NationStates

---

Regulating the Tobacco Industry
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety? Consumer Protection?| Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Whereas the grave health consequences of tobacco usage have already been well-established, and need not be repeated here,

Whereas these consequences are so severe as to warrant strict regulation on the sale of tobacco products, so as to protect and preserve public health and safety,

This most august General Assembly, in this present session assembled, by and advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "tobacco product" as any product containing nicotine, in whole or part,
   2. "minor" as any person under the age of majority in their respective national laws,
   3. "cigarette" as any tobacco product designed to be inhaled by the user,
   4. "smokeless tobacco" as any tobacco product designed to be chewed or otherwise ingested,
2. Prohibits any individual or organization from purchasing or airing promotional advertisements for cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in any World Assembly member-state, and any individual or organization operating in a World Assembly member state from purchasing or airing said advertisements anywhere,
   
   
3. Prohibits any organization profiting off of the sale of tobacco products from contributing to political campaigns or otherwise engaging in lobbying activities in a World Assembly member-state,
   
   
4. Requires that packaging containing tobacco products, in order to be sold in a World Assembly member-state be at least thirty-percent covered in a state sanctioned health warning, that it list all ingredients of the tobacco product contained therein, and that it contain no misleading claims about the product's contents,
   
   
5. Mandates that health education curricula in member-states' state schooling systems contain relevant information about the dangers of tobacco consumption,
   
   
6. Prohibits the sale of tobacco products to any minor in a World Assembly member-state,
   
   
7. Authorises, where necessary, the use of the General Fund to cover the legal fees of nations facing lawsuit from tobacco companies in retaliation for reasonable legislation,
   
   
8. Urges member-nations to assist tobacco farmers in transitioning to alternative crops,
   
   
9. Declares that the usage of tobacco products shall be prohibited on the premises of the World Assembly Headquarters.

"I'm sick and tired of walking into work and having to breathe the dirtied air from my colleague's smoking habits. Enough is enough."

OOC: Based around the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Also, I'm not sure how much of this is covered by previous resolutions, nor am I sure of the category. Preamble forthcoming. Fire away.

For the first preamble clause, I might try putting something about lung damage just for clarity. Nicotine can occur in small amounts in other plants, so I might try defining tobacco as a product prepared from the leaves of the tobacco plant (find the Latin name(s) for it). I am possibly against 3 for being overly-restrictive.

United Massachusetts wrote:by and advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof

I think you made a couple mistakes here.

Prohibits any organization connected to the sale of tobacco products from contributing to political campaigns or otherwise engaging in lobbying activities in a World Assembly member-state,

This would prohibit organizations from making political donations simply because one of their employee's or member's spouses buys cigarettes. You really must tighten the language here.

Declares that the usage of tobacco products shall be prohibited on the premises of the World Assembly Headquarters.

"How dare you?" gasps Mikael. "I'll smoke wherever I damned please, thank you!"

Wallenburg wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:by and advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof

I think you made a couple mistakes here.

Prohibits any organization connected to the sale of tobacco products from contributing to political campaigns or otherwise engaging in lobbying activities in a World Assembly member-state,

This would prohibit organizations from making political donations simply because one of their employee's or member's spouses buys cigarettes. You really must tighten the language here.

"Yeah. This was an issue when I was drafting. I'll look at ways to tighten that up."

EDIT: Let's try that.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:

"tobacco" as any plant, item, or device containing nicotine, and "tobacco product" as any item containing tobacco"

This ends up including things like nicotine cessation products: Gum, Patches, Vape, etc. Nicotine, while addictive, is not the most harmful part of smoking. It's the combustion of tobacco or direct contact of the leaves against the mouth/gums that produces the most hazardous and cancer-causing effects. Placing restrictions on healthier, alternate forms of ingestion does more harm than good.

THX1138 wrote:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:

"tobacco" as any plant, item, or device containing nicotine, and "tobacco product" as any item containing tobacco"

This ends up including things like nicotine cessation products: Gum, Patches, Vape, etc. Nicotine, while addictive, is not the most harmful part of smoking. It's the combustion of tobacco or direct contact of the leaves against the mouth/gums that produces the most hazardous and cancer-causing effects. Placing restrictions on healthier, alternate forms of ingestion does more harm than good.

"The only clause I could see changing here is the second, and I have changed it accordingly."

"Not an international issue. Opposed."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not an international issue. Opposed."

"All the more reason to support."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not an international issue. Opposed."

"All the more reason to support."

"Nobody in the C.D.S.P. is affected by the United Massachusetts government permitting tobacco advertisements, nor vice versa. There is no international utility. If governments are willing to permit advertisement of tobacco products, that is the decision of the national government, and the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase tobacco. Considering the C.D.S.P. exports tobacco as a cash crop, we wouldn't support a limitation on our economic interests."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"All the more reason to support."

"Nobody in the C.D.S.P. is affected by the United Massachusetts government permitting tobacco advertisements, nor vice versa. There is no international utility. If governments are willing to permit advertisement of tobacco products, that is the decision of the national government, and the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase tobacco. Considering the C.D.S.P. exports tobacco as a cash crop, we wouldn't support a limitation on our economic interests."

"I, uh... I think that mighta been a personal jab at you, Benjamin. I mean, possibly 'Look, the CDSP hates this, so vote yea!' But I doubt he was talking about your economic interests or the international utility."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Nobody in the C.D.S.P. is affected by the United Massachusetts government permitting tobacco advertisements, nor vice versa. There is no international utility. If governments are willing to permit advertisement of tobacco products, that is the decision of the national government, and the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase tobacco. Considering the C.D.S.P. exports tobacco as a cash crop, we wouldn't support a limitation on our economic interests."

"I, uh... I think that mighta been a personal jab at you, Benjamin. I mean, possibly 'Look, the CDSP hates this, so vote yea!' But I doubt he was talking about your economic interests or the international utility."

"This is correct."

“I have put some comments in red.”

---

Regulating the Tobacco Industry
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety? Consumer Protection? That seems like a good category choice to me.| Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Whereas the grave health consequences of tobacco usage have already been well-established, and need not be repeated here, Even so, the grave health consequences of tobacco usage should probably receive at least some elucidation for member nations that do not have copies of prior resolutions to hand.

Whereas these consequences are so severe as to warrant strict regulation on the sale of tobacco products, so as to protect and preserve public health and safety,

This most august General Assembly, in this present session assembled, by and advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "tobacco product" as any product containing made in whole or part from nicotine-rich plants of the Nicotiana genus, ‘Containing made’ does not make sense.
   2. "minor" as any person under the age of majority in their respective national laws,
   3. "cigarette" as any tobacco product designed to be inhaled by the user,
   4. "smokeless tobacco" as any tobacco product designed to be chewed or otherwise ingested,
2. Prohibits any individual or organization from purchasing or airing promotional advertisements for cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in any World Assembly member-state, and any individual or organization operating in a World Assembly member state from purchasing or airing said advertisements anywhere, I do not at all agree with this. What is wrong with advertising products containing nicotine, if they are, for example, designed to stop an addiction to cigarettes? Furthermore, what of medical products that have a very small amount of nicotine, but otherwise hugely beneficial effects. Even in the case of standard cigarettes, I see no problem with airing them at a time when children are not likely to be watching.
   
   
3. Prohibits any organization profiting off of the sale of tobacco products from contributing to political campaigns or otherwise engaging in lobbying activities in a World Assembly member-state, Once again, this seems purely punitive against tobacco companies, with little justification for what benefits this could bring to member states. Although you could argue that tobacco companies could introduce cigarette-friendly legislation, that is true of any corprorate body.
   
   
4. Requires that packaging containing tobacco products, in order to be sold in a World Assembly member-state be at least thirty-percent covered in a state sanctioned health warning, that it list all ingredients of the tobacco product contained therein, and that it contain no misleading claims about the product's contents, 30% seems awfully high, especially when one has to also consider the ingredients, which normally covers the entire back half. That leaves only one fifth to have branding.
   
   
5. Mandates that health education curricula in member-states' state schooling systems contain relevant information about the dangers of tobacco consumption,
   
   
6. Prohibits the sale of tobacco products to any minor in a World Assembly member-state, What of medical uses? Or products designed to help a smoking addiction?
   
   
7. Authorises, where necessary, the use of the General Fund to cover the legal fees of nations facing lawsuit from tobacco companies in retaliation for reasonable legislation, This is absurd; the WA should not be funding that which should be covered by the vast stores of money most member nations have.
   
   
8. Urges member-nations to assist tobacco farmers in transitioning to alternative crops,
   
   
9. Declares that the usage of tobacco products shall be prohibited on the premises of the World Assembly Headquarters. Contrasting with what I assume is the dominant stance of other ambassadors, I don’t object to this clause. Smoking is a habit that offends me to the core, and I have no need to be forced to inhale toxic fumes to the detriment of my health.

Kenmoria wrote:Even so, the grave health consequences of tobacco usage should probably receive at least some elucidation for member nations that do not have copies of prior resolutions to hand.

"We agree with this. This is a placeholder preamble -- I have a much more interesting one coming."

Kenmoria wrote:I do not at all agree with this. What is wrong with advertising products containing nicotine, if they are, for example, designed to stop an addiction to cigarettes? Furthermore, what of medical products that have a very small amount of nicotine, but otherwise hugely beneficial effects. Even in the case of standard cigarettes, I see no problem with airing them at a time when children are not likely to be watching.

"We constrained the limitation specifically so that the advertising ban would apply only to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. We are not aware of a context in which cigarettes would be helpful in combating tobacco addiction."

Kenmoria wrote:Once again, this seems purely punitive against tobacco companies, with little justification for what benefits this could bring to member states. Although you could argue that tobacco companies could introduce cigarette-friendly legislation, that is true of any corprorate body.

"I do not want companies that deliberately profit off of people's addiction to a carcinogenic substance to have any place in advancing their monetary interests at the expense of public health. I have every desire to punish cigarette companies, and frankly, this resolution might not go far enough."

Kenmoria wrote:30% seems awfully high, especially when one has to also consider the ingredients, which normally covers the entire back half. That leaves only one fifth to have branding.

IC: "Meh. Why would cigarette packages have any branding? They quite literally kill people."

OOC: WHO actually recommends 50%. The Framework mandates 30%, so I did. It appears to be quite standard, actually.

Kenmoria wrote:What of medical uses? Or products designed to help a smoking addiction?

"Medical uses of cigarettes? I'm slightly confused. As for products designed to help stop a smoking addiction, we're willing to potentially cooperate on that point, though I'm largely unconvinced that such a route of recovery is very fruitful.

Kenmoria wrote:This is absurd; the WA should not be funding that which should be covered by the vast stores of money most member nations have.

OOC: Key word -- should. When Togo tried to implement a plain-packaging law, for instance, they were forced to back down after Phillip Morris threatened to sue them into oblivion, basically.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Nobody in the C.D.S.P. is affected by the United Massachusetts government permitting tobacco advertisements, nor vice versa. There is no international utility. If governments are willing to permit advertisement of tobacco products, that is the decision of the national government, and the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase tobacco. Considering the C.D.S.P. exports tobacco as a cash crop, we wouldn't support a limitation on our economic interests."

"I, uh... I think that mighta been a personal jab at you, Benjamin. I mean, possibly 'Look, the CDSP hates this, so vote yea!' But I doubt he was talking about your economic interests or the international utility."

"I'm aware. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, since of the two of us, his is the reputation for supporting unpopular, backwards policies. If the United Massachusetts representative wishes to compare political cred, I'm not sure the contest will be fair."

OOC: It also motivated me to take more drastic opposition.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
"I, uh... I think that mighta been a personal jab at you, Benjamin. I mean, possibly 'Look, the CDSP hates this, so vote yea!' But I doubt he was talking about your economic interests or the international utility."

"I'm aware. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, since of the two of us, his is the reputation for supporting unpopular, backwards policies. If the United Massachusetts representative wishes to compare political cred, I'm not sure the contest will be fair."

OOC: It also motivated me to take more drastic opposition.

"We're not the ones in favour of allowing multinational corporations to profit off of people's addiction to carcinogens, last I recalled."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"I'm aware. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, since of the two of us, his is the reputation for supporting unpopular, backwards policies. If the United Massachusetts representative wishes to compare political cred, I'm not sure the contest will be fair."

OOC: It also motivated me to take more drastic opposition.

"We're not the ones in favour of allowing multinational corporations to profit off of people's addiction to carcinogens, last I recalled."

"And yet, we permit alcohol, gambling, recreational drug use...gee, its almost as if addictive substances as sources of profit are common and socially acceptable in most nations. Hop off the high horse, bucko. Lets stop trying to coat the world in bubble wrap."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"We're not the ones in favour of allowing multinational corporations to profit off of people's addiction to carcinogens, last I recalled."

"And yet, we permit alcohol, gambling, recreational drug use...gee, its almost as if addictive substances as sources of profit are common and socially acceptable in most nations. Hop off the high horse, bucko. Lets stop trying to coat the world in bubble wrap."

"Where is the prohibition on smoking? One does not need to be an overzealous soccer mom to see that unrestricted sales of carcinogens is a bad thing. Of course, allowing poor countries and individuals to be exploited by multinational corporations is common practice now. Liberty!"

Until recently, this would have contradicted provisions in Freedom of Expression.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Until recently, this would have contradicted provisions in Freedom of Expression.

Are you referring to the old FoE or the new one?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"And yet, we permit alcohol, gambling, recreational drug use...gee, its almost as if addictive substances as sources of profit are common and socially acceptable in most nations. Hop off the high horse, bucko. Lets stop trying to coat the world in bubble wrap."

"Where is the prohibition on smoking? One does not need to be an overzealous soccer mom to see that unrestricted sales of carcinogens is a bad thing. Of course, allowing poor countries and individuals to be exploited by multinational corporations is common practice now. Liberty!"

"A ban on advertising a product is as good as a ban on product, as consumers cannot make a rational choice in the matter. And the legal funding clause here is untenable. There is simply no reason any nation should have to cover the costs, indirectly, of another state's legal defense. Fortunately, this draft writes it's own countercampaign."

Perhaps more useful would be regulations prohibiting tobacco multinationals from attempting to ride roughshod over nations attempting to impose their own tobacco regulations.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Nobody in the C.D.S.P. is affected by the United Massachusetts government permitting tobacco advertisements, nor vice versa. There is no international utility. If governments are willing to permit advertisement of tobacco products, that is the decision of the national government, and the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase tobacco. Considering the C.D.S.P. exports tobacco as a cash crop, we wouldn't support a limitation on our economic interests."

"I, uh... I think that mighta been a personal jab at you, Benjamin. I mean, possibly 'Look, the CDSP hates this, so vote yea!' But I doubt he was talking about your economic interests or the international utility."

Ordinarily I would oppose legislation favored by the C.D.S.P, but I must say this is one of the inordinate times where I can comfortably back the Ambassador's conclusion and count my vote with theirs.

Full support, for once. End the cancer sticks once and for all.

"The Imperium highly recommends expanding this legislation to additional similar substances," said Seretis, who had seemingly appeared from out of nowhere, "But beyond that, this legislation is acceptable to the Imperium, and you may expect our support."

"Any state that currently taxes sales of tobacco goods and publicly finances election campaigns, or where devolved subdivisions of government are financed by taxes on, among other things, tobacco and where said devolved subdivisions engage in lobbying, will run afoul of Clause Three. It is our understanding that capitalist states find taxation to be a reasonable way to guide citizens towards better choices. We would therefore hope that this oft-used way of capitalist societies to reduce the spread of tobacco will be exempt in Clause Three."