NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Trade in Hemp
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: NOTING the many uses of industrial hemp, and

BELIEVING hemp to be crop of enormous value as an environmentally sound renewable fiber source, but

OBSERVING that many nations view hemp as a narcotic, and therefore limit its importation and domestic use, even in forms where it can not be used as an intoxicating drug, and

CONCERNED that this irrational view might destroy the global market for hemp without regard for its economic and environmental value,

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

FORBID the imposition of any limitation of any kind on the importation of non-narcotic hemp products, save as part of a legal embargo, and

FORBID the imposition of duties or tariffs on non-narcotic hemp products, beyond what is reasonable from a tax perspective.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION,

“NON-NARCOTIC HEMP PRODUCTS” are all products comprised in whole or in part of hemp seed or hemp fiber, where it can be scientifically proven that neither the product in question nor any of its components or ingredients can reasonably be used for the purpose of intoxication,

“LEGAL EMBARGOES” are all limitations on trade imposed against an enemy in time of war, or the enemy of an ally in time of war, or in response to some heinous act on the part of the nation subject to embargo, so long as hemp is not the only embargoed good and so long as the cause of the embargo is not, in whole or in part, the decision on the part of the embargoed nation to grow, process, trade in, or use non-narcotic hemp products, as defined above,

“DUTIES” AND “TARIFFS” are all taxes assessed against an imported product or service solely on a basis of its foreign origin, not including administrative charges or use taxes, such as harbor or airport fees.

“REASONABLE FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE” means that the surcharge or levy in question is assessed solely for the purpose of collecting revenue, and is no greater than the lowest such fee assessed against any other import, excepting those imports that the NSUN has explicitly declared to be duty-free.

Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Sat Sep 23 2006

Character Count: 2054Given that the repeal of UNR #65 “Support Hemp Production” is virtually a foregone conclusion, it is necessary for pro-hemp nations to take defense measures against the deliberate destruction of the global hemp market by nations and trading blocs that equate hemp with drugs. This Resolution, if passed, will force nations to treat industrial hemp products fairly (i.e.. in a non-discriminatory way), thus allowing nations that choose the environmentally sound practice of growing hemp as their principal fiber source in preference to wood the ability to continue doing so - and even to prosper as a consequence.

In the name of fairness, we urge that you support this measure.

UPDATE: I've noticed an error (a duplicated word) in the proposal and asked the mods if they can correct this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11708128#post11708128).

LATE UPDATE: The indicated correction has been made in the text printed above.

Toke up, relax, and enjoy your hemp. If you start up with another hemp-related resolution so soon you'll piss folks off, and that's counterproductive.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We are convinced that is the motive here. :rolleyes:

Toke up, relax, and enjoy your hemp. If you start up with another hemp-related resolution so soon you'll piss folks off, and that's counterproductive.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus DioceActually, given that the current repeal is almost a sure thing, I believe that we can use the reaction against this to get this proposal to the floor and that it can pass as a “replacement”. After all, the biggest argument against UNR #65 is its requirement that governments subsidize the production of hemp, even in Antarctica.

Although the current repeal effort was not mounted with replacement in mind, a replacement is certainly called for, especially by those of us who support the use of hemp for industrial purposes (it's one of Community Property's [few] big industries).We are convinced that is the motive here. :rolleyes:Not at all. UNR #65 is doomed, so why not think about a replacement? If I'm right, then this will only help the repeal effort, which is already succeeding by a huge margin.

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

FORBID the imposition of any limitation of any kind on the importation of non-narcotic hemp products, save as part of a legal embargo, and

FORBID the imposition of duties or tariffs on non-narcotic hemp products, beyond what is reasonable from a tax perspective.



So even if we don't want to import hemp, we are required by UN mandate.

Or if we want to support domestic hemp production, we can not artificially drive up the cost of foreign hemp to support our own producers?

Let me think. No.

How about:

We the United Nations recognize the value of hemp and encourage nations to compare with nylon, plastic or cotton for various fiber related products.

We further recognize that in countries that may struggle with other natural resources, hemp could improve a nation's industrial complex Including the production of building material (wax, laquer and paint, concrete fiber, bale contruct), clothing, toiletries, fuel (biodiesel, ethanol), cosmetics and potential food sources (cooking oil, flour).

In cases where chances of misuse are no greater than with other products, we support the sale of hemp products to support a growing global economy.



Get away from just the rope part. If you want to improve hemp production you have to get it doing more than a piece of rope or a sheet of paper.


Random thoughts and your 2 rabbits worth

Fiscal Heights


*insert disclaimers here*

So even if we don't want to import hemp, we are required by UN mandate.That's the whole point. Without an open door, people will say: “Hemp? Drugs? No way.”

Without an open door, there is no free trade.Or if we want to support domestic hemp production, we can not artificially drive up the cost of foreign hemp to support our own producers?One word: subsidies.We the United Nations recognize the value of hemp and encourage nations to compare with nylon, plastic or cotton for various fiber related products.

We further recognize that in countries that may struggle with other natural resources, hemp could improve a nation's industrial complex Including the production of building material (wax, laquer and paint, concrete fiber, bale contruct), clothing, toiletries, fuel (biodiesel, ethanol), cosmetics and potential food sources (cooking oil, flour).

In cases where chances of misuse are no greater than with other products, we support the sale of hemp products to support a growing global economy.That's little better than a “Sense of the U.N.” resolution: it does nothing - except prohibit us from enacting any other hemp-related legislation.

UPDATE: The mods have ruled that we can't submit this one until the present repeal is over. Please TG me if you're a delegate and support this, so we can hit the ground running.

OOC: I haven't checked the proposal in the list, but the text here has the same typo twice ("or" for "of"). Please fix it here, and ask the mods to fix it in the resolution proposal if necessary.

IC: I see this as a reasonable and fair proposal, and will consult Their Spiritual Excellency the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin to instruct me to Approve it (as soon as I'm officially pronounced Regional Delegate).

--EDIT:--
I require clarification on the following:
[szie="1"]FORBID the imposition of duties or tariffs on non-narcotic hemp products, beyond what is reasonable from a tax perspective.[/size]
And if my country imposes high tarriffs on ANY imports which compete with local production?

Rabbi N. Mahershallalchashbaz,
Ambassador of the Lord of Hosts to the United Nations

ask the mods to fix it in the resolution proposal if necessary.

Not an option. We have a delete button, but no Edit button. It's up to members to get it right the first time. Heck, we even provide a spellchecker, but that's no substitute for the human eyeball.

First, I really fucking hate the way you write proposals. Stapling dictionaries on as annexes doesn't make the proposal better - it just demonstrates a profound lack of trust in the national governments of UN member nations to interpret law, and more importantly, is really boring.

Second, referring to cannabis as a narcotic is inaccurate. However the word may have become debased in popular parlance, it should really refer to opium-based drugs that have narcotic effects. "Psychoactive" would be a better term.

Third, the way you've tried to define out drugs doesn't work. An industrial hemp plant may not have high enough THC concentrations to produce cannabis, but its seeds might, if properly cultivated.

So we won't be supporting this.

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

OOC: I haven't checked the proposal in the list, but the text here has the same typo twice ("or" for "of"). Please fix it here, and ask the mods to fix it in the resolution proposal if necessary.Fixed.And if my country imposes high tarriffs on ANY imports which compete with local production?Formally, that would be illegal; but if the tariff was universal and you could argue that it was for the purpose of collecting revenue, it would likely pass muster.

First, I really fucking hate the way you write proposals. Stapling dictionaries on as annexes doesn't make the proposal better - it just demonstrates a profound lack of trust in the national governments of UN member nations to interpret law, and more importantly, is really boring.Given the proclivities of member states, would that be prudent?

Most laws define their terms, usually at the beginning; but putting them at the end emphasizes them.Second, referring to cannabis as a narcotic is inaccurate. However the word may have become debased in popular parlance, it should really refer to opium-based drugs that have narcotic effects. "Psychoactive" would be a better term.I'd considered using the word “hallucenogen”; I'm sure we can find the right definition.Third, the way you've tried to define out drugs doesn't work. An industrial hemp plant may not have high enough THC concentrations to produce cannabis, but its seeds might, if properly cultivated.Why is this a problem? Nations are still free to ban the cultivation of hemp if they please.

If the seeds can't get anybody high, why are they a problem? Hempseed is an important commercial product.

Why is this a problem? Nations are still free to ban the cultivation of hemp if they please.
That's rather like saying nations should allow the import of radioactive materials, explosives, and Handy Hints in Radiological Terrorism (2nd Edition), but can still ban people from making dirty bombs.

There's a huge difference between hempseed and the ingredients needed to build a “dirty” bomb.

More to the point, do you ban the importation of glass or plastic tubing? Of anhydrous nitrogen or cold medicine? Of poppy seeds? The idea is to create free trade in legitimate hemp products without legalizing the drug trade.

What's so special about hemp?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

One minor thought
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

While I like hemp, I'm not sure this should be significant, at best it is strong, since this is only one element of an industry, not a whole industry itself.

And your resolution style has annoyed Gruenberg. Considering that the real enemy to good proposals are the writers whose proposals routinely fill the silly proposal thread, I'll refrain from a comment for now.

While I like hemp, I'm not sure this should be significant, at best it is strong, since this is only one element of an industry, not a whole industry itself.Unless I'm mistaken, significant is less than strong.

I echo the Ceoranan Ambassador's query: What's so special about hemp?

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador

There's a huge difference between hempseed and the ingredients needed to build a “dirty” bomb.
Ok.

Here would be where you show what that difference is...

More to the point, do you ban the importation of glass or plastic tubing? Of anhydrous nitrogen or cold medicine? Of poppy seeds? The idea is to create free trade in legitimate hemp products without legalizing the drug trade.
And forcing nations to allow the import of the principle ingredient of the marijuana trade is a good way to do that?

Incidentally, stop referencing the Refugee Protection Act. Support Hemp Production is Resolution #85.

I wrote:
Or if we want to support domestic hemp production, we can not artificially drive up the cost of foreign hemp to support our own producers?

To which you replied:

One word: subsidies.


We are not a fan of putting people on the dole. If we want to support domestic, we will increase trade tariff's on imports and make foreign products cost prohibitive.

If you want to get away from the "eww, drugs" label of hemp, you have to do a lot of education.

Fiscal Heights is in favor of the pending repeal (we hate giving our money to people who fail to do adequate business analysis). We are not opposed to hemp production for the benefit of people and the world as a whole, but are not in favor of the proposition that you have written.

FH.

Unless I'm mistaken, significant is less than strong.
My interpretation of strength:

Strong = affects many aspects of all UN nations in a life-changing way
Significant = affects an important aspect of all UN nations in a fairly major way
Mild = affects a specific area in a way that is important to that area, but has little effect elsewhere.

This is mild. Very mild.

I sit (in front of my computer) corrected.

Definitely mild.

Not an option. We have a delete button, but no Edit button. It's up to members to get it right the first time. Heck, we even provide a spellchecker, but that's no substitute for the human eyeball.

Are you guys suggested that we have to turn in human eyeballs when we submit proposals too?

That is just sick! :p

What's so special about hemp?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations


http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/1-nl/44-hemp.htm

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/1-nl/44-hemp.htm

Wow! Hemp sounds almost too good to be true! How is it people didn't know this!

I'm going to read more about Hemp on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Wow! Hemp sounds almost too good to be true! How is it people didn't know this!

I'm going to read more about Hemp on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Personally I'd rather read about elephants. Did you know that the population of elephants has tripled in the last six months?;)

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Personally I'd rather read about elephants. Did you know that the population of elephants has tripled in the last six months?;)

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

No way! You got a link? ~~~~

Wow! How is it people didn't know this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp


well it all comes down to the rich staying rich ;)



". Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst led the crusade to ban hemp. Hearst owned millions of acres of prime timber land and a machine that simplified the process of making paper from hemp had just been invented. Hearst used his power as a publisher to create public panic about the evils of hemp and marijuana. Another big money player Pierre DuPont held patent rights to the sulfuric acid wood pulp paper process. In 1937 DuPont patented nylon rope made from synthetic petrochemicals."

for the whole article check here

http://altahemp.com/hempinfo.html

No way! You got a link? ~~~~

Actually I do. Link here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao)

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Actually I do. Link here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao)

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I don't trust a word that man says!

I don't trust a word that man says!

But it's true! The entry on truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness) is in fact longer than the entry on Lutherans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_church).

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

We fully support the production of industrial hemp. This fibrous plant can be used for a number of products. Hemp is an excellent source for high grade biodiesel. It is a choice stock for building biorefineries which can produce a variety of products from a single feedstock-- plastics, rope, fuel, and industrial products.

Hemp is not illegal in our country. We welcome an additional source of revenue for our foreign trade. Although illegality increases prices for our product, legal industrial production is preferred.

"As I said in the repeal debate, the Commonwealth really just doesn't give a damn about the plants. Our industry will grow whatever is profitable, and we've absolutely no problem with narcotics/drugs/what have you. Meaning, there's no trade, profit, use, or point whatsoever to it in the Commonwealth. So that's not the problem, for us. If they want to grow it, they will. The problem is, this is simply not an issue that we see needing a UN Resolution. We will oppose the introduction of such unnecessary legislation."

free trade is not a thing to enforce, it must be accepted. but if u think realy hard (and i know you can) you will see that PEOPLE and COMPANIES trade. so you CAN'T say "this resolution will MAKE ME import hemp when i don't want to." because the market is lead by demand and offer. if a company does not need hemp, it doesn't buy it. if none of the companys in a country need hemp, that means that country has no demand, therefor does not import hemp.

So this resolution protects free trade (although in sort of a bullie way) but sometimes the end justifies the means. so i say yes!

I echo the Ceoranan Ambassador's query: What's so special about hemp?

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador


Echoed here as well.