NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is my proposal, and it has been revised. I would encourage all delegates who are concerned with the economy and/or environment to endorse this proposal. I would appreciate as much support as I can get. :) I feel very passionate about this proposal. :)


Support Hemp Production
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: The Avenging Angels

Description: BELIEVING that all nations should support the production and use of industrial hemp. Hemp needs to be recognized as a profitable and environmentally friendly crop.

EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug.

REALIZING that hemp is suitable for industrial paper manufacturing, can be used for clothing and shoes, for use as a renewable energy source, and for use in food products. The increased demand for health food has stimulated the trade in shelled hemp seed while hemp oil is increasingly being used in the manufacturing of bodycare products. Hemp is High in protein and Omega-3 fatty acids.

RECOGNIZING that hemp is a sustainable, annual crop that is ready for harvest just 120 days after going to seed, much shorter then trees. Harvesting hemp doesn't destroy the natural habitats of thousands of distinct animal and plant species.

RECOGNIZING that hemp is a hardy plant that can grow easily and abundantly almost anywhere. Hemp can even be cultivated in arid regions with poor soil or in places with a very short growing season. Hemp requires little water or nutrients, and therefore can be grown without chemical fertilizers. Hemp is an ideal rotation crop for farmers worldwide. It puts down a taproot twelve inches long in only thirty days, preventing topsoil erosion.

RECOGNIZING that hemp's cellulose level is three times that of wood, so it makes superior paper products and yields four times as much pulp per acre as trees. The hemp paper process utilizes less energy and chemicals than tree paper processing and doesn't create the harmful dioxins, chloroform, or any of the other 2,000 chlorinated organic compounds that are byproducts of the wood paper process.

RECOMMEND that each nation set up an advisory board to oversee this program and its financial operation. The advisory board will be comprised of 8 officials and one director of the board. The advisory board will also be comprised of other workers to help these 8 officials and to help manage the work of this agency.

FURTHER REQUESTS that the director and these 8 officials be picked by the government of that nation. The director will have discretion in selecting additional employees.

SUGGESTS that these 8 officials be comprised of 2 economists, 2 ecologists, 2 agriculturalists (preferably having knowledge in cultivating hemp), and 2 biologists.

RECOMMENDS the advisory board have the power to provide incentives to farmers that grow or will grow hemp. There are two types of incentives that can be provided to these farmers:

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

RECOMMENDS that the budget be based on how many farmers are involved in the program, and how much each farmer plans on growing. Farmers in the program will be asked to give a small percentage of their profits to the program. The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Dec 26 2004

I have approved this proposal, as well as a very suprising number of other delegates. Good Luck, Angels.

Approved.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I support your proposal and approve

Thank you all ofr the support. :):)

If anyone is willing I need help TGing delegates for endorsements. :):)

I appreciate all the support. :):)

*bump...cause my Founder told me too ;) *

So close 3 endorsements to go. :):)

Thanks for bumping it. :):)

Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

YAY :):)

It is still gaining endorsements and is at 176 endorsements. Almost 30 extra endorsements. :)

The Protectorate of Henrytopia is pleased to see that the hard work and perseverance behind this initiative has led to such a good outcome. Bravo.

I am very pleased, and thank you Henrytopia. :):):)

Okay, I've spent six hours searching medical and plant databases and, as yet, cannot find hemp on any of the planets I currently have settled. We found a plant that may be it on Terrasot, but that planet has an ozone layer while Terran and Terrator do not. We've also found hemp doesn't do as well in the high levels of ultraviolet radiation most Sarkarasetans are used to.

Beyond that, we have no use for it. The drug aspects don't have as strong of an effect on Sarkarasetans, the rest of the aspects we have already either equalled or surpassed, and we have no worries of topsoil erosion for decades.

However, as it is not a requirement to grow, I cannot vote against due to unique nation properties.

Being unable to support or oppose, I abstain from voting on this one.

Well I gave it my approval after it reached quorum, but I still felt it needed one more approval. This is an interesting resolution indeed. It's one of those "makes perfect sense" resolutions that would never get passed in the real world.

Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. He even smuggled in rare hemp seeds from Europe for American farmers. Jefferson also modified a threshing machine into the hemp break. This invention received the fist U.S. patent and he estimated that it would only cost a person with a threshing machine $12 to $15 to add the hemp working device. Jefferson writes in his hemp records about his new device, "I expect that a single horse will do the breaking and beating of ten men."

Currently, only about 5% of the world's paper is made from annual plants like hemp, flax, cotton, sugarcane bagasse, esparto, wheat straw, reeds, sisal, abaca, banana leaf, ananas and some other more exotic species. The world hemp paper pulp production is now believed to be around 120,000 tons per year (FAO 1991), which is about 0.05 % of the world's annual pulp production volume. Hemp pulps are generally blended with other wood- pulps for paper production. There is currently no significant production of 100 % true hemp paper.

Maybe I'm reading the resolution wrong, but what exactly does this resolution do other than make suggestions and recommendations?

Tzorsland thanks for the kind words. :):) More endorsements cannot hurt. The proposal now has 198 endorsements. That is 51 extra endorsements. :):)

If this gets passed, then nations will setup an advisory board to help oversee and implement the proposal in each nation. Basically, this is trying to get farmers to convert to hemp prodcution, and the proposal also offers two forms of incentives to encourage farmers to make the switch. The advisory board will be in charge of giving out these incentives to the farmers.

Hemp is an environmentally friednly crop, and has great economic promise. Hemp is cheaper to produce because it does not require chemical fertilizers, and needs very ltitle irrigation. it also has a short growing season, it takes roughly 120 days before it can be harvested. So, it could be harvested more freuquently then other crops, and it has a higher cellulose level which makes it better for paper production then trees. Hemp can grow in almost any climate as well.

Actually, I'm thinking of using it as a terraforming crop if I ever get around to that. It would be potentially perfect for that if one could get past the radiation weakness most Earth lifeforms possess.

If this gets passed, then nations will setup an advisory board to help oversee and implement the proposal in each nation.

Uh, no. Doesn't this proposal only *recommend* that nations set up such an advisory board?

Basically, this is trying to get farmers to convert to hemp prodcution, and the proposal also offers two forms of incentives to encourage farmers to make the switch. The advisory board will be in charge of giving out these incentives to the farmers.

As Squirrelmania reads it, the two types of incentives are also a recommendation.

Squirrelmania has legalized drugs and drug use, so we have no objection to the production of hemp (either for industrial or recreational use). However, we are not convinced of hemp's status as a "supercrop" either. Thus, since this resolution merely "recommends" that we do certain things, we have no problem with its passage (even though we intend to vote against it) ... but we also have no plans to implement any of its recommendations.

If hemp is a superior crop, farmers who raise it will make more money in the marketplace and thus do not need tax incentives to switch. If hemp isn't a superior crop, then why subsidize it?

There is something to be said for an international community that follows up a major push to eliminate AIDS with a resolution to help people produce hemp. Pilot will be working around the clock against this resolution.

Sarcodina read through the entire resolution and thought it to be perfectly logical due to it being industrial use. Sarcodina then noticed something...the catergory. "Enviroment"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Enviroment states about helping the enviroment at the expense of industry. This means that this pro economy proposal is going to do something far different (that being hurting the economy). In fact this techinically should be a free trade proposal because it opens up markets (if only the mods or admins would go against something popular.)
Also as anyone might note, the AIDS proposal absolutely ripped the UN nations' economy. Only one nation in my region did not have its economy dropped (his was just that frightening). Mine was strong now reasonable (average rate of capita in the thousands) ! Hundreds of Millions of people of Sarcodina on the street. Crime becoming an impossible issue and calls of blood on the capital steps...not to mention ironically a recent bill in Sarcodina's congress to kill AIDs victims for their crimes...and resources.

Many UN members think that economy does not matter and that is their right to have that opinion. But, these expensive resolutions are going to head to worldwide economic depression...next time Sarcodina might just leave the UN for a time so its people don't have to starve.
Please take this proposal and put it into the catergory it should be in...if so Sarcodina will promise its support and fight for its passing (not that it will need too much help).

This means that this pro economy proposal is going to do something far different (that being hurting the economy). In fact this techinically should be a free trade proposal because it opens up markets (if only the mods or admins would go against something popular.)
This isn't a free trade program or a pro-economy proposal. If you follow the recommendations, you're subsidizing a crop (industrial hemp). One thing Squirrelmania knows about crop subsidies: they're inconsistent with free trade.

Why? Consider Squirrelmania, which has no intention of adopting a crop subsidy for hemp (since it's just "recommended" that we do so). Would we want free trade in hemp with a country that has such a crop subsidy -- and so sells hemp at a lower price, thus crippling sales by our own hemp farmers? NO!

This proposal is classified correctly, in Squirrelmania's opinion. It deserves to fail on its own merits (why subsidize this crop over others?), but this just adds one more reason to vote against it.

First squirrelmania is right that subsidies are not really free trade but what is even more the case is farming does not help the enviroment (it is by its nature destroying the enviroment). The fact though that something that was illegal would be legal and then traded makes it loosely in the free trade catergory in my opinion. But I think that the list of proposal options really needs two new catergories.
One-A proeconomy proposal that helps for the economy but does not deal w/ free trade
Two- A pro-defence proposal that does not have to do with arms being bought
The fact that they don't exist but a legalize drugs catergory exist shows the priorties of the people who are part of Nationstates' Community (no offense)

But not to get off of subject, the proposal is going to hurt not help and turns something potentially beneficial into another worldwide economic decline.

You have our full support.
-Cradle of Civilization Delegate

Our nation continues to be amazed at how the UN likes to throw the money of its member nations away. :( :confused:

Why must individual nations be forced to spend money on projects like this? What if the free people of a nation decide to ban whatever substance they want? A UN resolution comes along and now our nation is asked to give tax breaks to growers of illegal (in our nation) substances.

Our nation cannot support this proposal.

Actually, hemp production should destroy woodchipping and push Book Publishing into the stratosphere with the reduced paper costs. So it balances on business end of things.

And the new initiative did nothing to the Vastivan economy. We're just that scary. :D

Hemp should be pushed over many other crops. Hemp can be harvested much sooner then trees and other crops, and can be harvested much quicker due to its quick rate of growth. It is fairly inexpensive to plant and maintain, it has many beenfits for the environment. It helps stop erosion for one thing.

I agree with vastivian. Hemp can create more paper products due to a higher cellulose content then trees. As I mentioned above it is fairly inexpensive to grow.

If we used hemp form paper products we could halt deforestation or at lessen deforestation.

Cotton has a higher impact on the environment. Cotton requires more nutrients then hemp does, and requires chemical fertilizers that hemp doesn't. Hemp can be grown without chemical fertilizers.

Chemical fertilizers can hav a negative impact on the environment by causing soil degradation.

I am glad to be getting this much input. :):)

This proposal makes sence. It is most practical. Can't believe it has taken this long for a good idea like this to get this far. :)

The problem with this proposal is that it will mess up the Dominion Drug Control Control Agency. To traffic in Controlled Substances, you must first buy a permit for the amount of drugs you wish to buy or sell. Once hemp can be freely made, it will be far too easy to produce marijuana. This will in turn loosen the control of the Dominion Board of Directors on the mafias, since they will no longer rely on Sale Permits, which will raise the cost of law enforcement and defense massively and in general spread chaos. Also, the Board of Directors has decided against any subsidies, save as payment.

Once hemp can be freely made, it will be far too easy to produce marijuana.
Why?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I think that this proposal is great for my nation, because the environeement of Green Israel, is the second most important issue, and the drugs is already legal.
on the other hand, I am trying to improve my economy and after long period of strong economy it dropped to good.

after I read and agreed with many subjects in the proposal, I will like to gat ideas from the nations against the proposal, and list of the proposal's defects. anyone could do that?

Well, if you are trying to improve your economy, this proposal is not a good one. It sounds great, and is a very well written proposal, but if you look at its in-game effects, it will actually improve your environment at the expense of your economy.

Well, if you are trying to improve your economy, this proposal is not a good one. It sounds great, and is a very well written proposal, but if you look at its in-game effects, it will actually improve your environment at the expense of your economy.
I know, and I said that it could be problem.
but the economy in Green israel come after subjects like education, human and civil rights, environeement and welfare, as much as I can.
I can't see other reasons that could change my mind, so may be you can help me with that?

The people of Poo-rovia already have a substantial hemp and marijuana agricultural sector. We have realised the benefits of industrial hemp production and are wholly against the UN sanctioning the above proposal.

Poo-rovia suffered many indignities surrounding our 'sin' laws and lack of stigmatizing personal choices. Our agricultural industy, of its own accord, recognized the inherent benefits to hemp use without the use of artificial stimulation to offset moral meddling in our ecomony.

The UN would do well to preserve the dignity of its constituent's peoples by supporting resolutions that recognize the sovereignty of the individual where their actions are of a personal nature. It is not the UN's mandate to artificially stimulate economies where social stigmas hold them back.

This resolution will adversely affect Poo-rovias economy, and may lead to our retiring from the UN.

I know, and I said that it could be problem.
but the economy in Green israel come after subjects like education, human and civil rights, environeement and welfare, as much as I can.
I can't see other reasons that could change my mind, so may be you can help me with that?
There aren't any really good ones really, it is a very well written and thought out proposal.

But, in my opinion, subsidies and taxbreaks on the scale envisioned by the proposal would be better used encouraging the development of other industries - elaborately transformed manufactures instead of a commodity like hemp. I think it would be better spending that money to nurture a high skilled, high return industry, creating jobs with a bit more of a future; it would certainly be better for a developed country at least.

I'm voting against it because the game effect will be bad for my economy, and given my environment is already fairly pristine, the benefits will be negligible.

Once Hemp had been made to be easily available and cheap it will only lead to the spread of marjunaina. Which in turn would lead to more global efforts to make marjunaina legal on the entire planet. That in turn would cause other drug supporters to try to get further legislation passed to leagalize the rest of the drug compunity. These series of events would not only be a serious threat but also turn the population of Fiereu into something that will not be tolerated by this goverment.

The nation of Fiereu has voted against this proposal

Once Hemp had been made to be easily available and cheap it will only lead to the spread of marjunaina. Which in turn would lead to more global efforts to make marjunaina legal on the entire planet. That in turn would cause other drug supporters to try to get further legislation passed to leagalize the rest of the drug compunity. These series of events would not only be a serious threat but also turn the population of Fiereu into something that will not be tolerated by this goverment.

The nation of Fiereu has voted against this proposal
Can't you put a railing over that slippery slope.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

a railing would only slow it down, it would still cause civil unrest and therefore would still pose a threat to the nation. Too many people would be affected to effectivly "correct" the problem with out the "correction" to be a detriment to our nation, economically and militarily

Okay let me put that another way. Logical fallacies do not help your arguments.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

My concern is that the farmers will grow hemp and they are going to sell a portion of the harvest as drugs to people. The resolution doesn't say anything about control on this part. How are we going to check if a portion of the produced hemp doesn't end up in other countries or on our own black-market??

Hemp is a cousin of the plant cannabis comes from with very low THC levels, I'm told not enough to get high.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What is this talk of marijuana? If you read the proposal it states that industrial hemp is what will be used and industrial hemp cannot be used for drugs. Therefore the this proposal will not lead to the spread of marijuana.

EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug.

This is the part of the proposal that states that industrial hemp cannot be used for drugs. I made a point to add that line in to avoid this drug discussion.

The King Elvis, in the name of the Kingdom of Graceland in Memphis salutes the nation of Avenging Angels for their contribution to environment protection, and also for their creativity to propose solutions.
However, we will vote against your proposal, which seems to us too costly in regard of our economy.
According the UN report, if this resolution is approved it will be at expenses of all industry, and moreover the cost of this program will be supported in part by the government, thus rising up our income tax rates…

May the gods of rock'n'roll protect you

Elvis
Kingdom of Graceland in Memphis

The Kingdom of Anandria fully supports this proposal. Some nations argue that it would actually be bad for the economy, but The Kingdom argues this point......if the productin of hemp can be done without chemical fertilizers, which we as nations must admit, can be quite costly when you think of how many acres every year we must palnt to support notonly our own nations, but those that we deal with every day....then there is some money saved......and if hemp can be cultivated in bad soil as well as good soil, then our farmers will not have to worry about purchasing thousands of pounds of top grade soil to mix with the soil already provided on their lands, so there is more money saved.......and if hemp can be cultivated without much water, then those nations hit the hardest by droughts and water supply shortage would benefit greatly from a crop that so much can be done with other than just eating or burning or writing on or wearing........and since the harvesting of hemp can be done in only 120 days after planting, imagine the economic benefits of such crops if hemp can be grown year round?....grow a crop, harvest a crop, plant another crop?.......

The Kingdom has thought this out and we have decide to provide everyone with a list of possible uses of hemp

FOOD
Food-Grade Oil
(always add to foods
AFTER any kind of high
temperature cooking) 1- salad oil
2- baking
3- drizzled into soups/stews/
4- drizzled on steamed veggies 5- drizzled on pasta
6- pesto
7- mix with yogourt
8- humus

Raw Seeds
9- hemp "milk"
10- ice cream (dairy free)
11- cheese (lactose free)
12- chocolate
13- veggie burgers
14- beer

Roasted Seeds
15- TV snack
16- trail mixes
17- add to cookies
18- add to breads
19- add to muffins
20- granola bars

Flour & Meal
21- cookies
22- breads
23- muffins
24- granola bars
25- add (meal) to cereal
26- add (meal) to salad

HEALING
27- salve
28- deep heating rub
29- nutritional healing
30- aromatherapy

TOILETRIES
31- soaps
32- shampoo
33- conditioner
34- hand lotions
35- body lotions
36- massage oils
37- bath oils
38- lip emollient
39- lipstick
40- sunscreen
41- body scrubs
42- perfume oils

TEXTILE
Clothing 43- jeans
44- shirts
45- caps
46- knits
47- dresses
48- jackets 49- ties
50- jewelry
51- belts
52- socks
53- footwear

Sports/Leisure
54- backpacks
55- bags
56- wallets
57- tent canvass

Canvasses
58- tarps
59- sails
60- banners
61- chairs

Household Cloth
62- wash cloths/towels
63- bath mats
64- shower curtains
65- bedding
66- napkins
67- place mats
68- tablecloths
69- pot holders
70- other misc. cloth

HOUSEHOLD
71- cordage
72- webbing
73- hammocks
74- candles
75- crayons
76- stuffed toys
77- rugs/carpet
78- laundry detergent
79- varnish
80- paint
81- furniture oil
82- shoe polish

Pet Supplies
83- dog/cat collars
84- dog chew toys
85- cat toys
86- horse cookies

INDUSTRIAL
87- wood chips
88- animal bedding
89- concrete
90- reinforcement for concrete
91- insulation
92- furniture stuffing
93- pulp & paper
94- plaster

Press Board
everything from:
97- structural beams for buildings;
96- kitchen cabinets; to
95- car moldings

Industrial Oil
98- plastic
99- press board bonding agents
100- lubricant
101- wood preservatives


all of these things can be made out of one crop.....all of these things are money makers and so are good for the economy.......it costs less to aquire, it costs less to grow, takes less to care for the crop and yet yields such a large quanity of possible products which our nations could develope and sell either nationally or internationally......The Kingdom fully supports this proposal as we do see the brighter light of it in the end.

Thank you, you are completely right, and thank you for that list. :):):)

Hemp is a cousin of the plant cannabis comes from with very low THC levels, I'm told not enough to get high.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

OH MY GOD we must find a way to increase the THC level at once :p


anyways i approve!

Representative of the high people's council of Land And Liberty

King Vijay Siddiah and Queen Wyntarra Siddiah are more than welcome to give you all the support they can to you in this endevour.

Also in response to someone before saying Their nation will do everything in their power to stop this proposal from going through only because it is posted after the AIDS proposal, might the Kingdom also inform such said nation that despite official denial and statements to the contrary by other nations, significant evidence exists that hemp drugs are effective as:

Relaxant/sedative
Antidepressant
Analgesic/antispasmodic
Child birth aid
Intraocular hypotensive
Appetite stimulant
Hypothermogenic
Alcohol substitute
Withdrawal agent for sedative dependence
Topical antibiotic

The Kingdom did also support the AIDS proposal by the way.

My fellow members, have we forgotten that most developing nations are still dependent on woodchip exports which would be drastically reduced in favor of book publishing? Other industries could be explored thanks to this and quite possibly stem new economies from it? It may not mean much to those vastly superior nations but remember there are others who could benefit from this, or is it all about protecting the wealth of some and not allowing others to progress?

most developing nations are still dependent on woodchip exports


INDUSTRIAL
87- wood chips

The Kingdom wishes to also point out the extensive list of other possible products that may be produced from 1 single hemp crop. How can something which would cost less to aquire seeds for, and cost less to care for and be ready for harvest in far far less time than a grove of trees, be dentrimental to a developing nation's economy? They would be saving so much money and in turn earning more money after sale of their crops, even if they themselves did nothing with the raw material.

The Kingdom would also like to offer further argument in support of this proposal and offer this information for those Nations who may be thinking to vote against it for fear of someone trying to use hemp as a drug, similar to marijuana.

Hemp also contains elevated amounts of cannabidiol, or CBD, which will cause a massive headache to anyone who smokes it. The high levels of CBD cancel out the psychoactive capacity of the THC. The end result is that if anyone attempts to smoke industrial hemp in order to obtain a marijuana high, all they will get is a severe headache that should instantly convince them to never try it again.

Could you tell me what the disadvantages of this proposal might be? You make this proposal sound like a God send, however, you neglect in telling us the disadvantages of this proposal which damages your credibility. No doubt that talking about the pure benefits of the proposal will get it voted in, but in leaving important information out you do not let the Delegates make an informed decision. Are you saying there are no disadvantages to making this change in policy?

Speaker Thassaloss Kahn
A Humble Servant of
The Most Serene Republic of Thassaloss
:sniper:

The King Elvis does not argue that hemp could be used in many industries, but your respectuous wishes cannot hide the reality, as clearly mentionned by the UN this resolution when passed will be at expenses of the industries.
Furthermore this programm is only autosubventionned for 30%, so to implement it in each country government will have to rise the incom taxes...

Kingdom of Graceland in Memphis is ready and willing to help ecology, but the price has to be reasonnable, and we will consider and support any new proposal as long as it is not ruining our economy.

Now, excuse me if it seems a little thick but could somebody please answer a question for me..

If hemp is such a wonderful, easy to produce product, which is commercially viable, why do we need to subsidise farmers to produce it?

Surely if everything said about it in the resolution is true (which I have no doubt it is), then what is required is not subsidy, but education about hemp and it's amazing benefits. This would also be more in line with Qboid governmental policy.

Or am I completely missing the point here?

I agree education is necessary, but sometimes that is not enough. The matter of fact is that people need incentives to make changes sometimes.

Dangle the proverbial carrot in front of them to make them more interested. Its a simple fact.. without incentive, no one would bite.

Could you tell me what the disadvantages of this proposal might be? You make this proposal sound like a God send, however, you neglect in telling us the disadvantages of this proposal which damages your credibility. No doubt that talking about the pure benefits of the proposal will get it voted in, but in leaving important information out you do not let the Delegates make an informed decision. Are you saying there are no disadvantages to making this change in policy?

Speaker Thassaloss Kahn
A Humble Servant of
The Most Serene Republic of Thassaloss
:sniper:

Presently, The Kingdom wishes to apologize for it's lack of knowledge on disadvantages and so is currently researching the possibilities of such. Thus far, one disadvantage found is the necessary retooling of present wood mills to accomodate the different fibers of the hemp plant compared to the tree.

Now, excuse me if it seems a little thick but could somebody please answer a question for me..

If hemp is such a wonderful, easy to produce product, which is commercially viable, why do we need to subsidise farmers to produce it?

Surely if everything said about it in the resolution is true (which I have no doubt it is), then what is required is not subsidy, but education about hemp and it's amazing benefits. This would also be more in line with Qboid governmental policy.

Or am I completely missing the point here?
I think this is costly because if that pass, you had to change the presently factories to new technology that let you use the industrial hemp.
also, it could make profits in the long tern, but it still make you do some big depoists in the present.
but maybe there are other reasons I don't know.

the hemp not only costs our governments excessive amounts, but let's the farmers have a tax break for doing their job. Additionally, it's a DRUG!

The undertood good thing about hemp is that the material will supply us with paper, clothes and wait... don't we have those already?

Stop voting FOR everyting without thinking, let's see some thumbs down, people!

Respectfully, SVERIKEA

Industrial hemp is not used for a drug, read the proposal first. Industrial hemp is not used for drugs.

My doubt is: ¿How much necesary is an intensive supervision for avoiding that the same farmers who grow it for industrial use, grow it for drug use?

You can;t grow industrial hemp for drug purposes, as any plant there are various species I believe, but to my knowledge industrial hemp cannot be used or frown for drug purposes.

The resolution looks good, but I don't see why it has to be catgorized as "improving the environment at the expense of industry." Won't this actually help industry? Couldn't they find a better category?

What good does it do us to destroy capitalism and a make a futile attempt to renew a lost section of the economy? Surely you know that in order to expand, part of the economy must collapse? Honestly, this is useless and stupid. If this passes I may have to leave the UN

As the President for Life of Kraxistan and am voting against the hemp resolution.

You hippies and your hemp!

You are all a bunch of stick, twisted weirdos!

You are all worthless and weak besides.


I AM,

President of Krixistan

How do these hemp food products, such as chocolate, milk, ect.., stand up to their nonhemp counterparts in taste, health, and cost of production?

This is ridiculous...People you can list all the benefits that could arise but those are not going to count...the only thing going to count is the spiraling down of the economy, raised taxes, and slight help to the enviroment.
BUT nearly everyone supporting and voting against have nice enviroments (and if not then next issue could destroy their enviroments)...this is just going to reek economic decay. It serves no purpose and though it could be nice for a nations congress (as an issue perhaps) it has no place in guiding the world.

I am really just saddened by the people who seem to care more about passing an issue regarding hemp than they do their people.
This proposal is not helping any aspect of the world, not solving a serious problem, not fixing a stigma, not helping human rights...IT IS JUST SCREWING THE ECONOMY!!!!

Please vote against

:mad: what the hell? how does this improve the world, it raises taxes and wastes money! if this resolution is passed I will resieng from the UN, this absolute CRAP, my farmers should be able to do whatever the hell they want, whoever came up with this should be shot :mp5:

I think this is ridiculous. It's one thing if the UN wants to pass a proposal to save forests but to REQUIRE (or "recomend") us to grow hemp? In my opinion the UN should have no authority over what a nation can and can not grow. Us individual nations can make our own agricultural choices thank you very much... I could care less if your nation wants to grow hemp or not... it really depends on if each individual nation really needs to grow it to help their economies/enviroments and if they have drugs legalized or not, ect.

Now, excuse me if it seems a little thick but could somebody please answer a question for me..

If hemp is such a wonderful, easy to produce product, which is commercially viable, why do we need to subsidise farmers to produce it?

Surely if everything said about it in the resolution is true (which I have no doubt it is), then what is required is not subsidy, but education about hemp and it's amazing benefits. This would also be more in line with Qboid governmental policy.

Or am I completely missing the point here?

The people of Waterloovia agree with this position. We don't need subsidies or additional government spending to support an industry that can survive quite well on its own. Education is the answer. For this reason, the people of Waterloovia have voted against this illogical resolution.

Sorry I had no time to read all the 5 pages of discussion. So in case I am saying something already said, please forgive me. The resolution about hemp, although progressive in it's idea about hemp usage, is absolutely repulsive in the proposed actions. It is not the business of the UN to prescribe the structure of each nations governmental offices down to the second junior undersecretary!! (OK, I am exaggerating, but that is usually necessary to get a point across). VOTE AGAINST!!

Just because I abstained from voting on this doesn't mean I won't correct fallacies in arguements.

I think this is ridiculous. It's one thing if the UN wants to pass a proposal to save forests but to REQUIRE (or "recomend") us to grow hemp?

Recommendations are not requirements. Recommendations you can ignore.

If this passes I may have to leave the UN

Bye. Feel free to slam the door on your way out. Wait, the window is faster and skips the 17 stories of stairs. Here, let me help you out it.

"what the hell? how does this improve the world, it raises taxes and wastes money! if this resolution is passed I will resieng from the UN, this absolute CRAP, my farmers should be able to do whatever the hell they want, whoever came up with this should be shot "

Bustardton, while I appreciate any feedback, I do not appreciAte your rude and rather pointless comments. Lets kepe this civil please, and remember thisonly a game. Disagree with my proposal and my ideas, but at least be respectful about how you speak and conduct yourself.

You can;t grow industrial hemp for drug purposes, as any plant there are various species I believe, but to my knowledge industrial hemp cannot be used or frown for drug purposes.

Ok. I suppose it means that industrial hemp hasn't the chemical sustance which makes hemp a drug. However, we should implement a system to get farmers didn't grow "drug hemp" instead of "industrial hemp".

Do you know a way to do it? I think it's too complicated.

Ok. I suppose it means that industrial hemp hasn't the chemical sustance which makes hemp a drug. However, we should implement a system to get farmers didn't grow "drug hemp" instead of "industrial hemp".

Do you know a way to do it? I think it's too complicated.

Easy. Only sell them industrial hemp.

I have explained the main trouble, at my point of view. Legal hemp is okay. Illegal hemp is not wanted.

Jibba-Jabbia said something interesting: Do we really need to grow hemp? Every nation has it's own agriculture necessities. Something that is good for one, isn`t good for another, and perhaps some countries don`t need hemp.

Easy. Only sell them industrial hemp.

Are we the only source of hemp? I think not.

It's a cheap crop, easy to grow, and can be grown almost anywhere, and has many varied uses. I think any coutnry could find some use for hemp.

Are we the only source of hemp? I think not.

Close your borders. Shoot anyone who comes in without permission.

It's a cheap crop, easy to grow, and can be grown almost anywhere, and has many varied uses. I think any coutnry could find some use for hemp.

It doesn't respond well to the levels of ultraviolet radiation Sarkarasetans are used to (remember: DLE homeworld orbits a red giant and has no ozone layer) and we already covered just about every use. The only thing I can come up with is using it as a terraforming plant, and I already have some of those. So, really, I have no use for it.

Close your borders. Shoot anyone who comes in without permission.
Well. May I?
It doesn't appear in the proposal.

Well. May I?
It doesn't appear in the proposal.

If it isn't covered in a UN resolution, you may do whatever you like with regards to it.

Vastiva already allows both crops. Industrial hemp is the greater moneymaker for the farmer. So we don't see much recreational hemp grown commercially.

We do see much domestic production, however. Home production is very high. Which again, we don't mind - we get taxes on all the equipment, the omnipresence makes it cheap as dirt (and the commercially sold smokes we get taxes on), education on the topic is freely available as are "treatment centers" as part of basic healthcare. Societal pressure has most using it responsibly, which we don't have a problem with, and those who don't - well, being under the influence of a chemical substance knowingly and voluntarilly introduced into one's body is not an excuse for commission of a crime in Vastiva.

It's a cheap crop, easy to grow, and can be grown almost anywhere, and has many varied uses. I think any coutnry could find some use for hemp.


Oh, is that your reason for forcing every country to grow something it doesnt want to grow?

Do you not want to grow it, and last time I checked not every nation was disagreeing with the proposal. Some people merely disagreed because of the idea of subsidies, not the idea of growing hemp.

The Country of Warrior of dreams is against this. If this passes then the Economy will take a horrific plunge and with the cost of making the plant I will be forced to raise taxes. Most of those taxes will have to go to Buisness as Buisness will fall as well.

The Country of Warrior of dreams is against this. If this passes then the Economy will take a horrific plunge and with the cost of making the plant I will be forced to raise taxes. Most of those taxes will have to go to Buisness as Buisness will fall as well.

I'd like the logic on this one.

The plant is much cheaper to grow then cotton and many other crops currently grown by many nations.

Do you not want to grow it, and last time I checked not every nation was disagreeing with the proposal. Some people merely disagreed because of the idea of subsidies, not the idea of growing hemp.
Well, a bit of both. You are forcing a nation that could care less about hemp to grow it, then give money to the growers for no reason. Do I smell socialism?

Well, a bit of both. You are forcing a nation that could care less about hemp to grow it, then give money to the growers for no reason. Do I smell socialism?

I smell "not bothering to read the actual resolution." No where does it state it is required. No where does it force you to do anything.

It seems many people fail to read the actual proposal. Hence all the uproar about drugs. The resolution is on the UN page of NS, and is on the first page of this thread. I recommend reading it before you comment on it.

Yes. I object. I understand there are no narcotic effects associated with hemp but again, this should be an issue handled on a national level and not a global issue. Did you see the tax breaks these farmers would get with this resolution, and did you see the section on the monthly stipend? Not to mention the other financial support we as nations are going to have to pony up.

Leave these types of decisions to each country and do not force these policies on other nations.

I encourage you to vote against this resolution.

Yes. I object. I understand there are no narcotic effects associated with hemp but again, this should be an issue handled on a national level and not a global issue. Did you see the tax breaks these farmers would get with this resolution, and did you see the section on the monthly stipend? Not to mention the other financial support we as nations are going to have to pony up.

Leave these types of decisions to each country and do not force these policies on other nations.

I encourage you to vote against this resolution.

I want evidence to back up your claim that people have to pay anything. Evidence from the actual resolution.

There is no doubt that between the "paper" hemp and de "celluloid" hemp there will be some drug-useful hemp. I agree with the proposal and suggest that UN member satates would also benefit if hemp, ecstasy and cocaine would be regarded as study-cases for medical purposes.

In this particular resulution, it would be nice to see some hemp being treated as a drug, also. I may recall that hemp is used all over the world, from India to Brazil, from Portugal to Italy, also as a fabric component, with no need for "go for it" resolutions.

You have Vion's support. Sounds great. :D

ok ok i'm sorry, but i have no intentions of hiring a board of people to oversee hemp production, the only person who tells my farmers what to grow is me.

I want evidence to back up your claim that people have to pay anything. Evidence from the actual resolution.

"The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations."

Ok heres your evidence:
-Farmers pay
-I.. I mean my government pays
-the UN pays!
:confused:
that paragraph proves the people pay something (through taxes).
rule numer 1: READ

( :confused: why do I end up paying for something I don't support? :confused: )

"The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations."

Ok heres your evidence:
-Farmers pay
-I.. I mean my government pays
-the UN pays!
:confused:
that paragraph proves the people pay something (through taxes).
rule numer 1: READ

( :confused: why do I end up paying for something I don't support? :confused: )

You DID join the UN, didn't you? You DID click the "Join UN" button?

*adds another name to the list of those who did not read the FAQ before joining the UN*

He was pointing out that you DO have to pay for such a stupid thing.

I smell "not bothering to read the actual resolution." No where does it state it is required. No where does it force you to do anything.

If it is only "Reccommends" then why do I know I will get a message saying that laws have been enacted to make me comply with this? Honestly, I smell "arrogance"

If it is only "Reccommends" then why do I know I will get a message saying that laws have been enacted to make me comply with this? Honestly, I smell "arrogance"

"Arrogance" is a popular cologne in DLE.

Yes, you will get that message. Guess what? It's automated. You can switch your laws back at any point. Or, you can interpret it to be a case of it passing laws related to your choice in how to implement it, even is that means the laws state the position you currently hold.

The UN Gnomes arrived, passed a UN-backed law stating our government could fund hemp production if we wanted to.

Ever see UN Gnomes swear?

:headbang:

:)

No, but I did see them accuse people of being willfully or maliciously stupid. Strangely, that post vanished quickly.

" You can switch your laws back at any point. Or, you can interpret it to be a case of it passing laws related to your choice in how to implement it, even is that means the laws state the position you currently hold.

How can I do that?
(Perhaps I didn't read something...)

How can I do that?
(Perhaps I didn't read something...)

It's called "using your imagination," "enjoying a loophole," and "roleplaying."

...now alot of people are saying that this proposal "recomends" growing hemp. Alright, thanks for the recomendation... do we really need to vote for recomending something? (and no that's not a rhetorical question I really want someone to tell me how this is not a waste of time if we don't have to do anything that this proposal "recomends")

Ditto there...honestly, if you are honest in your reply to me then what is to say that this isnt just taking up valuable space?

Ok, it seams that on one hand “Encouraging” the production of hemp would have many beneficial qualities, while on the other hand the method of doing so stated in the proposal seams to have a few “Issues” among them why should we tell our farmers what to plant, especially since if it really is that good why won’t they do it them selves, and that it would have a bit of a negative affect on the economy (due to the subsidies etc.).

Now, it’s been mentioned that farmers would not make the switch even if it is as good as claimed on their own without a bit of encouragement, while on the other hand the proposed “Engorgements” listed in the proposal seem a bit extreme. So now wouldn’t it be better if instead of the proposed subsidies, there would instead be a one time only subsidy (sort of a bonus) a alternative suggestion would be to offer low interest loans or a tax break) for farmers that make the switch, so as to make it economically viable for them to make the switch (I’m assuming there are various expense in switching from one crop to another (though that maybe more by the mills and other processing plants), While not being such a drag on the economy since it’s only temporally (of course you may have some farmers that would switch just for one year, but I’m guessing it would be to much of a hassle to switch if your not going to stick with it). And then if what has been said about it is true, it would seem that while it maybe an expense in the short term it should improve the economy in the long run. So what do you people think about this?

Another thing which I didn’t see anybody speak about what would be the effects on the economy if there was such a large surge in the production of hemp as opposed to regular crops, would this wreak havoc on the general supply and demand of other crops (well I haven’t really thought about this one yet).


That being said I remain undecided on this issue.

No I don't want to seem like its author bashing time but here is quote from AA after the hemp resolution was written.

"Really? I had no idea the UN resolutions when passed actually effected our nations. wow, still have some things to learn I guess."
-quoted in post about one nation's grip over the last resolution (NS Aids) being enacted in their nation though he did not even know about it. It is still pretty high in the forum...

I now am tempted to make loud and egregious statements but I'll leave that up to other people...Sarcodinan UN Officials have been in a bathroom crying for a while while the isolationists in Congress dance in the streets.

You ar author bashing. Just because I made a proposal, and got it to be a resolution does not mean I know every detail about the game. I didn't realize that when UN resolutions are passed that they actually effect our nations. So, what? I am not going to apologize for not knowing something. I was taught that you ask questions, because asking questions are the only way to find things out.

Now, you posting that has nothing to do with this topic or resolution. It was an attempt to bash me, make me look bad, and to hurt the support I have. I do not appreciate that.

All I ask is to keep this discussion clean, fair, and respectful.

The current proposal states that it is a "resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry." Increasing the farming of hemp won't necessarily increase the quality of the world's environment. If chemicals are used, like fertilizers and insectides, it's going to further damage the environment. And, as the resolution provides incentives to primary producers, it won't necessarily be at the expense of all industries. Some industries (the hemp-growing industry and all industries that use hemp) will benefit and some (those hemp will compete against) will suffer.

This proposal should be withdrawn, and recategorized before being re-submitted.

All UN members should vote "AGAINST".

Jesus Christ, are you crazy?
Ok ye lets make drug products and say to the kids "hey hemp is ok but drugs are bad".
When we make drug laws we just don't say that the part of the plant that makes a person "high" is illegal, we say that the the intyre plant is illegal. Sure you might say that this will help the environment with lesser trees being cut down, and that is probably true, but if this bill passes then we are sending the message that drug plants are not all that bad as the laws say they are.
It will cost you more funding to the police and education sectores and taxes will rise.
But hey thats ok this bill will pass no matter what I or any other person will say because it's so cool and rad man.
Do YOU think that the real U.N. waste time talking about legalizeing hemp? Give me a break.

The use of fertilzers and insecticides are not needed to grow hemp. Hemp requires very little nutrients to grow, and therefor there is no need for fertilizers.

What would you recatergorize it as?

Hemp helps prevent erosion because of the deep tap root, it helps build up soil, and as mentioned can help cutdown down on the use of chemicals used in most farming.

Industrial hemp cannot be used for drugs, so this really has no relaton to drug plants. I will make this clear that the type of plant that will be used cannot be used for drugs.

The use of fertilzers and insecticides are not needed to grow hemp. Hemp requires very little nutrients to grow, and therefor there is no need for fertilizers.

What would you recatergorize it as?

Hemp helps prevent erosion because of the deep tap root, it helps build up soil, and as mentioned can help cutdown down on the use of chemicals used in most farming.
Fertilizers and insecticides might not be NEEDED to grow hemp in your flood-lit basement, but any crop's profitability can be enhanced by the use of chemicals. Once the world's giant multinational primary producers are growing hemp in enormous quantities, they will use anything that will enhance production and profitability.

The particular category and revised proposal should be discussed in another UN Forum meeting/thread. What we are discussing here is the current proposal, not any future proposal.

You have not addressed the effect on industry. This proposal has been miscategorized as NEGATIVELY AFFECTING ALL INDUSTRIES. This alone makes the proposal unacceptable.

Our regional delegate endorses our position.
Vote AGAINST this proposal.

I categorize hemp as a drug related product, and that is what it is.
My point is that hemp is related to narcotics. I am not saying that one can make drugs from it just that it is related to drugs.
If you say to a kid that hemp is good and drugs are bad he or she will want to explore this and see why that is, thus creating a drug problem that will manifest into a major problem.
Do really not see this unfolding?

I see a little better what you are saying. But, just because a child goes and researches why hemp is okay, and other plants are bad this will not necessairly lead to a drug problem. Exploring this issue does not mean they go and use drugs, they could explore this by researching it the internet or research it at school with their teachers.

Sarcodina read through the entire resolution and thought it to be perfectly logical due to it being industrial use. Sarcodina then noticed something...the catergory. "Enviroment"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Enviroment states about helping the enviroment at the expense of industry. This means that this pro economy proposal is going to do something far different (that being hurting the economy).

Also as anyone might note, the AIDS proposal absolutely ripped the UN nations' economy. Only one nation in my region did not have its economy dropped....

Many UN members think that economy does not matter and that is their right to have that opinion. But, these expensive resolutions are going to head to worldwide economic depression...next time Sarcodina might just leave the UN for a time so its people don't have to starve.

Please take this proposal and put it into the catergory it should be in... if so Sarcodina will promise its support and fight for its passing (not that it will need too much help).

Some nations state this proposal only "recommends" subsidies to the huge multinationals that produce hemp. This is not true. The proposal will negatively effect the economies of all UN nations. Note this line in the proposal:"30% (of the cost of the subsidy program) shall come from the United Nations." You will pay, and you will pay big.

Please, vote AGAINST this proposal.

Okay just to be clear I am not saying that all children will go out and get drugs, not at all.
You dream, I wish all citizens of the world could be lawbiting and instead of going on a fieldtrip to the "ghetto" they would Study! it on the web or in class rooms.
The fact is that their will allways be worthless dumbsh**s on this planet that ruin it for all the others.

Our nation continues to be amazed at how the UN likes to throw the money of its member nations away. :( :confused:

Our nation cannot support this proposal.

The concerns of many UN member nations have not been addressed.

Please vote AGAINST this proposal.

...now alot of people are saying that this proposal "recomends" growing hemp. Alright, thanks for the recomendation... do we really need to vote for recomending something? (and no that's not a rhetorical question I really want someone to tell me how this is not a waste of time if we don't have to do anything that this proposal "recomends")

No, we don't need it. This resolution actually does nothing. It just wastes space and is a reference article.

The best thing I can say is try and see this from both sides, and make up your own mind when voting. Also, remember no law can be perfect, no law can take into account everyones concerns, and no law can please every citizen or nation.

No, we don't need it. This resolution actually does nothing. It just wastes space and is a reference article.
That is not correct. If passed, this resolution will do one thing above all others: DAMAGE YOUR ECONOMY.

The people of Poo-rovia already have a substantial hemp and marijuana agricultural sector. We have realised the benefits of industrial hemp production and are wholly against the UN sanctioning the above proposal.

This resolution will adversely affect Poo-rovias economy, and may lead to our retiring from the UN.

Please vote AGAINST this proposal.

Ye, I am voting against this one. But people should make up their own minds.
I say this to all U.N. members STOP saying what people should vote for, they can read and will make up their own minds. Do you really think people will vote your way because you wright it? And please don't reply.

Numerous government officials in Thgin are quite puzzled by this resolution. While we do support diversity in agriculture, and have no qualms with the use of hemp, we cannot fathom the purpose of this resolution. After considerable examination, we fail to find any active elements in the resolution. To the best of our understanding, the resolution does nothing. This causes us some concern, as we realize that we will suffer economically if this is passed, even though it does nothing. In Thgin, we dispose of our quails in many different ways - for food, housing, and internet auctions - but cannot comprehend what would make anyone want to use their money for nothing (internet auctions aside). Thus, we must vote against this resolution.

The best thing I can say is try and see this from both sides, and make up your own mind when voting. Also, remember no law can be perfect, no law can take into account everyones concerns, and no law can please every citizen or nation.

But a law should do something. It should achieve something. It's effect should be more than symbolic (and economy draining). This law doesn't do any of that.

I feel this does do something, it helps to get farmers using hemp which has which in my opinion will have economic and environmental benefits. Farmers will be able to grow crops at a much cheaper price saving them money, hemp has a much lower impact on the environment, and hemp can be used for a lot of different uses. In one of the previous pages there was a list of many of the varied uses of hemp.

"The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations."

Ok heres your evidence:
-Farmers pay
-I.. I mean my government pays
-the UN pays!
:confused:
that paragraph proves the people pay something (through taxes).
rule numer 1: READ

( :confused: why do I end up paying for something I don't support? :confused: )

This does not prove what you are saying. Instead of taking some random quote not even related to my question out of the resolution, find where is specifically says you have to pay for it. All you have found is a case where the money is taken out of some UN treasure chest. I know I certainly won't be giving the UN money for this.

Rule number 1: READ.

This resolution will adversely affect Poo-rovias economy, and may lead to our retiring from the UN.

For the delegates leaving, we have a special express elevator the delegate takes while UN delegates act as porters. When you are ready to leave, let me know and I'll give you a ride on the elevator.

For the delegates leaving, we have a special express elevator the delegate takes while UN delegates act as porters. When you are ready to leave, let me know and I'll give you a ride on the elevator.

Speaking of that elevator, when are you installing the floor, and why are the walls greased? ;)

I feel this does do something, it helps to get farmers using hemp which has which in my opinion will have economic and environmental benefits.
It won't have economic benefits. It will negatively effect the economies of all UN member nations. That is an indisputable fact. It is more difficult to explain exactly why. Perhaps it is because of the subsidies of this one crop creating an economic imbalance. It might lead to overproduction and/or unfair pricing in competition with similar products.

If passed, this proposal will damage your economy. It needs to be defeated and a new proposal submitted with a different categorization, and perhaps reducing or eliminating the subsidies.

This is a long post from a person with a low post count but please read. I know what I am talking about.

I could be against this resolution because it is supporting the same people who brought us drugs. I could be against it because it will hurt my economy in the end. But most importantly, I am against it because agricultural subsidies always hurt more than the ever help. I will refer back to my other points through my argument, but mainly my point shall be agricultural subsidies.

Firstly, why am I talking about agricultural subsides and what are they? I realize many of you know what they are, but in case you don't, Agricultural Subsities are when big countries give money to their farmers in order to make them want to farm. Poorer countries don't do this because they can't afford it. I bring this point up because...
1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.
We will be giving $10,000 dollars and a 45% tax break.

Now onto my argument as to why this resolution is quite honestly a bad idea. Firstly, 40% of the costs will be falling on the individual nations of the UN. Most countries that would need more money for agricultural production are going to be the pooerer nations. They can not afford this multi-billion dollar package. This simply does not make sense.

Secondly, any chance for the agricultural production of hemp in other countries and other products in our nations will be destroyed. Nations outside of the UN will have no way to compete with the subsidies we create. An outstanding example of this is the sugrar dumping by the EU. EU's subsidation and "dumping" of sugar around the world caused Mozambique to be unable to produce sugar when this could be an industry that could make their nation climb out of its's poor state. However they can not because European farmers are protected by their subsides.

Starvation will follow soon from a lack of industry in these nations, and believe me just because they are not with us will not prevent us helping their starving population...which will cost us money.

Also, other agricultural products will not be produced as they should be in our nations. Why would a Denorian farmer make corn or wool (which are needed) when they can make free money by producing hemp? They wouldn't. Suddenly what is needed and demanded has no value. Along with this point, this resolution points out the idea of deforistation.
Harvesting hemp doesn't destroy the natural habitats of thousands of distinct animal and plant species.
However, the lumber industry will be hurt and not the illegal industry of destroying the natural forests. Comercial wood production does not hurt the environment because these companies replenish their forests so as to have a product in the future.

Thirdly, is the basics of economics. If hemp is as useful as the resolution and a superior product to wood products then naturally the economy would favor it. All of us know the idea of Supply and Demand. This resolution is increasing the supply of hemp when it is not affecting demand at all. Just because it could be a lower price will not make people buy it if they do not know it exists as a substitute.

Still let's think of the farmers themselves. Suddenly millions of new farmers will join the hemp industry. First this will cause an extreme saturation of the market, perhaps enough to create such a huge stockpile that most of these farmers will go out of business. Those left will only be a small portion of the entire industry and therefore no one will have any chance of making more money in the entire industry. No incentive means poorer product. Subsidies usually help some farmers but in the case of a worldwide subsedy, everyone will get more money and now everyone rises...which means inflation. Now the entire world economy will be inflated and those in other industries will become poorer and poorer even.

Several nations could produce enough hemp for the world and could trade for other products thus benefiting everyone.

Specialization is the best option for us all! Vote against this resolution, or at least don't vote for it just because it says hemp in the title.

Speaking of that elevator, when are you installing the floor, and why are the walls greased? ;)

Shush! They're not supposed to know about that.

First off, I do not think starvation will follow since ehmp can be used as a surce of food, you can make milk, bread products and many other things from hemp. The point of the resolution is not to have hemp replace all other crops. But, hemp canbe sued to replace many othr crops that hurt the environment like cotton. Hemp is more durable then cotton products are.

Industrial hemp has no relation to the drug industry really.

As much nas you may like to thniki not all commercial wood production practice susainable forestry practices. Even if they do replace the trees they destroy, they are not always native tree species , and this is a whole other issue. Clearcutting is still practiced by many commericla foresters.

"Subsidies usually help some farmers but in the case of a worldwide subsedy, everyone will get more money and now everyone rises"

I would think enabling farmers to make more money would be good, and if more people are making money the better. So, enabling more farmers to make more money globally is a bad thing? Thats right maybe we should keep some people poor. (sorry for the sarcasm)

The best thing I can say is try and see this from both sides, and make up your own mind when voting. Also, remember no law can be perfect, no law can take into account everyones concerns, and no law can please every citizen or nation.

!!! This is NOT a LAW this is a UN RESOLUTION. A law is defined by webster as:
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Now compare the words BINDING and ENFORCED to RECOMEND. Futhermore, if this WAS a law i would be a very economically controlling law which I'm sure would screw many nations over. It is my personal belief that that the UN should be mainly about protecting/furthering civil liberties so I must vote against this resolution (although again this would not really force anyone to do anything really).

I RECOMEND that all other nations who see the irrelevance OR do not wish to become slaves to the UN (I believe this would be the first step towards this) vote AGAINST this proposal (and no, no one had to vote for that recomendation).

I RECOMEND that all other nations who see the irrelevance OR do not wish to become slaves to the UN (I believe this would be the first step towards this) vote AGAINST this proposal (and no, no one had to vote for that recomendation).

The moment you clicked the button that said you agree to become a UN member, you became it's slave and gave up national sovereignity.

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't read the FAQs:

Greetings to All and Sundry,

The facts to consider with the current Resolution, Support Hemp Production, are:

1) The parameters of the Resolution are very flawed. This Resolution should directly affect the Woodchipping Industry, but should actually be helpful to all other businesses, instead of acting to the detriment of All Businesses as this Resolution states. The commercial use of hemp would allow less wastage of timber products, instead of turning perfectly good forests into pulp for paper. Hemp is a much more renewable resource and would be a boon for farmers. This was a poor choice of parameters, one that calls the entire Resolution into question.

2) It is true that Industrial Hemp isn’t useful as a recreational drug. The THC content is too low to have much affect (and the headache of smoking enough to get high would make it a very bad idea) and the cannabidiol (CBD) that counters the effects of THC on humans are in much higher content than is present in marijuana.

3) Industrial Hemp is a low maintenance crop, but it is also requires a lot of monitoring and has a number of Technical concerns. The farmer tends to be responsible for the measuring the THC content of each field, by taking samples, and these samples need not only to be tested by the tests authorized by legal authorities and government officials. Since most people can’t tell the difference between marijuana and industrial hemp, trespassers and theft are a frequent concern for farmers. Another difficulty is that the best fiber is harvested from premature plants. This means that if you harvest the best fiber you have no seed from your crop. Harvesting is also an awkward process with conventional farm equipment and would demand new and expensive machines for this process. Of course massed cheap labour tends to take care of these concerns, but most nation states would have a problem with the plight of the labourers that would still result in a profitable crop for the farmer. As Industrial Hemp, a farmer would be required to undergo even more tests on their harvest to ensure that it was sterile and could not have any seeds harvested from it. That said it has less problems than harvesting trees for pulp and offers much more product potential: textiles, luggage, rope, crayons, cosmetics, and yes even children’s stuffed toys to name a few ways in which industrial hemp is used.

4) For the most part, all this Resolution does is “recommend”, “suggest”, and “further recommend”. In the end, it is completely non-binding upon any UN member state except that they must read the resolution and then decide what they want to do about it.

5) While the author of this Resolution attempts to instate a relationship between Hemp farmers and the State, it is in fact attempting to enforce a system of commerce upon them more than being helpful. From the Capitalist Paradise to the Communist, I would think that each nation state would have it’s own way to implement the farming of industrial hemp. For the Resolution to determine this relationship is micromanaging the domestic affairs of each UN member state.

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

I had to vote against this proposal for basically two reasons, one i do not support giving the farmers a 45% tax break and two, subsidizing this crop. If anything, this would become a huge cash crop and should therefore be taxed since it would profit the government. Secondly, milk is subsidized because it is costly to produce. Growing hemp would not be very costly since it is a weed and growing and harvesting would not be an expensive endevor. I like the idea, but it needs some changes.

The moment you clicked the button that said you agree to become a UN member, you became it's slave and gave up national sovereignity.

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't read the FAQs:

Actually I have read the FAQ. Never did I say that I would not follow the results of any UN proposal (if I didn't want to I would simply resign). I just think that the UN should be shaped by those who compose it and I do not wish the UN to control my economy if ever such a controling law came up. Again I ask you to focus on the word RECOMEND. If you want to become a COMPLETE slave to the UN than by all means, vote that way.

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't read my post thoroughly before they assumed I never read the FAQ:

!!! This is NOT a LAW this is a UN RESOLUTION. A law is defined by webster as:
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Now compare the words BINDING and ENFORCED to RECOMEND. Futhermore, if this WAS a law i would be a very economically controlling law which I'm sure would screw many nations over. It is my personal belief that that the UN should be mainly about protecting/furthering civil liberties so I must vote against this resolution (although again this would not really force anyone to do anything really).

I RECOMEND that all other nations who see the irrelevance OR do not wish to become slaves to the UN (I believe this would be the first step towards this) vote AGAINST this proposal (and no, no one had to vote for that recomendation).

*gets out big stamp and stamp pad*

Stay still, this won't hurt me a bit.

*stamps DID READ THE FAQ BEFORE JOINING THE NATION STATES UNITED NATIONS BUT DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT TO MEAN THE UN CAN MESS WITH EVERYTHING IT WANTS on your forehead*

Thanks. I was damaging our ecosystem with all the trees removed to make paper to keep lists. I think we'll go with barcoding next.

:p

*sigh* yes I realize that the UN CAN mess with anything it wants and since I AM PART of the UN I get my say as to what the UN messes with as much as you or anyone else does (as I tried to make clear in my last post).

Actually I have read the FAQ. Never did I say that I would not follow the results of any UN proposal (if I didn't want to I would simply resign). I just think that the UN should be shaped by those who compose it and I do not wish the UN to control my economy if ever such a controling law came up. Again I ask you to focus on the word RECOMEND. If you want to become a COMPLETE slave to the UN than by all means, vote that way.

You obviously haven't read the thread, or you would know how foolish you should feel for that reply.

Just read the last four pages.

I dealt with the slavery comments below.

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't read my post thoroughly before they assumed I never read the FAQ:

I got it from here:

I RECOMEND that all other nations who see the irrelevance OR do not wish to become slaves to the UN (I believe this would be the first step towards this) vote AGAINST this proposal (and no, no one had to vote for that recomendation).

You're obviously assuming you're not already. Well, you are. Too bad.

*sigh* yes I realize that the UN CAN mess with anything it wants and since I AM PART of the UN I get my say as to what the UN messes with as much as you or anyone else does (as I tried to make clear in my last post).

You get as much say as each resolution allows. Usually, it's none.

We're getting off-topic. If you want to discuss something aside from the proposal currently before the UN, I suggest you move your conversation to another room [OOC: that is, start a new thread]I had to vote against this proposal. I do not support giving the farmers a 45% tax break and subsidizing this crop. If anything, this would become a huge cash crop and should therefore be taxed since it would profit the government. Growing hemp would not be very costly since it is a weed and growing and harvesting would not be an expensive endeavor. I like the idea, but it needs some changes.
Exactly. Let's defeat the current proposal and then work out an improved version that won't do so much harm to the world economy.

All you keep saying is vote against the proposal wich gets old after a while.

We're getting off-topic. If you want to discuss something aside from the proposal currently before the UN, I suggest you move your conversation to another room [OOC: that is, start a new thread]

The talking is related to the topic at hand by attacking one arguement against it. Context is everything an a UN delegate should know that.

Oh, while it's cute to hear repetitions of the same thing, don't you have anything new to add? Most of it has already been said to death.

Yes I apoligize, I had no intention of starting a debate over the power of the UN... Let me end by saying this: I do not wish to have my economy dictated by the UN as it will not benifit it so I shall vote against this and all similar proposals relating to economy.

No, I think he is hoping that if he says vote against it enough people will listen to him. I could keep saying all the reasons why to vote for it. I believe it will benefit the environment and he economies. I think it will benefit poorer countries that before could not afford to grow or sustain other forms of agriculture. Not all countries have the clean water, or money the US has. Some countries have poorer soil, less water, and less money, and hemp can also benefit these countries. hemp could also benefit nations like the US. I realize these are real world examples.

I don't necessarily see the difference between a law and a resolution, my nation could make a law making hemp production mandatory, but so could a resolution. All resolutions, proposals, laws, or anything else will have flaws. Flaws are inherent. All I ask is think for yourselves, make up your own minds, and try to see the issue from all sides. No rpoposal, law, or resolution can please everyone or every nation.

No, I think he is hoping that if he says vote against it enough people will listen to him. I could keep saying all the reasons why to vote for it. I believe it will benefit the environment and he economies.
The reason I keep writing that this proposal will harm the economies of UN member nations is because The Avenging Angels keeps making the false statement that it will benefit economies.

The Avenging Angels, stop making false claims. Read your own proposal. It clearly states that it will be at the expense of all industries. It is an indisputable fact that this proposal will harm the economies of all UN member nations. That is why we encourage UN member nations to vote against it.

When you stop making your false claim, we will stop refuting your false claim.

It is not a false claim, and I read my proposal. Do not start attacking me. Keep it civil please.

How can a crop that is much cheaper to grow and produce the economy? It will cause a fundamental shift in a nations economy, and will change what that nations economy is based on.

As nations grow the economy either grows or develops. Growing means keeping the same economy but making it bigger. Development means switching to a less harmful economy. I believe moving towards hemp production will cause the economy to switch and be based on a better crop that will cause less harm to the environment.

Economies need to halt their growth or slow growth,and start focusing on better and more environmentally friendly products that can be just as profitable. Hemp can be just as profitable I believe as the wood industry has been.

The Allied States of New Larson recognizes the large contributions that hemp could make toward the restoration of good topsoil and farmland and so lends full support for this resolution.

I'm sorry to say but I'm against your proposal. Í'm not at all against growing hemp for industrial purposes. But by giving tax cuts to farmers who grow it, you will see that farmers all will rush to grow hemp, leading to a decrease in grain production, which might lead to worldwide famine in the worst case.

Also, the UN has no business telling countries who to give a tax break. Tax breaks should be left to individual countries' Dept. of Finances. How can a Third World country give tax breaks to farmers growing hemp, where they need the farmers to grow food ? And is giving farmers a tax break more important then giving the farmers' kids a decent education ? Those are choices you are forcing on countries, if this proposal would get accepted. The UN is supposed to make things better for all people, not worse.

So therefore I will vote No.

Kind regards,
Supreme Commander Johan XI

Aren't we having a discussion about the 'real life' purposes of hemp, rather than what it will do to our nations here?

I haven't been playing this for too long, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand of UN resolutions it is their categories that change things in your nations, not the body of the letter that was written to market the resolution. Yet people keep talking about 'recommend vs. require', and all the benefical aspects of hemp for economies (let me know if I'm off on this, I'll re-read the UN proposal rules when i have more time I guess).

This says that it will benefit the environment at the cost of industry - Is that all it is? the last UN proposal hurt my economy, why would we pass another resolution right after that damages economies further?

If this is so - PLEASE VOTE AGAINST!

Yay :)

i dont why understand why any nation should be forced to support the production of any non medical product. i cant understand how this makes any sense surely if a government wants to support a product or industry it should be up for governmental vote?

you wouldnt force a government to support the production of tabacco or coffee would you? this resolution makes no sense

This proposal is unnecessary. Irrespective of the merits - perceived or otherwise - of the crop in question, this is not a matter deserving of UN legislation.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Our economic thinktank has provided their final report on the projected outcome of this resolution. Here is a summary:

1. Some national leaders seem to think the UN's 30% of the funding for subsidies will magically materialize. The UN's funding comes from UN member nation contributions pro rated on the size of each nations economy. This means that even if you don't implement this resolution in your nation, you will still pay for it.

2. Because of the huge subsidies, many agricultural produces will switch to hemp production. There will be enormous overproduction of hemp and underproduction of other agricultural products.

3. The world's most important agricultural products are food crops. Production of food will dramatically reduce and prices will dramatically rise. Rich people will pay more for the catering of their parties. Middle-income people will be angry at the skyrocketing inflation on groceries. Poor people will starve worldwide.

4. The inflation on food prices will mean people will have less money for other goods and services. Manufacturing and service industries will decline. There will be a worldwide recession, perhaps even a depression.

5. Nations that already produce hemp will find their existing markets flooded by cheap, subsidised hemp from new producers.

6. Ultimately, the subsidies will lead to a decline in hemp production due to the artificially lowered prices and huge stockpiles of excess subsidized hemp. Farmers will have to go through the expensive process of again switching crops.

7. The worldwide pricing target for hemp is already declining in response to this proposal. All major brokers rate hemp futures as a strong sell.

This proposal to "Support Hemp Production" will lead to famine, starvation, inflation, recession, decline of all industries, and all UN member nations will pay for it whether they want it or not.

A vote for this proposal is a vote to destroy :mp5: our economies! :gundge:

A vote for this proposal is a vote to destroy :mp5: our economies! :gundge:

How?

Even if hemp hurt grain production I do not see how it would lead to famine. Hemo can be used for many types of food, so I really do not think it would lead to a famine. The intention is not to have hemp take over and replace every other crop.

Putting aside objections on the basis of international standing, I am deeply troubled by the following:

RECOMMENDS the advisory board have the power to provide incentives to farmers that grow or will grow hemp. There are two types of incentives that can be provided to these farmers:

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.
So the UN is now having a direct say on the taxation and subsidising of highly specific areas of a nation's industry? The tax breaks effectively come at the expense of all other Ecopoeian citizens, while the stipends may discourage farmers from focusing on other areas of agricultural production. I imagine a number of communist nations with fully redistributive economies will be up in arms over the taxation clause.

Additionally, this resolution effectively rewards nations that have the capacity to produce hemp, an advantage that in all likelihood arises more from luck than judgement.

The intention is not to have hemp take over and replace every other crop.
Your intentions are admirable. Your resolution is not.

See Avenging Angles, you made one very big mistake.

Starvation...yea it will happen. First off, giving money to hemp producers will make a lot of foodstuff producers leave their industry for the money in Hemp. It won't be the rich entrepeneurs who will invest in hemp; it will be the poor subsistance farmers. With less food, our farmers will suffer. I admit that I made a mistake in what I said earlier. Foreign (as in those outside the UN) Hemp producers will suffer, but all of their other industries will rise. Our nations would need food and other products but not be making them. Rogue nations would have to supply us.

Let me reassert, a worldwide subsidy will not work! It will hurt our economies. It will hurt the hemp industry. It will hurt us all.

But you can make all sorts of food products from hemp. So, if the plant can be used for food, the oil, and seeds be used for food, I really do not see how that could cause starvation. I will say once more this is not mean to have hemp replace other food crops. Why can't the food producers shift with te changing economy. Hemp production will increase, and cause a shift in the economy, but why can't food producers go with this shift. Changing what an economy is based is not always a bad thing, economies need to evolve, become better, and must become more environmentally friendly.

I see this as a good for our economies to develop and to be based off a cheaper and more environmentally friendly crop. Our economies need to develop into someting better not keep growing the way they are.

Well quite frankly my economy is on the verge of collapse as it is and i can't cope with the tax cuts as it is, it might improve my economy in the longterm but i'd be risky if i could keep a economy.

It be like being shot in the heart of my nation :sniper: .

It would only be good on a national scale, Not inforced on every nation.

You haven't specified WHO will provide the subsidies. The UN's magical moneypot? Or the national government?

You haven't justified direct interference in a nation's fiscal policy.

You have probably succeeded in inflicting poor countries with a terrible burden.

...those of us who have read the resolution and its game classification know that it will tank our economies (except, perhaps, for those of you who have economies that are "frightening"). Despite Avenging Angel's claims about the benefits of hemp, the game classification of this proposal is clear: "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry" that will affect "All Businesses." Since the NSUN has to provide nations with 30% of the funds for the crop subsidy and all NSUN funds come from member nations, tax rates in member nations will rise once again if this measure passes. Squirrelmania was willing to endure higher taxes and a hit to its economy for HIV/AIDS research and education, but it is not willing to suffer another hit for a crop subsidy, not even for a politically correct crop like hemp.

Perhaps it's time to launch our own campaign AGAINST this measure, instead of just agreeing with each other about the problems with it.

Yes, I am caling foir a shift in the economies. Anytime you call for a shift in an economy and waht that economy is based on you will be ffeecting other industries, just because you do this does not mean the economy will plummet. What if hemp could prove more profitable then these other industries, how would that cause a disaster? I believe hemp could be as profitable as the cotton indsutry or as the woodchipping industry.

Economies can do two things ro or dewvelop. If most economies keep growing the way they are I see this devesatating the environment, and without a good environment we are all screwed. Hemp is not a cure all, but hemp can help lessen the burden we place on the environment. Hemp produces more paper, impacts the land less, requires fewer chemicals when it is used to make paper, and many other things. Economies can develop, and this mans shifting what the economy is based on and what the focus of that economy is. I believe we must take this road, we must change the focus of our economies and what they are based on, so we can develop economies that will not harm the environment as much.

This brings up the clash between neoclassical ecoomics and ecologicaleconomics. neoclassical economics basically states that economies can grow indefinitely and would call for increased growth of our economies. Ecological ecoomics realizes there is a limit to economic growth and we must focuas on development. If we must focus on develpment so that we can preserve the environment then hemp will this. I never proclaimed hemp to be a cure all, but it will hemp out.

Also, hemp can be used for milk, granola, bread, cookies, margarine to name a few food products and ther are many more. Hemp has 8 essential amino acids, and has 4 essential fatty acids. So, even if hemp did reduce other food crops, how can a crop this healthy and this versatile cause stravation. I could see starvation being caused if we replaced other food crops with the growing of pine trees. To my knowledge pine trees cannot be really used for food, though you can make tea from the needles of white pine but thats it really.

Once again, if hemp is such a robust, healthy, and inexpensive crop to produce, there should be no reason why every single government in the world has to subsidize it.

If I don't understand this please correct me, but regardless of all of the 'recommendations' and escape clauses you put in your legislation, the final effect of this bill passing will be to hurt everyone's economies. This is not because of what is in the body of your text but because of all the tabs you clicked at the beginning when you made your legislation. When you state that something will 'improve the environment at the expense of industry,' the game has to reduce every UN country's economic freedoms, regardless of what is written in the text.

If this is the case, PLEASE do NOT vote for this legislation. The last UN legislation passed already hurt our economies, please do not do so again.

The reason I include the stipends and tax breaks is as an incentive because people need incentives, not to sound cynical but I doubt peple will do the right thing simply because it is right. People need incentives these days.

Consumers won't need incentives if the product you are offering is superior in nature to the other products on the market. They will choose to purchase it because it is cheaper, more durable, and more healthy than competing products.

If this is true, then even the existing mega-conglomerate food corporations have an interest in producing and extensively marketing hemp, because the first mega-corp to do so will reap a windfall profit.

Mr.Avenging Angel, if you truly believe subsidizing hemp production is not only a desirable good in every way and besides that will improve the environment, why don't you lead by example? If you implement it in your own economy and I see the positive effects that you claim, I will gladly adopt it.

I don't see why you want to make every other country in the world your guinea pig, especially when there are a lot of country's with frail economies who want to be part of the global community but don't want to lose the precious few economic freedoms that are left to them.

The UN is a powerful body, and this power should be used wisely. People should seriously consider minority rights before they try to enact and implement their projects. Just because someone is in the minority doesn't mean they should always be bullied around, even if the progressives who recommend this strategy believe they are working for the common good.

Since you have refused to comment on my statement that your legislation will harm all of our economic freedoms regardless of the escape clauses you placed in your legislation, I will have to assume I am right and that you are ignoring the subject.

Avenging Angel, I'd like to write a reply w/o anything negative just a question.
When you wrote this resolution what were trying to do?
Because Sarcodina feels based on some research that you like hemp...in more than industrial ways and that is why.

The people and adminstration of Simplicitydom do not support the following resolution. This decision is not based on our disagreement with the support of Hemp Production but the decision of the writers to in effect, try to affect the economies of other participating nations.

The people and administration of Simplicitydom do not believe that it is the place of the UN to try and affect the economies of its participating nations. This is unfair to the member nations that feel Hemp is a material that they are not willing to support.

Simplicitydom encourages the UN members to vote against this resolution on principle that the rights of all members to produce what they want and ban what they don't want are sacred.

About your UN Hemp Resolution

The OPA strongly support increased hemp production, but have the following issues with the proposal:

1. It is not clear to us exactly what is being required of nations in this resolution. We are required to set up an advisory board, as we understand it. Are we also required to change our tax structure to implement the subsidies recommended? Is the size and structure of the board modifiable to suit the needs of our particular country?

2. Does it really make sense for every nation to provide subsidies to hemp growers, even when the nation's climate may not be suitable for hemp cultivation? Perhaps a system of international credits, like Kyoto implemented for CO2 production, would be more appropriate.

3. Marijuana is legal in our country, and marijuana is a type of hemp. How will this resolution affect marijuana growers? We're not certain it is appropriate for our government to actually subsidize marijuana cultivation.

Please read through this if you take the U.N. seriously.

Ok, this resolution is whack. It doesn't actually do anything at all. All it does is "SUGGEST" "RECOMMEND" and "RECOGNIZE" a bunch of things. None of the nations in the U.N. are actually required to do anything at all. If this passes, then there will be legislation in the U.N. that will do nothing but give advice while still effecting the game -- that is, everyone's economies will get worse, and the environment will get better -- even if the recommendations and suggestions are not followed, and there is no recognizing going on.


Furthermore, I don't like the rewards that farmers are reccomended to get.

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

So according to this, I could be paying a farmer $120,000 a year while giving him a 45% tax break just because he grows a lot of hemp. I'm left wondering why this farmer needs 120 grand and a huge tax break if he's rich enough to be growing a lot of crops -- crops that are actually better and easier to manufacture than the non-hemp products and thus more profitable.

On top of all this, I don't see why the U.N. is regulating this -- this is something that should be left up to each individual nation.

I'm also left pondering this question: Why does this proposal hurt industry?
It seems to me like this proposal is only costing the government a lot of money and making hemp farmers wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Imagine if you were taking in 120 grand a year, you were paying 45% less taxes than everyone else, and you still had a whole lot of hemp to sell and profit from. You could easily make $240,000 a year, and the government would be paying for it -- everyone else would be paying for it. It's like a huge tax break for a specialized group that's payed for by everyone else. Also, if this goes through then I think the hemp industry will boom -- until its bubble pops. Is anyone here familiar with the old "build it and they will come" philosophy? The whole theory behind that was aimed towards telecommunication companies -- they thought that they could just build the cables for communication, and everyone would flock to use them. However, there was a problem. Everyone built cables in the same places. Everyone buitl between major cities. There was so much competition that the companies weren't profiting and so they bottomed out. Call it the bubble bursting. Back to this hemp industry. If the government pays everyone in the hemp industry ridiculously large sums of money to keep it up, then everyone will want into the business. With everyone in the business, supply will exceed demand, and the government will end up paying for the production of huge quantities of hemp that will go unused -- only to be stolen by "experimenters".

That's why I'm voting "no" on this proposal.

Hemp is a cousin of the plant cannabis comes from with very low THC levels, I'm told not enough to get high.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Biologically they are pretty much the same plant.
Grafts of one can live quite happily on the roots of the other - and produce THC.

EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug.

This is the part of the proposal that states that industrial hemp cannot be used for drugs. I made a point to add that line in to avoid this drug discussion.
But that's just factually inaccurate.

Sorry. While being strongly pro-hemp, the OPA has voted against this proposed Resolution. We urge The Avenging Angels to reconsider it, and resubmit it with provisions addressing the many issues countries have raised in this thread.

Should this resolution go forward in the current form, the OPA will seriously consider resigning from the UN until after its negative economic effects have been registered in the game.

Should this resolution go forward in the current form, the OPA will seriously consider resigning from the UN until after its negative economic effects have been registered in the game.

Here, let me help you out.

:Clubs the Asshelmetta representative subconcious and tosses him out a window:

There. Job done. I hope he enjoys those 16 stories before he hits the ground.

OOC: Standard reply to threats of leaving.

To 'Avenging Angels' specifically:

You keep touting the fact that there are economic advantages for industries when it comes to hemp.

please just answer this:
The categories you have chosen are: to help the environment at the expense of industries.

Regardless of what hemp may do in the 'real world', we are in the world of nation states.

and in the world of nationstates a resolution that helps the environment, regardless of what hemp is actually good for in 'real life' - please note this in your response, will invariably damage the economies

Is this not the case?
thank you

as an additional point for any readers: we damaged our economies with the AIDS resolution, thats fine, some things are worth it (though not sure if that was a great resolution), but why would we keep slamming our economies?
if this is such a miracle crop let someone take advantage of it without Jarobia and its UN companions subsidizing it. They will be incredibly well off, and others would follow their lead.

Here, let me help you out.

:Clubs the Asshelmetta representative subconcious and tosses him out a window:

There. Job done. I hope he enjoys those 16 stories before he hits the ground.

OOC: Standard reply to threats of leaving.

Why thank you. What, my application to rejoin would be rejected if I resigned temporarily?

I'm skittish after the AIDS resolution jolted my tax structure so badly.

To 'Avenging Angels' specifically:
if this is such a miracle crop let someone take advantage of it without Jarobia and its UN companions subsidizing it. They will be incredibly well off, and others would follow their lead.

I wholely agree with This person. The cost of subsidising hempproduction throughout the world would be desasterous to the UN's Membernations. Unles avenging angels is willing to foot the bill for all of the costs involved in implementation and enforcement, i am not supporting this resolution. This is not a strong enough cause to even be to vote before the UN Might as well tell all of us we HAVE to be vegitarian. This resolution is much too intrusive and dose not help anyone but the hemp farmers.

Why thank you. What, my application to rejoin would be rejected if I resigned temporarily?

I'm skittish after the AIDS resolution jolted my tax structure so badly.

No. You should be allowed back in. You'll need to send another rep anyway. The first one kinda made a mess on the sidewalk.

I understand skittishness, but you have to understand that we really don't respond well to threats of leaving.

I also think that the expense of production is quickly recovered by the cash value of the crop harvested. But, hey thats just my perszonal take on my own proposal.

Aslo, read the tax break line the maximum the tax breaks can are 45%, it is not saying they will be 45% but that is the maximum the tax break can be.

I do not understand why the main issue at hand continues to be ignored.

Avenging Angel, regardless of how your bill is worded, whatever you place in the body of the text appears to be irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you mark off on the tabs when you originally create your legislation. You marked off that all industry will be penalized at the expense of environment. The game is not sophisticated enough to recognize any other potential effect other than this.

Is this true or not? Arguing tax-breaks and what not is all good and fun, but from what I understand of this game it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

DemonLordEnigma, the same goes to you. You continuously point out that this bill has numerous exemptions and clauses that gut the power of this legislation. However, from what I understand all that is irrelevant. I haven't seen anywhere in the rules where it says the game is in any way sophisticated enough to be able to differentiate between a 'gutted' proposal and a 'enforced' one. All that seems to matter is what is stated at the top of the proposed bill, that it will improve the environment at the expense of industry.

If this is not the case then please just tell me so, but stop ignoring the question that has been continuously raised.

So, if I use what you are saying any resolution that may help the environment but may hurt other industries should just be ignored or not proposed? That is what it seems like you are saying. If I am wrong please tell me. If all that matters is clicking the tabs, and what is put in the proposal has no real meaning, then why not just submit a proposal that says howdy have a good day everyone.

DemonLordEnigma, the same goes to you. You continuously point out that this bill has numerous exemptions and clauses that gut the power of this legislation. However, from what I understand all that is irrelevant. I haven't seen anywhere in the rules where it says the game is in any way sophisticated enough to be able to differentiate between a 'gutted' proposal and a 'enforced' one. All that seems to matter is what is stated at the top of the proposed bill, that it will improve the environment at the expense of industry.

That is exactly correct. I am focusing on the RP part, not the game mechanics.

If this is not the case then please just tell me so, but stop ignoring the question that has been continuously raised.

I can't argue such without taking a side. I'm neutral in this arguement and just here to point out the occasional flaw I think I can get away with pointing out without choosing a side. I've only been ignoring it because to not do such would be to pick a side.

I stick with the side I vote on when arguing. Sometimes, I am convinced to change how I would vote on it. This time, I have abstained because I cannot see a side to it that benefits me.

I think it will benefit poorer countries that before could not afford to grow or sustain other forms of agriculture. Not all countries have the clean water, or money the US has. Some countries have poorer soil, less water, and less money, and hemp can also benefit these countries.

Your comment on the poorer countries is exactly at the heart of the problem with this resolution. Poor Countries can not make money appear miraculously (there are many things odd that can happen in NS but not that) and so the countries will be spending nearly all their money on HEMP! No money to the poor, to spurring up industry, no money to help the enviroment, no money to education (as I believed someone might have all ready stated)! Just money to give to farmers...Please someone reply with a REAL reason why this will help anyone except for people who like to mention hemp and go "hehehe".

And also if this were an issue then I'd guess 75% nations would support it. SO the comments of no one will do it if it is not a resolution are absurd.

I want evidence to back up your claim that people have to pay anything. Evidence from the actual resolution.

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

Someone, in my country is going to have to make up the difference in the tax break.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

My government will be expected to pay the monthly stipend

RECOMMENDS that the budget be based on how many farmers are involved in the program, and how much each farmer plans on growing. Farmers in the program will be asked to give a small percentage of their profits to the program. The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations.

40% will come from the government...

Well how people run nations in NS is far from how they are really ran in real life.

I think poorer coutnries could easily make use of hemp, it is cheap to grow and maintain, and to harvest. If poorer countries who are already farming are probably using crops that require more money and upkeep then hemp does, and therefore a switch could save them money in the long run.

We ask that the current proposal be defeated in favor of the following revised proposal:BELIEVING that all nations should support the production and use of industrial hemp. Hemp needs to be recognized as a profitable and environmentally friendly crop.

EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug.

REALIZING that hemp is suitable for industrial paper manufacturing, can be used for clothing and shoes, for use as a renewable energy source, and for use in food products. The increased demand for health food has stimulated the trade in shelled hemp seed while hemp oil is increasingly being used in the manufacturing of bodycare products. Hemp seeds are high in protein and Omega-3 fatty acids.

RECOGNIZING that hemp is a sustainable, annual crop that is ready for harvest just 120 days after going to seed, much shorter then trees. Harvesting hemp doesn't destroy the natural habitats of thousands of distinct animal and plant species.

RECOGNIZING that hemp is a hardy plant that can grow easily and abundantly almost anywhere. Hemp can even be cultivated in arid regions with poor soil or in places with a very short growing season. Hemp requires little water or nutrients, and therefore can be grown without chemical fertilizers. Hemp is an ideal rotation crop for farmers worldwide. It puts down a taproot twelve inches long in only thirty days, preventing topsoil erosion.

RECOGNIZING that hemp's cellulose level is three times that of wood, so it makes superior paper products and yields four times as much pulp per acre as trees. The hemp paper process utilizes less energy and chemicals than tree paper processing and doesn't create the harmful dioxins, chloroform, or any of the other 2,000 chlorinated organic compounds that are byproducts of the wood paper process.

RECOMMEND that each nation set up an advisory board to oversee this program and its financial operation. The advisory board will be comprised of 8 officials and one director of the board. The advisory board will also be comprised of other workers to help these 8 officials and to help manage the work of this agency.

FURTHER REQUESTS that the director and these 8 officials be selected by the government of that nation. The director will have discretion in selecting additional employees.

SUGGESTS that these 8 officials be comprised of 2 economists, 2 ecologists, 2 agriculturalists (preferably having knowledge in cultivating hemp), and 2 biologists.

RECOMMENDS the advisory board have the power to provide incentives to farmers that grow or will grow hemp. There are two types of incentives that can be provided to these farmers:

1. Farmers who change from less sustainable crops to hemp will be given tax breaks for a limited time to offset the short term cost. These tax rebates will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows and the maximum tax rebate will be 25% for the first twelve months of hemp production.

2. Farmers will receive monthly stipends for the first three months after planting of hemp crops, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

RECOMMENDS that the budget be based on how many farmers are involved in the program, and how much each farmer plans on growing.

1. Farmers in the program will be required to contribute a small percentage of their profits to the program for five years following their first year of hemp production. The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. The total contribution to the fund will recoup 100% of the total cost of providing monthly stipends.

2. Governments will be compensated for the tax rebate through future tax revenues from the profitability of hemp production and taxes from the sale of hemp products.
Our suggestion is that this proposal would also be in the Environmental category, but only effecting the Woodchipping industry.

It will still effect alot more then the woodchipping industry. All you did was change the incentive part. Personally, it will still effect most industry as well. One issue I see is people are pissed that hemp will ruin other industries. I don't really see how your revision fixes that issue. I personally do not think my proposal will ruin industry or the economies of nations as much as everyone else thinks.

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

Someone, in my country is going to have to make up the difference in the tax break.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

My government will be expected to pay the monthly stipend

RECOMMENDS that the budget be based on how many farmers are involved in the program, and how much each farmer plans on growing. Farmers in the program will be asked to give a small percentage of their profits to the program. The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations.

40% will come from the government...

The context of what you provided:

RECOMMENDS the advisory board have the power to provide incentives to farmers that grow or will grow hemp. There are two types of incentives that can be provided to these farmers:

1. Farmers who grow hemp will be given tax breaks. These tax breaks will be based on how much hemp the farmer grows, and the maximum tax break will be 45% for a yearly period.

2. Farmers will recieve monthly stipends, and will also be based on how much hemp they grow. The maximum stipend will be $10,000.

RECOMMENDS that the budget be based on how many farmers are involved in the program, and how much each farmer plans on growing. Farmers in the program will be asked to give a small percentage of their profits to the program. The percentage will be based on economic status of the farmer, and how much profit they are making. This should provide 30 % of the funds for the program, and the other 40% will come from the government, and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations.

Since you do not seem to get the drift and are assuming this is forced, let me define "recommend" for you:

Main Entry: rec·om·mend
Pronunciation: "re-k&-'mend
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, to praise, from Medieval Latin recommendare, from Latin re- + commendare to commend
1 a : to present as worthy of acceptance or trial <recommended the medicine> b : to endorse as fit, worthy, or competent <recommends her for the position>
2 : ENTRUST, COMMIT <recommended his soul to God>
3 : to make acceptable <has other points to recommend it>
4 : ADVISE <recommend that the matter be dropped>
- rec·om·mend·able /-'men-d&-b&l/ adjective
- rec·om·men·da·to·ry /-d&-"tOr-E, -"tor-/ adjective
- rec·om·mend·er noun

Now, let's deal with the definitions one at a time.

1a: "This resolution presents as worthy of acceptance or trial that farmers be allowed to grow hemp." Well, that seems to fit.

1b: "This resolution endorses as worthy of acceptance or trial that farmers be allowed to grow hemp." No wording problems here.

2: "This resolution entrusts or commits that farmers be allowed to grow hemp." A resolution can commit itself to something? Considering the context of the words in the resolution, this doesn't seem to fit.

3: "This resolution makes acceptable that farmers be allowed to grow hemp." Doesn't say that you have to force it, just that you can accept it. Makes sense.

4: "This resolution advises that farmers be allowed to grow hemp." Also makes sense.

Conclusion: You're not bothering to read the proposal. Otherwise, you would realize it doesn't actually force you to do anything. You don't have to pay the UN, legalize hemp, allow it to be grown, pay for it to be grown, or even say the word.

"2. Governments will be compensated for the tax rebate through future tax revenues from the profitability of hemp production and taxes from the sale of hemp products."

I mentioned that farmers would be paying some money back to the government. What kind of tax rebates? How will your tax rebates actually work? I mentioned farmers would be paying 30$ back to the government from the profits they make.

But, seeing as this thread is for the discussion of the current reoslution why don;t we keep it at that, and if it is passed you can start speaking of repealing this and writing a new one. But, till then keep this about the current resolution.

To Avenging Angel;

"If all that matters is clicking the tabs, and what is put in the proposal has no real meaning, then why not just submit a proposal that says howdy have a good day everyone."

Probably because no one would vote something so lame through, and also because it would make the game rather silly.

"So, if I use what you are saying any resolution that may help the environment but may hurt other industries should just be ignored or not proposed?"

No, this is not what I am saying at all and I am sorry if that is what I led you to believe. I think there are important trade-offs between private economic rights and collective environmental rights that must be made. I just don't think that your proposal is worth the cost.

Besides, my major qualm is not that this legislation is against my personal value set, my qualm is that I am pretty sure that it is utterly disingenuous. There are all these provisions in the legislation that are slated as 'recommendations' but in reality, once this is passed, all our economic rights will be affected negatively, regardless of what any nation wants.

This particularly bothers me because as a UN delegate I represent a lot of socially minded democracies who are still young nations. These nations have already traded a good deal of private economic rights away to ensure that civil and political rights are protected. If your legislation passes there is a very good chance that the added bureaucracy and red tape will cause their economies to implode.

It is for these reasons that I wish for you to vote against your own legislation, not because I am some kind of non-hemp growing fetishist.

Thank you for the explanantion and clarification. :)

May I ask how you deal with and amange the trade offs between private economic rights, and collective environmnetal rights? I only ask out of curiosity.

To DemonLord Enigma;

You state:

"That is exactly correct. I am focusing on the RP part, not the game mechanics."

and

"I can't argue such without taking a side."

So let me see if I understand this, you know that the words 'recommend' make no difference to the final legislation. You understand that what is in the body of the text is irrelevant, and that this legislation will definitely affect our economies negatively, because that is what it is designed to do.

Yet, you consider yourself 'neutral' when you purposely decieve other countries into thinking that this bill is a paper tiger and that they can revoke this piece of legislation if they want to? For some reason, do you truly think the 'game mechanics' are such that it is acceptable to try to trick everyone over how the rules of this game actually work because you're only 'role playing?'

To DemonLord Enigma;

You state:

"That is exactly correct. I am focusing on the RP part, not the game mechanics."

and

"I can't argue such without taking a side."

So let me see if I understand this, you know that the words 'recommend' make no difference to the final legislation. You understand that what is in the body of the text is irrelevant, and that this legislation will definitely affect our economies negatively, because that is what it is designed to do.

In game-mechanics terms, that what it does.

Yet, you consider yourself 'neutral' when you purposely decieve other countries into thinking that this bill is a paper tiger and that they can revoke this piece of legislation if they want to? For some reason, do you truly think the 'game mechanics' are such that it is acceptable to try to trick everyone over how the rules of this game actually work because you're only 'role playing?'

If you bother to pay attention to all of the resolutions, you would realize the game mechanics part is only the category chosen, the strength (if any) chosen, and the industry (if any) chosen. That's it. The resolution could say "Moo oink squee squee" for all the game itself cares.

An added complication is the mods and their addition to game mechanics. We can't try to change game mechanics, can't try to violate certain parts of the FAQ, and can't do a couple other items.

Guess what? The majority of the resolutions are still RP. The wordings are useless without it and it is intended that is what you shall do with what is provided. That was the intention from the start and it has not been hidden from you. You can RP ignoring this, paying attention to the entirety of it, or only pay attention to parts. But without the RP aspect, all it amounts to is pretty words that have no meaning.

Once again, based on logic.

To Avenging Angel;

"If all that matters is clicking the tabs, and what is put in the proposal has no real meaning, then why not just submit a proposal that says howdy have a good day everyone."

Probably because no one would vote something so lame through, and also because it would make the game rather silly.

"So, if I use what you are saying any resolution that may help the environment but may hurt other industries should just be ignored or not proposed?"

No, this is not what I am saying at all and I am sorry if that is what I led you to believe. I think there are important trade-offs between private economic rights and collective environmental rights that must be made. I just don't think that your proposal is worth the cost.

Besides, my major qualm is not that this legislation is against my personal value set, my qualm is that I am pretty sure that it is utterly disingenuous. There are all these provisions in the legislation that are slated as 'recommendations' but in reality, once this is passed, all our economic rights will be affected negatively, regardless of what any nation wants.

This particularly bothers me because as a UN delegate I represent a lot of socially minded democracies who are still young nations. These nations have already traded a good deal of private economic rights away to ensure that civil and political rights are protected. If your legislation passes there is a very good chance that the added bureaucracy and red tape will cause their economies to implode.

It is for these reasons that I wish for you to vote against your own legislation, not because I am some kind of non-hemp growing fetishist.
Amen to all of that!

Uh, except the part about being a delegate. My delegate also voted against it, however.

We vote NO.

This is nothing but a subsidy for single-crop farmers. How many starving mouths will hemp feed?

If you want to enact this give-away in your own nation, go ahead, but don't drag everyone else into your corrupt and cynical policy.

Go smoke a rope.

To name a few food products hemop can be used for bread, granola, cookies, margarine, milk, flour, peanut butter, chips, salad dressing, and many other food products can be made form the hemp plant, its seeds, and oil.

Hemp also has 8 essential ammino acids, and 4 essential fatty acids.

Let me make a list to summarize the crap that is wrong with this:

1. Hemp is not an uber-crop. If you repeatedly plant the same things onto the same patch of land, the soil will quickly crap out.

2. what about people who are allergic to hemp?

3.where will the UN get the money to pay for their 30% without getting money from the countries and their gov'ts

4. who the hell will be on the advisory board

5. if countries really want this, then why can't they just pass their own laws for it, not have the UN screw over the countries that can't afford it or have a cold climate that can't ALWAYS support hemp

6. how will hemp 'help' the environment? the only way for farmers to get enough land for the hemp will be to cut down the old crops and trees, which would kill all the existing animals

7. what is the point of the tax breaks if the farmers pay it all back

8. if the hemp is 'industrial', and can't be consumed as a drug, then how can it be consumed as a food?

9. this will ruin the economy of many nations by adding too much hemp to the market and not having any other foodstuffs

10. if people are poor, how will they be able to bake the hemp into bread and make all of the other 'wonderful' foods out of it

PS-this list is not all-inclusive

I you could refrain from saying hell and crap, and try being a tad more respectful when expressing your discontent that would be good.

I explian who the advisory board is setup, so please read the resolution.

Hemp can actually help build up the top soil, and helps prevent soil erosion due to the deep tap root it has. Hemp would not degrade soil as fast as lets say cotton because hemp requires little nutrients and does require chemical fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers not only pollute the environment but can also cause soil degradation.

The point about how can hemp be consumed as a food if it can't be used for drugs makes no sense. Corn is used for food, but can't be used for drugs, and we eat corn all the time. Crops can be used for food, and not for drugs.

Poor people are able to bake things. There are many ways to bake you do not need an oven, you simply need fire. So, poorer nations could make hemp out of bread.

what happens when they run out of wood because they cut the trees down to grow hemp?

crap really isnt all that bad, by the way, but im sorry for saying the h-word

wouldn't the advisor board be the same thing as letting each gov't run things themselves?

Why cut down trees to plant hemp? Three is still plenty of farmland that could be converted to hemp producton. Hemp grows fairly quickly, and it takes 120 days till it is ready to harvest. So you would need less room to grow it then.

"Thank you for the explanantion and clarification."

"May I ask how you deal with and amange the trade offs between private economic rights, and collective environmnetal rights? I only ask out of curiosity."

To Avenging Angel;

Actually, this kind of ties into a comment you made earlier about the difference between neo-classical and ecological economics.

I'll admit I'm not very familiar with what ecological economics is, but I don't agree with your statement that neo-classical assumes that there is no unsustainability to growth.

Neo-classical economics explicity accepts the assumption of externalities, which is the idea that the effects of some private transactions (such as selling an automobile) may have costs that aren't borne by the contracting parties (the cost of the environmental damage from smog caused by driving a car isn't the responsibility of the automobile buyer or the seller).

Because no one caries the cost of these externalities, things that actually cost a lot more than their stated price (in the case of automobiles), are overserved, and things that cause a lot more benefits than their stated price are underserved.

The neo-classical solution would be to extend the property rights of the contracting parties to include those costs. So in the case of automobile pollution, make them cover the cost of pollution instead of spreading the cost across society. This should solve the matter if the parties are self-interested.

Because I don't know any better (yet), this is typically the line I take in regards to environmental legislation.

However, there is one important exception, and that is when I think that there is imperfect information available to make a decision. When it comes to something along the lines of the Kyoto protocal, where there really isn't enough information to us available to be able to judge conclusively the cause of global warming and whether or not global warming is causing all the horrible things it's supposed to be doing, the decision becomes a judgement call.

In my case, I'm pretty conservative so I'd say maybe it's best we restrict C02 emmisions just in case, but I couldn't logically condemn someone who does the opposite. That's the only case where I'd run roughshod over people's private economic rights in regard to environmental rights.

if you take out all of the non-hemp plants, that would hurt the environment by removing the habitats of the indigenous animals and insects that thrive on those plants

Removing other crops would cause little harm. Many crops grown these days our not native species anyways.

how so?

many animals have adapted to their current food sources and homes, and uprooting them would cause great damage to the great many that cant adapt

To DemonLord Enigma;

"If you bother to pay attention to all of the resolutions, you would realize the game mechanics part is only the category chosen, the strength (if any) chosen, and the industry (if any) chosen. That's it. The resolution could say "Moo oink squee squee" for all the game itself cares."

Right, but is it not the fact that the chosen category, strength, and industry will all affect your UN Category, as well as your ratings for civil rights, economy, and political freedoms? Will not these tabs change depending on the UN resolutions passed?

If this is the case, and I think it is, it isn't right to say that the 'wordings are useless without it', because the only thing that is going to affect those categories I just mentioned are what you check-off in those upper tabs. If you want to RP and ignore that it was the UN resolution that changed them, fine, but that isn't how the game appears to be set up.

If any UN legislation passed does NOT affect your UN category, civil rights, economy, and poltical freedoms, then my point is moot. The impression I get from the rules, and from other posts on this message board, is that it does affect it, and if that is true then including these 'recommendations' that were proposed in the legislation have NO affect on how our stats are affected.

And if these recommendations have no affect on our stats, then you can't just roleplay and say that they do, because that is not how the game appears to be set up.

What you select in the tabs will have an effect, but what is said in the actual proposal will not effect your nation or anyone elses nation.

To DemonLord Enigma;

"If you bother to pay attention to all of the resolutions, you would realize the game mechanics part is only the category chosen, the strength (if any) chosen, and the industry (if any) chosen. That's it. The resolution could say "Moo oink squee squee" for all the game itself cares."

Right, but is it not the fact that the chosen category, strength, and industry will all affect your UN Category, as well as your ratings for civil rights, economy, and political freedoms? Will not these tabs change depending on the UN resolutions passed?

They will. But that is not the point of the majority of the arguements on here. The majority of the arguements on here are what is in the actual proposal, not what some game mechanic choices will do.

If this is the case, and I think it is, it isn't right to say that the 'wordings are useless without it', because the only thing that is going to affect those categories I just mentioned are what you check-off in those upper tabs. If you want to RP and ignore that it was the UN resolution that changed them, fine, but that isn't how the game appears to be set up.

The game was set up the way it is due to the complication of trying to set up a system reflective of what is actually in the proposals. How do you set up a system to reflect on all of the passed resolutions and still have it as a free game? The complication and server requirements alone make that impossible. Thus, the category system.

The system is the way it is because of real-life limitations. They are generally ignored for game purposes due to the fact it really doesn't matter. The majority of those stats are meaningless unless you are actually roleplaying, in which case it is the actual text of the proposal you should be concerned with and not the game mechanics.

If any UN legislation passed does NOT affect your UN category, civil rights, economy, and poltical freedoms, then my point is moot. The impression I get from the rules, and from other posts on this message board, is that it does affect it, and if that is true then including these 'recommendations' that were proposed in the legislation have NO affect on how our stats are affected.

Uh, you do realize that the majority of the complaints are over the actual wording of the proposal and not the game mechanics choices, right? Most people are partially roleplaying when they are complaining. They are complaining about it adversely affecting the economy, but not the actual stat itself. You see complaints about farmers growing a cheaper crop over a needed crop, the money they have to pay to the farmers, tax breaks that have no actual stat anywhere in the game or in any of the calculators, etc.

The majority of the complaints are in a form of RP, not related to game stats.

And if these recommendations have no affect on our stats, then you can't just roleplay and say that they do, because that is not how the game appears to be set up.

As I said: The text could say "Moo oink squee squee" for all it matters. The recommendations themselves have no effect, one way or the other, on your stats. It's only the category, strength, and industries affected choices that affect it. The game is set up so you have to roleplay whether or not they affect your nation.

I you could refrain from saying hell and crap, and try being a tad more respectful when expressing your discontent that would be good.

I explain who the advisory board is setup, so please read the resolution.

Hemp can actually help build up the topsoil, and helps prevent soil erosion due to the deep taproot it has. Hemp would not degrade soil as fast as lets say cotton because hemp requires little nutrients and does require chemical fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers not only pollute the environment but can also cause soil degradation.

The point about how can hemp be consumed as a food if it can't be used for drugs makes no sense. Corn is used for food, but can't be used for drugs, and we eat corn all the time. Crops can be used for food, and not for drugs.

Poor people are able to bake things. There are many ways to bake you do not need an oven, you simply need fire. So, poorer nations could make hemp out of bread.

OOC:
Actually, first, hemp DOES NOT require chemical fertilizers by your own admission... heh... The tap root of hemp I believe goes to a depth of 14 feet or something like that and the surface area roots lock soil in place and it's like iron or something going through bedrock and yadda yadda yadda... I meant this as a post against the proposal and here I am helping you. I should skip this...

Bad point, corn can be used to make drugs. Called alcohol. As a matter of fact during the (real world reference... Enigma, don't shoot me), Prohibition in the RW United States, corn alcohol was one of the major types of alcohol used to produce moonshine. The point is moot anyway, it would be easier just to acquire proper Marijuana to get high, and surprisingly, better for your health. That and any vegetable is technically useable at the very least to produce alcohol. I really should get on to complaining about the proposal. This is already long enough.

IC:

We (that is to say le Senat) believe that industrial hemp is beneficial and worth the effort to cultivate. We have broken down our opinion into multiple sections for easier reading and rebuttal as well as our own forecasts.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS Short term: very likely cause the collapse of all known economic models and systems, Long Term: trivial

In the short term the effects of the widespread cultivation of the industrial mode hemp would devastate the local and world economy. The number of uses hemp is suitable for ensures virtual destruction of entire economic sectors. The wood chipping industry would be completely destroyed because industrial hemp is good for almost anything wood pulp, chips, and flakes are. Additionally, hemp can also be used for many things that the timber industry in general produces. Hemp could potentially be burned rather than logs in fireplaces and grills. Additionally, the negative effect on the textile industry must be considered. Cotton would become outdated and unneeded. This would destroy a sector of the agricultural economy as well as damaging the textile industry. The textile industry would also be faced with the necessity of having new machines designed, built, and purchased in order to deal with hemp as opposed to cotton devastating that industry as well. These effects continue on into virtually every production based industry we could think of although many times to a lesser or very rarely negligible degree. We therefore believe that the proposal is appropriately classed as harmful to the economy in general rather than just specifically wood chipping, and it certainly doesn't belong in free trade. The only people in a position to weather this storm are the capitalist class with their large amounts of money, defeating the aims of Marxism. Of course, the proposal is anti-capitalist as well as we hope is obvious.

However, thinking of just the short term is one of the shortcomings of the capitalist system. We must consider the long-term economic impact as well, if it is significantly different fro the short term. It is. The long term economic impact, we feel, will be negligible in terms of the macro economy. It will certainly have an effect, but we feel it will not be ultimately beneficial or harmful. It will allow for cheaper production of a large number of necessary goods, which is a good thing. However, the proposal is also anti-economic diversity. Several sectors of the economy would all become reliant upon a single link in the economic chain, which is always a bad idea. No matter how strong you make that one link if it fails the entire chain fails.

We're not even going to go there on the funding on this one with a ten-foot pole... It's already been grilled enough.

OVERALL: bad


ENVRONMENTAL: Short Term: Good, Long Term: Excellent

The economic benefits of hemp production are numerous. Hemp as useable for industrial use yields more mass per acre than any sort of timber known to the world. Similarly, the deep taproot of hemp is proven effective in preventing soil erosion and degradation. Hemp can also be used to replace timber almost 100% of the time even for building. Hemp is also useful as a replacement for metal in light duty labor such as single story structures and automobile bodies. Hemp also produces a clean burning alcohol if fermented that can be used as a fuel in automobiles and power productions, yielding more biomass than other fuel sources. All of this has the potential of providing economic benefits in the short term and even further in the long term.

In the long term hemp not only prevents soil erosion but to an extent can correct the damage. Also, by destroying the need for timber greenhouse gasses would be drastically lowered and the like. The long-term environmental benefits are possibly the most promising we've ever seen from a UN resolution.

OVERALL: Excellent


OVERALL PROPOSAL: unacceptable

In conclusion, while the environmental effects of this proposal have the potential to be far reaching and very good the plan set forth in this proposal is nothing short of stupid. However, as the proposal does not mandate any real action the economic concerns weigh less. However, we urge FAILURE in favor of a rewritten proposal to mandate the implementation of hemp production over a period of time to minimize economic effects and allow for appropriate adjustment and aide to developing nations. Again we urge FAILURE and something else... This is Nation States UN; we really can't yield our time to anything...

To demon enigma:

Role playing is fine, i think that it's preferrable to role play rather than to get down to the basic game mechanics, but that role playing should be done so that your side supports what the real effect will be due to the game mechanics, i think that is what 'unloved children' is trying to say.

for example, in this case people trying to pass the resolution should only be arguing the virtues of bettering the environment, and how that is more important than a nations economy.

people trying to pass this resolution should stop talking about the economic benefits of hemp, and how it will counteract the overall effect on industries, because that cannot happen in this game.

that's honest role playing

because otherwise you're swaying people who may not understand the game mechanics if you say that the economies will improve or have any benefit at all because of this resolution.

With this cleared up hopefully Lord Jareth of the Constitutional Monarchy of Jarobia can begin to argue within the context of role playing, thanks.

Jiggy, Minister of Gambling for the Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmets: What's the over/under on this proposal passing? The Oppressed Bookies demand to know whether the Angels are open to withdrawing and/or amendingthis proposal, or whether we should be giving odds on a straight up/down vote.

Avenging Angels, please respond directly. Will you promise to push this proposal unaltered, even if it passes by a small margin? Our bookies' vigs are depending on you.

I agree with the Constituional Monarchy of Jarobia entirely, who I hope was able to get my point across in a more explicit manner than myself.

OOC: Is it considered bad form to telegram delegates asking them to reconsider their vote?

I just do not see the need for Hemp production, and I do not see the need to waste U.N. time on this resolution.
The resolusion , I am sorry to say 'Avenging Angels', is not all that good.
It has many weak points.
If it was a resolution on creating a joint U.N. task force (that is to say a fighting force of military regiments from all the U.N. member nations that have a military to fight axis and terrorists as well as comunists - just kidding with that last one;) I would understand or many other things, but HEMP.

To demon enigma:

Role playing is fine, i think that it's preferrable to role play rather than to get down to the basic game mechanics, but that role playing should be done so that your side supports what the real effect will be due to the game mechanics, i think that is what 'unloved children' is trying to say.

for example, in this case people trying to pass the resolution should only be arguing the virtues of bettering the environment, and how that is more important than a nations economy.

people trying to pass this resolution should stop talking about the economic benefits of hemp, and how it will counteract the overall effect on industries, because that cannot happen in this game.

that's honest role playing

:rolleyes:
(For illustration)

IC:
*holds you underwater*

OOC:
Did it happen? No. Does it affect your game stats? No. If you are an "honest role player" would you role play someone sputtering for air? Yep. Don't tell your grandmother how to suck eggs, son.




because otherwise you're swaying people who may not understand the game mechanics if you say that the economies will improve or have any benefit at all because of this resolution.

With this cleared up hopefully Lord Jareth of the Constitutional Monarchy of Jarobia can begin to argue within the context of role playing, thanks.

OOC: Within the context of RolePlaying - the statistics have less push then the idea of my countrys population having to suffer from a bad proposal. So while it may "up my economy" by several notches, Vastiva will always vote against slave labor or anything else which would severely reduce the standard of living they enjoy. In a roleplaying context.

I can take the disagreement and people not liking the proposal, but I honestly do not see the need to say this is stupid. I put a lot of hardwork and time into writing this proposal, and getting it passed. Try having some more decency and not call it stupid.

To my knowledge a proposal cannot be ammended. Proposals can be repealed.

What I ask is simple people should think for themselves, and be respectful in their opinions. You can disgaree and argue and debate and still be respectfu of others and their ideas.

I argue that whenever you cause a fundamental shift in an economy, and change what the economy is based on you will be hurting other forms of industry. But, ecomomies need to develop and become more sustainable and place less burden on the environment, and I believe hemp can help with this process. Economies like anything else must evolve, change, and become better. I think we need to work on developing our economis and not simply just growing them the way they are.

I could see if we were replacing other industries with an inferior product that would net little profit how that would cause economic distress, but Hemp can successfully take the place, and be as profitable or more profitable then current industry.

OOC: Is it considered bad form to telegram delegates asking them to reconsider their vote?

Nope - ONCE. One telegram per delegate maximum per proposal, no busting telegram boxes.

Nope - ONCE. One telegram per delegate maximum per proposal, no busting telegram boxes.
Most excellent. Thank you for the info.

To demon enigma:

Role playing is fine, i think that it's preferrable to role play rather than to get down to the basic game mechanics, but that role playing should be done so that your side supports what the real effect will be due to the game mechanics, i think that is what 'unloved children' is trying to say.

The problem is the wording of the resolution doesn't agree with the game mechanics. The game mechanics make it happen without an option, but the wording allows it to be an option. This is not the first proposal where the wording doesn't agree with the game mechanics.

You want an example of why it is silly to argue on the side of game mechanics? I'm going to use an actual proposal that got deleted by the mods about two months ago.

The proposal was a moral decency proposal with a strength of mild. You would think the wording would reflect this, right? It didn't. The wording had it so all Christians would be tied up, forcibly kept awak and beaten for two days, and then executed by being burned alive. That is obviously not a mild effect. That nation also mysteriously vanished not long after creating that proposal.

The problem we have with resolutions is when wording vs. game mechanics comes along, one has to win. If it is game mechanics, then the wording is pointless and it can say whatever it wants to say. But if it is wording, then you have to ignore the game mechanics. If your economy drops as a result of it, remember that real life economies fluctuate all the time. You've just got a mild recession going on.

for example, in this case people trying to pass the resolution should only be arguing the virtues of bettering the environment, and how that is more important than a nations economy.

people trying to pass this resolution should stop talking about the economic benefits of hemp, and how it will counteract the overall effect on industries, because that cannot happen in this game.

Actually, it can happen in this game. The game is meant to where you will take the effects of what it does and go roleplay with them. There are quite a few arguements on here about things that cannot happen involving resolutions under your interpretation of it that are suddenly invalid if we go with you. There are a few resolutions passed and a few failed that will have very angry authors to be told that suddenly the arguements that passed or failed their resolutions are wrong.

that's honest role playing

Honest roleplaying also admits that these are limited in scope and tries to cover the interesting twists and arguements people come up with that go beyond it. In this case, this one focuses on industry and trying to improve it after hurting it a bit. Thus, industry is a valid target for discussion.

because otherwise you're swaying people who may not understand the game mechanics if you say that the economies will improve or have any benefit at all because of this resolution.

I never claim it will improve or have benefit. If you notice, I've been saying it's a resolution with no teeth you can effectively ignore.

With this cleared up hopefully Lord Jareth of the Constitutional Monarchy of Jarobia can begin to argue within the context of role playing, thanks.

If you want roleplaying, read the thread. Many arguements involving it have been brought up on both sides.

Avenging Angels - it is a damned fine proposal. Would be better if it did something, or added some necessary action, but it is far better then 60% of the proposals we've seen on the line.

Look, 'Avenging Angels' if your last post was for me let me be clear.
This resolution is not stupid nor did I say it was stupid. I was just saying that the U.N. needs more "real" resolutions, the hemp need is not that much today. It needs time to find it's place in the econamy of the nations.
I like the way it was created and from your point of view I can see that it has a very good standing in relation to the environment, it's just not what my country needs now.
I respect that you took alot of time doing this and by no means was I undermineing your work. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

I would appreciate if asshelmetta did not TG other delegates. Whether it is fair or not. I would not go around doing that to someone elses resolution especially if they worked long and hard on it. I would let it suceed or fail on its own merits.

Thank you for the kind words vastiva, and showing some decency. :)

Thank you, and thought you had called it stupid. People can disagree or agree all day long with it, and I will lsiten to the arguments all ay long. I love a good debate. Thank you for the explanation.

I would appreciate if asshelmetta did not TG other delegates. Whether it is fair or not. I would not go around doing that to someone elses resolution especially if they worked long and hard on it. I would let it suceed or fail on its own merits.

Thank you for the kind words vastiva, and showing some decency. :)

OK. I've stopped.
I'm sure I swung fewer than a thousand votes in that short period, at best.

I would appreciate if asshelmetta did not TG other delegates. Whether it is fair or not. I would not go around doing that to someone elses resolution especially if they worked long and hard on it. I would let it suceed or fail on its own merits.

Thank you for the kind words vastiva, and showing some decency. :)

Personally, I consider it a legitimate tactic. That's the only way you can contact most of them anyway. That's part of how the last one that failed ended up failing.

Hello to the head of The Immortal Spirit of The Avenging Angels,

I'm just commenting about the post you made about not TGing delegates to swing their votes. (by the way, absolutely no offense is intended in this post, i hope it's not taken out of context)
Isn't the point of all the debate on the forum, and really the point of resolutions being voted on, to sway people to your way of thinking?
So wouldn't TGing delegates just be the same thing?

Especially if they might be people who just vote without bothering to check the UN forum to hear both sides.

If you wouldn't mind telling me why you think this is a bad thing I would apprieciate it. Thank you very much.

ONE telegram to a delegate is considered a courtesy. Some actually read their mail, and some actually will vote on proposals sent by proposers who are concise, direct, polite, and quick.

Flooding a delegates TG box, on the other hand, is a quick way to get them mad at you. And delegates tend to bitch. Loudly.

Sir I have a question, what exactly will your resolution do?

Why thank you. What, my application to rejoin would be rejected if I resigned temporarily?

I'm skittish after the AIDS resolution jolted my tax structure so badly.
You'd be allowed back in, but don't be suprised if you come back and find that your office has been stripped bare of all supplies and furniture.

You'd be allowed back in, but don't be suprised if you come back and find that your office has been stripped bare of all supplies and furniture.

Or the wall coverings, maybe a wall or two, every light in the place, the wall outlets, the floor outlets, the carpet, parts of the floor, the door, the doorframe, the windows, the window frames, and maybe a few layers of insulation.

If we're really efficienty, we'll even get the ceiling tiles and the decorations on the outer wall of the building for your office (now you know where those random bare spots come from).

Sometimes, someone gets lucky and just takes the entire office before anyone can get to it. They then usually auction off the stuff and destroy what doesn't get sold and that they don't want to keep.

Will someone please answer this question:
Why are so many people voting for this proposal when it doesn't actually DO anything at all, but effects the game mechanics?


The submitter even uses this as an excuse to negate anyone's arguments against the proposal, but in essence it just shows that the proposal would do nothing at all if actually enforced (enforced? There's nothing to enforce!) but it will actually change things just because of what the tabs say! This is kind of ridiculous....

I mean, the proposal is like saying: "blah blah blah" in a really fancy way that makes it look like there is some actual substance to the proposal. I fail to see what legislation is being put into effect, and how this hurts the industry and helps the environment? I think the proposal's actual substance should go along with what it does....

And if hemp is so good, then farmers shouldn't need help converting, and the U.N. does not need to be involved in any way, shape or form. In this I would support a proposal forcing hemp to be legal -- I geuss -- though it seems like over-regulation.

Game mechanics came up. This is how all resolutions work basically. Whatever tabs you click is how the resolution will effect other nations. The wording in the resolutions has no effect on any nation and this is how it is for all proposals. As a previus nation said how can a free game like NS possibly take into account eerything every UN resolution has and figure out how this would effect every nation. This is why we have the tabs and categories for these resolutions.

People do not always do the right thing because it is simply right, people need incentives to do the right thing sometimes.

Hemp has many benefits to the environment, it helps replenish topsoil, it requires little nutrients, and therefore does not need chemical fetilizers. Hemp plants prevent erosion because of their deep tap root. Creating a better and more viable hemp industry would lessen our need for other crops that damage the environment more then hemp would.

I just think that there should be a correlation between the effects and the proposal -- or at least it would be nice if the proposal actually did something.

It does it will encourage the production of hemp, ansd lessen our dependence on more hamrful crops.

OOC: It'll bip your environmental rating up slightly, and downbip your industry a little bit. That's what "mild" does. There may be other effects determined by the game engine and the programmers. ([violet] has been rumored to occasionally alter effects slightly, but that is only a rumor).

IC: "This resolution will permit all nations to grow hemp if they want to. It is a reinforcement of National Soverignty. As such, it should be voted for."

I don't like this proposal one bit.

As any simple minded person knows, supply, demand, and prices are closely corelated. the higher supply goes, the lower prices go. This means that the person who creates the cheapest good makes the most product, a good thing.

However, with the issue of crops and etcetera, this proposal will not work. The market will be flooded with hemp growers and crops, and the government will not only have to subsidize the farmers, but they will also have to deal with an excess of crops in the economy and a downfall of other sectors of the economy, such as synthetics, lumber (which is replaceable, mind you). When you combine the flood of cheap hemp into the market, along with farmers that can only maintain a profit line by creating more and more hemp, there will be more hemp than we know what to do with.
So economically, this is a horrible idea.

Closely related to the economics problem above, because the farmers need to grow more hemp more cheaply, they will resort to using inexpensive chemical fertilizers instead of environmentally friendly organics, further hurting the environment. In addition, more land will be razed and changed into farm land.

PLUS, you know some stoner is gonna use hemp to trip out, regardless of what the law is. Look at America's situation right now. It's against the law, but people still do it. Question is, how much easier do you want to make it?

This proposal reeks of communism. We do not want to place excessive (I believe they are excessive) benefits and subsidies in the hands of a single industry or area of the economy. While the growing of hemp and its incorporation is a great idea, I think the proposal went way too far.

SAY NO TO PROPOSAL!!!

SMFJ

Do point out where in the proposal - by direct quote - it says you have to do anything.

:rolleyes:

It also states that hemp does not need chemical fertilzers to grow so his point about using cheap chemical fertilzers des not hold water. Hemp requires very few nutrients to grow, and this is why there is no need for chemical fertlizers.

it also states that industrial hemp is not used for drugs, so his point about stoners tripping out also holds no water. Industrial hemp contains almost no THC, and that is why it is not used for drugs.

Industrial hemp has gotten a bad rap, and is not used for drugs. Look at history many of our founding fathers used hemp. Look online and you will find this out.

AA - just a suggestion - when you're talking to someone who has a mind of cement ("All mixed up and permanently set") it is best to walk away or :headbang: until it stops hurting.

lol I have nothing else to do at 3 AM in the morning. I seem to have insomnia. lol I like the animated smiley. :)

The Doors Corporation earnestly disagrees with this proposal with complete respect towards the companies that do agree. The Corporation suggests that all companies and company Delegates follow in Its footsteps and disagree against the preposterous idea of increased or aided hemp production. The Corporation considers hemp a dangerous tool that should be highly restricted. Unless the proposal is changed to become stricter and more economically efficient, the Corporation must turn its back to it. Despite the unfortunate fact that there are three agreements for every one disagreement, the Corporation must be a shining light of economical morality against the rampant darkness of economical and anti-company instability.

The Doors Corporation earnestly disagrees with this proposal with complete respect towards the companies that do agree. The Corporation suggests that all companies and company Delegates follow in Its footsteps and disagree against the preposterous idea of increased or aided hemp production. The Corporation considers hemp a dangerous tool that should be highly restricted. Unless the proposal is changed to become stricter and more economically efficient, the Corporation must turn its back to it. Despite the unfortunate fact that there are three agreements for every one disagreement, the Corporation must be a shining light of economical morality against the rampant darkness of economical and anti-company instability.

We must ask why you believe hemp is dangerous. It makes good cloth and excellent - and cheap! - paper. We do not see this as dangerous.

Please, enlighten us.

This brings up the clash between neoclassical ecoomics and ecologicaleconomics. neoclassical economics basically states that economies can grow indefinitely and would call for increased growth of our economies. Ecological ecoomics realizes there is a limit to economic growth and we must focuas on development. If we must focus on develpment so that we can preserve the environment then hemp will this. I never proclaimed hemp to be a cure all, but it will hemp out.
The irony being that Ecopoeia is run on the ecological economics model. Yet we still oppose this resolution.