NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

AGREEING in principle with UN Resolution #85, "Support Hemp Production", that hemp is 'a profitable and environmentally friendly crop',

CAUTIOUS, however, of the resolution's effusive praise of hemp, offering no mention of any of the disadvantages of the hemp crop,

HIGHLIGHTING, for example, that hemp can only be harvested at specific times, whereas many other crops can be harvested throughout the year, thus making the use of hemp in processes requiring large, regular harvests considerably more difficult,

DISAPPOINTED that the resolution introduces no checks or balances in the creation and operational running of hemp advisory boards, thus rendering the process very open to corruption, unfair apportionment of funds, or the dissemination of unsuitable advice,

CRITICISING the system of stipends and subsidies proposed by the resolution, and the poor logic of such a scheme,

OBSERVING that if hemp is indeed as profitable and commercially viable as the resolution claims, such support would be unnecessary, wasteful, and would endanger competition,

FURTHER OBSERVING that if the projects did not prove viable and did in fact require such support, tax-payers would be forced to contribute large sums of money solely to keep unprofitable enterprises afloat,

APPALLED that such a burden would be placed not only upon tax-payers within specific nations, but on all UN member nations, through the mandate for the UN to contribute funds to such projects,

BELIEVING that government-enforced bias towards particular crops to be unfair as well as impractical, as it discourages specialisation and development of resources, and could lead to wasteful excess of certain crops and shortages of other essential varieties, especially those used towards the production of food,

FURTHER NOTING that placing special emphasis on one single crop risks ecological and economic catastrophe in the case of specific crop diseases, climate conditions or pest attacks affecting that crop;

CONSIDERING such flaws too critical to justify retaining the resolution and its bureaucratic, inefficient and wasteful system of finance:

1. REPEALS UN Resolution #85, "Support Hemp Production";

2. AFFIRMS that this repeal will not prohibit any nation from continuing such programs on a national level should they choose to do so, noting that their right to implement such schemes would remain protected by the UN under Resolution #128, "Representation in Taxation".

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

Link to Original (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=84)

SUBMITTED: Delegates, add your approval here:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hemp

I'm really glad someone's repealing this...#85 is horrible!

HIGHLIGHTING, for example, that hemp can only be harvested at specific times, whereas many other crops can be harvested throughout the year, thus making the use of hemp in processes requiring large, regular harvests considerably more difficult,

DISAPPOINTED that the resolution introduces no checks or balances in the creation and operational running of hemp advisory boards, thus rendering the process very open to corruption, unfair apportionment of funds, or the dissemination of unsuitable advice,
Cut these two. They miss the point of repealing the resolution, especially the second one, since the boards are voluntary and nations can cut corruption themselves.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm really glad someone's repealing this...#85 is horrible!


Cut these two. They miss the point of repealing the resolution, especially the second one, since the boards are voluntary and nations can cut corruption themselves.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Well if anyone wants to debate this, I'll play the other side?

Cut these two. They miss the point of repealing the resolution, especially the second one, since the boards are voluntary and nations can cut corruption themselves.
For the second, I possibly agree. But I think the first line should remain: it's important to temper the "hemp is a wondercrop that saves babies" bullshit bluster of #85 with some points about how, actually, it's not all that.

I think the first line should remain: it's important to temper the "hemp is a wondercrop that saves babies" bullshit bluster of #85 with some points about how, actually, it's not all that.

But it is all that! It might not save babies, but it is a crop some countries spend a great deal of effort producing. Some non NSUN nations have a total embargo on hemp!

I'd be tempted to work on a replacement resolution myself. Something about how any UN nation that embargoes a UN nation is required to explain itself some how (with an annual 20 page report?, detailing economic impact, etc?). Maybe make them do it again every 5 years? OK not a replacement, just something to protect our hemp industry form silly embargoes :)

But it is all that! It might not save babies, but it a crop some countries spend a great deal of effort producing. Some non NSUN nations have a total embargo on hemp!

Some non NSUN nations have a total embargo on hemp!

There is actually nothing to stop UN nations from embargoing hemp, the original resolution merely creates subsidies for the production of hemp (hence all that effort to produce it) but doesn't remove barriers to trading hemp.

Cut these two. They miss the point of repealing the resolution, especially the second one, since the boards are voluntary and nations can cut corruption themselves.

The second one could go, like Gruen said the first should probably stay in.

There is actually nothing to stop UN nations from embargoing hemp, the original resolution merely creates subsidies for the production of hemp (hence all that effort to produce it) but doesn't remove barriers to trading hemp.


Well if we won't have our right to grow hemp guaranteed what are we going to do when these embargos go up?

Well if we won't have our right to grow hemp guaranteed what are we going to do when these embargos go up?

The repeal of this resolution won't stop nations from growing hemp, it would take another UN resolution (if this gets repealed) to stop that and I doubt that there would be enough votes to get that passed. From the sounds of your argument it'd be better drafting a proposal that removes these barriers (which would lower the price of hemp) than supporting the existing proposal which doesn't support the trade of hemp.

Anyway we're getting a bit sidetracked now, any suggestions about the draft in the first post from anyone?

Anyway we're getting a bit sidetracked now
Leg-ends, meet Disco.

Anyway we're getting a bit sidetracked now, any suggestions about the draft in the first post from anyone?

I really like the draft, and would support it as-is.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Support Hemp Production may be on the ropes, but the old fighter still has a number of rounds to knock out the repeal. I mean who can't help but like the Hemp Advisory Board, which is clearly better than that ultra liberal Ketchup Advisory Board. No matter what the result of a repeal, Tzorsland will continue to support the Tzorland Hemp Advisory Board (THAB) and will continue to keep the supply to our growing news industry growing. (After all, without newspapers what will all our mom and pop sellers of junk to tourists use for shopping bags and wrapping paper?)

Disco, according to the resolution there is no free trade element in the first place, so repealing this doesn't cause a free trade problem. It is a repeal of an all business environmental resolution, which means your forests are going to get screwed, and your indiustry is going to make a killing should this resolution get repealed. Not that one should base a repeal based on stat wanking. (But one could you know.)

Now submitted: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hemp

Thanks to all who have supported so far, please keep the approvals coming:

Approvals: 64 (Leg-ends, Windsor-Bainbridge, Gruenberg, Funky Evil, Corellisi, Gahim, Entarres, Gamma Hydra, Flaumboden, Landsfar, Fallsdom, Pro-Sovereignty Babes, The Yellow House, Industrial Collectives, Meneh, Celebros, Compulsoria, Pearlistan, The Moorish Caphlite, Mogyorod, Flibbleites, 1337phr33kia, Cavallino33, Skwirltopia, Landoland, Ikonja, Shihnon, Iron Felix, Whatsitts, Minoriteeburg, Kytheros, OCR, Tremdale, Backa Palanka, Oddardynia, The Purple Faeries, TheMote, Electa, The KoZ, Lommedalen, Obscuratio, Quintaros, New New Earth Jr, Bezad, Funkdunk, Capetonia, The Shaimung Dynasty, Lidyn, UltimaWeapon, Lake Shore Drive, Ehrmordung, Sacranon, MajorRufus, CR Oscilloscopes, Party Mode, Eastern Baltia, NewTexas, Glorfindala, St Edmundan Antarctic, Krystallos, Joseftown, OmnusOmega, Illidiya, Khreplachistan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 59 more approvals)

I like it.

One thing I noticed is the last line. That might be considered branding, but I don't know if it's too late to change it. It's not the worst case, but could still be a hangup.

One thing I noticed is the last line. That might be considered branding, but I don't know if it's too late to change it. It's not the worst case, but could still be a hangup.

It has been used before without problem, you are allowed one "brand" so to speak so it is OK.

Looks like this will reach quorum too, 95 approvals in little over a day, quite remarkable!

"Co-written by the Members of $group" is kinda like going 5mph over the speed limit. 99 times out of 100, we'll let it slide. If your break lights are also malfunctioning, we'll ding you for both.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Not another repeal. How big is the damm queue now? We won't be debating a real resolution until 2007 at this rate! :(

Not another repeal. How big is the damm queue now? We won't be debating a real resolution until 2007 at this rate!
The queue is 6 long - but when the current repeal passes, PSB's version will be deleted, meaning it's only really 5 long.

Furthermore, the very next proposal - and the two after that - are not repeals. And that still only takes us into September...leaving three months for more 'real resolutions'.

But, why bother with facts, when it's much easier to look at the word repeal and start whining.

Woohoo!

Carmen Paraslava-Kortekka
Director, Suboffice of Whooping When James Lin Doesn't Want to Do it, Ceorana UN Office

This is an extremely well-written repeal. Arguments about other recent repeals of poor authorship will be unable to be used in this effort. The passage of this repeal will be a bright spot on the record books for quality.

We are more excited than ever to add our support to the repeal of "Support Hemp Production." We are confident there will be those who will disagree with it in these halls - which is welcome debate! But we are more confident it will pass by large margin when it comes up for vote. Congratulations again upon reaching quorum!!!

"Co-written by the Members of $group" is kinda like going 5mph over the speed limit. 99 times out of 100, we'll let it slide. If your break lights are also malfunctioning, we'll ding you for both.

Just a quick question, would it be a minor violation at all if there were actually a nation named "the Members of ACCEL"? Technicalities, I know.

When I looked at trying to create it I got, "Checking "the Members of ACCEL"... RESERVED. That name was used by a former nation." I'm sure that could be revived if needed :)

Just a quick question, would it be a minor violation at all if there were actually a nation named "the Members of ACCEL"? Technicalities, I know.

When I looked at trying to create it I got, "Checking "the Members of ACCEL"... RESERVED. That name was used by a former nation." I'm sure that could be revived if needed :)


OOC: It's been done before. I used to have UN DEFCON, for instance, and there was one for the UNOG and some others. And that reminds me: I've gotta get that bad boy resurrected.

The queue is 6 long - but when the current repeal passes, PSB's version will be deleted, meaning it's only really 5 long.

Well five isn't too long I suppose (no it's still too long considering I know a half dozen resolutions that are waiting for either their introduction or their return to consideration) and it's not that I have anything aganist repeals, only that they are generally easier to write than resolutions, and as the current repeal proves no one cares what's in them anyway.

I can't remember when the queue was 5 resolutions deep. I can recall it being 2 or 3 deep, especially in the case of the repeal of abortion rights, but these are 5 non conflicting resolutions in the queue are a bit too much. People who are TGing for their resolution today won't have it come up to the floor for over a month. And somehow I think we're going to get a whole lot more entires on the queue once we hit Labor Day this weekend.

the current repeal proves no one cares what's in them anyway.
No, it doesn't "prove" that. You and your "deligate" can carry on yammering about how clearly no one read the proposal, and lording your intellectual superiority over the common folks, but we'll all be too busy not actually giving a shit. You have no way of proving whether people know, read or care what's in a repeal text: I think some do, some don't, but as I don't have evidence to support that, I wouldn't be so monumentally arrogant or staggeringly fucktarded as to label my opinion as fact.

As for the rest, I don't care how many proposals are in queue. What, are you suggesting we wait until previous votes have finished for submission? You might realize that would mean it would be, um, longer for the proposals to come up.

Support Hemp Production may be on the ropes, but the old fighter still has a number of rounds to knock out the repeal. I mean who can't help but like the Hemp Advisory Board, which is clearly better than that ultra liberal Ketchup Advisory Board. No matter what the result of a repeal, Tzorsland will continue to support the Tzorland Hemp Advisory Board (THAB) and will continue to keep the supply to our growing news industry growing. (After all, without newspapers what will all our mom and pop sellers of junk to tourists use for shopping bags and wrapping paper?)

Disco, according to the resolution there is no free trade element in the first place, so repealing this doesn't cause a free trade problem. It is a repeal of an all business environmental resolution, which means your forests are going to get screwed, and your indiustry is going to make a killing should this resolution get repealed. Not that one should base a repeal based on stat wanking. (But one could you know.)


I have been convinced!

and the remaining 30% shall come from the United Nations.

We think the UN budget is something really serious and it's why love and esterel fully support this repeal.

I, for one, am in full support of repealing "Support Hemp Production." Good job on the drafting. I am sure my delegate will support this one also, as she was one of the ones who approved it to reach this point.

I am officially amblivent about this repeal. I wouldn't mind it going, as it is a silly resolution, but I will continue to be a strong supporter of hemp especially for newspapers which people on the street use to make wrapping paper and paper bags when they sell their trinkets to the tourists.

I'll be rather glad to see this go. Ariddia supports the repeal, despite its disturbing argument that


if the projects did not prove viable and did in fact require such support, tax-payers would be forced to contribute large sums of money solely to keep unprofitable enterprises afloat,

which suggests that non-profitable projects should never be supported for whatever other use and merit they may have.

Still, if this repeal passes, ESAT will be able to get rid of its silly one-person Hemp Production Advisory Board (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddia_and_the_United_Nations#ESAT_and_the_United_Nations).


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA (ESAT)

How can anyone be against Hemp perduction....wait till I'm a UN Delegate there will be a draft to do more than support HEMP!

Why are we wasting time repealing harmless resolutions like this and the last one? I can think of much better resolutions to repeal...

How can anyone be against Hemp perduction....wait till I'm a UN Delegate there will be a draft to do more than support HEMP!
It's not so much about that. Gruenberg grows industrial hemp, and will continue to do so should the repeal pass. But this resolution forces you to pay for other nations to fund their hemp harvests. That makes no sense - particularly given that because hemp actually is a pretty good crop, it doesn't need this ludicrous spoodge of subsidy propping it up.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Why are we wasting time repealing harmless resolutions like this and the last one? I can think of much better resolutions to repeal...

Because all the good repeals are having a problem making the deligate quota.

And because there is nothing currently in the queue, so it's this or nothing.

So being bored I have decided to look at Wikipedia to see why this resolution is unraveling.

The use of hemp for fibre production has declined sharply over the last two centuries ...
Hemp rope is notorious for breaking due to rot.
There is a niche market for hemp paper, but the cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp ...


So let's repeal this baby and well, head to the Stranger's Bar.

The use of hemp for fibre production has declined sharply over the last two centuries ...
Hemp rope is notorious for breaking due to rot.
There is a niche market for hemp paper, but the cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp ...



The decline in use of hemp has very little to do with with the properties of hemp. It has more to do with the politization of hemp.

There is no cheaper way to make high quality rope then by hemp. Plastic and silk may not rot, but they are significantly more expensive. Rope by it's very nature tends to break. You don't use rope for anything permanent.

Wood pulp is cheaper then hemp... because there is still a huge supply of wood growing around us. However hemp is more cheaply renewable.

Now would appear to be a good time for to put something into the queue...

Well, my only comment to this, and to add to the statements given, is that if Hemp is such a wonderful item, why is it not more widely used? One would think that such a fantastic product would be easily and quickly marketable without needing outside subsidaries for production. Providing funding to people growing Hemp for the purposes of production is needless. Outside of experimentation and development for a better product (which should be funded at the country's discretion), there is no real purpose for forcing companies to fund growers and producers.

This idea is not neccessary. While I do not suggest making it illegal (as stated earlier, that would require another resolution and is a different matter), I do not support the enforced endorsement of growers.

We oppose this repeal; because its passage is a foregone conclusion, however, we will not waste time arguing against it, other than to note that hemp is not commonly grown because it is banned in most places as a drug; this decision is usually made without regard for the qualities of hemp as a renewable commercial fiber of tremendous utility.

When this repeal has passed, we will author a free trade resolution commanding all nations to permit the duty-free importation of hemp products so long as those products can not be used as narcotics.

Community Property remains committed to the production of hemp.

UPDATE: The proposed resolution (“Free Trade in Hemp (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11708091)”) has been written and submitted. If you want to continue to support hemp, please endorse and support this proposal.

AGREEING in principle with UN Resolution #85, "Support Hemp Production", that hemp is 'a profitable and environmentally friendly crop',
Not being too capitalistic, and considering some Moral issues more important than environmental ones, our Theocracy refrains from taking a position on this clause.

CAUTIOUS, however, of the resolution's effusive praise of hemp, offering no mention of any of the disadvantages of the hemp crop,

DISAPPOINTED that the resolution introduces no checks or balances in the creation and operational running of hemp advisory boards, thus rendering the process very open to corruption, unfair apportionment of funds, or the dissemination of unsuitable advice,
The Religious Leadership of the Believers in the Lord of Hosts is greatly conceerned over this issue, especially the one underlined. While our Believer population knows how to enjoy the product of the hemp plant, as well as intoxicating beverages, in moderation and caution, we are concerened for the welfare of less fortunate memebers of society in other UN nations, who have not had the chance of receiving good advice and self-discipline in their educational systems.

Our Theocracy therefore strongly supports this repeal.

In the name of the Lord of Hosts,
signed Wednesday, 20th Ellul, 5766,
Rabbi Novartza Mahershallalchashbaz
Minister of Foreign Affairs & Public Relations

Kaigan Miromuta, the Kirisuban ambassador to the UN took the microphone and spoke.

"the Empire of Kirisubo will be supporting this repeal on the grounds that no one crop should be favoured over another. This also drains money from UN coffers that could be used on other projects as well as from domestic budgets.

If nations still want to support the growing of hemp they still can but it should be a decision for a government rather than the NSUN"

The Most Serene Republic has detected the presence of UN enforcement gnomes in the country as a result of this bill, even though it utterly fails to mention anything that is required of member countries. Although on the surface on this bill, it seems harmless, there are clearly mysterious forces at work with the UN bureaucracy that are messing with our trade law. This bill should be struck out in order to clean up our list of bills if it truely is harmless, and if it isn't, it should more clearly state exactly what it is doing to our countries.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR this repeal in accord with the wishes presented to her by a majority of the citizens of the region, after reviewing both the Civic HQ and the offsite forum. As in the previous two votes, this position is also shared by the current majority of UN voters.

Hellar Gray

I was won over by the _great_ wording of this resolution, as well as the fact that it doesn't once bring up marijuana.. That was professional.. and it makes good points while not actually asking for anyone to change their policies if they don't want..

I love hemp, it is very warm, I have a sweater of hemp 65% and cotton 35%.
But I do not support hemp being a crop, because then you got a drug problem. Then other nations who don't want drugs in their country shouldn't be forced. But like the U.S. we are imported hemp, but not marijuana. Therefor releasing this, this resolution is only a resolution to mass legalize marijuana and has nothing to do with hemp.

How can anyone be against Hemp perduction....wait till I'm a UN Delegate there will be a draft to do more than support HEMP!

You don't support hemp, you support marijuana.

I love hemp, it is very warm, I have a sweater of hemp 65% and cotton 35%.
But I do not support hemp being a crop, because then you got a drug problem. Then other nations who don't want drugs in their country shouldn't be forced. But like the U.S. we are imported hemp, but not marijuana. Therefor releasing this, this resolution is only a resolution to mass legalize marijuana and has nothing to do with hemp.

Could we please bury the point now and forever: Hemp has nothing, and mean nothing to do with marijuana, beyond the fact that, as plants, they are distantly related. Yes, Hemp does have a few particles of what makes people smoke marijuana, but if any idiot tried to smoke hemp, they'd die of smoke inhalation serveral times over before they got high.

Could we please bury the point now and forever: Hemp has nothing, and mean nothing to do with marijuana, beyond the fact that, as plants, they are distantly related. Yes, Hemp does have a few particles of what makes people smoke marijuana, but if any idiot tried to smoke hemp, they'd die of smoke inhalation serveral times over before they got high.
They're the same plant. Smokeable cannabis just has higher concentrations of THC.

They're the same plant. Smokeable cannabis just has higher concentrations of THC.

*sigh*. As Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want..":headbang:

Decades ago, what you said might be true. They were closely enough related that if you weren't a botanist or a chemist you would regard them as essentially the same plant. However, genetic engineering (mostly in the form of selective breeding) has made Marijuana and Hemp distinct plants, as well as making Marijuana far more "effective" and deadly than it used to be. No, they are not the same plant.

*sigh*. As Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want..":headbang:

Decades ago, what you said might be true. They were closely enough related that if you weren't a botanist or a chemist you would regard them as essentially the same plant. However, genetic engineering (mostly in the form of selective breeding) has made Marijuana and Hemp distinct plants, as well as making Marijuana far more "effective" and deadly than it used to be. No, they are not the same plant.

Deadly? Has your country concocted a deadly strain of Marijuana? How does it kill? Are you referring to the rare case of someone being violently allergic? There was a martial artist allergic to Marijuana who was rumored to have died that way.

Well, my only comment to this, and to add to the statements given, is that if Hemp is such a wonderful item, why is it not more widely used? One would think that such a fantastic product would be easily and quickly marketable without needing outside subsidaries for production. Providing funding to people growing Hemp for the purposes of production is needless. Outside of experimentation and development for a better product (which should be funded at the country's discretion), there is no real purpose for forcing companies to fund growers and producers.

This idea is not neccessary. While I do not suggest making it illegal (as stated earlier, that would require another resolution and is a different matter), I do not support the enforced endorsement of growers.

Hemp is the most cost effective way to achieve a variety of goals. However those goals aren't too expensive to begin with, so many countries have made do using inferior crops. They don't use Hemp probably because their country outlawed Hemp, for it's perceived similarity to Marijuana. It's part of the Hype surrounding drug issues. At this point some countries are so devoted to an "Anti Drug" position that is without scientific merit (for example, some claim Marijuana is deadly) that they are now committed to a thorough propaganda campaign.

Decades ago, what you said might be true. They were closely enough related that if you weren't a botanist or a chemist you would regard them as essentially the same plant. However, genetic engineering (mostly in the form of selective breeding) has made Marijuana and Hemp distinct plants, as well as making Marijuana far more "effective" and deadly than it used to be. No, they are not the same plant.
Depends what you mean, really. You stated the two were "distantly related". They're the same species - Cannabis sativa. They are not "distinct plants" in that sense. Certain strains vary in concentration of THC, but they're the same species. Ironically, it's the botanists who do regard them as the same plant.

And marijuana is deadly?

And marijuana is deadly?


Well, its annoying that we have to get into semmantics, but when I said "More deadly" I did more mean that smoking a joint is going to kill you. Since Marijuana first became popular its potency has greatly increased, and along with that, the side-effects have also become much more powerful. In addition, the increased amount of THC you get from current Marijuana makes your brain far more vulnerable to the influence of other drugs. Furthermore, Marijuana is increasingly being treated with LSP, Cocaine, and other substances, and these "spiked" joints can kill you.

But that's beside the point, since I think we can all agree Hemp does not equal Mary Jane.

Depends what you mean, really. You stated the two were "distantly related". They're the same species - Cannabis sativa. They are not "distinct plants" in that sense. Certain strains vary in concentration of THC, but they're the same species. Ironically, it's the botanists who do regard them as the same plant.

Poodles and Irish Wolfhounds are in the same species, however, I don't think its unfair to say they are "distantly related" when we are talking about canines as a whole. In the case of both Poodles/Irish Wolfhounds and Marijuana/Hemp, selective breeding made them diverge into distinct individuals.

Great. Now how about making some points relating to the actual repeal?

The Palentine wishes to announce that currently it is in favor of the repeal. However I am not in love with the repeal. As a matter of fact, I say MEH! Due to my strong beliefs in the capitalist way of life, I wish to annouce that my vote is officially for sale. If I get a good offer I'll change my vote. All..umm...gifts are non-returnable.
<Puts a large empty Fine Yeldan Pickles(TM) jar on desk, and smiles.>

Witchcliff has voted for the repeal, but we don't really care if it passes or not. We greeted the original resolution with a huge yawn when it was on the floor for vote, and greeted this repeal in much the same way.

After due consideration, Ariddia must, alas, change its vote to Nay. If the original resolution goes, we would no longer obtain UN funding via the Esati Hemp Production Advisory Board (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Esati_Hemp_Production_Advisory_Board).

It would be a tragic waste of a good loophole.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You don't support hemp, you support marijuana.

Very true...they keep removing my perposal on marijuana though...so I'll take anything I can.

Gosh the UN Moderator Team Sux....if only we could pass one to rid ourselves of them!

Very true...they keep removing my perposal on marijuana though...so I'll take anything I can.

Gosh the UN Moderator Team Sux....if only we could pass one to rid ourselves of them!

Yeah, how dare those silly Moderators get rid of proposals that violate the rules. How ridiculous.

first off on behalf of the 90+ nations of the green weed region i would like to thank all who are going NAY on this one :D

while the support hemp resolution was not perfect it was working to make up for the years of anti-hemp propaganda.

hemp is darn near a miracle plant and can be grown ANYTIME OF YEAR in the right parts of the world.
and up until 100 years ao it was used for just about every thing
DURING WW2 THE U.S. HAD FARMERS RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. GROWING HEMP FOR THE WAR EFFORT.
THE PARACHUTE THAT SAVED THE LIFE OF FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SR. WAS MADE OF HEMP:D

HEMP= the male plant
MARIJUANA= the female plant

both are Cannabis sativa (and we support both) :D

we will be looking forward to lending our support to any upcoming pro-marijuana/hemp resolutions

HEMP= the male plant
MARIJUANA= the female plant
No, that's not true. You need to grow both male and female to produce hemp. To get usable marijuana, you weed out the male plants to prevent fertilisation.

The Guardian delegate yawns. "You know, we really don't care one way or the other about the damn plants. As such, the only logical thing for us to do is vote the way that costs us the least. For, in other words. Goodnight." He kicks his feet up on the desk, leans back in his chair, and instantly falls asleep.

I guess one would be in favor of this sort of repeal, if one was in favor of wasting the UN's time. If one joined the UN just to watch the beast, that would make sense.

Many seem devoted to wasting the UN's time. There are world crisis going on, but instead of directing international attention towards matters of import we are wasting our time on this repeal?

Perhaps the original resolution wasted a miniscule amount of money. The cost of coducting this repeal process must be much higher.

Who funded this repeal? Who campaigned for it? Why?

After this repeal will more of the UN's time be wasted on a blocker so that the UN can never subsidize hemp? Hopefully it will be well written, afterall that is what is most important when discussing a resolution.

Bah!

-Disco U

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We rise in support of this repeal. Resolution #85 is an embarassment to this august body, being nothing more than a back-door attempt to put the NSUN's stamp of approval upon the legalization of marijuana. Such disingenuity has no place among honest and open political debate.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We rise in support of this repeal. Resolution #85 is an embarassment to this august body, being nothing more than a back-door attempt to put the NSUN's stamp of approval upon the legalization of marijuana. Such disingenuity has no place among honest and open political debate.


what are you smoking? it must be a lot stronger then some weed :eek:


do a little research many nations of the "real world" grow hemp and it has been nothing more than a boon to them and if it didnt have such a bad rep worldwide it would be even more profitable top them.

or better yet dont do any research on hemp because what do they say?
oh yeah. "ignorance is bliss" :D


now as for "legalization of marijuana" ? well..... we are working on that too :D

I guess one would be in favor of this sort of repeal, if one was in favor of wasting the UN's time. ...

Blah blah blah. Quit wasting my time complaining about wasting our time. The UN queue is empty. It's either this or nothing. And frankly this is better than nothing. Not by much, but it's better.

I don't recall you complaining "not another repeal" a few weeks ago when the queue was filled and this resolution was being pushed. I did. I saw a number of resolutions and important repeals being refined. None of those repeals ever saw the queue because they all lacked the delegate approvals.

So if you're bored, blame the lack of delegate approvals.

As the enlightened leader of the Pragda, I oppose the proposed resolution on balance.
Because #85 blindly allocates funds to all member nations, it damages the principal of specialization and comparative advantage, and can only in the long run serve to damage the hemp farmers.
However a blind revoking of this resolution would also harm the smaller and less economically developed nations that have come to rely on hemp subsidies to fuel their hemp industry, and vis economies.
Also in support of the resolution #85 I feel that the points are not convincingly argued, for example the assertion “that hemp can only be harvested at specific times” can also apply to many other crops, such as strawberries. Thus for it to be a negative factor in hemp industry, the strawberry industry should also be investigated.
The statement “FURTHER NOTING that placing special emphasis on one single crop risks ecological and economic catastrophe in the case of specific crop diseases, climate conditions or pest attacks affecting that crop” can also be applied to other crops and situations, for example the WTO advising nations to produce ‘cash crops’ in excess levels. Thus for this resolution to be valid the points raised would have to either be qualified as exceptions in the case of hemp exclusively, or amended to take account of my criticisms.

Blah blah blah. Quit wasting my time complaining about wasting our time. The UN queue is empty. It's either this or nothing. And frankly this is better than nothing. Not by much, but it's better.

I don't recall you complaining "not another repeal" a few weeks ago when the queue was filled and this resolution was being pushed. I did. I saw a number of resolutions and important repeals being refined. None of those repeals ever saw the queue because they all lacked the delegate approvals.

So if you're bored, blame the lack of delegate approvals.

The resolution was a waste of time, repealing it is a waste of time. If someone is going to repeal something they might as well repeal one of the many UN resolutions that is actually causing harm. Some destroy entire economies.

I'm complaining not only about this resolution, but because so many skilled resolution crafters are wasting time doing easy repeals that accomplish nothing, when they could be writing good resolution, or trying to repeal, or repeal and replace (that is to say AMEND) other resolutions.

As I was saying, this is stupid to vote for. Because this is just like voting to repeal more nuclear weaponry amongst nations. Drugs increases unemployment, decreases the economy. The only reason why alcohol is accepted and weed isn't. Because alcohol doesn't smell like a dead skunk. And another because states already have enough trouble as it is in just red light districts. What makes you think the country can handle one giant red light district? But of course nation states is mostly made up of stupid marxist hippies who smoke pot all day and going into forums thinking they're the majority of the world. When they're not even big enough to be called a minority.

Defeating this resolution won't make hemp illegal. It'll just mean we don't have the choice to grow it if we don't want to. This is just a mass globalization of drugs into drug free worlds. This is basically Fascism, but except it's by hippies. But hippies don't call it fascism, they call it liberation.

As I was saying, this is stupid to vote for. Because this is just like voting to repeal more nuclear weaponry amongst nations. Drugs increases unemployment, decreases the economy. The only reason why alcohol is accepted and weed isn't. Because alcohol doesn't smell like a dead skunk. And another because states already have enough trouble as it is in just red light districts. What makes you think the country can handle one giant red light district? But of course nation states is mostly made up of stupid marxist hippies who smoke pot all day and going into forums thinking they're the majority of the world. When they're not even big enough to be called a minority.

Defeating this resolution won't make hemp illegal. It'll just mean we don't have the choice to grow it if we don't want to. This is just a mass globalization of drugs into drug free worlds. This is basically Fascism, but except it's by hippies. But hippies don't call it fascism, they call it liberation.

Drugs are legal in virtually all nations. Drugs not used by the dominant culture may be illegal. Drugs are often a front in culture wars. It makes sense, drugs tend to get tied up in a culture's sense of identity.

But of course nation states is mostly made up of stupid marxist hippies who smoke pot all day and going into forums thinking they're the majority of the world. When they're not even big enough to be called a minority.


Ambassador Zyryanov yawned, stretched, and went to fetch herself another cup of grapefruit tea.

She didn't bother pointing out to the inarticulate Bul-Kathoan delegate that any group making up most of the world would, indeed, be a majority.

for example the assertion can also apply to many other crops, such as strawberries.


what you say is true but even more important is the fact that

“that hemp can only be harvested at specific times”

IS JUST NOT TRUE

in some places it is true but much of the world can grow year round and harvest at least twice a year

Because #85 blindly allocates funds to all member nations, it damages the principal of specialization and comparative advantage, and can only in the long run serve to damage the hemp farmers.Agreed.

However a blind revoking of this resolution would also harm the smaller and less economically developed nations that have come to rely on hemp subsidies to fuel their hemp industry, and vis economies.Already? It's only been in place for a couple of years... and they shouldn't have made themselves reliant on subsidies anyway...

Also in support of the resolution #85 I feel that the points are not convincingly argued, for example the assertion “that hemp can only be harvested at specific times” can also apply to many other crops, such as strawberries. Thus for it to be a negative factor in hemp industry, the strawberry industry should also be investigated.Why? There isn't a resolution that directly affects the strawberry industry, so the comnparision is irrelevant.

“FURTHER NOTING that placing special emphasis on one single crop risks ecological and economic catastrophe in the case of specific crop diseases, climate conditions or pest attacks affecting that crop” can also be applied to other crops and situations, for example the WTO advising nations to produce ‘cash crops’ in excess levels.

What's the "WTO"?
(OOC: NS is not RL, we don't have a WTO...)

Again, who is funding this repeal effort? Makers of Nylon rope? Who possibly benefits?

As UN delegate for Old Europe, I would like to comment, in true Quixotean fashion, on the resolution presently before this body. Setting aside the debate on whether or not Hemp is a drug (pointless), what is at issue here, to put it plainly, is money. What we are talking about is whether the NSUN is or is not going to fund the development of environmentally sound policies. In my estimation, it is not. The argument that if Hemp is such a superior product, it should need no support is, quite frankly, remarkably naive. It does not take into account the myriad social, cultural and economic biases that can exist around any idea or product, and fails to perceive the powerful lobbies that might oppose sound ideas from a rather parochial and self-interested viewpoint. We would suggest that Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand be required reading for all delegates wishing to consider any economic issues before this assembly. Would those in favor of this repeal wish to eliminate tax breaks that some countries have passed for hybrid vehicles using this same rationale? Clearly, “such support would be unnecessary, wasteful, and would endanger competition.”

This does not even address the contextual fallacies of the repeal, to wit:: “HIGHLIGHTING, for example, that hemp can only be harvested at specific times, whereas many other crops can be harvested throughout the year, thus making the use of hemp in processes requiring large, regular harvests considerably more difficult.” While on the face of it, this is true, what is omitted is that Hemp can be rotated and its 120-day-plant-to-harvest cycle makes it a very versatile crop. Further, “BELIEVING that government-enforced bias towards particular crops to be unfair as well as impractical, as it discourages specialization and development of resources, and could lead to wasteful excess of certain crops and shortages of other essential varieties, especially those used towards the production of food.” With the wide variety of uses, including nutrition, the cultivation of Hemp can hardly be seen as limiting. Hemp can be both specific, as in its use for paper, as well as beneficial in resource development due to its varied land use requirements. To intimate that economic conditions would not favor other cash crops is disingenuous, to say the least.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a great Tallisean philosopher, Muddy Kowalki, who stated, “When you don’t understand something, look for the money.” All we are really saying here is that we don’t want to put our money where our mouth is, and this is a sad precedent for this organization to set. The Kingdom of Thomas Tallis quickly felt the ramifications of the health repeal, as the insurance industry skyrocketed to the forefront in our region, and we shudder to think what will happen to those nations with lush forestation once the timber industry has dealt this fatal blow to its leading competitor.

Hans Taylor Gastorp, HCBM
Senior Arbitrator, Old Europe

First let me register my customary complaint about using long words unnecessarily.

Setting aside the debate on whether or not Hemp is a drug (pointless), what is at issue here, to put it plainly, is money. What we are talking about is whether the NSUN is or is not going to fund the development of environmentally sound policies.
You need to be clearer in your definition. "The NSUN" could refer to "the United Nations organization", or "the United Nations collective, its members". If you mean the former, then we'd like to ask: where does the UN get this money from? If you mean the latter, then we'd like to ask: why should we bbe forced to pay for projects in other countries?

Furthermore, your statement is clever, in that it codes in an assertion: that the preferential growing of hemp is environmentally sound. It isn't. Favouring one crop over all others as Resolution #85 does leads to a situation very vulnerable to specific diseases or infestations affecting hemp.

In my estimation, it is not. The argument that if Hemp is such a superior product, it should need no support is, quite frankly, remarkably naive. It does not take into account the myriad social, cultural and economic biases that can exist around any idea or product, and fails to perceive the powerful lobbies that might oppose sound ideas from a rather parochial and self-interested viewpoint. We would suggest that Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand be required reading for all delegates wishing to consider any economic issues before this assembly.
You do understand that Atlas Shrugged is a book based on objectivist philosophy - a philosophy that completely rejects the notion of government subsidy? Furthermore, if there are all these reasons as to why hemp may not flourish...why are they only relevant in allowing subsidies? Why won't anti-hemp lobbies attack hemp fields, passing laws against the product, impose ridiculous regulations on it? They will. But this doesn't matter so long as we pour subsidy into the plant?

Would those in favor of this repeal wish to eliminate tax breaks that some countries have passed for hybrid vehicles using this same rationale?
I can't speak for everyone in favour of the repeal. But for me, no. I have far less objection to tax breaks, than to subsidies. The former avoids wasting the public's money; the latter wastes the public's money.

This does not even address the contextual fallacies of the repeal, to wit:: “HIGHLIGHTING, for example, that hemp can only be harvested at specific times, whereas many other crops can be harvested throughout the year, thus making the use of hemp in processes requiring large, regular harvests considerably more difficult.” While on the face of it, this is true, what is omitted is that Hemp can be rotated and its 120-day-plant-to-harvest cycle makes it a very versatile crop.
It's true, though. Saying "hemp is otherwise great!" is fine - the repeal itself concurs with this - but we're simply pointing out that hemp is not the wundercrop for every situation that the original resolution paints it as.

Further, “BELIEVING that government-enforced bias towards particular crops to be unfair as well as impractical, as it discourages specialization and development of resources, and could lead to wasteful excess of certain crops and shortages of other essential varieties, especially those used towards the production of food.” With the wide variety of uses, including nutrition, the cultivation of Hemp can hardly be seen as limiting. Hemp can be both specific, as in its use for paper, as well as beneficial in resource development due to its varied land use requirements. To intimate that economic conditions would not favor other cash crops is disingenuous, to say the least.
1. It does discourage specialisation.
2. The cultivation of hemp certainly isn't limiting. Applying preferential government subsidy to it certainly is limiting.

There seem to be people forgetting...the UN has banned farm subsidies. Hemp is the only crop that is subsidised. That is patently ridiculous.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a great Tallisean philosopher, Muddy Kowalki, who stated, “When you don’t understand something, look for the money.” All we are really saying here is that we don’t want to put our money where our mouth is, and this is a sad precedent for this organization to set. The Kingdom of Thomas Tallis quickly felt the ramifications of the health repeal, as the insurance industry skyrocketed to the forefront in our region, and we shudder to think what will happen to those nations with lush forestation once the timber industry has dealt this fatal blow to its leading competitor.
I don't understand a word you've said here. So evidently I should look for the money. Can you spare some change? All mine's been taken by the government to pay for other countries' hemp farms.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

"HIGHLIGHTING, for example, that hemp can only be harvested at specific times, whereas many other crops can be harvested throughout the year, thus making the use of hemp in processes requiring large, regular harvests considerably more difficult"

It matters not that it is a seasonal crop. It supplements wood fiber, and cotton, decreasing the necessity of harvesting our lush forests. The harvesting of hemp is less difficult than the harvesting of trees, and equal to that of cotton.

"DISAPPOINTED that the resolution introduces no checks or balances in the creation and operational running of hemp advisory boards, thus rendering the process very open to corruption, unfair apportionment of funds, or the dissemination of unsuitable advice"

This is true of any board, whether it be lumber, hemp, corn, etc... It is certainly not ground for repeal.

"CRITICISING the system of stipends and subsidies proposed by the resolution, and the poor logic of such a scheme"

The subsidies were important in nurturing the growing industry. It is in competition with the big forestry companies. Subsidies allow more environmentally friendly practices to take place, instead of a race to the bottom for our fibers.

"OBSERVING that if hemp is indeed as profitable and commercially viable as the resolution claims, such support would be unnecessary, wasteful, and would endanger competition"

Competition: who can do it the cheapest. The timber industry finds loop holes to exploit in order to bring us their products the cheapest. This endangers the environment. Hemp production, on the other hand, is much more environmentally friendly. The subsidies help hemp compete, and prevent ecological damage.

"FURTHER OBSERVING that if the projects did not prove viable and did in fact require such support, tax-payers would be forced to contribute large sums of money solely to keep unprofitable enterprises afloat"

Say your logic is correct. Think of this, running into the red is beneficial for all, because products are brought cheaply to the public, and the environment is much healthier. It benefits the public welfare. Also, people are given more option, cotton, hemp, timber.

"APPALLED that such a burden would be placed not only upon tax-payers within specific nations, but on all UN member nations, through the mandate for the UN to contribute funds to such projects"

Subsidized timber and cotton in one nation or region could out compete unsubsidized hemp in other regions, making the production of hemp impossible. Cotton, and timber subsidies must also be outlawed if this bill were to be effective.

"FURTHER NOTING that placing special emphasis on one single crop risks ecological and economic catastrophe in the case of specific crop diseases, climate conditions or pest attacks affecting that crop"

Continuing logging risks even greater ecological catastrophe. In Ravacholiser we use many different varieties of hemp, in case disease strikes. Beatles, disease also strikes at our forests. Also, there isn't special emphasis on just one crop. As you said before hemp is seasonal. Lumber and cotton supplement it once our hemp supplies run low.

Once again this glorious body has decided to repeal existing laws, as opposed to progress.

First let me register my customary complaint about using long words unnecessarily.

You need to be clearer in your definition.



I'm sorry, I just love the juxtaposition there. Don't use big words, but be more precise :) I believe Gruenberg is trying to promote longwindedness.


Furthermore, your statement is clever, in that it codes in an assertion: that the preferential growing of hemp is environmentally sound. It isn't. Favouring one crop over all others as Resolution #85 does leads to a situation very vulnerable to specific diseases or infestations affecting hemp.


No one is suggesting favoring Hemp to the exclusion of other crops. Please pick a new strawman.


You do understand that Atlas Shrugged is a book based on objectivist philosophy - a philosophy that completely rejects the notion of government subsidy?


The book had some good points, that doesn't make it the best guide on every issue. Remember, the resolution we are considering repealing mandates no minimum level of subsidy, only a maximum. The NSUN can choose an acceptable level of subsidy, even $1 perhaps, without wasting time on this and other similar repeals. You need to prove harm, or come up with a better resolution this block to justify the repeal. The burden of proof is not on the passed resolution, it's on the people trying to repeal it.


Can you spare some change? All mine's been taken by the government to pay for other countries' hemp farms.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Your own government has chosen to heavily subsidize hemp, but you support the repeal?


The subsidies were important in nurturing the growing industry. It is in competition with the big forestry companies.

The economics of environmentalism are not easy. Without subsidy, most nations will just chop down the bulk of their trees rather then grow hemp. What is the environmental answer to this predicament?

I don't support subsidies, in general. I do support econmically counteracting harmful externalities (it takes money to protect the environment, the cheapest thing to do is the to turn the planet into a husk and spend our childrens future on bread and circuses).

Again, who is funding this repeal effort? Makers of Nylon rope? Who possibly benefits?

The sane world.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The sane world.

:D

The sane world.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is more sane to spend money, to repeal a voluntary subsidy? It's crazy to support a very environmentally friendly crop? Please, finish making that point.

Government support of hemp production has a long and storied history, even in countries that currently forbid hemp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_for_Victory
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Hemp_License.jpg

UN fellows, quiver as the mighty Petay of Pragda delivers a retort

Quote:
Also in support of the resolution #85 I feel that the points are not convincingly argued, for example the assertion “that hemp can only be harvested at specific times” can also apply to many other crops, such as strawberries. Thus for it to be a negative factor in hemp industry, the strawberry industry should also be investigated.
Originally Posted by St Edmundan Antarctic
Why? There isn't a resolution that directly affects the strawberry industry, so the comnparision is irrelevant.

Although there is no current resolution concerning strawberries, if the resolution was passed the principal would be in place to discriminate against all crops that have to harvested at specific times. This could provide the legitimate basis for a resolution against specific-harvest-time crops.
Thus to ensure that there is no basis the passage that alludes to this should be amended or qualified, such that this could not occur.

My reference to Ayn Rand was particular to her concept of government. The sole role of government is the protection of man’s inalienable right to think, and act, in accordance with a rational perception of the world. Freedom is the right of man to act without coercion by others, and government must uphold that right. Therefore, when there is an imbalance, it is the duty of government to act. The government of Thomas Tallis is a strong advocate of her understanding of laissez-faire capitalism, and I quote, “It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.” As Ayn Rand further stated, “It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” Resolution 85 does not mandate the use of Hemp, nor does it impose restrictions. What it does do is address the unfair advantage some industries have over Hemp, and attempts to redress those imbalances.

I heartily second Discoraversalism when he said, “The burden of proof is not on the passed resolution, it's on the people trying to repeal it.”


Hans Taylor Gastorp, HCBM
Senior Arbitrator, Old Europe

What it does do is address the unfair advantage some industries have over Hemp, and attempts to redress those imbalances.


Are you suggesting it's some sort of affirmative action? Hemp has been the unfair victim of propaganda wars, embargo's, prohibitions? That hemp is a victim of other struggles?

Surely the whole world will use Hemp just because it is the most environmentally friendly and cost effective way to produce a variety of products?

Can't we just assume all nations will act in their own rational self interest?

Why do we even need governments!

To summarize the points:

SUBSIDIES BAD

HEMP GOOD.

There. Debate over. Deal with it.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

if the resolution was passed the principal would be in place
Principals? I didn't know the UN had principals. Of course I'm not too sure that they have any principles either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Part-time Grammar Nazi

Principals? I didn't know the UN had principals. Of course I'm not too sure that they have any principles either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Part-time Grammar Nazi

The entire concept of UN schools implied by "principals" frightens me immensely.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador the UN

The resolution Repeal "Support Hemp Production" was passed 9,311 votes to 2,815.

A decisive victory in the end, thank you to all who voted in favour.

This is the esteemed dicator of the tiny nation of Vervkaland. Tucked in the northwoods of Wisconsin, we are a nation that looks out for our citizens and does what's best for them. That being said, we are not big fans of the United Nations. It is too much like the real United Nations, with long proposals about nothing substantial. Does the United Nations not have any better issues to bring to the table? Also, it does not help that my nation is 0 for 2 in voting on UN proposals. As we are a dictatorship, it does us no good to have meaningless laws imposed on our country. That is what we have a dictator for. I am not resigning as a UN Delegate yet, but much like the United States, I am hoping for a "change" in the way the UN does business. Repealing small segments of bills that have passed is a waste of my nations time.

This is the esteemed dicator of the tiny nation of Vervkaland. Tucked in the northwoods of Wisconsin, we are a nation that looks out for our citizens and does what's best for them.

I'm sure that's working out just peachy for you.

That being said, we are not big fans of the United Nations.

Then leave.

It is too much like the real United Nations, with long proposals about nothing substantial.

Most people who actually participate would disagree with you.

Does the United Nations not have any better issues to bring to the table?

Hmmm... I don't know. Since you seem so concerned, why don't you lay a proposal on us?

Also, it does not help that my nation is 0 for 2 in voting on UN proposals.

Well, sometimes people lose. I have been on the losing side of quite a few resolutions.

As we are a dictatorship, it does us no good to have meaningless laws imposed on our country. That is what we have a dictator for.

Then why are you in the UN in the first place?

I am not resigning as a UN Delegate yet, but much like the United States, I am hoping for a "change" in the way the UN does business.
What is this "Yoonited States" of which you speak? If you care, write a resolution and stop whining.

Repealing small segments of bills that have passed is a waste of my nations time.

That's why we repeal the whole resolution, not just parts of it. And come to think of it, responding to you speech was a waste of my nation's time. Good thing I get paid by the hour when on the floor!

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I agree. Leave. Things that made it to vote did so because they gained the necessary support, as dictated by NS creator and God Max Barry. As silly as some of the things are that come up to vote, there's nothing we can do about it if it's not actually illegal, which is dictated by aforementioned god and his underlings, the Secretariat, the mods. There's really nothing we can do about it, but leave and run things our own way.

It is too much like the real United Nations, with long proposals about nothing substantial.

I'll strongly disagree. Unlike that fantasy land UN in that fantasy land called the "Real World," our UN has a significant limit on the size of resolutions that can be submitted. In addition, once passed a UN resolution is carried out in the various nations, as opposed to that RL UN resolution where they pass all sorts of resolutions that will never be implemented in any nation state.

So just relax, take a deep breath, and a good resolution will come before the floor. They really do come. They appear on the queue for approvals all the time, and on every other blue moon they get approved for debate. In some bizzare way some of them even get passed!