NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a call for all members of the UN to strike down the current legislation "Support Hemp Production" which has been placed before the legislature.

This is not because hemp production is inherently wrong or immoral, but the way this legislation is worded put our member states good intentions in the wrong place.

If we all truly agree that hemp production has the positive qualities that were stated in the original preamble, as I do, then there is no need for any sort of government body to enforce its production. As long as all trade and legal barriers are removed, then an enterprising businessman should be willing to grow help without any sort of government interference.

In addition, the creation of this proposed advisory board causes the following problems:

A) It distorts incentives, investors will fund this industry when they could use their money more profitably somewhere else

B) The creation of this council gives hemp producers a bigger voice in government than they deserve. They will undoubtedly use this voice to appropriate more subsidies for themselves over other, more deserving, claims.

C) It forces all UN states to spend cash on hemp production instead of other social programs. Is hemp production more important than feeding the poor? The resources of the world are limited and should not be decided by such a one-size-fits all policy.

This current legislation reduces choice without any palpable gain. It should be stricken down, and then revised to exclude the provisions of an advisory council. If this is done I will vote for it.

Grand Chancellor Horatio Gladstone of the Jingoistic States of Unloved Children

agreed

what about nations who cant grow hemp
and what is hemp?

Having been educated with the Grand Chancellor Horatio Gladstone of the Jingoistic States of Unloved Children at the world-renowned institute of Complicated Economics I wholeheartedly agree with his assertion, and only wish to add the following:

Opportunity Costs: Look it Up


Thank-You.

His Most Great and Exalted Lord Protector of all the Kildonas

This is a call for all members of the UN to strike down the current legislation "Support Hemp Production" which has been placed before the legislature.

It's up for vote, not a passed resolution. There's an important difference. Wait until PUNNS and CROPUNNS make their predictions before bothering to type up a repeal attempt.

This is not because hemp production is inherently wrong or immoral, but the way this legislation is worded put our member states good intentions in the wrong place.

The way it is worded? This is one of the few resolutions where you can ignore the entire thing and still not be violating it. I would have to say the wording of it has it actually change nothing.

If we all truly agree that hemp production has the positive qualities that were stated in the original preamble, as I do, then there is no need for any sort of government body to enforce its production. As long as all trade and legal barriers are removed, then an enterprising businessman should be willing to grow help without any sort of government interference.

You don't have to have a government body, even if you do stick with the proposal when it passes. It's a recommendation, not a requirement.

In addition, the creation of this proposed advisory board causes the following problems:

A) It distorts incentives, investors will fund this industry when they could use their money more profitably somewhere else

They can still use their money elsewhere. The resolution does not require you to actually do anything. It only recommends that you do the actions in it.

B) The creation of this council gives hemp producers a bigger voice in government than they deserve. They will undoubtedly use this voice to appropriate more subsidies for themselves over other, more deserving, claims.

Recommended, not required. You don't actually have to set up the board at all.

C) It forces all UN states to spend cash on hemp production instead of other social programs. Is hemp production more important than feeding the poor? The resources of the world are limited and should not be decided by such a one-size-fits all policy.

Let me quote you the fully-capitalized words at the beginning of each section that actually has action to it.

RECOMMEND
FURTHER REQUESTS
SUGGESTS
RECOMMENDS
RECOMMENDS

Where do you see it being stated as required? You don't. It doesn't force you to do anything. It doesn't force you to agree with it at all, disagree with it completely, or even take the resolution as a whole. The wording allows you to take the whole thing, pick and choose which parts you will allow, or even ignore it entirely.

This current legislation reduces choice without any palpable gain. It should be stricken down, and then revised to exclude the provisions of an advisory council. If this is done I will vote for it.

No, it doesn't. It allows so much choice the resolution effectively does nothing. The problem isn't that it forces you to do something, but that it allows so much choice it might as well not exist at all.