Protection of Public Health Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Protection of Public Health Bill

1. It shall be illegal for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries.

2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than three hundred dollars.

3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

4. Any facility or establishment that earns at least 40% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of alcohol or tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the federal government for an exemption from Clause 1.

5. This Act shall not be interpreted as to overwrite or replace more strict regulation on public smoking instituted by the regions.
Spon: Sen. Marokai Blue

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though I despise smokers with a passion, hate tobacco and tobacco companies to the limit, I will have to oppose on the grounds that I think this is best dealt with at the Regional level.

[MasterJedi]

Supported.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is one of those fantastic bills that were taken up and modified from the Mideast Assembly, although it's more relaxed.

Smoking is incredibly detrimental to your health, but if you decide to smoke, you should be able to. However! Smoking is also incredibly detrimental to the health of everyone around you, and alot of people, such as children, don't really have a choice in the matter, and quite frankly it's absurd to expect people to modify their daily routine because someone wants to engage in dangerous behavior.

But, there have to be exceptions, and that's why Clause 4 is here. It allows bars, restaurants where bars are a significant portion of their establishment, and smoking shops to be exempt from these requirements, so people still have a place to gather, and it doesn't ban smoking on personal property and so on.

[Rowan]

Eh. I really don't care either way on this bill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Though I despise smokers with a passion, hate tobacco and tobacco companies to the limit, I will have to oppose on the grounds that I think this is best dealt with at the Regional level.

And your reactionary ranting and raving which kicked off your Senate re-election campaign are what, federal issues?

Also, the government has a play in protecting the health of citizens, it's entirely within our authority. Let's not play another one of these "I say it's Regional! I say it's Federal!" games.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though I despise smokers with a passion, hate tobacco and tobacco companies to the limit, I will have to oppose on the grounds that I think this is best dealt with at the Regional level.

And your reactionary ranting and raving which kicked off your Senate re-election campaign are what, federal issues?

Also, the government has a play in protecting the health of citizens, it's entirely within our authority. Let's not play another one of these "I say it's Regional! I say it's Federal!" games.

I agree with the goals of this bill. And I am opened to changing my mind and voting for it. Also I think this is more easily enforced at the regional levels. Who would be in charge of enforcment from the federal level? How much will it cost to enforce at the federal level? How will that cost be paid for? How you answer these questions will affect my decision in regards to my final vote.

[Hash]

Full support.

[tmthforu94]

This is one of those fantastic bills that were taken up and modified from the Mideast Assembly, although it's more relaxed.

I was the one who introduced this bill in the Mideast Assembly, ftr. Looking back, my original bill sucked (2nd bill ever written), and I ended up leaving the Assembly soon after, so I didn't get to help work on it as much.

I support this bill for obvious reasons. I think the "regional rights" issue is a difficult one on Atlasia. While I would probably be more favored for smaller government in "real world politics", on Atlasia, it is extremely difficult because several of our regions have extremely inactive governments. This is one issue that I find extremely important, as I have lost a family member due to . If a bill like this had been in-acted in her state, she might still be alive. At least 17,000 people, 10% of lung cancer patients, are diagnosed with lung cancer every year who have never smoked, which is more people that are killed by drunk drivers or killed by murderers. Most of those 17,000 probably occurred through secondhand smoke. That number will drastically lower if this bill is passed.

[Lief 🗽]

Sorry Marokai, but I think we've found a bill where you and I don't agree. This seems like an issue that would better be dealt with on the local (not even the regional) level or preferably decided by each establishment. If people want to smoke in a bar or a restaurant, then those businesses should be able to cater to them.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sorry Marokai, but I think we've found a bill where you and I don't agree.

Damn.

[Lief 🗽]

I'd be willing to compromise (if the Senate agrees) to make this bill only apply to public/government-owned buildings and places (parks, public transportation, etc.), but I really don't think we should be telling private establishments what to do in this situation. I feel the free market does a pretty adequate job of dealing with the issue, and if people want to smoke or expose themselves to second-hand smoke, they know the risks.

[MaxQue]

I would prefer the original version to the compromise, President.

[Franzl]

I'd be willing to compromise (if the Senate agrees) to make this bill only apply to public/government-owned buildings and places (parks, public transportation, etc.), but I really don't think we should be telling private establishments what to do in this situation. I feel the free market does a pretty adequate job of dealing with the issue, and if people want to smoke or expose themselves to second-hand smoke, they know the risks.

My thoughts precisely, Mr President.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

[Franzl]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

Then allow private establishments the right to ban it themselves. Nobody is forced to actually go to a restaurant that allows smoking if they have such a problem with it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

Then allow private establishments the right to ban it themselves. Nobody is forced to actually go to a restaurant that allows smoking if they have such a problem with it.

Minors, almost all the time, have no choice, if they're with their parents or some other authority figure. Also, alot of people are pressured into going by the group they're with. Further, why should a few smokers that directly harm the health of everyone around them inconvenience other people, as if it's their fault?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

Then allow private establishments the right to ban it themselves. Nobody is forced to actually go to a restaurant that allows smoking if they have such a problem with it.

Minors, almost all the time, have no choice, if they're with their parents or some other authority figure. Also, alot of people are pressured into going by the group they're with. Further, why should a few smokers that directly harm the health of everyone around them inconvenience other people, as if it's their fault?

It's a matter of civil liberty. Now what it's dependent on is whether your idea of liberty involves the right to smoke wherever and whenever, or whether your idea of liberty involves the right to a smoke-free environment preserving health and piece of mind.

I'd hope this Senate comes to the conclusion that it is the right of Atlasians to have a smoke-free environment, and given that taxpayer funded health care is in effect, we discourage such harmful and unhealthy behavior as much as possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I basically agree with President Lief that this shouldn't be dealt with on the federal level, & urge that it be left up to the owners of the establishments to decide for themselves. I hope that all right-wing Senators respect the free market in this case, & reserve to businessowners the right to decide whether or not they want their establishments to be smoke-free.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

Then allow private establishments the right to ban it themselves. Nobody is forced to actually go to a restaurant that allows smoking if they have such a problem with it.

Minors, almost all the time, have no choice, if they're with their parents or some other authority figure. Also, alot of people are pressured into going by the group they're with. Further, why should a few smokers that directly harm the health of everyone around them inconvenience other people, as if it's their fault?

It's a matter of civil liberty. Now what it's dependent on is whether your idea of liberty involves the right to smoke wherever and whenever, or whether your idea of liberty involves the right to a smoke-free environment preserving health and piece of mind.

I'd hope this Senate comes to the conclusion that it is the right of Atlasians to have a smoke-free environment, and given that taxpayer funded health care is in effect, we discourage such harmful and unhealthy behavior as much as possible.

Goodness, you actually have an excellent point here.

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

[Franzl]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

Yes, I agree.

[afleitch]

There has been a public smoking ban in Scotland since March 2006. I will comment on the effects of that later.

On the issue of public vs private it is my belief that a private establishment such as a bar, club or restaurant may be a private establishment but it is still a public venue. There may be a case for members clubs to be excluded from the ban (where your invite rather than your exclusion is at the managements discretion) However from an employees rights perspective there is often legislation in place that bans or restricts exposure to industrial smog/smoke in the workplace without protectived headgear or apparatus but no legislation that restricts employees exposure to second hand tobacco smoke which left bar staff for example exposed to second hand smoke with detriment to their health.

We (rightly) come down hard on asbestos exposure and you can't get near the stuff unless you are properly protected and trained, yet not on tobacco smoke exposure. Both are slow and silent assassins until many years later.

On the issue of the smoking ban here in sunny Scotland a survey by the government and the Scottish NHS found that after one year of the ban there was;

17 % fall in admissions for heart attacks (compared to a fall of 3% on average each year since 1996)

39 % reduction in second hand smoke exposure in 11-year-olds and in adult non-smokers .

86 % per cent reduction in secondhand smoke in bars.

An increase in the proportion of homes that implemented their own 'house rules' smoking restrictions .

No evidence of smoking shifting from public places into the home .

High public support for the legislation even among smokers, whose support increased once the legislation was in place.

---

In fact the public smoking ban has seen the biggest decrease in respiratory diseases and conditions since the 1953 Clean Air Act took action to banish industrial smog.

[tmthforu94]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

Last session, the Senate passed health care legislation where the government would provide healthcare to many Atlasians.  Because of that law, I think we should have the right to impose laws to make our citizens healthier.

[Franzl]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

Last session, the Senate passed health care legislation where the government would provide healthcare to many Atlasians.  Because of that law, I think we should have the right to impose laws to make our citizens healthier.

Where does it end though? It's a logical argument, I agree, but are you also going to start legislatin what people are allowed to eat and drink.....or how much they have to excercize every week?