IDS 1: Liberalization Act of 2013 (Passed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Sjoyce

[Dereich]

I could never vote for a bill with clause 3. I also have a few problems with 5.

As for 4 and 7, it would be better to just establish an age of consent for the IDS. With a clear age set those problems would vanish. I could make an amendment to do that, if you'd consider it friendly.

[Dereich]

If we did establish an age of consent, I'm thinking either 16 or 18 with a 3 year close-in-age exemption would be best. Any thoughts?

[Dereich]

What would be the purpose of the control board? Would it actually restrict sales of the drug or would it just add another layer of government to do exactly what Sjoyce wanted in the first place?

[Dereich]

Nice work digging up old bills Velasco! That's one way of handling the conflicting sections, of course. I'll propose my own: Striking section 3, 4 and 6 because they are handled by past bills (especially 4 and 6) and not adding Hashemite's amendments, except for what was his section 12. I could go either way with the original section 9. It would look something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By the way, I've PMed Sjoyce asking for his opinion on all proposed amendments; as sponsor he should have input on this.

[Dereich]

I want to request a vote on my amendments. The current age of consent at 12 is way too low.

Sure. I'll put it up for a vote tonight, I would like to give Sjoyce a chance to have his say first though.

[Dereich]

All amendments (excluding Dereich's amendment to Clauses 4 and 8 and Hash's amendments to clauses 8 and 9) are friendly.

We made the age of consent 12?

So what of my striking of clause 3? Is that friendly as well or does accepting Hash's revision count as rejecting it?

And Velasco, I wasn't really thinking too hard about it; I just noticed that the changes to 8 didn't really effect 9 and glossed over it.

[Dereich]

All amendments (excluding Dereich's amendment to Clauses 4 and 8 and Hash's amendments to clauses 8 and 9) are friendly.

We made the age of consent 12?

So what of my striking of clause 3? Is that friendly as well or does accepting Hash's revision count as rejecting it?

And Velasco, I wasn't really thinking too hard about it; I just noticed that the changes to 8 didn't really effect 9 and glossed over it.

I accept Hash's revision to Clause 3.

Do you accept my striking of clause 6? Its always nice to say we don't support child pornography, but its pretty redundant when we already have a law about it.

I've edited the bill to what I believe is the current form and I'll also open up voting on Hash's amendments about seat-belts and helmets now. This is a vote on changing this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting will last 24 hours or until all have voted

[] Aye
[] Nay
[] Abstain

[Dereich]

Aye to my amendment

So were my amendments re: the age of consent at 16 accepted as friendly?

Yes. I've updated the bill's wording in the original post to reflect that.

Aye

[Dereich]

Voting will last 24 hours or until all have voted

[] Aye
[] Nay
[] Abstain

Which amemendment are we voting?

The part of Hash's amendments not accepted by Sjoyce. That would change this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your amendments were adopted.

[Dereich]

With a vote of 4-0 with one not voting the amendment passes.

[Dereich]

Personally, I still don't think I can vote for a bill with such liberal drug standards. Its problematic to encourage that kind of substance abuse.

[Dereich]

Well, as I still have those concerns, I'll proceed with a vote on my amendment to strike clause 3, which Sjoyce did not consider friendly. The effects on the bill would be as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting will be open for 24 hours or until all have voted.

[] Aye
[] Nay
[] Abstain

[Dereich]

Aye.

Really?

By the way, Dereich, if you are concerned about drug standards, I don't know why don't you suppress the drug clause of the original bill instead of the control board alone.

Nay.

....oh. I'm very sorry, in my edit of the original bill I forgot to keep the beginning of section 3. Thank you very much for catching my mistake, I had INTENDED to do what you're saying the whole time. I'll restart the vote now, to change THIS:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same deal, 24 hours to vote. Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Dereich]

Aye.

If this bill does pass, I would rather have the Control Board administration than completely unregulated drug laws. So a lesser of two evils vote.

You should have voted nay, then. Dereich's amendment supresses the control board, but not the SJoyce's clause on drug possesion.

LOL. Yes, what a rookie error on my part.

Aye to the new amendment.

The error is on me, I should have paid more attention.

Aye

[Dereich]

By a vote of 2-3 the amendment fails.

[Dereich]

I don't think we had any debate that hasn't been covered now by amendments or failed votes. If there is no more debate this will be brought to a vote later today.

[Dereich]

Voting will be opened for 48 hours or until all have voted. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Dereich]

Nay

[Dereich]

Nay.

Unfortunately, 48 hours had passed

By a vote of 2-1 this bill passes and is forwarded to the Emperor for signature or veto.