[DRAFT] Ban Public Smoking Indoors

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

?

Precisely.

*internal screaming

[Outer Sparta]

Really now?

So saying someone supports slavery because they don't think a ban on indoor smoking which only affect 1-10 nations doesn't make you look stupid? Asking for a friend......

Maybe look at what I wrote rather than saying I’m just throwing insults.

I really don't think you get that this isn't an international issue. Plus, the OP hasn't even bothered to respond.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Maybe look at what I wrote rather than saying I’m just throwing insults.

I really don't think you get that this isn't an international issue. Plus, the OP hasn't even bothered to respond.

Ok

[Bears Armed]

But any one nation's policy on this topic would have no effect on the other member nations, and would you really having restrictions on how people smoke to be a fundamental right? What next, a proposal on the safe disposal of banana-skins so that people don't slip on those?

Do you smoke? Just asking, because most people against this are either the businesses that make cigarettes or the people who smoke.

OOC: No, I don't. Never have done.

[Separatist Peoples]

But any one nation's policy on this topic would have no effect on the other member nations, and would you really having restrictions on how people smoke to be a fundamental right? What next, a proposal on the safe disposal of banana-skins so that people don't slip on those?

Do you smoke? Just asking, because most people against this are either the businesses that make cigarettes or the people who smoke.

Ooc: nonsmoker here.

Ic: "The C.D.S.P. has similar policies as outlined in the draft in its territories. Public accommodations are smoke free unless their principle business activity is the provision of substances to smoke or apparatus thereof, such as hookah, and are licensed and regulated accordingly. Despite that, we oppose implementing this policy internationally. The health of populations is, indeed an international issue. Specific regulations of specific practices are best imposed locally to accommodate for the specific cultural and practical concerns of that locality.

"Regulations for smoking indoors where communal smoking is culturally significant need to be different than those regulations where smoking bears little social value. Smoking in an encapsulated environment is a different concern than smoking in a stand-alone facility with external ventilation. So on and so forth."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: For the seemingly unlikely event the OP returns or someone else reads this and is potentially anyone who might like to make some sort of attempt:

I would suggest focusing on costs. The WA mandates state-provided/funded healthcare(to the indigent at a minimum) and even funds it out of the general fund for nations that cannot provide it themselves. While it will not get my vote, an argument from the point of view of the unfairness of the imposition of costs on society and the WA budget by poor decision making, and the potential amelioration of financial drain would at least be a more logical reason for the WA to be involved in the matter.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Not a smoker, not a tobacco business, and I don't believe in slavery.

IC: "Even ignoring the rude, aggressive, and uncooperative demeanor of the delegation which brought this proposal before us, I see no reason why this is a matter of international concern. While I am not opposed to the concept of a fundamental right to the wellbeing of the person, the harm that second-hand smoke poses to the health of a non-smoker is just so low as to not warrant regulations of this kind from the World Assembly. If a public accommodation holds itself out to be a place where smoking is permitted, people who wish to avoid second-hand smoke can choose to not give it their business, and thus spare themselves being exposed to other people's fumes. This issue is best addressed on the national or even local level."

[Yaak]

Hell no.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would suggest focusing on costs. The WA mandates state-provided/funded healthcare(to the indigent at a minimum) and even funds it out of the general fund for nations that cannot provide it themselves. While it will not get my vote, an argument from the point of view of the unfairness of the imposition of costs on society and the WA budget by poor decision making, and the potential amelioration of financial drain would at least be a more logical reason for the WA to be involved in the matter.

If the WA also requires member nations to provide a minimum standard of living, could not the faster-than-average reduction in pension costs implied by smokers' peculiar decisions also assist in lowering member nation fiscal burdens on average over a long planning horizon as a whole?

[Xanthorrhoea]

If the WA also requires member nations to provide a minimum standard of living, could not the faster-than-average reduction in pension costs implied by smokers' peculiar decisions also assist in lowering member nation fiscal burdens on average over a long planning horizon as a whole?

I would argue the opposite. If any level of health care is included in the basic standard of living, then the cost of a smoker compared to other members of society is huge. Ignoring their reduced ability to work due to the many health effects of smoking, the cost of managing those health problems far outweighs any savings on pensions when they die early. Subsidising frequent hospital visits, medication, home oxygen etc is not cheap. I feel like people think smoking only kills, whereas the truth is it causes decades of disability before it finishes you off.

This proposal has been rightly castigated, but I would argue that reducing the incidence of a major health risk is indeed an international issue. What makes this issue different to other safety issues such as drug access or food standards?

[Bears Armed]

This proposal has been rightly castigated, but I would argue that reducing the incidence of a major health risk is indeed an international issue. What makes this issue different to other safety issues such as drug access or food standards?

OOC: What makes you think that the nations/players opposing this proposal as "not international" approve[d] of proposals/resolutions on those topics?

[Xanthorrhoea]

OOC: What makes you think that the nations/players opposing this proposal as "not international" approve[d] of proposals/resolutions on those topics?

Fair point. I have no response, other than my own belief in these topic's merit.

[Hanovereich]

OOC: A 'maximum capacity of no less' sounds contradictory.

[Serboslovak Kingdom]

Ban it in indoors but let people do it in the outside. It stinks its bad for health but ig it is their choice!

[Faerixe]

Smoking should be banned in inside public areas because its gross and a health hazard.

[Uzaczar]

(Moral Decency, strength: mild)

The World Assembly,

Understanding that many people find pleasure in smoking,

Observing, however, that Smoking can have harmful effects on the health of others,

Further observing that these effects are most severe while indoors,

Believing that people's health shouldn't have to suffer due to the actions of others,

Hereby:

[Tab=]1. Mandates that any cigars, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, pipes, vape pens, or similar be used in a designated room.[/Tab]

[Tab=]2. Requires that any public indoor areas have either designated rooms for smoking, or a total ban on smoking.[/Tab]

[Tab=]3. Requires these rooms have no windows, and have a maximum capacity of no less than 12 square feet per person.[/Tab]