[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco

[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.

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.

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).

Description: The General Assembly,

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.

Mandates that WA Member nations require tobacco companies to put warning labels on all tobacco products sold in the nation which inform consumers of potential health risks. However, an exception to this mandate is if the tobacco companies happen to sell a pure nicotine product which has been isolated from the tobacco plant (or related species), meaning that all the other harmful carcinogens found in the original plant have been removed.

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.

Requires that WA Member nations 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 risk labeling waiver.

Description: The General Assembly,

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 active legislation regarding this pressing matter;

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

Hereby:

Defines “Tobacco Products”, as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product. This includes, among other products, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.

Mandates that WA Member nations require tobacco companies to put warning labels on all tobacco products sold in the nation which inform consumers of potential health risks.

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.

[Bakhton]

"We would support this proposal, however, it would be cogent to inform as to why this is an international issue for those of us who don't proscribe to internationalist points of view. As well, it should be qualified to only affect 'tobacco products shown to cause damaging health effects' as I can conceive of some science-y nation making healthy tobacco somehow."

[Araraukar]

Wouldn't the wording "accessory of a tobacco product" mean that all lighters would have to have the same cancer warnings, even if I was buying mine to light candles?

OOC EDIT: Also, what about nicotine that has been derived from tobacco, but isolated and purified, for use in non-tobacco products? This would still classify it was "tobacco".

[Yodle]

Wouldn't the wording "accessory of a tobacco product" mean that all lighters would have to have the same cancer warnings, even if I was buying mine to light candles?

OOC EDIT: Also, what about nicotine that has been derived from tobacco, but isolated and purified, for use in non-tobacco products? This would still classify it was "tobacco".

Hmm.. I definitely overlooked that part of the definition O.o Not a problem, I can fix that. As far as purified nicotine goes, when I was writing the initial draft I was somewhat unclear when it came to the nicotine, I will clarify that pure nicotine (which predominantly comes from tobacco plants) that has no other chemicals in it can be an exception to the labeling mandate.

"We would support this proposal, however, it would be cogent to inform as to why this is an international issue for those of us who don't proscribe the internationalist points of view. As well, it should be qualified to only affect 'tobacco products shown to cause damaging health effects' as I can conceive of some science-y nation making healthy tobacco somehow."

Fair points, I can definitely add in something to appeal to WA Member's personal nation! Also, you make a good point, I'll add in that caveat about the products shown to cause harm.

[Araraukar]

I will clarify that pure nicotine (which predominantly comes from tobacco plants) that has no other chemicals in it

OOC: Such absolute statements as "has no other chemicals in it" are a no-go when it comes to chemistry. There are always impurities even in the ultra-pure lab chemicals. Synthetizing and then purifying doesn't give you 100% pure substances either, and when you're extracting something, especially from an organic source, you're always going to end up with stuff that came along for the ride. I'm a lab tech by training, the problem with contaminants is all too familiar.

Unrelated to proposal: in your forum siggy, why are you claiming GA #300 as a resolution you authored? It is Wrapper's Child Pornography Ban. EDIT: Same for SC #200... are you secretly Wrapper in disguise? SC# 201 is credited to you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: You should take a look at 64 GA 'Food and Drug Standards'. It has certain requirements which you probably ought be familiar with. (North reads a few choice clauses from a note on the desk in front of him.)

DEMANDS that all food and drug products produced in member states must undergo safety and quality screening before being released to the consumer market...

CHARGES the WAFDRA with the responsibility to ensure that the food and drug regulatory agencies of member-states are performing satisfactorily; also to gradually implement reforms to the quality regulation authorities of member-states...

MANDATES that such reforms shall include:
(A)The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety...

ORDERS that food and drug products being sold must bear upon them a label certified by the WAFDRA which clearly displays the quality grade that the product has been given by national quality-inspection facilities

[Araraukar]

You should take a look at 64 GA 'Food and Drug Standards'.

It was explicitly argued in a different proposal (OOC: the one about allergen labeling) that FaDS applies to quality, not safety. In terms of food that the food you buy isn't rotten, not that it won't otherwise kill you. I would assume in terms of tobacco products that would mean that they are only made of tobacco, not tobacco and kitty litter.

OOC: Stop editing so I can stop editing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You should take a look at 64 GA 'Food and Drug Standards'.

It was explicitly argued in a different proposal (OOC: the one about allergen labeling) that FaDS applies to quality, not safety. In terms of food that the food you buy isn't rotten, not that it won't otherwise kill you. I would assume in terms of tobacco products that would mean that they are only made of tobacco, not tobacco and kitty litter.

?: "The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety"

[Jarish Inyo]

Why should a nation pay for an individual's stupidity? The Empire will not pay for an individual's health care,

[Araraukar]

?: "The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety"

I made the exactly same arguments elsewhere.

[Omicron Convenience IV]

Turian Councillor: Naturally, there is a subspecies in one of our space colonies which requires tobacco to live. On top of that, they cannot read.

[Imperium Anglorum]

?: "The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety"

I made the exactly same arguments elsewhere.

And you see how it uses the phrase 'quality grade' multiple times, defining the quality grade system, and then requiring that the quality grade be labelled on any product? And then, you see how it says 'all food and drug products', which includes such things as products, which, in a normal understanding of the word, is the actual thing being sold?

[Araraukar]

And you see how it uses the phrase 'quality grade' multiple times, defining the quality grade system, and then requiring that the quality grade be labelled on any product? And then, you see how it says 'all food and drug products', which includes such things as products, which, in a normal understanding of the word, is the actual thing being sold?

Yes. And?

OOC: In case you didn't realize it, I was trying to point out that I agree with you. I gave exactly the same arguments on the allergen labeling one that you've made here. This was (as far as I could see) the reason the author decided to keep drafting:

I'm fairly sure that a reasonable reading of GA #64, Food and Drug Standards would include allergens:

MANDATES that such reforms shall include:
(A)The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety

I don't think so. Quality grade systems are certifications by a relevant authority that a product and it's processing meets or exceeds some standard of quality established for that product.

It has nothing to do with labeling requirements

OOC: Think the difference between USDA beef grading programs and FDA food allergen labeling requirements. This is the latter, while you're talking about the former.

[Yodle]

It was explicitly argued in a different proposal (OOC: the one about allergen labeling) that FaDS applies to quality, not safety. In terms of food that the food you buy isn't rotten, not that it won't otherwise kill you. I would assume in terms of tobacco products that would mean that they are only made of tobacco, not tobacco and kitty litter.

?: "The creation of a quality grade system by which all food and drug products shall receive a grade marking their relative level of quality and safety"

All tobacco products are inherently unsafe no matter how you put it, that's the main issue here. Quality control for a cigarette would simply be saying that the product is what it advertises itself to be, health risk warning labels are separate and are not required under GAR #64. Essentially what this proposed legislation would do is require that all tobacco products have the additional label saying what the health realities and risks of using them would be, not just that they're unsafe.

I may have misinterpreted where you were going with your posts, but are you saying I should reference, or add onto WAFDRA duties?

Why should a nation pay for an individual's stupidity? The Empire will not pay for an individual's health care,

The argument is that the WA nation or tobacco companies have not informed the Consumer about the health risks, so how would they be stupid if they simply did not know? Also, addiction is a disease that is extremely difficult to beat without the proper healthcare and treatment, it's not a matter of stupidity.

Turian Councillor: Naturally, there is a subspecies in one of our space colonies which requires tobacco to live. On top of that, they cannot read.

That should not be a problem then, as all this legislation would do is put on a health risk warning label that won't apply to them and that they can't read

I will clarify that pure nicotine (which predominantly comes from tobacco plants) that has no other chemicals in it

OOC: Such absolute statements as "has no other chemicals in it" are a no-go when it comes to chemistry. There are always impurities even in the ultra-pure lab chemicals. Synthetizing and then purifying doesn't give you 100% pure substances either, and when you're extracting something, especially from an organic source, you're always going to end up with stuff that came along for the ride. I'm a lab tech by training, the problem with contaminants is all too familiar.

Unrelated to proposal: in your forum siggy, why are you claiming GA #300 as a resolution you authored? It is Wrapper's Child Pornography Ban. EDIT: Same for SC #200... are you secretly Wrapper in disguise? SC# 201 is credited to you.

That is very true, there's no such thing as a pure chemical in chemistry. Do you think I should scrap the statement altogether, or just add in something that makes it less absolute?

Also, thank you for pointing that out, I didn't know how to specifically link a resolution when I made it lmao. GAR #380 "Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act," was one I submitted under my puppet [nation=short]Ichu[/nation].

[Bakhton]

Why should a nation pay for an individual's stupidity? The Empire will not pay for an individual's health care,

"This proposal does not include paying for healthcare. As well, I don't buy the whole 'resolution needs to be an international issue' argument. If something is widely agreed upon by members of the World Assembly, it should be codified into international law for the ease and brevity of transnational jurisdiction."

Turian Councillor: Naturally, there is a subspecies in one of our space colonies which requires tobacco to live. On top of that, they cannot read.

"If our proposed edit to only affect tobacco products that are unhealthy is included, then your point would be rather moot."

NORTH: You should take a look at 64 GA 'Food and Drug Standards'. It has certain requirements which you probably ought be familiar with. (North reads a few choice clauses from a note on the desk in front of him.)

"I'm not sure if tobacco could realistically fall under the categories of food or drugs as they are, at least to my people, inherently dangerous due to nicotine's negative effect on the human heart. Some recreational drugs can't really be made safe like methamphetamine, or heroin. At the very least we conclude it's different enough to possibly warrant different legislation."

[Yodle]

"If our proposed edit to only affect tobacco products that are unhealthy is included, then your point would be rather moot."

Your proposed edit has been added in, except that it's more of a "Unhealthy until proven otherwise," addition, since as of right now there exists no healthy alternative to tobacco products

[Jarish Inyo]

It's still not the governments job to pay for one addiction treatment. Or any treatment at all. The government is not responsible for an individual's stupidity in any form. And shouldn't have to pay for it.

[Araraukar]

Your proposed edit has been added in, except that it's more of a "Unhealthy until proven otherwise," addition, since as of right now there exists no healthy alternative to tobacco products

OOC: Nicotine patches and gum, and electric cigarettes? Depends on your definition of "healthy", I'm guessing.

[Yodle]

Your proposed edit has been added in, except that it's more of a "Unhealthy until proven otherwise," addition, since as of right now there exists no healthy alternative to tobacco products

OOC: Nicotine patches and gum, and electric cigarettes? Depends on your definition of "healthy", I'm guessing.

Those are definitely better than your average cigarette, but those are ideally for getting off tobacco/nicotine altogether. However, they could qualify for waivers since they're just nicotine, they'd just have to show significantly less negative effects than their counterparts.

It's still not the governments job to pay for one addiction treatment. Or any treatment at all. The government is not responsible for an individual's stupidity in any form. And shouldn't have to pay for it.

"Further Mandates that WA Members provide easy access to affordable health services for citizens who are suffering from the health effects of long-term tobacco usage, as well as for vulnerable citizens who are currently suffering from addiction to tobacco products."
They're not paying for them, they're just responsible for guaranteeing easily accessible, affordable healthcare.

[Jarish Inyo]

No, it requires for the government to pay for such treatments through some form of government assistance. Without said assistance, there is no affordable healthcare. The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

[United Free Peoples]

No, it requires for the government to pay for such treatments through some form of government assistance. Without said assistance, there is no affordable healthcare. The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

The United Free Peoples offers a word of thought to the humble delegate of the Imperial Coalition of States.

The lack of affordable healthcare makes a citizens go from hardworking and productive to worthless slag.

A unhealthy citizen cannot be produce, they can only eat food, drink water, and waste space.

As a person is wasting away of illness, contributing nothing to the cause of your great empire, their family is reducing their efficiency to sneak care to the unhealthy individual, reducing their output additionally.

Rather then kill these poor fools, requiring years of breeding to replace the stock, or let them slow down your country as they waste away, you may want to consider the potential benefits of heightened profitability and increased output that may recoup or even exceed your expenditure of a healthcare stipend.

[Bakhton]

The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

"Not yet it doesn't." Lara Qzu breaks out into an evil laugh.
Jeffrey sips his late-night coffee. "Your IntFed is showing."

[Jarish Inyo]

To Bakhton,

The Empire will never become a welfare state. The past and current resolutions have tried and failed. There are always loopholes. We will never become the socialist haven that some nations are trying to turn the WA into.

To United Free Peoples,

In the Empire, an unhealthy citizen that cannot work does not eat food or drink. In the Empire, a citizen knows they are only entitled to the things the acquire through a days honest work. They know the Crown will not feed and house you.

And the Crown finds it more beneficial not to have the taxpayers pay for someone's possibly long and expensive treatment.

[United Free Peoples]

To Bakhton,

The Empire will never become a welfare state. The past and current resolutions have tried and failed. There are always loopholes. We will never become the socialist haven that some nations are trying to turn the WA into.

To United Free Peoples,

In the Empire, an unhealthy citizen that cannot work does not eat food or drink. In the Empire, a citizen knows they are only entitled to the things the acquire through a days honest work. They know the Crown will not feed and house you.

And the Crown finds it more beneficial not to have the taxpayers pay for someone's possibly long and expensive treatment.

So what happens if someone gets sick and cannot pay?

[United Free Peoples]

"We would support this proposal, however, it would be cogent to inform as to why this is an international issue for those of us who don't proscribe to internationalist points of view. As well, it should be qualified to only affect 'tobacco products shown to cause damaging health effects' as I can conceive of some science-y nation making healthy tobacco somehow."

If I may offer a thought?

Considering almost anything can be said to be harmful for you, perhaps the word "serious" should be attached to "damaging health effects".

It is arbitrary and capricious to sanction tobacco products for the simple sake of it having harmful effects, considering the air you breath does now also, as well as many voluntary subjects you ingest.

I think the people of your great nation would feel less over burdened with the rule of international law if the bill was softened to the sanction of tobacco products shown to cause "serious negative health effects", perhaps even amend to "Tobacco products that have been shown to have a reasonable risk of causing serious damaging health effects"