[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco Advertising

[Lemmingtopias]

Nicotine extracted from tobacco plants (or related species) falls under this definition

The Lemmingtopian Government welcomes the Regulation of Tobacco advertising. However, our Health Commission has identified serious and damaging flaws in this proposal.

It is imperative that any resolution dealing with tobacco or it's advertising recognises the significant and important difference between "safe" nicotine product (which does not exist) and "safer" nicotine product, which is a minorly harmful substance yet has the ability, when used for the treatment of nicotine dependence, to dramatically improve health. Without making this important distinction, this resolution will enforce warning labels on safer nicotine products.

Therefore,

We find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to irresponsibly place a warning stamp on medical nicotine - an unsafe yet safer substance, which is commonly used in health products to tackle the underlying causes, dangers and ritual aspects of the addiction of smoking while reducing or delaying, and in many people eradicating, the actual physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal while behavioural issues associated with addiction and underlying causes are addressed.

We further find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to place the same warning stamp on "e-liquids", which, when used as a treatment beginning at a high enough concentration with a good quality delivery device, have been found to be even more effective than traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies in maintaining abstinence from traditional, extremely unsafe products.

We would welcome and support a subsequent proposal that addresses this vital issue.

We would also further support regulation of tobacco advertising regarding placement (i.e a ban around schools and residential areas), as this proposal actually does very little to regulate advertising (mandating warning labels has nothing to do with advertising).

[Zorg Wes]

We further find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to place the same warning stamp on "e-liquids", which, when used as a treatment beginning at a high enough concentration with a good quality delivery device, have been found to be even more effective than traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies in maintaining abstinence from traditional, extremely unsafe products.

Many people use e-cigs recreationally though? If they're not being used as part of a medical treatment, I think they should have similar regulations to traditional tobacco products. It would be detrimental to teach people that e-cigs and their ilk are harmless if that statement hasn't been thoroughly examined and recognized by the medical community.

I agree with all your other points.

[Lemmingtopias]

We further find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to place the same warning stamp on "e-liquids", which, when used as a treatment beginning at a high enough concentration with a good quality delivery device, have been found to be even more effective than traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies in maintaining abstinence from traditional, extremely unsafe products.

Many people use e-cigs recreationally though? If they're not being used as part of a medical treatment, I think they should have similar regulations to traditional tobacco products. It would be detrimental to teach people that e-cigs and their ilk are harmless if that statement hasn't been thoroughly examined and recognized by the medical community.

I agree with all your other points.

True. We do not think that they should be treated as harmless. Though the replacement of recreational tobacco smoking with recreational e-cigarette smoking is still a beneficial shift in behaviour in terms of public health, and we are deeply concerned that warnings on the same scale as tobacco would falsely give the impression that e-cigarettes are as dangerous as traditional smoking - thus discouraging people from making that shift. Many authorities within the medical establishment have now agreed that the recreational using of e-liquid is 95% less harmful than smoking.

Many people also use traditional medical NRT's recreationally, such as chewing gum, sprays and inhalators - without actually using them as intended medical treatment, which makes eliquid no different. Discouraging the use of these without being used as a legitimate medical treatment maybe something worthy of consideration, we feel that to do so in the same way and with the same labels as tobacco would do more harm than good.

[Wallenburg]

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"?

Maybe you shouldn't have submitted this in the Recreational Drug Use category?

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...

That's not what the Health category is for. Health is for resolutions that "modify universal standards of healthcare." This would have also worked better under Social Justice.

[Ru-]

The pile against this proposal actually surprises us greatly, as we feel the current resolution is much better then the previous attempt. Oh well, we voted FOR this time, for all the good that will do.

[Qualvista]

The Royal World Estate votes in favour of this resolution, although we would have preferred stronger action in this area we will back all measures that attempt to tackle serious health problems caused by tobacco.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: We still have the same opinion and will vote against.

[Mombombu]

"Why does the World Assembly feel it's their job to babysit the rest of the world? We are all adults and these attempts to infantilize our country is nothing less than an insult!

Do not tell us how to regulate our drugs, and we will not tell the WA how to waste tax dollars!"


-M'tumbe Migambo, Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Yodle]

"Why does the World Assembly feel it's their job to babysit the rest of the world? We are all adults and these attempts to infantilize our country is nothing less than an insult!

Do not tell us how to regulate our drugs, and we will not tell the WA how to waste tax dollars!"


-M'tumbe Migambo, Ambassador to the World Assembly

Is this not the purpose of the WA, to tell people how to waste tax dollars?

[Libertossia]

Many people make their living and support their families through the tobacco industry. Regulating advertising is going to hurt the livelihoods of those working people. Advertising is not what is responsible for the smoking epidemic. To suggest such is to imply that individuals don't know what they are doing, and that they don't make their own choices about their lives. It's the addictive-ness of tobacco that ought to be addressed. Perhaps the WA could encourage genetically modified and safer tobacco which does less damage to the user. The Anarchist Confederation of Libertossia will be voting against this resolution.

[Bakhton]

"Stop wasting our time!" Lara sips from her favorite local brand of root beer, by Senya's Suds.

[Mesothelae]

Personally, I am not a fan of tobacco problems, and our classical Republic may at some point create some legislation regulating tobacco advertising. It seems to me, however, that on an issue regarding product advertising, the nation ought to retain its sovereignty. Forcing a country to impose economic regulations against its will, in my opinion, runs counter to the mission of the World Assembly.

I appreciate the harm this Resolution seeks to prevent, but as a matter of principle, Mesothelae must vote against.

[Adytus]

From the Osiris Fraternal Order
And the office of the Vizier of World Assembly Affairs

---

---

“As Ra makes his way across the heavily sky, and the cycle of the universe continues, the people of Osiris and its prosperity of the Nile, after consulting with the community, and the gods Seshat and Ma’at, have determined to vote AGAINST the current resolution. The Pharaoh will vote according to the people, and according to Ma’at. His actions are necessary in maintaining the balance between order and chaos, truth and darkness, and Osiris will follow the Pharaoh’s direction. The government of the Osiris Fraternal Order will consider no proposal without the text meeting the requirements of Ma’at. We will continue to uphold our moral responsibilities to the people, maintaining and voting in favor of any proposals that will forward the truth and honor that is expected of all who call Osiris home. Cosmic harmony is only obtainable through expressing the will of Ma’at, and the will of the Pharaoh. Although we have derived at this decision, the author of the proposal - or any party interested - is welcome to present a case that would enlighten the Pharaoh and the community to the purpose of the proposal, and perhaps change the will of the gods, the Pharaoh, and the community. If this interests you, please visit our kingdom and speak your knowledge here. All information is important, and will be presented to Seshat, the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, and writing to help direct the Pharaoh to make the right decision for the people of fraternal order. If you have any questions about Osiris in the World Assembly, please direct them to the office of the Vizier of World Assembly Affairs by sending Adytus a telegram. For more general questions regarding Osiris, please direct them to the Pharaoh, Neo Kervoskia. Thank you fellow ambassadors, and author of the current proposal at vote, for your time. Osiris, her people, and the office of the Vizier greatly appreciate your time, and patience.

Best Regards,
The Vizier of World Assembly Affairs, Adytus.

[Schnitzengrubenstein]

Many people make their living and support their families through the tobacco industry. Regulating advertising is going to hurt the livelihoods of those working people. Advertising is not what is responsible for the smoking epidemic. To suggest such is to imply that individuals don't know what they are doing, and that they don't make their own choices about their lives. It's the addictive-ness of tobacco that ought to be addressed. Perhaps the WA could encourage genetically modified and safer tobacco which does less damage to the user. The Anarchist Confederation of Libertossia will be voting against this resolution.

We can also concur in these statements and some of those previously mentioned concerning the flaws of this resolution. Schnitzengrubenstein finds that there is really no need to babysit countries nor to waste money in what someone could call the scheme of taxes. These dictates may in fact just impede upon national sovereignty if voted for, and certainly would not make all too much progress in the discouragement of such products except for maybe economic barriers. These limits would also not only impede the makers of such products, but would have a ripple of fact to other parts of trade and economics.

All of this said, while we do appreciate the ideas, the manner to which the ends are mad do not coincide to our values nor make sense enough to implement.

In summary, we hereby vote against this measure.

Lastly, the mechanism for action on this resolution could indeed be more specific, particularly when it comes to how are country can use market forces to discourage advertisement beyond just regulations and restrictions which in fact are likely to make negligible difference to loyal repeat buyers and other market segments less inclined to care. Much of what the world assembly does pass should in fact carry more options and flexibility under most circumstances, and this is not all so much different.

[Cemberia]

Many people make their living and support their families through the tobacco industry. Regulating advertising is going to hurt the livelihoods of those working people. Advertising is not what is responsible for the smoking epidemic. To suggest such is to imply that individuals don't know what they are doing, and that they don't make their own choices about their lives. It's the addictive-ness of tobacco that ought to be addressed. Perhaps the WA could encourage genetically modified and safer tobacco which does less damage to the user. The Anarchist Confederation of Libertossia will be voting against this resolution.

We can also concur in these statements and some of those previously mentioned concerning the flaws of this resolution. Schnitzengrubenstein finds that there is really no need to babysit countries nor to waste money in what someone could call the scheme of taxes. These dictates may in fact just impede upon national sovereignty if voted for, and certainly would not make all too much progress in the discouragement of such products except for maybe economic barriers. These limits would also not only impede the makers of such products, but would have a ripple of fact to other parts of trade and economics.

All of this said, while we do appreciate the ideas, the manner to which the ends are mad do not coincide to our values nor make sense enough to implement.

In summary, we hereby vote against this measure.

Lastly, the mechanism for action on this resolution could indeed be more specific, particularly when it comes to how are country can use market forces to discourage advertisement beyond just regulations and restrictions which in fact are likely to make negligible difference to loyal repeat buyers and other market segments less inclined to care. Much of what the world assembly does pass should in fact carry more options and flexibility under most circumstances, and this is not all so much different.

The Dominion of Cemberia echoes these sentiments. We find we are not able to agree with this resolution and so we vote AGAINST the measure to regulate products within a sovereign nations borders. The World Assembly does not exist to facilitate it's own means. It exists to guide nations on mutually beneficial and respectable common grounds.

The World Assembly does not have the right to impede upon a Nation and it's Sovereignty. This includes how we label our own products.

[Aeryis]

We can also concur in these statements and some of those previously mentioned concerning the flaws of this resolution. Schnitzengrubenstein finds that there is really no need to babysit countries nor to waste money in what someone could call the scheme of taxes. These dictates may in fact just impede upon national sovereignty if voted for, and certainly would not make all too much progress in the discouragement of such products except for maybe economic barriers. These limits would also not only impede the makers of such products, but would have a ripple of fact to other parts of trade and economics.

All of this said, while we do appreciate the ideas, the manner to which the ends are mad do not coincide to our values nor make sense enough to implement.

In summary, we hereby vote against this measure.

Lastly, the mechanism for action on this resolution could indeed be more specific, particularly when it comes to how are country can use market forces to discourage advertisement beyond just regulations and restrictions which in fact are likely to make negligible difference to loyal repeat buyers and other market segments less inclined to care. Much of what the world assembly does pass should in fact carry more options and flexibility under most circumstances, and this is not all so much different.

The Dominion of Cemberia echoes these sentiments. We find we are not able to agree with this resolution and so we vote AGAINST the measure to regulate products within a sovereign nations borders. The World Assembly does not exist to facilitate it's own means. It exists to guide nations on mutually beneficial and respectable common grounds.

The World Assembly does not have the right to impede upon a Nation and it's Sovereignty. This includes how we label our own products.

Labeling products in a way that is inconsistent with their contents can easily be construed as fraud made against the public, with intent to deceive and/or profit. A law requiring dangerous products to be labeled as such is necessary in a world where an unfortunate number of nations have chosen not to do so of their own accord. We do not believe this measure imposes restrictions to state sovereignty, and thus support it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Labeling products in a way that is inconsistent with their contents can easily be construed as fraud made against the public, with intent to deceive and/or profit. A law requiring dangerous products to be labeled as such is necessary in a world where an unfortunate number of nations have chosen not to do so of their own accord. We do not believe this measure imposes restrictions to state sovereignty, and thus support it.

OOC: Even if we presume that 54 GA 'Food and Drug Standards' does not in fact require this, would it not then be better to write a resolution stating that labels need to be consistent with their contents? Why ought we pass a resolution which would require any such future law to exempt tobacco from its requirements, thereby creating a politically unfeasible position for that future resolution?

Also, this. viewtopic.php?p=8487412#p8487412

[Vandario]

"We remain against this as last time for the same reasons, the labels aren't going to stop anyone, nor are we going to pay for nicotine habits when people knew full well what they where getting into. There is also the matter of wasting money on this endeavor, when no one will probably even read the label. Last this should be left up to nations and regions as individuals, if they want to do this, power to them. We on the other hand find it a waste, admittedly we find most proposals to be too meddling and a waste of everyone's good time and money, this I suppose is no different in our opinion on that."

[Imperium Anglorum]

nor are we going to pay for nicotine habits when people knew full well what they where getting into.

OOC: This incarnation of the resolution does not require that nations pay for treatment of persons suffering from tobacco-related diseases.

[Yodle]

"Regulation of Tobacco Advertising" was defeated 9,378 votes to 7,505.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Regulation of Tobacco Advertising" was defeated 9,378 votes to 7,505.

Ooc: I still believe that with redrafting, this could become a terrific labeling regime for tobacco or tobaccoids, or possibly even addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I hope the author does not wholly abandon this.

[Yodle]

"Regulation of Tobacco Advertising" was defeated 9,378 votes to 7,505.

Ooc: I still believe that with redrafting, this could become a terrific labeling regime for tobacco or tobaccoids, or possibly even addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I hope the author does not wholly abandon this.

Hmm, I can already imagine how a redraft would look if I made it more in-depth and broadened it out to addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I'll start working on a new version and then post it on the forums once the rough draft is done. The only thing with addictive recreational drugs as a whole is that alcohol would by definition be covered under it, and I can imagine people wouldn't take too kindly to having labels saying it'll cause addiction or liver damage We shall see though

[Araraukar]

Ooc: I still believe that with redrafting, this could become a terrific labeling regime for tobacco or tobaccoids, or possibly even addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I hope the author does not wholly abandon this.

OOC: Though I suggest a longer drafting period this time...

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I still believe that with redrafting, this could become a terrific labeling regime for tobacco or tobaccoids, or possibly even addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I hope the author does not wholly abandon this.

Hmm, I can already imagine how a redraft would look if I made it more in-depth and broadened it out to addictive recreational drugs as a whole. I'll start working on a new version and then post it on the forums once the rough draft is done. The only thing with addictive recreational drugs as a whole is that alcohol would by definition be covered under it, and I can imagine people wouldn't take too kindly to having labels saying it'll cause addiction or liver damage We shall see though

I would narrow it down beyond that, or you'll have to include caffeine. The risk of overbroad language is high here. Again, I'm willing to help if you're willing to be patient about submission.