SENATE BILL: The Protection of Personal Choice Act (Law'd)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Napoleon, if you want to play your BS "offended" card, then I will too.  I am offended that you criticize us for "sending soldiers to die" when they volunteer to defend our country, but you force them to have their lungs destroyed because of decisions made by their colleagues.  Liberal hypocrisy 101.

You talk about smoking being a choice.  We have an all-volunteer military.  If people do not like the idea of not being allowed to smoke, they can choose to not join the military.  That's fine.  We're still giving a choice; you are not.

Again, I urge all Senators to reject any modifications to the exisiting law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Abstain

Ben, no one's lungs are affected by a troop smoking other than the troop unless they choose to be in a smoking area. There is no hypocrisy.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Does someone know the answer to my question? My flight is delayed till 8 o'clock, so I have time now. The actual wording in the original bill does not say either way. If we wsnt compromise, this is far down as my pants are going.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye since this is less awful than the initial text. I'm still voting nay to the final bill, though.

[Bacon King]

Does someone know the answer to my question? My flight is delayed till 8 o'clock, so I have time now. The actual wording in the original bill does not say either way. If we wsnt compromise, this is far down as my pants are going.

The wording in the Protection of Public Health Act does not ban smoking on military bases at all, as they are not "open to the public"; off the top of my head I don't know what other statute exists on the matter.

However, in Jbrase's amendments, "property owned by the Federal government" would certainly include the entirety of military bases- excluding the designated smoking areas referenced in the revised amendment he offered.


Furthermore, I don't exactly understand the nature of the compromise here. You're replacing a smoking ban that covers all buildings open to the public with a smoking ban that covers only Federal government property (both indoor and outdoor)?

This amendment seems silly; most government offices, courts and such IRL have designated smoking areas somewhere around the outside of the building- but now to smoke they'd have to walk across the parking lot and leave the government property entirely? What's the logic in that?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye

[CatoMinor]

Furthermore, I don't exactly understand the nature of the compromise here. You're replacing a smoking ban that covers all buildings open to the public with a smoking ban that covers only Federal government property (both indoor and outdoor)?

In what I proposed the federal smoking ban would only take effect on federal property, if local governments and private businesses want to be smoke free that is their own choice. This keeps national parks and federal building smoke free while giving everyone else back the freedom to choose whether or not to allow smoking.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Okay. Since my flight to NY was cancelled after sitting in the airport for 2 hours, I'm done compromising. If military bases are not banned under the current law, we shall keep it! Massaging this delicate bill any further will be a waste of time.

[Napoleon]

Furthermore, I don't exactly understand the nature of the compromise here. You're replacing a smoking ban that covers all buildings open to the public with a smoking ban that covers only Federal government property (both indoor and outdoor)?

In what I proposed the federal smoking ban would only take effect on federal property, if local governments and private businesses want to be smoke free that is their own choice. This keeps national parks and federal building smoke free while giving everyone else back the freedom to choose whether or not to allow smoking.

Which I support.

I don't see why these laws can't be made on a more local level, if they must be at all.

[CatoMinor]

Can those who seem to be on a crusade against smoking at least allow communities and building owners to decide for themselves how to deal with smoking?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think that Jbrase's amendment causes more problems then it solves. The situation currently regarding certain federal property is not nor would it be at issue in this bill were it not for the amendment, including military bases. I prefer the current law over the bill for sure, but I think Jbrase's amendment would ironically restrict smoking far more then the current law does in the area that Jbrase's amendment covers.

[Napoleon]

I hope the senate rejects this bill.

NAY

The sponsor is what matters, Giovanni.

[CatoMinor]

I think that Jbrase's amendment causes more problems then it solves. The situation currently regarding certain federal property is not nor would it be at issue in this bill were it not for the amendment, including military bases. I prefer the current law over the bill for sure, but I think Jbrase's amendment would ironically restrict smoking far more then the current law does in the area that Jbrase's amendment covers.

Yes it restricts smoking more in places where the federal government owns, but if you'd just prefer to not have a federal ban anywhere I'd be more than happy offer up an new amendment The goal of my proposal is to give the choice of banning smoking back to then regions local governments, and business owners. I just included a ban on federal property (with exceptions) to make the anti-smoking folk happy   

[Marokai Backbeat]

The idea that this is still being debated is insane to me. Does not one care about the apparently trivial fact that smoking bans have almost always resulted in noticeable health benefits for all involved? It doesn't stop people from smoking in their homes, it doesn't stop people from smoking in dedicated areas exempt from the ban. This isn't about "freedom" or any such nonsense. Smoking isn't just some personal choice as this act implies that only harms one person. It harms everyone around you in an actually measurable way. The science is clear on this and so is the fact that it is not just a personal choice. Just get this stupid bill out of the way.

[Bacon King]

Here's an idea for a real compromise if one is actually sought- keep the existing law as is, but allow locations to pay for a special permit that allows them to become "Smoker Friendly" establishments or some such; the permit's cost could be tied to the location's annual revenue (to prevent small businesses from being at a disadvantage) and the permit fees could go directly into the budget of the Atlasian National Health Care Program, or maybe they could directly fund smoking cessation programs or something. Some regulations could be tied to the permit, requiring adequate ventilation systems perhaps, obvious labeling that smoking is allowed on the premises, etc. Maybe even an age restriction?

That way, restaurants, casinos, and other various venues that want to allow smoking can, while still paying for the "social cost" of the tobacco use and mitigating the damage second-hand smoke causes by plainly stating to potential patrons that tobacco is allowed there in addition to whatever addition restrictions are attached.

What do ye noble Senators think? I could type up an amendment for someone to introduce if there's any interest.

[Bacon King]

Oh, and the vote tally for the ongoing amendment:

Aye: JBrase, Antonio, Officepark
Nay: NCYankee, Duke
Abstain: Napoleon
Yet to vote: bgwah, Snowguy, shua, Fuzzybigfoot

[Napoleon]

I've said I'm willing to compromise. Id be fine with permit payments.

I don't think we need to allow smoking everywhere but I do think it is only reasonable to allow certain businesses to allow smoking if they choose.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I find it kind of hilarious that we're now in a desperate search to find ways, any way we can, to include smoking somewhere.

[Napoleon]

I find it kind of hilarious that we're now in a desperate search to find ways, any way we can, to include smoking somewhere.

You have a great sense of humor.

[CatoMinor]

I am fine with BK's idea

[bgwah]

I'd be open to loosening restrictions on privately owned properties that are also public spaces. I don't care for the original bill or the amendment, though. Hmm. Nay on the amendment.

I basically agree with BK. What if we let restaurants and bars (and smoke shops, or other businesses we can think of like casinos) make their own decision if it's an 18+ establishment? I think that would be a good compromise. Here's what I'm thinking:

Amendment to the Protection of Public Health Act
1. Clause 4 of the Protection of Public Health Act is amended to read as follows: Restaurants, bars, casinos, establishments that derive at least 40% of their revenue from selling tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia, and are not open to minors, may apply to the federal government for an exemption from Clause 1. Any other business located on a privately-owned property may also apply for the exemption as long as minors are prohibited from entering. Should their exemption be approved, a "Smoking Establishment" sign shall be in plain view near any entrance into the establishment, and a valid identification shall be required to enter to ensure minors are not allowed in.

[Napoleon]

What about small venues and night clubs?

Also, can someone please explain the exemption process?

[bgwah]

Uh, okay, I added "Any other business located on a privately-owned property may also apply for the exemption as long as minors are prohibited from entering" to it. Is that sufficient?