Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First Chamber forum is only opened to Members of the Congress. Here MOTC can propose law proposals and other federal issues. They can be discussed and adjusted, until there are replaced to the Second Chamber for vote.

Smoking ban
This is a loose proposal that will be written into a law text when a majority of the Congressmen approve its content. What is the proposal? Can Lovia ban smoking? In many countries smoking bans are made, mostly in public spaces but sometimes in restaurants, cafes or many other places. What position should Lovia take in this issue?

There are several possibilities:
 * 1) No banning at all.
 * 2) Smoking ban in:
 * 3) * Bars
 * 4) * Restaurants
 * 5) * Work places
 * 6) * Schools
 * 7) * the presence of minors.
 * 8) * or combinations of these/
 * 9) Entire smoking ban (all public places)
 * 10) Or other possibilities?

Dear MOTCs, please give your opinions!
 * 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk
Comments? Ideas? Opinions? 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We cant do that, except in places for minors. In pubs, we cant do that because pubs are designed for smoking Pierlot McCrooke 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoking ban in the horeca and all public places, only in presence of minors when the minors agree. Robin Ferguson 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Entire smoking ban + doubling the taxes on anything smokable in an attempt to cope with the increasing costs in health care + doubling the costs for the (private) health insurance policies + an income tax relief for non smokers. &#123;&#123;User:Aesopos/HT}} 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make a short conclusion of what you three already said: Any other opinions? 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pierlot: No ban at all.
 * Robin: Entire ban + near minors, except when they agree
 * Lars: Entire ban + extra costs and taxes.
 * What is your opinion to this issue ? &#123;&#123;User:Aesopos/HT}} 12:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact I'm not sure. In the first place my little social and socialist side says "ban smoking because it is bad". My liberalist side says "shouldn't the companies and restaurants themselves be able to decide?" I'm not very sure. I think there should be certain bans, that's for sure, like the prohibition of smoking for minors or smoking near minors in public places. And smoking in government buildings is in every way up to the government (that's us), so I would forbid that too. 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point, smoking is bad for everyone, and I hope by descouraging citizens to smoke, childeren (with all the lung functional problems they already have) would take advantage of this in the long end. I am very well aware this might not seem a liberal way of acting, but children are not asking to breath cigarsmoke. Pollution should be tackled at the source, beginning at home. I feel confident with healthy citizens costs of healthcare would drop dramatically and the loss of income for the government on the taxes would widely compensate. Expenses (be it in healthcare or other issues), in the end, are paid by the taxpayers. To me, saving money on the healthcare department (who likes to be sick anyway) means, being able to spend money on other (nicer) things all citizens can enjoy.  17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose (actually OWTB's idea, but I fully agree with him) the following: Ben (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Smokers get a card, something like a ID-kaart in the Netherlands.
 * You pay for this card on month/year base
 * Only 18?+ can pay for this card.
 * Only when you show that card you can buy cigarettes.
 * No minors can get cigarettes with a shop anymore.
 * You can only buy a limited number of packages, so there won't be an illegal trade in them.
 * You also may only smoke when you have this card.
 * So a police can ask you when you are smoking, show your card, and if you don't have one you have a penaltie.
 * Raise the taxes on the cigarettes/cigars/pipes/whatever
 * Ban smoking on public places.
 * I dont like that. Pierlot McCrooke 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)