NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] On Smoking

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

[Draft] On Smoking

Postby First Nightmare » Sat Nov 30, 2024 11:24 pm

Knowing that other methods to consume substances commonly consumed by smoking exist,
Recognizing the harmful health effects of smoking for those affected by it,
Aware that people who do not smoke directly still suffer from smoking, either by the direct release of smoke during the smoking process or the release of smoke from a smoker's skin and/or clothes;
Determining that it is insufficient to merely ban smoking in some locations, as this does not address the problems of clothing/skin smoke;
Determining a regulation net(e.g. the requirement to wash after every smoking event) to be neither practical nor worth the costs,
Saddened that many member nations have not banned the unsafe consumption method of smoking,

The World Assembly

Mandates its member state to ban smoking, and to ban the distribution of devices intended for smoking to consumers.

Category: Regulation - Safety

Please tell us any problems with this resolution.
Last edited by First Nightmare on Sat Dec 07, 2024 4:41 am, edited 11 times in total.

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1993
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:01 am

Opposed in principle. Unilateral substance bans create niche markets for organized crime to carve out power with, and punish people with addictions, without actually addressing the source of addiction or substantially reducing the use of the unilaterally banned substance. The effects of such carceral approaches also disproportionately affect the working class, the impoverished, and people with disabilities. A proposal that perhaps has its heart in the right place, but is demonstrably doomed to create issues that don't already exist without solving the ones that do already exist.
Last edited by The Overmind on Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Tesseris
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 457
Founded: Apr 25, 2024
Corporate Police State

Postby Tesseris » Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:04 am

The Overmind wrote:Opposed in principle. Unilateral substance bans create niche markets for organized crime to carve out power with, and punish people with addictions, without actually addressing the source of addiction or substantially reducing the use of the unilaterally banned substance. The effects of such carceral approaches also disproportionately affect the working class, the impoverished, and people with disabilities. A proposal that perhaps has its heart in the right place, but is demonstrably doomed to create issues that don't already exist without solving the ones that do already exist.


I agree with this man (or woman, other, etc.) for once
God is not our king, and Humanity will win!
User of previous nation Stella Nera and of Lumiere du Premier. NS Stats, Polices, and Designations are NOT Canon! Use Factbooks.
Officially known as the ''Unified Resistance of Tesseris''
A nation that stands for humanity, against the Divine Oppressor Deus and his brainwashed army.
Current Year 1410 AC. Population, 80 million. Ultra-Humanist Unitarian Misotheistic Militaristic Meritocracy.
Those who commit treason against humanity are mostly misguided children, corrupted by ignorant forces of the anti-humanist front. They must be re-educated. Those who prove to be more than misguided fools, that deem themselves overt traitors in the face of the glory of humankind, need to have stricter measures enacted, capital punishment.

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:32 am

The Overmind wrote:Opposed in principle. Unilateral substance bans create niche markets for organized crime to carve out power with, and punish people with addictions, without actually addressing the source of addiction or substantially reducing the use of the unilaterally banned substance. The effects of such carceral approaches also disproportionately affect the working class, the impoverished, and people with disabilities. A proposal that perhaps has its heart in the right place, but is demonstrably doomed to create issues that don't already exist without solving the ones that do already exist.

This proposal does not ban using a substance per se. What it does do is banning some devices for ingesting a substance because these devices are hazardous for third parties.
There are alternative ways for ingesting these substances that do not affect third parties the same way.
Because using these devices does hurt innocent third parties it is okay to punish their users.

User avatar
Bilancorn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1009
Founded: Apr 02, 2020
Capitalizt

Postby Bilancorn » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:36 am

Opposed as it will only increase the black market of tobacco, as well as leaving many workers without jobs, after the closure of plantations and industries related to tobacco. If you want a smoking ban, do it in your own nation, but dont force it on us and other nations.
Right-center Constitutional Republic on a (sub)tropical island, with advanced technology and a strong, resilient military.
We strongly believe in secularism, national security and meritocracy.
NS stats are canon, but the first information source are factbooks.
You want to establish an embassy? click here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=544442
Discord and other social profiles:
ask via telegram

User avatar
Cerespasia
Minister
 
Posts: 3084
Founded: May 13, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cerespasia » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:39 am

Cerespasia's final verdict on this draft is Against. As outright prohibition only serves to incite more criminal-related activities and put tobacco-producing corporations out of business. Imagining that on an international scale is rather perplexing.
CERES IS BACK!
And I want some more..!
NSStats executed via full auto magdump from M55B Battle Rifle.

Current year: 19989 After Time. | Earthly equivalent: 2016 A.D.

Israel this, Palestine that, They didn't start the fire. | I hate boycotts, I miss fast food.

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:04 am

Please keep in mind that this proposal does NOT ban tobacco, but rather one method of consuming it.
I've added a clause that reminds people of that.
I hope this addresses these concerns.
Last edited by First Nightmare on Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Fanvm Tax
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 124
Founded: Oct 01, 2024
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Fanvm Tax » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:07 am

Support, people should do fentanyl instead.
Professional Shitposter


Skibidi toilet is the greatest thing the earth has ever seen all hail Skibidi and emperor Gaius Cenaticus of the Rizzman Empire.

I do not have pronouns. In fact, I find the mere idea of third-person singular pronouns disgusting. You will refer to me as Fanvm Tax and nothing else.

I have 1337 PhDs and 69420 doctorates and I went to Yale and Harvard, just trust me, okay?

Democracy is stupid. Voters are stupid, so they vote for stupid people who put in stupid policies.

User avatar
Russian Brotherhood
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1065
Founded: Apr 25, 2024
Democratic Socialists

Postby Russian Brotherhood » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:09 am

Against
✝Conservative Catholic✝
JROTC Cadet PVT

SSR (Players that are in the Brotherhood)
Park0ur Civilization, Sanlind

Given Titles
Honorary Citizen of Kensor (Given by Kensor), Honorable Russian (Given by Trump Almighty), RusBro (Given by Rylland), Fantasy Russia (Given by Park0ur Civilization), RuskyBrosky (Given by The Indios Bravos) .

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:13 am

Fanvm Tax wrote:Support, people should do fentanyl instead.

This resolution does not ban or promote any substances. This includes tobacco products not intended for smoking.
I would like to see more feedback on the category.
The title of this proposal has been changed to prevent misunderstandings.
Last edited by First Nightmare on Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Okona
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Nov 05, 2024
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Okona » Sun Dec 01, 2024 11:14 am

Bilancorn wrote:Opposed as it will only increase the black market of tobacco, as well as leaving many workers without jobs, after the closure of plantations and industries related to tobacco. If you want a smoking ban, do it in your own nation, but dont force it on us and other nations.


I agree, this would be a fine thing to do in a single nation but expanding it to a global scale would only cause more problems than it would solve. Even doing it within a single nation would be problematic and difficult to enforce. In addition, I'm confused as to what smoking means in this instance, since there are numerous substances that can be smoked through various methods. Does any product that directly involves the inhalation of smoke count?
Is that all there is to love?

Fairly new player from The Region That Has No Big Banks. Watch out for my frequent/somewhat stupid questions!
she/they

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14839
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:02 pm

Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Lydia Anderson, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715, GA#757, GA#763
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; fifth-most-prolific WA author of all time; proclaimer of WZTC's move to Palmetto
Tinhampton the player: 49yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood (Booker Prize 2000)

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1993
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:41 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?

Although I'm not persuaded that banning a method of substance use doesn't introduce the same problems as banning the substance itself when that method is the primary or only means of the use of that substance, I'm not sure that it runs afoul of GA#657, which, if I'm reading it right, does leave open this loophole. Even banning the only method by which a substance is used, or primarily used, doesn't fall afoul of the good faith mandate of GA#654 "The Civil Charter Of The World Assembly" because that mandate only applies to member nations, and not the legislative intent or effects of future GA proposals/resolutions.
Last edited by The Overmind on Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13057
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 01, 2024 7:10 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?

The core argument of Old Hope's proposal is that smoking harms bystanders (second hand smoke, tar inhalation, etc). Having member nations restrict it falls within the exception provided in GA 657 s 3 which permits member nations to "prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug [if it poses] a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals".
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Dec 01, 2024 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 59+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2576
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:39 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?

The core argument of Old Hope's proposal is that smoking harms bystanders (second hand smoke, tar inhalation, etc). Having member nations restrict it falls within the exception provided in GA 657 s 3 which permits member nations to "prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug [if it poses] a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals".


I personally dislike smoking (and smokers) and I think the "harms bystanders" argument has legs because of secondhand smoke. The rest will not because of GA#657.
(It).

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:02 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?

Although I'm not persuaded that banning a method of substance use doesn't introduce the same problems as banning the substance itself when that method is the primary or only means of the use of that substance, I'm not sure that it runs afoul of GA#657, which, if I'm reading it right, does leave open this loophole. Even banning the only method by which a substance is used, or primarily used, doesn't fall afoul of the good faith mandate of GA#654 "The Civil Charter Of The World Assembly" because that mandate only applies to member nations, and not the legislative intent or effects of future GA proposals/resolutions.

First, smoking is harmful to bystanders.
Second, whilst it may be a prominent means of using a substance it is not the only means for using a substance - to our knowledge (e.g. tobacco has many smokeless consumption methods). So no, this isn't bad faith trying to ban a substance by banning its only method of consumption - that's incorrect.
Last edited by First Nightmare on Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dushina
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Jul 17, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Dushina » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:29 pm

What exactly is meant by, "Saddened that many member nations have not the unsafe consumption method of smoking," in this case? I've read this proposal over a number of times, yet I am still confused by that line.
If you could go into more detail on that front, it'd be highly appreciated.

Opposed -- a ban on specific varieties of smoking does not attack the root of the problem; the tobacco usage itself.
The Empire of Dushina
The Current "Magnum Opus"
Co-Author of GA#752 & GA#764.

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1993
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:53 pm

First Nightmare wrote:
The Overmind wrote:Although I'm not persuaded that banning a method of substance use doesn't introduce the same problems as banning the substance itself when that method is the primary or only means of the use of that substance, I'm not sure that it runs afoul of GA#657, which, if I'm reading it right, does leave open this loophole. Even banning the only method by which a substance is used, or primarily used, doesn't fall afoul of the good faith mandate of GA#654 "The Civil Charter Of The World Assembly" because that mandate only applies to member nations, and not the legislative intent or effects of future GA proposals/resolutions.

First, smoking is harmful to bystanders.
Second, whilst it may be a prominent means of using a substance it is not the only means for using a substance - to our knowledge (e.g. tobacco has many smokeless consumption methods). So no, this isn't bad faith trying to ban a substance by banning its only method of consumption - that's incorrect.

You have a habit of being defensive without reading. Please take the time to reread my defense of your proposal's legality.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Yelda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 557
Founded: Sep 04, 2004
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Yelda » Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:07 pm

Simone Republic wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The core argument of Old Hope's proposal is that smoking harms bystanders (second hand smoke, tar inhalation, etc). Having member nations restrict it falls within the exception provided in GA 657 s 3 which permits member nations to "prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug [if it poses] a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals".


I personally dislike smoking (and smokers) and I think the "harms bystanders" argument has legs because of secondhand smoke. The rest will not because of GA#657.


You strike me as someone who has obviously never watched the right person smoke a cigarette. Sad.
Ideological Bulwark #40
Another HotRodian puppet
I'm profoundly disappointed in all of you.

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:08 am

I think I want to respond to criticism here more:

Dushina wrote:What exactly is meant by, "Saddened that many member nations have not the unsafe consumption method of smoking," in this case? I've read this proposal over a number of times, yet I am still confused by that line.
If you could go into more detail on that front, it'd be highly appreciated.

Opposed -- a ban on specific varieties of smoking does not attack the root of the problem; the tobacco usage itself.

1. You realize that https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=657/council=1 exists?

2.
Bilancorn wrote:Opposed as it will only increase the black market of tobacco, as well as leaving many workers without jobs, after the closure of plantations and industries related to tobacco. If you want a smoking ban, do it in your own nation, but dont force it on us and other nations.

This does not ban tobacco usage, but rather smoking.
Importantly, this means that nicotine users actually do not have to resort to illegal means to get the substance they desire.
Yes, jobs will be lost in the cigar(ette) making business, but that's a business reliant on making a product dangerous for public health, so...
but not as many jobs as you did think.
Additionally, smoking is rather easy to detect, which is a strong deterrent against using that method if illegal.
Combined with the possibility of using other methods, these downsides should be minimal at best.
Of course, outright banning nicotine products would exactly do that(only help black market); but that's not what this proposal does.

The Overmind wrote:
First Nightmare wrote:First, smoking is harmful to bystanders.
Second, whilst it may be a prominent means of using a substance it is not the only means for using a substance - to our knowledge (e.g. tobacco has many smokeless consumption methods). So no, this isn't bad faith trying to ban a substance by banning its only method of consumption - that's incorrect.

You have a habit of being defensive without reading. Please take the time to reread my defense of your proposal's legality.

Sorry.

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Tue Dec 03, 2024 9:58 am

This might be submitted(in 1-2 weeks) if no other issues are found.

User avatar
First Nightmare
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Sat Dec 07, 2024 4:42 am

Bump to help this resolution get more feedback if needed. All previous feedback is deemed to be addressed at this point.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lord Dominator, Skaladoria, The Ice States, The United Royal Islands of Euramathania

Advertisement

Remove ads