[Draft] Smoking in the WA, Schools, and Hospitals

[A Bright Future]

Kenmoria thanks again for support with ongoing numbering issues. I do hope that was the last of them...

So here would be the exemption clause with the 'there' issue clarified.

"Allows member states exemption from clause 3 if the member state shows that no humans regularly reside within its jurisdiction and sapient species regularly residing within its jurisdiction are not negatively affected by tobacco smoke,"

That's been implemented.

I am considering the clause below as a replacement to the non-humans exemption clause. Motivation here is that "no humans" would mean that any country with human embassies for example would have to institute these smoking bans which is not necessarily reasonable. Not sure if 'regularly residing there' would cover diplomats.
Also I am concerned at putting the burden of proof on countries to show no harm. I'm not sure we want to force them to have to prove smoking is harmful. Particularly if there is no smoking in that member state, there would be no evidence base and hence very difficult to prove lack of harm. Here is an attempt at capturing some of these ideas:

Allows a member state exemption from clause 3 if the state seeking exemption can show that less than 10% of the member state's population of sapient species regularly residing in the member state are: [list][*]humans or [*]similar to humans in such a way that the same mechanisms by which smoking harms humans holds for that species or [*]of a physiology for which no evidence exists that smoking harms it

I am not sure if this kind of minority clause has been used elsewhere and if it is legal of if this change would be beneficial.

Thanks to New Min for support!

I am considering softening this resolution somewhat. A potential amendment would be to allow for smoking rooms for staff employed at the hospitals and educational facilities and removing the WA ban. What do delegates think about this? Also should I run a poll on this proposal to gauge support?

[Kenmoria]

"With regards to softening the hospital ban, I believe that will grant this proposal a greater range of support. Certain member states may find it unpalpatable to be forced to ban smoking rooms. Personally, I oppose the allowance of any smoking in hospitals, but I know that it could be considered a breach of national sovereignty for the WA to enforce this."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Aren't the contents of the proposal in direct contradiction with the title? If memory serves, that's an illegality all on its own...

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Aren't the contents of the proposal in direct contradiction with the title? If memory serves, that's an illegality all on its own...

(OOC: Why are they a contradiction? There are controls on smoking, and these controls relieve international support from the World Assembly.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Aren't the contents of the proposal in direct contradiction with the title? If memory serves, that's an illegality all on its own...

(OOC: Why are they a contradiction? There are controls on smoking, and these controls relieve international support from the World Assembly.)

OOC: It literally says "International Support on Smoking".

[A Bright Future]

(OOC: Why are they a contradiction? There are controls on smoking, and these controls relieve international support from the World Assembly.)

OOC: It literally says "International Support on Smoking".

OOC: I don't know which rule you are referring to. Would that be a sort of honest mistake rule for proposals? The idea was that support on smoking meant support on dealing with smoking. I will revise the title for clarity.

IC: Kenmoria I am not sure if the smoking rooms would make this any more palatable to delegates opposed a priori. Smoking room exceptions would then be an unnecessary complication. That being said, I will add a smoking room exemption clause to gauge responses.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(Image)

---

Basic Controls on Smoking in Schools & Hospitals
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare | Proposed by: A Bright Future

---

Acknowledging the overwhelming scientific evidence that tobacco smoke is detrimental to the health of humans exposed to it, particularly those of ill health and minors, while evidence regarding other sapients still requires further research,

Noting that individuals are not banned from engaging in self-harming activities but that WA law institutes protections for individuals against harm by others,

Distraught that the tobacco industry has at times shown a disregard for the evidence on smoking, promoted dishonest appraisals of such evidence, and sought to influence legislatures so as to prevent anti-smoking policies,

The General Assembly, therefore:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, “smoking” as the combustion of tobacco and the release of resultant gasses for inhalation and/or to the surrounding air,

2. Asserts that smoking is detrimental to human smokers and humans in their vicinity.

3. Prohibits in member states smoking inside educational facilities for minors and any healthcare facilities, except in areas intended only for staff employed at those facilities.

4. Allows a member state exemption from clause 3 if the member state shows that no humans regularly reside within its jurisdiction and sapient species regularly residing within its jurisdiction are not negatively affected by tobacco smoke,

5. Strongly encourages member states to institute anti-smoking legislation more stringent than that of the provisions of this resolution while respecting international laws,

6. Prohibits smoking inside buildings hosting the WA or any organization established under its auspices,

7. Mandates the WA Office of Building Management to, position abundant “No Smoking” signage in the WA headquarters and to provide there smoking areas which:

1. are placed so as to prevent tobacco smoke in significant concentrations from entering any buildings,
2. are of sufficient size and quantity to service smokers employed at or visiting the WA headquarters,
3. shall be well ventilated,
4. can be approached from the WA headquarters without exposure to precipitation,

8. Requires compliance with clauses 3, 6 and 7 by no later than one year after the passing of this resolution, with the exception of member states who apply for extension which can grant them a maximum of two additional years for achieving compliance,

9. Mandates the World Health Authority (WHA) to periodically review evidence on smoking and publish its findings in scientific terms as well as simple terms accessible to laypersons,

10. Mandates the WHA to periodically provide member states with evidence on the most effective means by which to reduce smoking and related health impacts,

11. Mandates the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency to periodically consult with member states and the World Health Authority on safety and quality screening as well as labelling of tobacco products, to collect evidence on these measures, and to report its findings.

I would get rid of the use of italics. There's no need for it. I honestly think it looks better without them.

But at least a few bullet points. I'm quite partial to action to combat addictions. I think the Millian paternalism justification applies quite strongly here.

• You'll get flak from the people who say that non-humans are in the Assembly too for your first clause. My ambassador though, has never seen a non-human that isn't just a guy in a suit or some kind of practical effect controlled by a human. Because in my RP, they don't exist. Making shit up has never been easier.
  
  
• You could use the second line to expand on the ethical justification for paternalism here. I think the Millian standard is quite common. There's a summary of it on Stanford's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Showing how it applies would bolster your argument: "Believing that, insofar as people are incapable of internalising harms or even conceiving of their magnitude before making a choice that cannot easily be reversed, society as a whole has both a responsibility and justification to take regulatory action". Or something like that.
  
  
• I think the distraught line could probably be clearer for the hoi palloi if you painted tobacco as a corrupting influence on politics. Effectively, that it uses profits to bribe politicians to act against the public good.
  
  
• You don't need clause 2. And assertions are prima facie weak.
  
  
• In clause 3, I would recommend changing the line about intent to a line about well-ventilated spaces, basically, to avoid second-hand smoke being a major issue. This would more effectively pursue a goal of preventing an unwanted externality being applied to children. I think that it could also be expanded. Unwanted negative externalities should prima facie not be applied on anyone absent their consent or extreme enforcement costs.
  
  
• If you really want to keep clause 4, you can (1) combine it into clause 3 and (2) talk about organisms which are not affected by tobacco smoke rather than non-humans. That's more clear and gets more succinctly to what you're trying for.
  
  
• Clauses 6 and 7 can almost certainly be folded into a single longer clause that thematically deals with the WA's building regulations.
  
  
• Similarly consolidated could be the clauses having to do with public service announcements. I would also probably include restrictions on adverts or packaging, but I think that would require a repeal of Freedom of Expression. And that fact makes FoE even more absurd. I think I've found a new hill.

On formatting extranea, sections in this format generally end with semicolons. With the inclusion of an 'and' in the second to last clause and the last clause ending with a full stop. Similarly included should be the penultimate 'and' in the listing of the preamble.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I've just had a look, and I can't see any passed resolution with an ampersand in the title, it might be worth checking if they display correctly in GA titles.)

[A Bright Future]

Italics removed. preamb 1, discusses sapient species only. preamb 2, added clarification that second hand smoke is related to freedom from harm. The distraught line has been simplified. Clause 2 has been removed. semi-colons and ands added.
'prohibits' clause subsumed 'non-humans' clause, also WA building clauses consolidated. Very very helpful. Thank you!

I can see where you are going with the issues around irreversibility, not adequately recognizing harms, and so on. However I think those are more nuanced angles. I think the freedom from harm angle is sufficient here. I dont want to overcomplicate the preamble. I have clarified that freedom from harm relates to second hand smoke there.

Clause 3, I've removed the intended for employees only part. I was thinking about teachers lounges being left unregulated but its just a hassle.

I know scope could be extended however I want to keep a tighter scope here because the previous attempt failed with a wider scope and something is better than nothing.

This got me thinking about FoE but I decided to leave it, I have now pushed that project on academic fraud out early because I don't think we should repeal FoE.

Thanks very much for this detailed response Imperium Anglorum!

Thanks Kenmoria for ongoing support here! I will look to change it!

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: When you do choose to submit this, are you aware that you'll need to campaign for it via telegram stamps or the API?

[A Bright Future]

OOC: When you do choose to submit this, are you aware that you'll need to campaign for it via telegram stamps or the API?

Ooc: Yes I am. I have already sent out some telegrams manually but have had very limited response. Will need to look into it in more detail. Particularly what API is and how to use it. Any references and resources to help me out there would be greatly appreciated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: When you do choose to submit this, are you aware that you'll need to campaign for it via telegram stamps or the API?

An interesting thought. I've been actually working on a guide to campaigns. Well, I started writing it and stopped for a while. Maybe I'll finish it.

[A Bright Future]

OOC: When you do choose to submit this, are you aware that you'll need to campaign for it via telegram stamps or the API?

An interesting thought. I've been actually working on a guide to campaigns. Well, I started writing it and stopped for a while. Maybe I'll finish it.

OOC: Can you send me what you have so far or any good references on campaigns in NS? I'm thinking this will get submitted relatively soon.

[Erithaca]

Maybe be more specific about health problem caused by smoking in the preamble.

[A Bright Future]

Maybe be more specific about health problem caused by smoking in the preamble.

Good idea! I'll do that now.

Im prepping the campaign by the way.

[Araraukar]

Maybe be more specific about health problem caused by smoking in the preamble.

Good idea! I'll do that now.

Im prepping the campaign by the way.

OOC: If you're changing the draft, don't submit it yet.

[A Bright Future]

OOC: Ok! Final batch of comments implemented. Campaign telegram ready to go. If you have any final call comments speak now or forever hold your peace. Assuming no substantial comments, I will be submitting in about 20 hours.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think I've found a new hill.

Well, seemingly, the hill has been climbed. However it is, I think you should wait until the current resolution passes and then update or include advertising regulations accordingly.

[Ransium]

Dude it’s been 10 days? Why such a rush?

[Wallenburg]

You're banning smoking within the Strangers' Bar? Unthinkable! How dare you!

[A Bright Future]

This is about smoking bans. Im leaving ads to a different resolution.

I didnt think I was getting any more substantive comments. So i figured im ready to go.

Fine. Strangers' got an exemption.

[New Min]

OOC: You never know when someone will give an extra comment. You should wait at least another 10 days.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 4a, 4b and 4d are in the present tense, but 4c is in the future tense."

OOC: You never know when someone will give an extra comment. You should wait at least another 10 days.

(OOC: I agree, there is little point in rushing submission.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Find a shorter title.

[A Bright Future]

Tenses harmonized and title shortened.

Believing firmly that all work is stretched out to exactly how much time is allocated to it,
Wishing, to take on board advice given,
ABF hereby:
1. Extends the submission deadline for this proposal to Friday 23.59 GMT.
2. Allows for further extensions should substantive comments arise.
3. Prohibits further extensions on the basis of the amount of time elapsed since draft initiation.
4. Reserves the right to miss the deadline due to RL considerations.