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: NPH likes plants and not just weed
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free White Castle and The People Party
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: June 2171
Description[?]:
| Assistance for low income farmers to make sure Luthori is well fed. We have a program that requires they plant more trees than they cut, therefore cutting down more trees results in more trees planted. Old growth forests are stagnant, we don't need them. It doesn't matter who grows industrial hemp, there is no justification for regulating differently than other cash crops. Local governments have a better understanding of local needs and ecology, let them decided whether to ban pesticides |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Current: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Current: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Proposed: The government has no policy on forest protection.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Current: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Proposed: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:57:52, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | As much as I want to assist farmers, I will have to vote no. |
| Date | 09:01:01, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | Why do you oppose it, just article 4? |
| Date | 09:21:45, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | Two and four, although I'm not too wild about three either (I prefer market regualtion). |
| Date | 09:26:53, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | But doesn't cutting down trees = more trees since we have a replanting policy? |
| Date | 10:42:34, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | Yes, but there is the protection of wildlife and ecosystems. |
| Date | 11:00:28, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | Yes but most evidence that old growth forest are ecologically unsound. Because of fire supression policies we tend to have much more old growth than would be otherwise expected without human involvement. |
| Date | 17:53:55, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | I'll vite yes without 4. |
| Date | 19:38:09, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | Removed. |
| Date | 23:48:22, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the NPH likes plants and not just weed |
| Message | We're opposed to production based farming subsidies. Farmers should recieve subsidies only for preserving the environment and avoiding short-sighted unecological methods. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 286 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 464 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." - Clarie Sargent |