Producing safe and affordable food for millions of Americans is now predominantly in the hands of large farms and
agribusiness. The type of food production varies by farm size. Economies of scale give a competitive advantage to larger farms
and so a lot of dairy, fruit, vegetables, and nursery crops are produced on very large farms. Field crops such as corn and
soybeans are grown on smaller farms. Small farms need bank financing and usually raise livestock under contract with
processors.
Dr Gertrud Therkildsen wrote:Kazulia's drug policy on four legs: prevention, drug dependence therapy, harm reduction and
enforcement. The prevention component consists of a strong information campaign in all educational institutions on the
detrimental effects of using drugs, as well as alcohol and tobacco. The treatment component has mainly consisted of placing drug
users in treatment collectives run by private organizations or NGOs. Substitution programs include measures in which drug users
are provided synthetic drugs, are also used, as well as compulsory treatment in closed institutions. On top of this, the
decriminalisation and legalisation of cannabis and hemp and its organisation into a state-monopoly is also a crucial factor in
the wider policy. The enforcement component includes repression of the use of Class A drugs, excluding morphine
and other drugs used as an addiction treatment medication and/or animal sedatives.
Dr Gertrud Therkildsen wrote:Yes, I do see a future where Kazulia's drug policy would change. For example, there is
considerable interest among drug addiction experts in the possibility of closely supervised administration of injected heroin as
therapy for the subset of people living with opiate dependency who did not have satisfactory outcomes from other forms of
treatment. Low-threshold methadone for persons with opiate dependency also gaining an important following among many physicians
and increasingly among some public officials, particularly in Hent as they are set to have to a referendum that would move to
legalise drugs such as methadone and heroin. Of course, the criminalisation of extremely harmful Class A drug will remain until
the government has seen factual evidence in support of decriminalisation of a suite of Class A drugs. However, we have noticed
that there is an interesting debate mounting among the population on whether a drug such as cocaine should be legalised. Some
argue that it is abundantly clear, given decades of trial and error and escalating scientific evidence, that prohibition only
makes risky drug use even riskier and that If we actually want to reduce mortality and other health problems associated with
drugs, it makes more sense to regulate legal drug markets than to incentivize illicit ones. Whilst the IDAR refuses to enter the
discord, from a public health perspective, if people are going to use cocaine you’d want them to be moving away from the more
potent and risky products however that is up to the citizenry and the government. So in general, if the government were to be
moving towards altering the current drug policy to include heroin as a form of addiction therapy and the use of low-threshold
methadone, I predict that they will move along the path of maintaining the core principles of prevention, therapy, harm reduction
and enforcement.
Dr Gertrud Therkildsen wrote:Concurrently, the federal government, through the state governments maintain a quasi-state
monopoly on both the retail and distribution of cannabis and hemp. So for example, the Agathan Cannabis Retail Company and the
Hemp Company of Agatha are both state-owned companies operating with the intention of maintaining Agatha's federally enforced
monopoly on Cannabis and Hemp. Whilst in states such as Agatha, their hemp retail and distribution company is simply responsible
for commercialisation of the product, in the case of Kelvon hemp is involved in the industrial process as it is used by the
Kelvon Fuel Trading Company as a bio-fuel. The state-monopoly was imposed to ensure that the state could monitor the production,
commercialisation and distribution of cannabis and hemp via state-owned cannabis and hemp farms. Virtually, transforming state
governments into legal "drug dealers" for lack of a better title. As it pertains to the sentiments and concerns raised as it
pertains to evidence that the state-monopoly model isn't doing enough to combat the black market in cannabis and hemp, we have
noticed the opinion of Dr Pirkka Kauppinen of the University of SKalm who said the counterintuitive result of the government
trying to protect the public by controlling the entire supply chain of marijuana is that they have put themselves in a worse
competitive position relative to the black market, whereas what we should be doing is trying to make the legal market as
competitive as possible", so that is something we are looking at when state government comes to us on assisting them in revising
their drug policies to address their specific problems. Realistically, we see a policy whereby privately-owned retail outlets to
operate alongside government-owned stores as the most effective approach to strike a crucial middle ground between the government
and those against the state-monopoly.
Dr Gertrud Therkildsen wrote:We are aware of ODEN and their operations, whilst we maintain our reservations to some of the
tactics of the organisation, we believe that the organisation has done considerable work in "addressing" Kalistan's narcotic woes. We
do not comment on matters such as whether Kazulia should sign onto the agreement. The issue was brought to us in the past by the
Department of Health and Social Services and the answer we gave still stands: Whilst its intentions are valid, the organisation
is not doing enough to promote harm reduction and to combat the instances where ODEN sanctioned products find themselves in
nations who strictly prohibit certain substances which the organisation promotes and distributes. Once the organisation continues
to show no interest in combating these instances there will be no real room for dialogue between governments on a potential
policy change. Advocacy is important, but the decision rests on both the people and their governments, democratically elected or
otherwise. The organisation has been accused in the past of fueling the black market in some nations so I believe that the
organisation should work towards addressing that image.
Hutorian fighter pilots are the best I have flown with or commanded. I have been taught by Hutorian HF-18 pilots and have
taught Hutorian HF-35 pilots. Historically, Hutori has done an excellent job meeting its NORDIC commitments with the equipment
they've had and we [Kazulia] share that skill alongside the Hutorians; that being the ability to be extremely lethal even with
the littlest of resources because we have both learned how to work effectively with what one has. And so against the odds,
Hutorian has continued to do a remarkable job with its current equipment and tactics. But, Hutori's current fleet is ageing and
the types of combat situations we predict in the future will require technological superiority to be tied with tactics. Hutori
has achieved the tactics element but is lagging behind in the area of technological superiority. It needs to upgrade its
air-force to ensure it remains capable of combating future threats. Regardless of which country we are in, purchasing and
maintaining military capability is heavily influenced by politics, and I have no desire to enter that political debate. It is a
fact that there is both a capability and capacity shortfall in the Hutorian Air Force and Hutorians will decide how to either
solve those shortfalls or decide to place the risk associated with those shortfalls onto their Airmen. As global threats
escalate, it is important that Hutori chooses a course of action – quickly – that fills these critical gaps, and that the
solution allows the critical interoperability we discussed previously.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests