[ABANDONED]Reducing Cancer: Restriction on Carcinogens

[Fleeta]

Reducing Cancer through Restriction of Carcinogens

Category: Health
Strength: Mild
Industry Effected: Tobacco, Carcinogenic Recreational Drugs
Proposed by: Fleeta

Understanding that cancer is responsible for a large percentage of deaths in many member nation populations, survivors have reduced lifespans, and there is no universal cure;

Recognizing the responsibility of government to protect the lives of citizens;

Abhorred at the lack of previous legislation regarding banning carcinogenic recreational substances in cancer ridden populations;

The General Assembly, in order to preserve the sanctity of human life, hereby enacts,

1) Establishes the World Assembly Cancer Society (WACS), as a board including certified oncologists within the World Assembly Scientific Programme, employing appointed oncologists, compensated by the general fund of the World Assembly alone;

2) Defines a carcinogen as:
2.a) any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that promotes carcinogenesis,
2.b) or any substance that is defined by the WACS as a carcinogen.

3) Instructs the WACS to identify any carcinogenic recreational substances, adding them to a publicly viewable registrar, updating accordingly;

4) Further instructs the WACS to declare a nation Subject to Compulsory Carcinogen Restriction (SCCR) according to the following guidelines:

4.a) Member nations that have a cancer-related death rate exceeding a threshold determined by the WACS will be declared SCCR and are not permitted to legalize the purchase, sale, unauthorized possession, production, manufacture, or trade, of WACS identified carcinogenic recreational drugs;

4.b) Member nations that are the primary source of tobacco imports for SCCR member nations will be subject to monetary compensation for potential economic depression as a result.

5) Recommends the adoption of policies that meet the WACS thresholds to avoid the adoption of SCCR restrictions and subsequent economic repercussions.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
You can't mention game stats in proposals: As given by the game's mechanics, they are presumed to be an OOC thing and consequently using them here would make the proposal illegal for Meta-gaming.[one-sixth of Gensec]

[The New California Republic]

4.a) Member nations that have a cancer-related death rate exceeding a threshold determined by the WACS will be declared SCCR and are not permitted to legalize the purchase, sale, possession, production, cultivation, trade, import, storage, consumption, exposure, etc. of WACS identified carcinogens

Strongly against, mostly on the basis of this clause. This would lead to industry being shut down in nations subject to the SCCR, and could even lead to deaths from starvation if food industries are shut down as a result.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 5, and the subclauses thereof, will most likely not get a lot of support. Enacting a complete ban on numerous markets will not go down well with several nations, especially given that lots of foodstuffs heighten the risk of cancer.”

[Fleeta]

4.a) Member nations that have a cancer-related death rate exceeding a threshold determined by the WACS will be declared SCCR and are not permitted to legalize the purchase, sale, possession, production, cultivation, trade, import, storage, consumption, exposure, etc. of WACS identified carcinogens

Strongly against, mostly on the basis of this clause. This would lead to industry being shut down in nations subject to the SCCR, and could even lead to deaths from starvation if food industries are shut down as a result.

“Clause 5, and the subclauses thereof, will most likely not get a lot of support. Enacting a complete ban on numerous markets will not go down well with several nations, especially given that lots of foodstuffs heighten the risk of cancer.”

In response to The New California Republic,

Your response assumes that the markets that produce the implied foodstuffs affected by SCCR restrictions are the only source of food in a nation. This is false. The only reason you could rationally oppose clause 4a is if your own nation's population relies on carcinogenic food, which is impossible, unless your people's diet consists strictly of red meat, processed meat, alcoholic beverages, or Chinese-style Salted Fish, those some of the only carcinogenic foodstuffs permitted for consumption today. Obviously, a human population does not rely on strictly protein and booze. If the aforementioned foodstuffs were the primary sources of protein for your population, it's about time to invest some of that revenue generated through your 'frightening' economy into importing that beloved red meat and alcohol. Otherwise, you have two options: Let the people die off, or introduce your population to alternate protein sources, like beans or chicken. If you could list some in game industries that may be impacted negatively by SCCR restrictions, I'd be glad to assess the data, and determine whether or not SCCR status might effect it.

In response to Kenmoria,

For the first point you made, it's a shame that several nations would not support the life of the people over the economy. To respond to such nations, I would simply say, the eradication of carcinogenic industry will bloom the emergence of new industry and boost existing in game industry. For example, no more cigarettes. Ouch, that's a hit to the economy. But now, emerges a new industry: cigarette disposal. And which existing industry gets a boost? Perhaps the Insurance industry gets a boost due to the sudden need for life insurance among ex-smokers, who now have a heightened risk of cancer related death.
For the second point you made, regarding the misconception that 'lots of foodstuffs heighten the risk or cancer', please refer to the previous response make to The New California Republic. It's a big world. Plenty of resources for nutrient alternatives, like the protein example provided above. Except, protein is the only nutrient being slightly reduced in volume. Remember, there are only six nutrients necessary for survival. Everything else, like alcohol for example, is just a luxury that, as it turns out, increases cancer and leads to plenty of other diseases. Its important to notice that alcohol would be effectively outlawed in SCCR nations.

Respectfully,
Fleeta

NOTE: The WACS would need to be an actual organization, staffed by actual living persons, not just some hypothetical board. The oncologist certification and pay is obviously not going to be real, but the Society would indeed be an extension of the WA. Ultimately, this proposal is a solution to a widely ignored and accepted public health crisis. We will be mocked in the future for allowing the sale and manufacture of tobacco products and other related carcinogens. By establishing the WACS, we could potentially reduce cancer related deaths to an all time low; a death cause that plagues nations indiscriminately.

[The New California Republic]

Your response assumes that the markets that produce the implied foodstuffs affected by SCCR restrictions are the only source of food in a nation. This is false. The only reason you could rationally oppose clause 4a is if your own nation's population relies on carcinogenic food, which is impossible, unless your people's diet consists strictly of red meat, processed meat, alcoholic beverages, or Chinese-style Salted Fish, those some of the only carcinogenic foodstuffs permitted for consumption today. Obviously, a human population does not rely on strictly protein and booze. If the aforementioned foodstuffs were the primary sources of protein for your population, it's about time to invest some of that revenue generated through your 'frightening' economy into importing that beloved red meat and alcohol. Otherwise, you have two options: Let the people die off, or introduce your population to alternate protein sources, like beans or chicken. If you could list some in game industries that may be impacted negatively by SCCR restrictions, I'd be glad to assess the data, and determine whether or not SCCR status might effect it.

Production chains are a thing, meaning that a product banned upstream in the chain will negatively affect the production of products downstream in the chain. An example would be pesticides and other substances required for food production, that in and of themselves are not foods, but are carcinogenic substances used in order to produce food.

[Fleeta]

Production chains are a thing, meaning that a product banned upstream in the chain will negatively affect the production of products downstream in the chain. An example would be pesticides and other substances required for food production, that in and of themselves are not foods, but are carcinogenic substances used in order to produce food.

Certainly, but there is always an alternative. For example, a nation that becomes subject to SCCR would have the opportunity to raise scientific advancement through the development of genetic modification, for example. Or perhaps synthesizing non-carcinogenic pesticides and techniques, such as microbial insecticides like Bacillus thuringiensis.

[The New California Republic]

Production chains are a thing, meaning that a product banned upstream in the chain will negatively affect the production of products downstream in the chain. An example would be pesticides and other substances required for food production, that in and of themselves are not foods, but are carcinogenic substances used in order to produce food.

Certainly, but there is always an alternative. For example, a nation that becomes subject to SCCR would have the opportunity to raise scientific advancement through the development of genetic modification, for example. Or perhaps synthesizing non-carcinogenic pesticides and techniques, such as microbial insecticides like Bacillus thuringiensis.

Takes time. And in the interim folk would starve.

[Fleeta]

Takes time. And in the interim folk would starve.

A worst case scenario under that example:

Surplus?
- Population consists primarily of subsistence yeoman farmers
Imports?
- No foreign policy
- Banned international trade
- No money and no credit
Welfare?
- No welfare
- No taxpayers
Uhhh, GA resolution 5?
- Repealed (GAR #33)
Well, leader, it seems you have no idea how to run a government properly and will suffer the consequences because of it. Just withdrawal to avoid repercussions.
- Withdrawals from the WA
Problem solved. Don't make the game harder on yourself by joining the WA, then complaining when reasonable legislation comes about that will reduce cancer. (not talking about you, The New California Republic)

[The New California Republic]

Takes time. And in the interim folk would starve.

A worst case scenario under that example:

Surplus?
- Population consists primarily of subsistence yeoman farmers
Imports?
- No foreign policy
- Banned international trade
- No money and no credit
Welfare?
- No welfare
- No taxpayers
Uhhh, GA resolution 5?
- Repealed (GAR #33)
Well, leader, it seems you have no idea how to run a government properly and will suffer the consequences because of it. Just withdrawal to avoid repercussions.
- Withdrawals from the WA
Problem solved. Don't make the game harder on yourself by joining the WA, then complaining when reasonable legislation comes about that will reduce cancer. (not talking about you, The New California Republic)

...what is this nonsense?

[Separatist Peoples]

"If individuals want to poison themselves, who are we to prevent it? Much like gun laws, domestic drug consumption is a domestic issue."

[Fleeta]

...what is this nonsense?

Simply a broken down explanation of how this decision might effect nations restricted by the bill, including a series of sequential solutions for various issues in a nation similar to the one implied in your first response. The only nation that would sustain irreversible damage to population and economy would be ones like the one described in 'that nonsense'.

[The New California Republic]

...what is this nonsense?

Simply a broken down explanation of how this decision might effect nations restricted by the bill, including a series of sequential solutions for various issues in a nation similar to the one implied in your first response. The only nation that would sustain irreversible damage to population and economy would be ones like the one described in 'that nonsense'.

But it really isn't, as starvation can set in very quickly if supply chains are disrupted, as they would be if this passes. To address your points: surplus isn't likely to be enough to feed the populace for the period of time it would take to genetically engineer alternative foodstuffs as you have suggested; even with imports people can still starve if local food production is cut off suddenly; welfare would be overwhelmed by needing to feed that many people; and "withdrawing from the WA to prevent starvation" is a bullshit response to a criticism.

So yes, your response was nonsense.

[Fleeta]

"The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action." Article XII, GAR #29.

It becomes our responsibility when emergency care is needed. 'other such grounds' can be interpreted as self intoxication, could it not? This wonderfully written body of legislation encapsulates what it means to be a WA member. It all comes down to the future of the human race. Letting humans poison themselves is a humanitarian crisis.

Take smoking for example. Producing second hand smoke is the equivalent of shooting yourself with a machine gun; your gonna hit someone else. The condemnation of nations and entire regions is often times based solely on what someone deems unfair. Having to be exposed to airborne carcinogens in cigarette smoke is also unfair.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action." Article XII, GAR #29.

It becomes our responsibility when emergency care is needed. 'other such grounds' can be interpreted as self intoxication, could it not? This wonderfully written body of legislation encapsulates what it means to be a WA member. It all comes down to the future of the human race. Letting humans poison themselves is a humanitarian crisis.

Take smoking for example. Producing second hand smoke is the equivalent of shooting yourself with a machine gun; your gonna hit someone else. The condemnation of nations and entire regions is often times based solely on what someone deems unfair. Having to be exposed to airborne carcinogens in cigarette smoke is also unfair.

"A poor analogy, ambassador. Secondhand smoke does not cause immediate, lethal damage to those exposed to it. The balance of equities does not lean towards an outright ban, considering the economic and personal interests in being permitted to continue a recreational drug of choice, especially since other airborne carcinogens are, by necessity, tolerated in a society. Such as car exhaust, wood smoke, paint fumes, etc. Frankly, this is rather like shooting a fly with a .45."

[Fleeta]

But it really isn't, as starvation can set in very quickly if supply chains are disrupted, as they would be if this passes. To address your points: surplus isn't likely to be enough to feed the populace for the period of time it would take to genetically engineer alternative foodstuffs as you have suggested; even with imports people can still starve if local food production is cut off suddenly; welfare would be overwhelmed by needing to feed that many people; and "withdrawing from the WA to prevent starvation" is a bullshit response to a criticism.

So yes, your response was nonsense.

You are absolutely right. Withdrawal from the WA to prevent starvation is indeed bullshit, assuming starvation would actually be the result of the passage of this bill. Could you please provide an example in a supply chain that might be disrupted for a period long enough to cause a nationwide period of starvation? Unless you don't wash you eat chewing tobacco, clean yourself with brandy, and drown your chemicals in bleach, I'm not sure how an entire population might starve as a result of banning smoking and cancer causing pesticides.

[Separatist Peoples]

But it really isn't, as starvation can set in very quickly if supply chains are disrupted, as they would be if this passes. To address your points: surplus isn't likely to be enough to feed the populace for the period of time it would take to genetically engineer alternative foodstuffs as you have suggested; even with imports people can still starve if local food production is cut off suddenly; welfare would be overwhelmed by needing to feed that many people; and "withdrawing from the WA to prevent starvation" is a bullshit response to a criticism.

So yes, your response was nonsense.

You are absolutely right. Withdrawal from the WA to prevent starvation is indeed bullshit, assuming starvation would actually be the result of the passage of this bill. Could you please provide an example in a supply chain that might be disrupted for a period long enough to cause a nationwide period of starvation? Unless you don't wash you eat chewing tobacco, clean yourself with brandy, and drown your chemicals in bleach, I'm not sure how an entire population might starve as a result of banning smoking and cancer causing pesticides.

"Cash crop economies abound, ambassador."

OOC: Parts of the American Colonies would have been hit very, very hard by an outright ban on tobacco. Its not entirely clear that any modern examples of an inedible cash crop has a similar incidence, but you can see similar reliance on cash crops that are edible in many states. Bananas, quinoa, and corn come to mind.

[The New California Republic]

"The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action." Article XII, GAR #29.

It becomes our responsibility when emergency care is needed. 'other such grounds' can be interpreted as self intoxication, could it not? This wonderfully written body of legislation encapsulates what it means to be a WA member.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you are proposing here. You have seriously misinterpreted what that quote is saying. It takes a seriously off-beam interpretation to make that mean what you want it to mean.

It all comes down to the future of the human race.

There are other species in the WA; passed Resolutions apply to them all.

Letting humans poison themselves is a humanitarian crisis.

But your proposal isn't the solution for that.

Take smoking for example. Producing second hand smoke is the equivalent of shooting yourself with a machine gun; your gonna hit someone else.

What a really weird analogy.

The condemnation of nations and entire regions is often times based solely on what someone deems unfair. Having to be exposed to airborne carcinogens in cigarette smoke is also unfair.

Non sequitur.

[Fleeta]

"The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action." Article XII, GAR #29.

It becomes our responsibility when emergency care is needed. 'other such grounds' can be interpreted as self intoxication, could it not? This wonderfully written body of legislation encapsulates what it means to be a WA member.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you are proposing here. You have seriously misinterpreted what that quote is saying. It takes a seriously off-beam interpretation to make that mean what you want it to mean.

It all comes down to the future of the human race.

There are other species in the WA; passed Resolutions apply to them all.

Letting humans poison themselves is a humanitarian crisis.

But your proposal isn't the solution for that.

Take smoking for example. Producing second hand smoke is the equivalent of shooting yourself with a machine gun; your gonna hit someone else.

What a really weird analogy.

The condemnation of nations and entire regions is often times based solely on what someone deems unfair. Having to be exposed to airborne carcinogens in cigarette smoke is also unfair.

Non sequitur.

Clearly, in my hasty attempts to justify the contents of the bill, I have neglected to take into consideration other species, misinterpreted the contents of previous bills, and have made some embarrassing analogies in the process. I will edit the bill appropriately, and will focus on the purview of the bill and its subsequent effects on populations as you were quick to point out. Thank you for your criticism up to this point in the development of this bill.

[The New California Republic]

Could you please provide an example in a supply chain that might be disrupted for a period long enough to cause a nationwide period of starvation? [...] I'm not sure how an entire population might starve as a result of banning [...] cancer causing pesticides.

Seriously? You seriously can't understand how crop failures can arise through pests and other plant diseases if preventative chemicals that are carcinogenic are suddenly banned?

[Fleeta]

Seriously? You seriously can't understand how crop failures can arise through pests and other plant diseases if preventative chemicals that are carcinogenic are suddenly banned?

Of course I can see that. But there is no need for carcinogenic pesticides.

The nicotine from tobacco can be used on plants as a natural insecticide in agriculture that doesn't have the health and environmental risks of other pesticides.

[Separatist Peoples]

Seriously? You seriously can't understand how crop failures can arise through pests and other plant diseases if preventative chemicals that are carcinogenic are suddenly banned?

Of course I can see that. But there is no need for carcinogenic pesticides.

The nicotine from tobacco can be used on plants as a natural insecticide in agriculture that doesn't have the health and environmental risks of other pesticides.

"Which means you've just created a massive black market for all that tobacco you banned. Which can no longer be regulated for quality or consumption warnings. The entire premise is flawed, ambassador."

[The New California Republic]

Seriously? You seriously can't understand how crop failures can arise through pests and other plant diseases if preventative chemicals that are carcinogenic are suddenly banned?

Of course I can see that. But there is no need for carcinogenic pesticides.

Arguably not, but that's not the point. The point is that suddenly banning nations from using them that do use them will cause crop failures.

[Fleeta]

Arguably not, but that's not the point. The point is that suddenly banning nations from using them that do use them will cause crop failures.

Okay. So the failure of the bill is article 4a, no? Too specific. And article 6 may be devastating to economies.

[The New California Republic]

Arguably not, but that's not the point. The point is that suddenly banning nations from using them that do use them will cause crop failures.

Okay. So the failure of the bill is article 4a, no? Too specific. And article 6 may be devastating to economies.

I'd say the premise itself is flawed. Tobacco use is a domestic issue as SP said, not an international one.