by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

50

DispatchBulletinCampaign

by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 2,360 reads.

GA Recommendation Dashboard: Vote FOR 'Repeal Toxic Heavy Metals Act' | OWL

.

————
·

·
·
—— —— ——
·


Repeal 'Toxic Heavy Metals Act'
·
·
—..—
·

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Toxic Heavy Metals Act'
Author: Jedinsto
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, claiming its definitions are too broad to the point of prohibiting almost every relatively dense metal, and arguing that the actual limits imposed on toxic heavy metals are ineffective and contradictory.

Links


Vote .For.
·

The Office's Analysis

The at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Toxic Heavy Metals Act'", rightfully criticizes the target for simultaneously being too heavy-handed ‒ its definition of what constitutes a "toxic heavy metal" includes a broad range of not actually toxic metals ‒ and too lax ‒ by excluding the military from all the protective requirements ‒ in its mandates. The proposal is of good quality and argues its case well, and OWL voters overwhelmingly agreed that the target resolution overly impacts harmless metals negatively, leading to severe unintended consequences for industry, and is too ineffective in the handling of actual toxic materials. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Toxic Heavy Metals Act'".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
—FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Osheiga is an Office of WA Legislation staffer in the South Pacific. They posted the following on The South Pacific WA Voting Center's RMB:

Osheiga wrote:I will admit I was a bit iffy on this proposal since some regulation surrounding this subject is needed and even though the definition of “toxic” is vague, it’s better to be safe than sorry with potentially dangerous metals. However, since there’s a replacement in the works according to the drafting forum thread, I’m willing to support (especially due to the military exemption loophole that should hopefully be fixed by it).

Refuge Isle is the current Minister of Engagement-Elect of the South Pacific and a 4-time WA author. They posted the following on The South Pacific WA Voting Center's RMB:

Refuge Isle wrote:This repeal's construction is a bit of a nit-pick, but I cannot argue that the argument has substantial consequences as it is written. Any metal, in enough concentration, has the potential to become toxic even if we are not used to encountering it in a situation where it is. The repeated use of "extremely" in the Recognising clause and its general tone is a bit in the unprofessional category. The Confused clause is word salad. Neither of those are enough to be deal-breakers, but certainly the author should aim to improve in sentence construction in the future. The repeal is not paired with a replacement, which is relatively irresponsible because it cannot be demonstrated that what we have now is worse than what we will get. Still, it is supported by the co-author of the target. We'll see how it goes.

From the World

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion for the resolution from the rest of the world. You can make your own opinion heard by posting it on the Regional Message Board of the WA Voting Center!

Against

From TSP Citizens

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion against the resolution from TSP citizens. You can make your own opinion heard by posting it on the Regional Message Board of the WA Voting Center!

From the World

Wayneactia is a resident of Osiris. They posted the following on the proposal's on-site drafting thread:

Wayneactia wrote:I see very little reason to repeal the THMA, other than someone is looking for something to repeal. Show us a half way decent replacement and maybe this could be considered.



·

·
—Link—Link
·
·

RawReport