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: Pesticide Freedom 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: November 2171
Description[?]:
| Eliminates the governments restrictive, expensive, and environmentally harmful policy regarding pesticide use by farmers. Government approval of pesticides and regulations regarding agricultural matters is taking the decisions away from the farmers who know how to farm, and instead dictating to the farmer what policy they must obey. Both common sense and experience tell us that those doing what they know best such as farmers know farming, are much better equipped to determine policy than any government official with little farming experience. The chemicals that are used on various crops are also very harmful to their surrounding environment as these chemicals can seep into rivers and into the ground causing real damage to the environment. Approving and regulating what chemicals are used is a restricitve and a poor policy to continue following. Deregulating chemical use on crops and requiring only that the chemicals that may have been used on those crops be listed is a cheaper and safer policy. Chemicals that are known and proven to be dangerously toxic to both humans and the environment cannot be used and will be deemed an illegal pesticide. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: The government approves and regulates agricultural chemical use.
Current: The government approves and regulates agricultural chemical use.
Proposed: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:36:15, January 14, 2006 CET | From |  United Blobs | To | Debating the Pesticide Freedom Act. |
| Message | We could accept this is the government reserves the right to ban dangerous chemicals (to both people and the natural ecosystem). |
| Date | 14:57:23, January 14, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Pesticide Freedom Act. |
| Message | I added known dangerously toxic chemicals are illegal to description. |
| Date | 15:23:19, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Pesticide Freedom Act. |
| Message | I'm going to send this along. |
| Date | 20:08:38, January 14, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Pesticide Freedom Act. |
| Message | Your proposal is at odds with your description. The proposal states that "Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops." Within that, there are no limitations on what chemicals and other biological additions are used on crops, merely that they be listed. As the general public have no idea what these chemicals do, you are removing the "safety net" that currently protects the environment and peoples health. Within your description you state that "The chemicals that are used on various crops are also very harmful to their surrounding environment as these chemicals can seep into rivers and into the ground causing real damage to the environment." and yet in the next sentance you say that " Approving and regulating what chemicals are used is a restricitve and a poor policy to continue following." They are at odds with each other. If you accept that using chemicals is harmful to the environment, then allowing the use of any chemicals without it passing any safety tests and being approved by some form of regulatory body stops the usage of only those chemicals that are not harmful and increases the risk to both the public and the environment. There is also the flaw that "Deregulating chemical use on crops and requiring only that the chemicals that may have been used on those crops be listed is a cheaper and safer policy." This is untrue. It would be a cheaper alternative, but not safer, as there is no longer any way to stop the use of chemicals that cause harm. The final flaw in your argument is in your final sentence, in which you state that "Chemicals that are known and proven to be dangerously toxic to both humans and the environment cannot be used and will be deemed an illegal pesticide." This is the current law. Currently the Government approves and regulates the use of chemical products banning those chemicals that are harmful. The change in law does no such thing and only makes farmers list that they have used such chemicals, but as the majority of the public have not even heard of the majority of chemical names, let alone know what they do, you have removed the Governments ability to block the use of these chemicals. This is a poor, unthought through, badly worded, sham of a proposal, and we call for all those parties that actually believe in the health of the population to vote against this law. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 143 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 257 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cabinet ministers who disagree seriously with the head of government would usually be expected to resign. Parties within the cabinet may attempt to manoeuvre to replace the head of government though, for example by proposing a new cabinet bill or voting for an early election. |
| Random quote: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does, if that catch-phrase has any meaning, but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice." - Ayn Rand |