Jump to content
ninja

Hemp Plan Text

Recommended Posts

Best way to structure it? I just want to be topical so I can make these silly debates go away. =(

 

Original: Thus the plan: The United States federal government should deregulate the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

 

 

Perhaps:

 

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should subsidize the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

Funding and enforcement is guaranteed; previous laws regarding legality of cannabis hemp shall be amended only insofar as to legalize plan action. We reserve the right to clarify.

 

or

 

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should enact a policy legalizing and establishing subsidies for the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hemp is technically legal now, it's just strictly regulated, so legalizing it won't really solve anything. Your plan should have the DEA give permits for the production of hemp.

DEA hates giving those permits, so what would be a good thing about giving permits instead of legalization.

 

plus, Permits to grow it won't excatly help you do better in the T debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hemp is technically legal now, it's just strictly regulated, so legalizing it won't really solve anything. Your plan should have the DEA give permits for the production of hemp.

 

In lieu of this, if you must change it, I'd go with

 

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should subsidize the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

Funding and enforcement is guaranteed; previous laws regarding legality of cannabis hemp shall be amended only insofar as to legalize plan action. We reserve the right to clarify.

 

Subsidization keeps your inherency intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hemp is technically legal now, it's just strictly regulated, so legalizing it won't really solve anything. Your plan should have the DEA give permits for the production of hemp.

Very true, but the problem I want to overcome here is having a topical plan mechanism, i.e. subsidies, tax credits, something that people will stop running incentives Ts on. Permits still don't fit the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the same as "legalizing" it. You're removing a negative incentive/ inciting action.

I understand, but my counter-interpretation evidence is fairly atrocious on the question of whether or not removing a negative incentive/barrier is an incentive. So I either need to change the plan text or find some better T evidence, and since I've been on the lookout for a couple of months, I've pretty much given up on the latter. =(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay people to get hemp permits

An interesting roundabout way of doing it. Seems odd though, having the government pay people to get around the policies it has enacted.

 

The United States federal government should finance the purchase of industrial hemp licenses for the production of alternative energy.

 

Ugh...there goes my fed key warrants though. States can do that. I think the fg has to do SOME sort of amending...I just have to word it in such a way that I don't sound extra T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya, that's our inherency. That's why we have this thing called fiat.

 

i was saying that there was no reason to prefer giving permits over deregulation/legalization, and what would the text specifically say "have teh DEA give permits", they would exploit any lopohole they could find

 

 

 

Hemp is already legal. Legalizing it won't solve anything.

the growth of industrial hemp is illegal without the DEA permits. Legalizing is easily defendable and you can still have inherency (BTW Ninja, you should have subsides in plan text too) Ya sure permits could solve, but its way too over complicated then other options you have for the plan text

 

 

 

 

What?

How would DEA permits incentivize alternative energy? Subsides (or even legalization for that matter) would be a bit easier to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the growth of industrial hemp is illegal without the DEA permits. Legalizing is easily defendable and you can still have inherency (BTW Ninja, you should have subsides in plan text too) Ya sure permits could solve, but its way too over complicated then other options you have for the plan text

 

sounds reasonable. what are your thoughts on wording? would either of the plan texts in the first post be sufficient?

 

not in States' jurisdiction to tell the DEA what to do. Has to be the fed.

 

eh, but if it's just funding the purchase of the permits, DEA isn't being told what to do; it's just giving out permits for $$ like it (rarely, if ever) does now. someone ran a states CP with this mechanism on us one tournament, in fact. judge bought that it solved, though i really think DEA wouldn't give out those permits regardless of $$ without legalization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This post is wrong. I might explain later if I feel like it.

I'm happy to hear your input, but if I decide to use permits in my plan text, I need to figure out how to interpret incentives in order to make that topical.

 

That's all I'm hear asking for, help with finding a topical plan text. I wouldn't be posting so much and so argumentative about it but I have a tournament this weekend, and am hoping to resolve this soon. I'm really appreciating all this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can run it this way:

 

The United States Supreme Court should, in a hindsight ruling, execute a statutory overrule of the determinate rulings for the 2002 United States v. Alexander White Plume (05-1654)and United States v. Tierra Madre, LLC. (05-1656) decisions contextually to the area of alternative energy. Specifically, they should reverse the ruling in favor of the defendant, Alexander White Plume and contextually revise the definition of “industrial hemp” in section 106.00 of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Penal Code as per the case presented, to contain no more than 4.5% tetrahydrocannabinol by weight.

 

 

This spills over to non-native growers, legally speaking, but also can function as a natives plan for hemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....that might be...amazing...

 

What precisely would " decisions contextually to the area of alternative energy " mean? Would this case only legalize hemp for Natives if used for alternative energy?

 

I LOVE the plan text and it's perfect for my case, but I again worry about T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would mean that during litigation alternative energy would be referrenced for natives being able to grow the hemp for biofuel production and would be published as the reason for the overruling in the post-trial judicial reviews. It's contextually discussed and used as the reason for the overturn. So the overturn "text" would be something to the effect of:

 

"The supreme court has overturned *insert case names* to allow for the production of industrial hemp with 4.5% THC content for the production of hemp biofuels."

 

That would make it topical. And the incentive is just the removal of a disincentive, the long process for aquiring "permits".

 

And instead of saying THC, use tetrahydrocannabinol... some people won't pick up on the "TCH" thing... last year we used the whole word for DDT in one of our aff's, and sometimes people wouldn't know what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hemp is technically legal now, it's just strictly regulated, so legalizing it won't really solve anything. Your plan should have the DEA give permits for the production of hemp.

um no because only 1 permit was given to grow hemp, it was for 50 yards of crop, and it was in 1950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best way to structure it? I just want to be topical so I can make these silly debates go away. =(

 

Original: Thus the plan: The United States federal government should deregulate the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

 

 

Perhaps:

 

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should subsidize the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

Funding and enforcement is guaranteed; previous laws regarding legality of cannabis hemp shall be amended only insofar as to legalize plan action. We reserve the right to clarify.

 

or

 

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should enact a policy legalizing and establishing subsidies for the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

i found the best way to do it is say

 

the usfg should deregulate industrial hemp along with provide adequate subsidization and infrastructure for the creation of alternative energy in the form of biofuel or biodiesel that can be derived from industrial hemp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it would mean that during litigation alternative energy would be referrenced for natives being able to grow the hemp for biofuel production and would be published as the reason for the overruling in the post-trial judicial reviews. It's contextually discussed and used as the reason for the overturn. So the overturn "text" would be something to the effect of:

 

"The supreme court has overturned *insert case names* to allow for the production of industrial hemp with 4.5% THC content for the production of hemp biofuels."

 

That would make it topical. And the incentive is just the removal of a disincentive, the long process for aquiring "permits".

 

And instead of saying THC, use tetrahydrocannabinol... some people won't pick up on the "TCH" thing... last year we used the whole word for DDT in one of our aff's, and sometimes people wouldn't know what it was.

 

That is awesome. Perhaps would require too much restructuring for me to do by tomorrow, but I really like this idea.

 

What is your interpretation of the word "incentives"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about all this, but we've run it as

The United States federal government should change all relevant federal laws in order to increase tax credits for the production of industrial hemp as an alternative energy.

People questioned the "in order to" bit, but we never ran into any T problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty simple! Is there solvency out there for tax credits, or is that more of a way of just making it topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so much simpler, I can barely stand the dodgy texts but T dereg=incentive fails it may be an incentive but I have yet to see a definition that is truly worth a damn, and all these are FX...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the best way to do it is to say to have the Dea give unlimited permits- gets you out of the non inherent thing, wod, and A spec

 

 

 

 

(watch out for o spec tho! lulz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh find a new aff

 

decriminalizing hemp is prob a good idea and all, but it's not a good case on this topic. there's just no defense of "hemp subsidies just for alt energy". your advantages are either reasons why alt energy is good, which is solved by a nonhemp cp, or reasons why hemp decriminalization is good, which is solved by doing it in a non-alt energy area.

 

obviously the best version of this case wouldn't defend subsidies, but just argue for decriminalizing. the trouble you run into is tacking on "for alt energy" in the plan. you have to do it so it seems more topical, but then that just doesn't solve your decriminalization adv, another loophole just adds to the confusion/hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ugh find a new aff

 

decriminalizing hemp is prob a good idea and all, but it's not a good case on this topic. there's just no defense of "hemp subsidies just for alt energy". your advantages are either reasons why alt energy is good, which is solved by a nonhemp cp, or reasons why hemp decriminalization is good, which is solved by doing it in a non-alt energy area.

 

obviously the best version of this case wouldn't defend subsidies, but just argue for decriminalizing. the trouble you run into is tacking on "for alt energy" in the plan. you have to do it so it seems more topical, but then that just doesn't solve your decriminalization adv, another loophole just adds to the confusion/hypocrisy.

 

this sadly true- i have searched high and low, far and wide, and many other combinations of locations and the card "hemp legalization for alt energy will spill over into other sectors" does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the plan text

 

The USFG should remove all regulations for the growth of hemp for the production of alternative energy.

 

??

I can't find any cards about hemp regulations ether.

 

Or could we do something like

The USFG should remove all regulations for the growth of hemp for the production of alternative energy and provide incentives for its usage.

Edited by OHS-Tommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Search the controlled substances act dude, tons of shit concerning every drug regulation you can think of, and those classified as such i.e. hemp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...