Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I can still kill my cats and dogs, just as long as I eat them afterwords?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke in a public area.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, that person shall face a fine up to five thousand dollars.

5000$ does sound very harsh. The maximum fine should probably be much lower, otherwise it's a great law.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's true, people with $5000 fines are not likely to afford any my cigaretts.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

A definition of what a public place refers to here in the bill would probably be in order.

I don't think anyone wants to stop smokers from smoking outside, but rather in resturants, hair salons, busses and similar.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'd like to propose the following change to the bill.

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, bars, public transporting, 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 five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Does that clearify it?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There is no bill on the floor of this Assembly.

(For those not adept with Parliamentary Procedure, because tmthforu94 left the Assembly, his bill died. You are of course welcome to introduce exactly the same bill with whatever amendments you like already made.)

Oh I see

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, bars, public transporting, 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 five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right it does. *faceplam* I'll change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A resturant is open to the public as anyone can walk in to a resturant sit down and order a meal. Businesses, well shops and stores would be subject to this law, but an office were only the workers are allowed in would not since not anyone can just walk in there.

I know it's a bit poorly worded in the bill, I'll change it as well. 

I'd like to amend the bill to read:

1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transporting, 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 five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Is it better?

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

I support this amendment.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

Well we can't really ban people from smoking outside, even if it's a public park for example. (We'd be lynched by the smokers of the region if we passed such a bill )That's why I changed it from the original bill to start with.

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

Wow you're good!

As it is now we seem to be focusing only on visitors and customers to public buildings, which mean we are forgetting another important part of why this bill should be passed, namely the health of people that work in these public buildings and establishments. 

The Governor points out that if a customer is unhappy about people smoking inside, for example a restaurant, they can choose to leave, choose to eat somewhere else. A waiter who works at the restaurant does not have that choice. They have to work for about eight hours every day, five days a week in the very unhealthy environment that smoking creates in bars and restaurants. That’s how they support themselves, and make a living.   

When a similar bill, outlawing smoking in for example in bars and restaurants, were passed in Sweden (my old homeland before I moved to Atlasia) this was the main argument to why public smoking inside should be illegal. Due to working in smoke for such a long period of time, waiters, barmaids and people who holds similar occupations are the group that are worst effected by passive-smoking.

Sure someone can claims that those people could choose to quit their jobs if they don’t like working in a thick fog of poisonous smoke, but we have to be realistic, a single mother who has to feed two children, or a teenager working to save money for college can not just give up their jobs because it has a bad effect on their health. Passive smoking can be fatal, and if not fatal cause serious injuries and illnesses. Therefore I do not believe it should be up to restaurant owners to decide for themselves. I’m not a supporter of government intervening with businesses’ business, but this is about the health of several working Atlasians

I will not back down on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although you make a very good point, exstending the bill to include the area around entrances would in my oppinion only make a simple thing complicated. It's my hope people will have enough common sense not to gather in crowds right in front of the door to smoke but actually placethemselves were they are not in the way.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will support such an amendment. Banning smoking in cigar bars is slightly silly, so this amendment is a good idea.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I must vote against the amendment.

My principal reason for supporting the bill is the sense that it is damaging to the health of others for a smoker to smoke in an enclosed environment in their presence.  I have seen little evidence in real life, and none presented to this Assembly, that would indicate that smoking in the open air, such as in a park, is damaging to other nearby users of the park, hence I oppose the amendment.

As I said before, we cannot stop people from smoking outside. I also have to vote against the amendment.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'd like to introduce the following amendment as suggested by citizen Badger.

Public Smoking Ban Bill
1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, 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 five 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 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

Also I really hope we'll be able to have a final vote before the 6th Assembly ends. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

4. Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

We are voting on an amendment to add the above clause 4 to the bill.

Aye

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Public Smoking Ban Bill
1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, 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 five 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 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

Debate has ended for more than 24 hours. A vote on this bill is called.

Aye

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Aye to the amendment


When exactly does the 6th assembly end and the 7th begin?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Order, Order.

As Dean of the Assembly, I assume the Chair to preside over an election of Speaker. I ask for nominations.

As he is the most experienced member of Atlasian government in the Assembly, I hereby nominate Peter for Speaker.

I second the nomination.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I also will be absent for most, if not all of the next week and a half starting this Friday. My family and I are going camping and won't be back until 8/9. IF I find a little down time when visiting my folks in town I'll try to check in, but it's unlikely.

Actually that's pretty good timeing, cause I'll be away Friday to Monday.

Looks like there will not be much action in the Assembly this week

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Since Badger said he'd most likely be back sometime today, and since Peter hopefully has settled in his new place by now, I have decided it's time to get the Assembly running again.

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct circumferences of 60 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
6 Fields were crops are being grown, are excluded from this bill.
7 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
8 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
9 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
10 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

WTF you can camp on private land!!  That is easily the most disasterous thing I have heard in awhile

You can in Sweden, Finland, Norway and Scotland. No one is complaining here It's really great for the tourism. People come from Germany and Denmark and the Netherlands to camp in the wildernes, buy things in our stores, and eat at our resturants. So it might help create a boost in tourism in the Mideast, which would of course be helpful to our economy. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Perhaps it would be better to qualify this by setting a minimum size the land needs to be. If I'm on half an acre, the last thing I want is a trailer pulling up onto my lawn and pitching tents all over. But if I own a massive forest in my backyard, this could be beneficial.

Sure, this sounds reasonable. The idea is of course not for people to be able to camp in someone's backyard, but as you said in a forest where they don't disturb someone. I'm not too well aqauainted with American seize terms, so I'm not sure how big the minimun size should be. Any ideas?

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Your clause 4 is somewhat difficult to interpret - I would suggest that you probably meant radius and not circumference?

I would suggest that any area under 400 acres needs to be excepted from the legislation (this may sound big, but in reality the amount of actual walkable woodland it will remove from consideration is neglible.

There is also a typo in clause 6 (where not were), and I would suggest that areas where young animals are being reared be excepted also (if only for the safety of roamers).

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct radiuses of 100 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill.   
6 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7 Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8 Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.
 

One thing I've been reading into that I would be interested in having a law passed for is something saying that you can't make a certain breed of dog illegal.  In many counties and states dogs like pitbulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are illegal.  I know some people think these breeds are dangerous it isn't the breed but the owners that create the danger.

I would support a bill like this. With the wrong owner most breeds can become dangerous, not just pitbulls, and other attack dogs. I see no reason to punish the good dog owners, because other owners are unable to raise their pets properly.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

I'm going to have to agree with Governor Inks. It's called "private property" for a reason.

SC, can you elaborate more on how this works in Scandanavia? What problems, if any, where there when the law passed? Do landowners consider it a significant intrusion into their privacy?

It has been the common law since sometime before the 15th Century so it's a bit hard to tell what the original reaction to the law was. I can imagine some noblemen being upset by commoners being able to walk freely in their forests though.

Anyway here's what Wikipedia says about the Freedom to Roam.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

______________________________________

The Allemanrätt (Freedom to Roam) is mostly considered to be a very positive thing here. For example, when asking Swedes about what they think makes our country the best in the world, the Freedom to Roam is often brought up as a reason. And as it says in one of the quotes, it's actually one of our constitutional rights.

The few here that opposes the law, most often critic polluting. There is a problem that many that walks into the woods do leave some trash behind themselves. A problem that I admit is troublesom, and the reason I introduced the 10th clause. Besides that there really is no major oppotition against it. Personally I can't recall ever hearing anyone bring up privacy as an issue.

We have come to realise that this law is very benfitial. Not only do we get a lot of tourists from Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, that want to experiance, but Swedes in general has great joy from it. People like being able to walk into random forests without having to track down the owner and ask for premission. They like being able take take their kids and sledges to nearest hill when it's been snowing without having to worry if the landowner approve or not. 

I can understand (and I kind of excpected) the opposition to this proposal from the right, because it is in many ways a socialist ideal. It's built on the foundation that, what's mine is yours. So maybe that's why it works well in my very socialist home country, but I think that

I hope that answers your questions Badger

   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.
But I understand your concern. However as you pointed out, you have this problem in France even though you don't have a law like this. They will pretty much stay where ever it pleases them, and this law will not change that. They still only have the right to stay there for two days, and it would be possible to add a clause to stop big groups of people from camping in the same area.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh that's quite intresting actually. Hunting on someone else property without their consent is one of the things not allowed here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people will sue you for everything. Not so long a ago I saw a man on TV who sued a guy who his daughter had hit with a car. According to him it was the man who'd been hit's fault and not his own daughter's because the man had been standing in the way. So without doubt some people would try to use your example to get money, but thankfully, I'm sure our judges in the Mideast would do their job and dismiss all such cases very quickly. Trees fall down in the woods, accidents happen, even in the most well taken care of forests. Someone who wanders into a forest made a choice to go in there, and the landowners should therefore not be held responsible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit that you're probably rather correct about this part.

 

__________________________________________________

If the issue is mainly the 2nd clause of this bill, I would be willing to compromise by removing that part.

What I consider important is not the right to camp where it pleases you. I grew up being able to walk out into the forest not having to worry about who's property I'm on at the moment. I could play on the pasture next to my dad's house even though the land did belong to a neighbor. We could go swim in the lake nearby 7 am without first having to call and wake up the old lady that owned the lake to ask for her premission. That is what I consider important, and I really think the people of this region should have this right as well.

Especially the right to pass through private land is more vital them people seem to realise. When we learned about the Freedom to Roam in school, our teacher showed us an article about a farmer in some African country (can't remember which country though) who didn't want to sell his land to a corporation that were buying up the land in the area. When he refused to sell the corporation bought all land surrounding his and forbade him to pass through it. He was traped in his own land because if he moved outside of it he'd be breaking the law. So eventually he had to give up his land anyway. Therefore this right is not only to help non-landowners, but landowners as well.

I have to admit I don't see the point in passing a law that would make it voluntary. Landowners already has the right to make their land open to the public if they want to. If we do pass a Freedom to Roam bill (which I obviously hope we will) it should actually have an effect, and not just say: People have the freedom to roam where they want... as long as they've asked for the landowner premission."

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

My guess would be that the author of the bill is not familiar with the outdated American system. It's just a guess though.

And there are quite a few citizens in the Mideast who orgin from other parts of the world than USA who're only familiar with the metric system as well, so ideal would be to have the mesurments in both the metric and customary system.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Oh and I'm Abstain to the amendment. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I understand your concerns Badger and I agree with you that owners should not have to pay for damages in those cases where no perpetrator is found. I’d suggest that the landowners should be able to seek compensation from the region when it happens. This would be financed by the proceeds from the fines in this bill.

There are a lot less damage caused due to the Freedom to Roam than people would think. Mostly it is just about litter, which is not a big cost to compensate.

I’ll have to leave the English Freedom to Roam part to Peter. If I’ve understood it right, the main difference with the English law is that, it only opens up certain private land. For example you can roam freely on private heaths but not in a private forest. I’m not sure I got it completely right though. Peter can probably clarify it.

I do offer the additional amendment:
"Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam for 30 days each calendar year. Written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration. "

I’m positive towards this amendment. It’s a very good idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol

Don't worry, in normal circumstances I'm the most conservative member of the Assembly, but on this issue I'm apperently far left, so it's probably only natrual you're pushed a bit towards the right Everything will probably go back to normal as soon as we're finished with this bill.