on each side of the packaging.
ii.) No images or designs may be used that may be 'particularly appealing to children'.
iii.) Only plain text may be used to denote the brand name of the cigarettes. No other images, slogans, or designs are permitted except the following: different colors of packaging; a small logo for the cigarette brand that takes up no more than 10% of one side of the packaging.

b) All cigarette packaging must be approved by the Ministry of Health before sale may occur, to ensure that it meets all regulations.

§ 2 - Educational Campaigns

a) The Ministry of Health must design a variety of educational anti-smoking campaigns that fulfill the following criteria:

i.) Educates children about the dangers of smoking.
ii.) Educates the general public about the dangers of smoking.
iii.) Raises awareness for help available with quitting smoking.

b) The educational campaigns must be distributed via television, radio, internet, print, and on billboards.
c) All schools must incorporate anti-smoking educational campaigns into the health curriculum.

§ 3 - Public Smoking Bans

a) Smoking shall be banned in the following locations:

i.) Restaurants, bars, and any other indoor public places, regardless of private or public ownership.
ii.) Medical facilities
iii.) Within 100 metres (328 ft) of a nursery, primary, or secondary school.
iv.) Inside all educational facilities including but not limited to schools, nurseries, daycare centres, universities, and colleges, and within 15 metres of the main buildings of these facilities, unless further prohibited by §3-a-iii.
v.) Inside all government buildings.
vi.) Hotels
vii.) All enclosed workplaces
viii.) In all public parks and conservation lands, boardwalks, public beaches, public recreation centres, and swimming pools.
ix.) Inside a vehicle when a child aged 12 or under is in the vehicle.
x.) within 30 metres (98 ft) of a children's playground or other play area, or a government building, unless further prohibited by any of the clauses from §3-a.
xi.) Construction sites
xii.) Meeting and banquet rooms
xiii.) All enclosed or partially enclosed shopping areas, such as malls and shopping centre plazas.
xiv.) within 3 metres (10 ft) of an entrance, exit, window, or air intake of the building of most enclosed places where smoking is prohibited, unless further prohibited by any of the clauses from §3-a.
xv.) any airport, train station, bus stop, or other public transportation centre.
xvi.) on any public domestic or international flight, public bus, public train, public ferry, or taxicab.

b) The following areas are exempt from the smoking bans mentioned in §3-a:

i.) Tobacco smoking shops (defined as stores which make more than 30% of their revenue through sales of tobacco products, that have a separate, properly ventilated room designated for smoking tobacco products.) People under the age of eighteen must be banned from entering the separate smoking room. (i.e. cigar bars)

§ 4 - Legal Age for Purchase and Sale

a) An individual must be at least eighteen years old to purchase tobacco products.
b) Buying tobacco products for someone aged under eighteen shall be a criminal offence.
c) Sellers shall be required to ask for the presentation of a valid government-issued ID with proof of age before selling tobacco, if the buyer appears to be aged 30 or less.

§ 5 - Excise taxes, and other sales and import conditions

a) An excise tax for sales of tobacco products shall be established:

i.) $0.15 per cigarette or cigar, after excise taxes and duties have been added, or $3.00 for a pack of 20 cigarettes or cigars.
ii.) $2.20 per pack of 20 little cigars, or $0.11 per little cigar.
iii.) 75% of the wholesale price for all other tobacco products.

b) The sales price of all cigarettes and cigars must be inclusive of the excise tax mentioned in §5-a-i.
c) Cigarettes must be sold in packages containing at least 5 units. Loose, single cigarettes may not be sold individually.
d) All tobacco products may only be sold by a registered and licensed business, and may not be sold by unregistered individuals, however unlicensed individuals may sell up to $250 of tobacco products each year, provided pay all excise duties and taxes.
e) All imports of tobacco must be registered with the customs department, and the relevant duties and excise taxes must be paid. All imports of tobacco that exceed a value of $250 by an individual or business must meet approval by the customs department.

§ 6 - Advertising

a) Advertising of any tobacco products, in any form, is banned. This is including, but is not limited to, commercial advertisements, sponsorships, and public display of tobacco company logos or slogans.

§ 7 - Penalties

a) Smoking in a banned area, as is mentioned in §5-a, shall incur a fine of $150 for the first offence. For each additional offence, the fine shall increase by $75.
b) Any business that fails to ask for government-issued identification when selling tobacco products to someone that appears to be aged 30 or less, shall be fined $10,000 per offence. The third offence in twelve months shall result in revocation of a business license for up to 12 months.
c) Any business that knowingly sells tobacco products to an individual aged less than eighteen shall be fined $20,000 per offence. Two offences in twelve months will result in revocation of a business license for up to 24 months.
d) Any business that sells cigarettes, cigars or other relevant tobacco products without meeting the minimum price guidelines established in §5-a shall be fined $15,000 per offence. Three or more offences within 12 months will result in revocation of a business license for up to 12 months.
e) Any individual that sells more than $250 but less than $5,000 of tobacco products whilst not meeting guidelines established in §5-d shall be fined $5000 per offence, and may face up to six months in prison, per offence.
f) Any individual that sells more than $5,000 of tobacco products whilst not meeting guidelines established in §5-d shall be fined $25,000 per offence, and may face up to 3 years in prison, per offence.
g) Any individual that trafficks tobacco, defined as not meeting the conditions in §5-e, will be fined $25,000 and may face up to 6 years in prison, per offence.
h) Any business that trafficks tobacco, defined as not meeting the conditions in §5-e, will be fined $75,000 and will face immediate revocation of the business license. The owners of the business may also be prosecuted under §7-g if they are complicit in the crime.
i) Any business that sells or produces relevant tobacco products that do not meet the guidelines established in §1 will face a fine of up to $25,000 per offence, and if three or more offences occur in 12 months, will face revocation of business license for up to 30 months.
j) Any business or organisation that advertises a tobacco product shall face a fine of up to $500,000 per offence, but total fines may not exceed 50% of the company's or organisation's turnover. More than three offences in twelve months may result in revocation of the business license for up to two years.

[Sebastianbourg]

Does anyone know what happened to national law bill I submitted?

[New Bierstaat]

Maybe that could be a thing I support if Kour does become the person controlling them.
I think we should have an impartial commission that consults with all relevant people then suggests somebody for the president to appoint.

I could go for that. How about we just have it on recommendation of the bar association - we are bound to have one so might as well use that for double purpose.

I don't know why people try and even pretend that presidents are ever impartial. It's stupid.

They are in theory supposed to be someone who unifies the nation by transcending partisan differences and politics.

That was my goal as president of Aurentina.

[Lykens]

Does anyone know what happened to national law bill I submitted?

It's probably still in the queue, just hasn't been brought to vote since we keep moving to add things to the top.

[New Zepuha]

No images or designs may be used that may be 'particularly appealing to children'.

Too vague

Restaurants, bars, and any other indoor public places, regardless of private or public ownership.

Why not remove my property rights as a proprietor altogether?

EDIT: Thought I was in teh coffee shop, point still stands though.

[Atlanticatia]

No images or designs may be used that may be 'particularly appealing to children'.

Too vague

Restaurants, bars, and any other indoor public places, regardless of private or public ownership.

Why not remove my property rights as a proprietor altogether?

EDIT: Thought I was in teh coffee shop, point still stands though.

I don't want to get in a big debate in the chamber, but there is no reason to suggest that something cannot be regulated if it is privately owned. Unless you are one of those people that support allowing private businesses to discriminate against ethnic minorities. I believe that regulation is necessary to ensure everyone can enjoy a smoke-free environment, as secondhand smoke has dangerous health effects. Also, the clause about images and designs are not vague, as all packaging will be reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Health, and it will be up to their discretion to decide how to best protect children from tobacco advertising.

[Beta Test]

Voting will now begin on both the National Judiciary Act and the Second Amendment to the Government Establishment Act.

[Lykens]

I vote aye to the NJA.

I vote aye to the Second GEA Amendment.

[Geilinor]

I vote Aye to both.

[New Zepuha]

Nay to both.

[Ikania]

Aye to both.

[Atlanticatia]

Aye to both.