We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Resricted Hemp Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2113
Description[?]:
| Unregulated hemp production, combined with the breaking up of large farms has seriously weakened our agritculture. Most regions are on the verge of starvation due to lack of food production. Thia bill ends the unrestricted hemp production and farmers will go back to growing food. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Current: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Proposed: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:48:41, September 19, 2005 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | Let's get back to normal food production. |
| Date | 19:07:09, September 19, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | This I will agree with! |
| Date | 19:08:19, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | Glad to hear that. |
| Date | 19:13:20, September 19, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | And what all the farmers who now no longer can grow hemp? What will they do about the massive income drop such a sudden ban will cause? |
| Date | 19:15:29, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | They will get their farms back that were broken up(pending passage) and they will grow crops, and they recieve subsidies from the government. |
| Date | 19:27:13, September 19, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | "They will get their farms back that were broken up(pending passage) " - Never mentioned in previous bill. Only limits will be removed in that bill and the whole thing is irrelevant to this bill "they will grow crops, and they recieve subsidies from the government." - And how will they cope with the suddeness of the change over? What about linked industries that will no longer have a local supply of hemp to use (or at least a much reduced one)? There is also no evidence that agricultural levels have changed since hemp deregulation so you reasoning behind this bill is based on flawed evdience (or rather the lack of it). If you interpret the agriculture figures as showing impending starvation then think about the state the rest of the economy must be in (from the same source of figures). |
| Date | 19:37:30, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | Why wouldn't they get their farms back? They can cope by our generous subsidies and by performing their job, except its food instead of hemp. And the industries that need hemp will not be affected because of the agribuisness which produces hemp at a greater and cheaper rate than the crop farmer. There is no proof that hemp hurt priduction of food, but it is common sense that farmers will go for the more profitable crop. Farmers are capitalist>hemp=$ so they stop producing food for the nation. |
| Date | 19:46:46, September 19, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | "Why wouldn't they get their farms back?" - Becuase someone else would own them now. Because you never mentioned that they would get them back in the bill. "And the industries that need hemp will not be affected because of the agribuisness which produces hemp at a greater and cheaper rate than the crop farmer." - Less people producing a crop = less crop. There would have been an increase in the amount of hemp produced after deregulation as the existing businesses would continue to grow hemp along with the new farmers. If you believe that "agribuisness which produces hemp at a greater and cheaper rate than the crop farmer" why not do a similar thing for crop farming to solve the food problems you claim exist? About the lack of food - the figures do not include imports so there may not be a lack of food in reality. |
| Date | 19:55:54, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | The problems due exist. Every region is barely producing enough food. And since imports don't exist yet this is the best way. And as for agrifarming, yeah it would work but due to our current law the farms would be broken up due to the current law which punishes productivity . Reality is what I see now, and I don't see any imports coming our way, only subsistance food levels. |
| Date | 19:58:07, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | This is reality, from our largest region. "Farming is subsistence-only, and takes place on a few small and arid fields in the local dustbowls. If the rains fail, farmers face starvation." |
| Date | 20:05:00, September 19, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | If that's your view why haven't you tried to implement the "small farms are encouraged to merge together into larger ones" proposal? Also you do know what substinence farming is? It means farming to produce enough food for the farmer and family ONLY. As there aren't many farms (only "a few small and arid fields in the local dustbowls") then our country must be starving unless there were imports already. Another factor is that looking at a random selection of regions worldwide shows that we have similar agricultural level to most other nations and therefore by your reasoning the whole world is starving. My view is that the figures available have no link to current laws and are merely random, and therefore useless. |
| Date | 22:33:34, September 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | The L-PU preach choice when it comes to emminent domain - 'you CAN'T take someone's land!' , yet are telling farmers what they cannot grow; despite differentiating economic positions. We took the initiative to make the first Hemp Freedom Act, sensibly reinstated by the UBs, and we wish to keep it. |
| Date | 22:51:44, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | You force farmers to breakup thier farms: and I'm telling them what they can't grow? We took the initiative to make the first Hemp Freedom Act, : And destroyed our farm food production in the process. You have it backward I'm afraid. You oppose civil rights legislation,support eminent domain: thats not what you preach. |
| Date | 17:01:54, September 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Resricted Hemp Act. |
| Message | That coming from a so-called liberal? Don't make me laugh. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 176 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 224 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats." - Benjamin Franklin |