NationStates Jolt Archive

It is still unclear to us why the NSUN should concern itself with this. There's no real international goal to be reached with this. It should have been a national issue at the most. It also concerns itself with too much detail. If my nation wants to support hemp production (which is reasonable), I'll do that in my own way, thank you. Who cares how many officials should be on an advisory board, or even whether there should be one? And I'll set the subsidies myself, in the local currency, if at all necessary. Can I substract the whole administrative cost that this involves? It looks like one hell of a bureacratic operation, which shouldn't be necessary except that we're bound to it, because it's in the resolution rather than nations being able to fill in the details in their own way in *spirit* of the resolution.

In other words, we don't support this resolution. However, because my nation doesn't object to hemp production, and because the author has put in considerable effort, my nation won't vote against this resolution.

The Rep of Komokom would vote a resounding [ NO ] against this proposal were he still representing his nation in the Nation States United Nations ... For several good economic and above al, U.N. legal principles already listed here by various sources ...

Also, its another bloody " crap on the economy so you can hug some trees, again " resolution, to a degree ...

But that is just my opinion, so [ shrug ] do as you all will, and good luck with it all, no matter which / way you stand and it goes ... !

It is still unclear to us why the NSUN should concern itself with this. There's no real international goal to be reached with this. It should have been a national issue at the most. It also concerns itself with too much detail. If my nation wants to support hemp production (which is reasonable), I'll do that in my own way, thank you. Who cares how many officials should be on an advisory board, or even whether there should be one? And I'll set the subsidies myself, in the local currency, if at all necessary. Can I substract the whole administrative cost that this involves? It looks like one hell of a bureacratic operation, which shouldn't be necessary except that we're bound to it, because it's in the resolution rather than nations being able to fill in the details in their own way in *spirit* of the resolution.

In other words, we don't support this resolution. However, because my nation doesn't object to hemp production, and because the author has put in considerable effort, my nation won't vote against this resolution.

Groot was doing so well on this post until the end. I support Hemp production as well BUT LET MY OWN COUNTRY MAKE THIS DECISION!!!! Do not force my country to implement this resolution. We cannot afford this resolution and we are unwilling to suffer just for the sake of hemp. Please do not support this resolution.

Finally, and this is not a threat because who is my nation anyway, but if this resolution passes, my country may have to pull out of the UN simply because we can no longer afford the outragous demands of the UN. Again, this decision should be made on a national level and not on a global level. Let my people run their own nation!

Groot was doing so well on this post until the end. I support Hemp production as well BUT LET MY OWN COUNTRY MAKE THIS DECISION!!!! Do not force my country to implement this resolution. We cannot afford this resolution and we are unwilling to suffer just for the sake of hemp. Please do not support this resolution.

Finally, and this is not a threat because who is my nation anyway, but if this resolution passes, my country may have to pull out of the UN simply because we can no longer afford the outragous demands of the UN. Again, this decision should be made on a national level and not on a global level. Let my people run their own nation!if you want make your own decisions- DON'T join to the UN.
you can't except that the un do just what you want, because the majority think you are wrong, and the UN make his decisions by majority.
that is all the story.

Groot was doing so well on this post until the end. I support Hemp production as well BUT LET MY OWN COUNTRY MAKE THIS DECISION!!!! Do not force my country to implement this resolution. We cannot afford this resolution and we are unwilling to suffer just for the sake of hemp. Please do not support this resolution.

Finally, and this is not a threat because who is my nation anyway, but if this resolution passes, my country may have to pull out of the UN simply because we can no longer afford the outragous demands of the UN. Again, this decision should be made on a national level and not on a global level. Let my people run their own nation!
Actully since this resolution is made up of recommendations you actually DO get to make the decision.

Someone has probably mentioned this, but I don't like one part of this - the mass tax breaks for farmers growing hemp. It's a little CAP like, don't you think? See how well that has gone for the world market and all the competing LEDCs. Anyone not in the UN who produce wood/hemp pulp are going to suffer massively at the hands of this bill.

The whole increased productivity per acre sounds good, but 45% tax breaks?

Pah. I'm weak minded anyway, so I'll vote for it and hope that someone with the power will adjust that tax thing. It's a damn foolish idea anyway.

Thank you for voting for it. I aprpeciate the support. :)

I really don't unserstand why people can't read the proposal. 45% is the max tax break, maximum implies exactly that maximum. So you could give a 35% tax break if you wanted to.

"Anyone not in the UN who produce wood/hemp pulp are going to suffer massively at the hands of this bill."

I don't see the relevance non UN nations are never effected by UN resolutions, UN resolutions only effect UN nations. Well, at least that is my udnerstanding how it works in this game.

The government of Umbwigwi is fervently opposed to this resolution because it is clearly economic micromanagement. The United Nations is not a trade organization. If nations feel that hemp would be economically beneficial, let them discuss it at a seperate conference. It is not the responsibility of the UN to optimize the economies of its member nations, especially when it would impose extra bureaucratic baggage on countless nations that may already have a well-organized system for hemp production.

The Protectorate of Umbwigwi strongly urges all member nations to leave this issue to commercial treaties, and vote against this resolution.

Actually the UN does deal with economic matters whether it is in NS or real life. The real UN has the power to impose economic sanctions on other nations just one of example of how the real UN deals with economic matters.

Also, if the NSUN did not deal with economic matters then why are there categories for it? If you donit like it then you are free to leave the UN. As I don't see the mods changing any of this anytime soon. This part of the package when you decide to join the UN. You take the good with bad, and make the most of it.

Thank you for voting for it. I aprpeciate the support. :)

I really don't unserstand why people can't read the proposal. 45% is the max tax break, maximum implies exactly that maximum. So you could give a 35% tax break if you wanted to.

"Anyone not in the UN who produce wood/hemp pulp are going to suffer massively at the hands of this bill."

I don't see the relevance non UN nations are never effected by UN resolutions, UN resolutions only effect UN nations. Well, at least that is my udnerstanding how it works in this game.
Firstly, the tax break - I am aware of the max. mark, but you do realise that it would lead to huge amounts of hemp being produced at the cost of other produce, even at only a 15% tax break. Also, people would probably produce up to the 45% mark just so they could have this huge tax break.

Secondly, I also realise the bill doesn't affect non-UN nations. This is my point. Hypothetically, all hemp producing UN nations would be able to produce at a massively reduced price. Yes, this would benefit us, but would also lead to huge producer surplus. We would probably sell this to other non-UN nations at the same minimal price, and any competition within their nations would be wiped out because they are not subsidised to these extensive levels.

This was my point, I'm sorry if it wasn't well thought out. I'll go now



This is exactly what happened with the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU when EU nations traded with African Nations. African producers could neither sell their produce in the EU or in their own nations, as things like sugarcane were produced so cheaply in the EU.

Thank for elaborating. The comment about not reading was directed to others and not really you. Many people have made issues out non issues because they failed to read or comprehend the whole proposal.

I aprpeciate your vote, and comments.

I do realize farmers could produce so much that they would get a 45% tax break, but the givernment could go with option 2 and give them a stipend instead of a tax break.

Hemp could decrease the production of other produce, but hemp has many uses, and I think it could fill some of those niches in the market.

If you donit like it then you are free to leave the UN.
I'm not going to leave the UN if it's passed, but the whole point of the debate forum is to try and advocate one's own opinion on the issue. You have proposed a resolution, and I am expressing my opposition. If it passes, I am prepared to deal with the consquences.

Now, as for the economic aspect of the United Nations, I am fully aware that economic decisions are made through the UN, but it is still my feeling that requiring all nations to set up extensive bureaucracies over the promotion of a single industry is unreasonable. If the proposition were simply to offer economic incentives to nations that bolster their hemp production, Umbwigwi might support it, especially since the environmental concerns are so pressing.

Hemp could decrease the production of other produce, but hemp has many uses, and I think it could fill some of those niches in the market.
There are real world examples of problems with this as well. By filling all of these niches with hemp production nations could end up with problems faced by many ex-colonial countries. For example, Britain used to use one country in its empire to produce one good, and another country for a different product. When we left, all of these countries had only one major industry - result: economic collapse.

It could also lead to problems caused by monocultures and disease. Farmers have a lack of ethics when it comes to profits e.g. the use of Methicillin in cattle food so that we had healthy cows. Just trying to show some of the downsides here. I still almost fully support the bill

I fully support your cause and endorse it. :-)

The region of GALS will not endore this proposal until the line "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug" is changed to "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp should not be used as a drug." We feel that drug control should be up to the individual country.

The People's Republic of LothlorienImladris
The Republic of Deux Magots
The Sultanate of Abbibi
The Nomadic Peoples of Ilaideggsinyourhead

So, Avenging angels, you're basically saying that the whole point of this proposal is to say to U.N. members:

"You should let your farmers produce hemp, but you don't have to. If you decide to let them produce hemp, then here's some advice on how to do it. But you don't have to. Even if you don't listen to my advice, however, you still have to pay and your industry suffers."


Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Why should we have a resolution that gives advice, and advice only? Whenever anyone points out something about your proposal that they don't like, you just say that they don't have to do it.

I've also been getting this message:
"The mechanics of the game don't matter at all -- even though they effect us, we don't care as long as the actual proposal doesn't do anything."

Perhaps someone could explain this to me. Please, if you respond, respond to everything I say, not just a few points. Because then it's just pointless.

I've also been getting this message:
"The mechanics of the game don't matter at all -- even though they effect us, we don't care as long as the actual proposal doesn't do anything."

Perhaps someone could explain this to me.

Read the thread. It's been explained already.

The region of GALS will not endore this proposal until the line "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug" is changed to "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp should not be used as a drug." We feel that drug control should be up to the individual country.

What the proposal is saying is it really and truly can not be used as a drug, because industrialized hemp has had the THC removed from it.

While the Dominion of Lawmagia is not a member of this august body, rejecting as it does any external interference with matters of national sovereignty, I feel it is incumbent upon me to voice the grave concern with which we look upon proposals such as the one offered by the esteemed Avenging Angels.

The current proposal before the United Nations amounts to an unconscionable interference with the soveriegnty of individual states, calling as it does for a UN mandated alteration in their forms of government, to wit, the creation of an "advisory panel" with the authority to provide incentives to farmers to grow industrial hemp.

Considering that the incentives specifically mentioned in the proposal offered by the esteemed delegate from the Avenging Angels involve tax breaks and issuance of subsidies to growers of industrial hemp, we find such statements to be excessive in their intrusion into the affairs of member states. By their very nature controls on taxation and the expenditure of the subsequent revenue are of necessity functions inextricably linked to the sovereignty of a nation state and brook no interference from external agencies.

The members of the United Nations might do well to question the wisdom of allowing any extranational body to dictate what sorts of crops it will or will not cultivate. By what right does a body such as the United Nations dictate to its member states not only that they MUST allow citizens to grow a particular crop, but also that they MUST encourage the cultivation of said crop?

As a nation of people with unswerving dedication to the principles of individual liberty and ecological responsibility, the Dominion of Lawmagia fully supports the cultivation and utilization of industrial hemp. However, we have grave concerns when confronted by the spectre of a body possessed of such influence as the United Nations actually going so far as to impose such a position on its member states.

After all, as goes the United Nations, so goes the world...When the United Nations tramples on the rights of its meber states to maintain sovereignty over their own internal affairs, what is to stop such abuse of governmental power from spreading to the non-aligned nations? What indeed, beyond the vocalized concerns of those same non-aligned nations.

Submitted for your perusal in a spirit of fraternity,
Invectus Rex
Archon
The Dominion of Lawmagia

Where's your evidence that you MUST grow the crop?

This is an awful resolution! Look hemp up in the dictionary, and it says cannabis. A drug! The people aren't smart enough to make health-threatening decisions on their own, and that is why the government outlaws such things.

This is an awful resolution! Look hemp up in the dictionary, and it says cannabis. A drug! The people aren't smart enough to make health-threatening decisions on their own, and that is why the government outlaws such things.

This has been dealt with. Read the topic.

So basicly this resolution will make it legal for farmers to grow hemp? It doesn't force them to?

So basicly this resolution will make it legal for farmers to grow hemp? It doesn't force them to?

It doesn't even make it legal. It gives you the option of making it legal. You were not exactly denied the option before.

It doesn't even make it legal. It gives you the option of making it legal. You were not exactly denied the option before.


So why is this resolution even here?

So why is this resolution even here?

Some of us are still trying to figure that out.

Some of us are still trying to figure that out.


I think it should be dropped and an actuall IMPORTANT resolution be brought to our attention.

The region of GALS will not endore this proposal until the line "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug" is changed to "EMPHASIZING that industrial hemp should not be used as a drug." We feel that drug control should be up to the individual country.

The People's Republic of LothlorienImladris
The Republic of Deux Magots
The Sultanate of Abbibi
The Nomadic Peoples of Ilaideggsinyourhead

*throws a spitball*

Industrial hemp contains little to no THC, the substance which makes causes the high when you smoke marajuana. You would get an equal high to that of smoking industrial hemp by smoking a notebook. Or a roll of toilet paper.

In other words "you can't use it to get high".

Thank you for voting for it. I aprpeciate the support. :)

I really don't unserstand why people can't read the proposal. 45% is the max tax break, maximum implies exactly that maximum. So you could give a 35% tax break if you wanted to.

"Anyone not in the UN who produce wood/hemp pulp are going to suffer massively at the hands of this bill."

I don't see the relevance non UN nations are never effected by UN resolutions, UN resolutions only effect UN nations. Well, at least that is my udnerstanding how it works in this game.

You are beginning to see how things work around here? Everyone is quiet until there's a proposal in queue - then they come out of the woodwork.

Think of it as flowers at a funeral. You get all the flowers you could ever want - too late.

:rolleyes:

While the Dominion of Lawmagia is not a member of this august body, rejecting as it does any external interference with matters of national sovereignty, I feel it is incumbent upon me to voice the grave concern with which we look upon proposals such as the one offered by the esteemed Avenging Angels.

The current proposal before the United Nations amounts to an unconscionable interference with the soveriegnty of individual states, calling as it does for a UN mandated alteration in their forms of government, to wit, the creation of an "advisory panel" with the authority to provide incentives to farmers to grow industrial hemp.

Considering that the incentives specifically mentioned in the proposal offered by the esteemed delegate from the Avenging Angels involve tax breaks and issuance of subsidies to growers of industrial hemp, we find such statements to be excessive in their intrusion into the affairs of member states. By their very nature controls on taxation and the expenditure of the subsequent revenue are of necessity functions inextricably linked to the sovereignty of a nation state and brook no interference from external agencies.

The members of the United Nations might do well to question the wisdom of allowing any extranational body to dictate what sorts of crops it will or will not cultivate. By what right does a body such as the United Nations dictate to its member states not only that they MUST allow citizens to grow a particular crop, but also that they MUST encourage the cultivation of said crop?

As a nation of people with unswerving dedication to the principles of individual liberty and ecological responsibility, the Dominion of Lawmagia fully supports the cultivation and utilization of industrial hemp. However, we have grave concerns when confronted by the spectre of a body possessed of such influence as the United Nations actually going so far as to impose such a position on its member states.

After all, as goes the United Nations, so goes the world...When the United Nations tramples on the rights of its meber states to maintain sovereignty over their own internal affairs, what is to stop such abuse of governmental power from spreading to the non-aligned nations? What indeed, beyond the vocalized concerns of those same non-aligned nations.

Submitted for your perusal in a spirit of fraternity,
Invectus Rex
Archon
The Dominion of Lawmagia

*makes notes*

"Did NOT read the proposal"
"Is NOT a member of the UN"

Why are you posting here again?

This is an awful resolution! Look hemp up in the dictionary, and it says cannabis. A drug! The people aren't smart enough to make health-threatening decisions on their own, and that is why the government outlaws such things.

*sets up bucket trap in your office to dump ice cold water on your head when you go back in*

:rolleyes:

I think it should be dropped and an actuall IMPORTANT resolution be brought to our attention.

Well... you see... first a whole lot of delegates decided it was important enough to go to the floor... then a whole lot of members voted AYE to it...

Mob rule is much the rule of the UN.

Well if vastiva is done throwing spitballs (seriously, don't the UN forums have security guards that throw you out for that stuff?)... I would like to point out a few things that I think have gotten overlooked...


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.

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


1. This is a common ecological fact... plant to much on the same patches, the soil as moosipher interestingly put "craps out"

9. Yes if hemp becomes the main agricultural good, a little thing my nation likes to call "supply-and-demand" gets all out of whack. Enough to cause a collapse of my economy?... I don't want to try an introduction of hemp to find out and theirs no dought that it WILL suffer unless I introduce it on my own terms.

And now for the other argument that I think is important

The government of Umbwigwi is fervently opposed to this resolution because it is clearly economic micromanagement. The United Nations is not a trade organization. If nations feel that hemp would be economically beneficial, let them discuss it at a seperate conference. It is not the responsibility of the UN to optimize the economies of its member nations, especially when it would impose extra bureaucratic baggage on countless nations that may already have a well-organized system for hemp production.

The Protectorate of Umbwigwi strongly urges all member nations to leave this issue to commercial treaties, and vote against this resolution.

Actually the UN does deal with economic matters whether it is in NS or real life. The real UN has the power to impose economic sanctions on other nations just one of example of how the real UN deals with economic matters.

Also, if the NSUN did not deal with economic matters then why are there categories for it? If you donit like it then you are free to leave the UN. As I don't see the mods changing any of this anytime soon. This part of the package when you decide to join the UN. You take the good with bad, and make the most of it.

I agree Avenging Angels, the UN does and rightfully should have the right to somewhat control the economies of it's member nations, but I agree with Umbwigwi... I don't think they do have the right to MICROmanage economies. I could not see anything good coming out of micromanagement from the UN. (And if you want to talk about the real world UN, all members are mostly involved in all the debates which they are clearly not in the NSUN as most people debating seem to be against it and the actually total is clearly leaning towards it's acceptance as Vastiva has stated so I do not think it fair to compare the NSUN to the real one)

I did however take the recomendations made by this proposal into consideration and my senate has agreed that hemp should not be banned but, reguardless of if this recomendation is passed or not (as it only recomends things), we will only put into effect the legalizing of hemp.

Well if vastiva is done throwing spitballs (seriously, don't the UN forums have security guards that throw you out for that stuff?)...

Yes, but right now I'm in control of them. Simply because no one else has bothered. That, and I'm one of the few who bothers to keep heavily-armed ships in orbit.

If you're refering to the mods, that's something else. Not even DLE guards can argue with the gnomes.

I just don't understand that we can use Cocaine for nose jobs, but we can't use Hemp for tee-shirts?

Why we can't use Hemp oil instead of motor oil?

Why we can't use Hemp paper?

....,


Sorry, I think I need some morphine to handle the bull....

I just don't understand that we can use Cocaine for nose jobs, but we can't use Hemp for tee-shirts?

Why we can't use Hemp oil instead of motor oil?

Why we can't use Hemp paper?

....,


Sorry, I think I need some morphine to handle the bull....

*makes lots of notes and heads out to corner more markets*

How can we create a resolution that does nothing? It makes no sense. It puts forth no regulation. All it does is advise everyone to produce industrial hemp, and how to go about getting it produced -- in a bad way, I might add.

Wow, this is pointless.

*sets up bucket trap in your office to dump ice cold water on your head when you go back in*

:rolleyes:
*ok. sneaks in after vastiva leaves North Duke's office and replaces the ice water with used toilet water*

How can we create a resolution that does nothing? It makes no sense. It puts forth no regulation. All it does is advise everyone to produce industrial hemp, and how to go about getting it produced -- in a bad way, I might add.

Wow, this is pointless.

*gives you your free "MEMBER OF THE UN" T-shirt*

*ok. sneaks in after vastiva leaves North Duke's office and replaces the ice water with used toilet water*

:Sneaks in after Asshelmetta leaves North Duke's office and replaces the bucket of toilet water with a bucket of battery acid and leaves behind evidence it was Jibba-Jabbia on the way out:

if you want make your own decisions- DON'T join to the UN.
you can't except that the un do just what you want, because the majority think you are wrong, and the UN make his decisions by majority.
that is all the story.

The UN is not a governing body and should not force it's demands on other nations. The UN should be taking global positions and not micromanaging everyone's country.

Actully since this resolution is made up of recommendations you actually DO get to make the decision.

Why do people keep saying this is made up of recommendations? There are clear taxation and stipend implications. The game will not know the difference and will not give us a choice but instead will drop these demands on each nation and we will be forced to follow them.

The point is mute, regardless, as there is no way to stop this proposal at this point. Let's not hear any complaining from you guys and gals after your economies take a hit from this resolution.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The UN is not a governing body and should not force it's demands on other nations. The UN should be taking global positions and not micromanaging everyone's country.
Technically the UN is a governing body.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

:Sneaks in after Asshelmetta leaves North Duke's office and replaces the bucket of toilet water with a bucket of battery acid and leaves behind evidence it was Jibba-Jabbia on the way out:

Wait what? How did I get involved? Jeez people grow up!

*sneaks off to set up a whoopie cusion on DemonLordEnigma's seat which, when activated, blows a gust of air which knocks a marble down a ramp which hits a switch activating the release the bucket of battery acid (with added hemp to make it more relevant) stolen from North Dukes's Office*

Ahh... the UN hard at work...

The primary flaw that the Federation of Meteor Impact Victims can see is that it is either unfunded, or in violation of resolution #4. It does not mandate that UN nations provide any funding to the UN portion of the funding, so, therefore, the only way is taxation, which is blatantly illegal.

Assuming that the UN will require funding from nations in response to this, it will strike a heavy blow to the economies already reeling from the AIDS act, in order to fund a law that, although it merely makes reccomendations, it demands that the UN fund the nations that take its reccomendations. The only way that can be worth anything to those nations (as opposed to taking back the same 30% they put in), is by taxing the other nations. This means that the UN is reccomending other nations encourage their farmers to produce hemp, a cash crop, instead of grains, which are the only foods capable of being a nation's main source, and then penalizing nations who don't take the reccomendations by making them pay for those who do.

This also sets a dangerous precedent, although such things rarely matter in the UN. If the UN can reccomend something, and mandate funding for nations that take the reccomendation, at the expense of others, for hemp production, who's to say that the UN can't order subsidies to other businesses, or simply offer subsidies to nations' government programs as a reward for having certain policies?

Vote NO on UN subsidies.

Provide evidence of where it makes you pay for anything.

I am against the proposal although it looks like it will pass. I am not against it on any moral or religious grounds. It is bad economic policy. Generally speaking if the advantages listed in the proposal are as good as described there does not need to be any tax advantages given to farmers.

Open markets and the benefits of hemp production will be obvious. It is too bad that by adding poor economic aspects into the proposal it has counteracted the benefits of hemp production.

Roman3282 President of Samsonish Council

Wait what? How did I get involved? Jeez people grow up!

*sneaks off to set up a whoopie cusion on DemonLordEnigma's seat which, when activated, blows a gust of air which knocks a marble down a ramp which hits a switch activating the release the bucket of battery acid (with added hemp to make it more relevant) stolen from North Dukes's Office*

Ahh... the UN hard at work...

You're going to fit right in. :p

Can someone bring proof that the UN allows nations to decide recommendations of resolutions if not please stop saying there is a choice for UN members to follow this resolution's "recommendations" (ie if the fair and respected DemonLordEnigma and others could please stop confusing people...you are lying to the best of Sarcodinan Intelligence.)

Oh ya, here's something fun and exciting that really hasn't been brought up...

AA and many have repeatedly stated that industrial hemp cannot be a drug because the THC is taken out, but who is going to take out the THC. And (rhetorically stated) how hard will it be for nations to cut down on drug hemp use if such a similar product is around. If there is hemp everywhere than it will be used as a drugs. This resolution is a pro-drug legislation (AA is in a very pro-drug region and when brought up in its message board drugs are spoken) and that's that.
Similiarly Sarcodinan Government has finalized its foundings that the reason this resolution will pass (despite its economy despair it will reek) is because UN members like drugs...though that really is not too much of a shocker.

Can someone bring proof that the UN allows nations to decide recommendations of resolutions if not please stop saying there is a choice for UN members to follow this resolution's "recommendations" (ie if the fair and respected DemonLordEnigma and others could please stop confusing people...you are lying to the best of Sarcodinan Intelligence.)

Try reading the definition I gave awhile back of the word "recommend." Unless a specific definition is given for you to refer to, use RL meanings and basic logic. If you can't be bothered to do that, then just know you didn't bother to read the evidence and the only lies are your Intelligence Agency's for not bothering to do all of their homework.

Oh ya, here's something fun and exciting that really hasn't been brought up...

Hmm. Something new? I'm already wondering.

AA and many have repeatedly stated that industrial hemp cannot be a drug because the THC is taken out, but who is going to take out the THC. And (rhetorically stated) how hard will it be for nations to cut down on drug hemp use if such a similar product is around. If there is hemp everywhere than it will be used as a drugs. This resolution is a pro-drug legislation (AA is in a very pro-drug region and when brought up in its message board drugs are spoken) and that's that.

From what I understand, industrial hemp lacks it due either to a natural phenomenon or through the way it is grown.

Similiarly Sarcodinan Government has finalized its foundings that the reason this resolution will pass (despite its economy despair it will reek) is because UN members like drugs...though that really is not too much of a shocker.

Nah. Sixty attempts at legalizing drugs have failed to reach quorum since I started paying attention to the proposals page. This is them following through on the idea they think it will benefit people somehow.

Why? Might I ask.. Why is it necessary to have hemp anyways?What are the highly useful longterm use's of hemp...I read your stipulations or such and frankly I'm unconvinced to allow hemp in my nation.At this point in time I know its to late to do any thing.....but still I hope I get my futile point across. :headbang: :mp5: :mad:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Still don't see what this proposal actually DOES.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Still don't see what this proposal actually DOES.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Yeah, I felt the same way for a while. Now I've just accepted that it WILL be passed and that it WILL do nothing. I'm much happier now.

Provide evidence of where it makes you pay for anything.

The resolution states that

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.

(emphasis mine)
Where is that money going to come from, if the UN nations aren't taxed to pay for it? If only the nations that accept its reccomendations pay for it, then they might as well be paying that 30% themselves, just through the UN. Therefore, the nations that do not accept the reccomendations *will* have to pay for it.

This is a resolution not only to encourage farmers to switch to a wonder-crop, but to take money from nations that don't do so, to encourage farmers to switch crops.

The UN does have this power, and it can override sovereignty to order nations to subsidize eachothers' business. This does not, however, make it a good idea. As this resolution offers no alternative income source for the UN, its money will be taken from member states.

I disagree cause there will always be that one person (or Group) who can turn the product into a harmful drug and will lead to a huge problem in the future

So, wait... this resolution says that they should be given up to 45% tax breaks?
And that the money for the tax breaks comes, 30% from their own contributions to the hemp program? And another 30% comes from the UN?

This doesn't make any sense.

It would make more sense, I think, to simply stick with the tax breaks, not stipends, and have the government pay for all of it, not the UN or the hemp farmers themselves.

Yeah, I agree.

This resolution's funding structure is an excersize in inefficiency.

Assuming that the UN member governments and the UN both have bureaucracies that eat 10% of the money put in, and that only nations taking the reccomendations eat the costs, the farmers provide 33.33%, the government 44.44%, and the UN 33.33%. But, the government has to pay the UN's 33.33%, assuming this country is spending exactly the mean. This means that the government pays 44.44% directly to the farmers, and 37.037% to the UN. The total is a cost of of 110.814814814815% of the amount recieved. Only marginally worse than the usual government waste, but with much more room for improvement.

If the farmers were simply allowed to keep their 30%, instead of having it go back to them through the government, and the national governments provided 70% of the current subsidies (all of these), waste would be cut down to only 10%, the same level of government waste as any other government. A farmer that has $3,333.33 taken to pay for his $10,000 in subsidies under the system in the resolution, giving him a net gain of $6,666.67, will recieve $7,000 in straight subsidies at no cost, and the government waste on that will only be $700, rather than $1,081.48

But, that assumes that only those nations that take the reccomendations have to pay. The resolution is vague enough to be interpreted several ways. One is that only those taking the funding have to provide it. Another is that all member nations have to provide it. Yet another is that, because this funding has no specified source, the UN will simply go into debt to pay for it. Of these, as, under the basis of UN law, no resolution can be non-binding on any nation, the first is impossible. The second and the third will both lead to economic damage for all UN member nations, either in paying to support hemp growing, or in being a member of an increasingly indebted body, with no visible way of paying off said debt.

Well, the good news is that the resolution doesn't force us to do anything -we can simply choose to ignore these 'recommendations'.

Yeah. A lot of us are hoping so, anyway.

Provide evidence of where it makes you pay for anything.

First of all, if we don't pay for anything then why are we bothering with this and secondly, I have repeatedly highlighted the sections of this proposal that are going to cost each nation money. Prove to me this will have no impact on my nation and that I will have the choice to implement this. To Socratic's point, if it's only a recommendation then what is the point?

I am stating again, there is no way for the game to know the difference. It states clearly in the FAQ of the game that if you are part of the UN and a resolution passes, it will automatically be implemented, regardless of how many times you write the word RECOMMENDED in the resolution. So befor you reply with another "Provide Evidence" comment, prove to me first this will NOT cost me anything.

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...

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.

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.

Katchican has reviewed all of the comments noted on the forum. The above response, although somewhat lengthy, makes more sense than anything else we have read. The flat fact is that subsidies don't work...they tinker with the economy and create an artificial appearance of prosperity. Thank you for the "recommendations", but not expect my small nation to contribute one drachma. If this resolution passes, Katchican will withdraw from the UN rather than watch a healthy economy go into a death spiral.

The resolution states that



(emphasis mine)
Where is that money going to come from, if the UN nations aren't taxed to pay for it? If only the nations that accept its reccomendations pay for it, then they might as well be paying that 30% themselves, just through the UN. Therefore, the nations that do not accept the reccomendations *will* have to pay for it.

It provides nothing on how the UN is going to collect the money. Due to the constant use of terms that indicate voluntary actions on the part of the nations involved, I would have to say paying for it to the UN is voluntary as well. I know the DLE Empire is not contributing anything to this.

This is a resolution not only to encourage farmers to switch to a wonder-crop, but to take money from nations that don't do so, to encourage farmers to switch crops.

I'm guessing it was intended to be entirely voluntary. After all, the majority of the resolution allows you to choose whether or not go along with it and that option states nothing about you being forced to pay.

The UN does have this power, and it can override sovereignty to order nations to subsidize eachothers' business. This does not, however, make it a good idea. As this resolution offers no alternative income source for the UN, its money will be taken from member states.

Yes, but how? This resolution doesn't provide that. Is it voluntary? Is it forced? I interpret it to mean voluntary. My interpretation is based on the fact the section that starts with that states it as a recommendation.

First of all, if we don't pay for anything then why are we bothering with this

Good question. I asked that in a more indirect form back in the first couple of pages. For all I can tell, it's because the UN decided it wanted to vote on this.

and secondly, I have repeatedly highlighted the sections of this proposal that are going to cost each nation money. Prove to me this will have no impact on my nation and that I will have the choice to implement this.

All of the sections indicate they are recommendations, including the one stating the UN has to pay. The fact it starts out as such pretty much removes all teeth that might have had and leads me to the interpretation you can ignore that section as well. Your economy will take a smalll downturn, but that's probably in sympathy for the nations this will have more drastic effects upon. Blame the author for his tab choices.

To Socratic's point, if it's only a recommendation then what is the point?

The point it you can do it if you wish, not do it if you don't wish. In other words, it changes nothing and your economy is damaged for that lack of change. So, really, now you're paying for something you already had.

I am stating again, there is no way for the game to know the difference. It states clearly in the FAQ of the game that if you are part of the UN and a resolution passes, it will automatically be implemented, regardless of how many times you write the word RECOMMENDED in the resolution. So befor you reply with another "Provide Evidence" comment, prove to me first this will NOT cost me anything.

The exception to that is resolutions that allow you to decide, such as this one. In that case, the implementation is them basically walking in, saying "You may choose," and helping themselves to your fridge on the way out.

Will you pay for it through economic damage? Yes. Do you have to follow any of the recommendations? No. Take a look at the definition of the word I posted a few pages ago.

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 hope that "we" is your own nation, and not the UN.

I hope that "we" is your own nation, and not the UN.

"We" is my nation. Sometimes, a few other members of the UN also agree with it. But in this case, I only speak for my own nation.

"We" is my nation. Sometimes, a few other members of the UN also agree with it. But in this case, I only speak for my own nation.

Thank you; I'm much better now...I think.

Thank you; I'm much better now...I think.

Here's what's going to worry you: Somtimes I'm not just speaking about my nation. And I rarely indicate the differences.

About my previous post...

1) The Comment on Recommendation- I am not confused by the word recommendation, but I still don't think recommendations are used in the UN. I ask again DemonLordEnigma if you are basing your assumption on your Webster's dictionary or your knowledge of game mechanics...

2) Comment on this resolution is still about Drugs- DLE you also stated that this will not pass due its relation to drugs (because drug resolutions fail.) But, I ask anyone to find a pro-post (other than 1 or two people...AA and Vastiva) that is not something to affect of

"I support ;)..."

Now it could be that this is because many NS members are well educated on hemp as an industrial product...or the more likely they'd like hemp (the drug) allowed and don't care about anything else.

1) The Comment on Recommendation- I am not confused by the word recommendation, but I still don't think recommendations are used in the UN. I ask again DemonLordEnigma if you are basing your assumption on your Webster's dictionary or your knowledge of game mechanics...

The number one rule of dealing with systems like this when it comes to wording is that unless general usage or a specific definition exist, you are to use real-life definitions. I see no case of "recommends" being used in a way that indicates a different meaning than normal and no special definition.

A good example of words that have a meaning change due to usage are the words "man," "woman," "person," "people," etc. This is due to general usage having them expand to include many species they do not in real life.

2) Comment on this resolution is still about Drugs- DLE you also stated that this will not pass due its relation to drugs (because drug resolutions fail.) But, I ask anyone to find a pro-post (other than 1 or two people...AA and Vastiva) that is not something to affect of

"I support ;)..."

I stated that drug proposals fail to reach quorum. However, this one passed already.

Now it could be that this is because many NS members are well educated on hemp as an industrial product...or the more likely they'd like hemp (the drug) allowed and don't care about anything else.

Or, worse yet, they're not even reading it and just voting for it because that is where the majority had voted at the time they got on to vote.

Laws have been enacted to bring the Kingdom of Donega into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Support Hemp Production".

Did everyone get this telegram from the UN? Tell me again, when do I get to choose? Oh yeah, it was just a recommendation; but why did it get automatically forced upon us if it was just a recommendation? Hmmm.... funny how that worked...

Congratulations to everyone who bought into the BS that this was just a recommendation and decided not to listen to the rest of us.

How exactly does this effect us? I notice my economy has dropped from "good" to "developing", but I think that's because I refused to let companies make huge political donations. Must've scared them off.

Laws have been enacted to bring the Kingdom of Donega into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Support Hemp Production".

Did everyone get this telegram from the UN? Tell me again, when do I get to choose? Oh yeah, it was just a recommendation; but why did it get automatically forced upon us if it was just a recommendation? Hmmm.... funny how that worked...

The Compliance Ministry always sends that out to all UN members when a resolution passes it's a standard message. In this case the laws were changed to allow you to make the choice.

Laws have been enacted to bring the Kingdom of Donega into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Support Hemp Production".

Did everyone get this telegram from the UN? Tell me again, when do I get to choose? Oh yeah, it was just a recommendation; but why did it get automatically forced upon us if it was just a recommendation? Hmmm.... funny how that worked...

Congratulations to everyone who bought into the BS that this was just a recommendation and decided not to listen to the rest of us.

~picks up notes left by UN Gnomes~

Vastivan Law 663837-1-001 Vastiva shall have the right to.."

Well, its now LAW in my country - all the 66#### series are UN enforced body of law - but it really didn't change anything.

there's no way to dig in and see what your tax and/or legal codes are like under the covers, is there?

there's no way to dig in and see what your tax and/or legal codes are like under the covers, is there?

You see your taxes, and you make up your legals. As to the "invisible variables" - nope.

Here is another example of the U.N. forcing its liberal values on its member nations.

Here is another example of the U.N. forcing its liberal values on its member nations.

So propose something conservative.