Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?


  • Total voters
    369

canndo

Well-Known Member
Back then they also didn't have the studies reviewed by the FDA. Now all of the GMO products get tested, then the results are viewed by the FDA and a determination is made.

Apples and oranges.

Who does the studies and who does the review of those studies? The principle is identical between the two cases, big companies dominating research upon their own products and then claiming that they are just fine, all the while knowing they may not be.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
cant trust the "corporate scientists" cuz they want to poison you or enslave you with MK-Ultra mind control techniques...

cant trust the "government scientists " cuz they are either in league with the coprorations in their MK-Ultra scheme, or, if thats too tough to sell, they can be impeached by previous "corporate" employment

who can you trust?

alex jones, david icke, and the dopey "scientists" from "natural news dot com" of course.
only on the conspiracy circlejerk can you find fools who will believe absence of evidence is evidence of POISON
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
cant trust the "corporate scientists" cuz they want to poison you or enslave you with MK-Ultra mind control techniques...

cant trust the "government scientists " cuz they are either in league with the coprorations in their MK-Ultra scheme, or, if thats too tough to sell, they can be impeached by previous "corporate" employment

who can you trust?

alex jones, david icke, and the dopey "scientists" from "natural news dot com" of course.
only on the conspiracy circlejerk can you find fools who will believe absence of evidence is evidence of POISON

Dioxin:

http://home.comcast.net/~jurason/main/monsanto.htm
http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?article240
http://www.organicconsumers.org/dioxcov.html
Glyphosate:
Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR. Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology, by Caroline Cox
Extract:
Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.
Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in toxicology studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).44 Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice that were not reported," "fabricated data tables," and "routine falsification of data."44
IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.44 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.45 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits) for histopathological examination."46 (Emphasis added.)
In 1991, laboratory fraud returned to the headlines when EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed contract studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified test results.47 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."48 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.49
The following year, the owner/president of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. A number of other employees agreed to plead guilty on a number of related charges.50 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.48
Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, these practices cast shadows on the entire pesticide registration process.
References (relevant to the above extract)
44. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Operations. 1984. Problems plague the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide registration activities. House Report 98-1147. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Summary of the IBT review program. Washington, D.C. (July.)
46. U.S. EPA. 1978. Data validation. Memo from K. Locke, Toxicology Branch, to R. Taylor, Registration Branch. Washington, D.C. (August 9.)
47. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Note to correspondents. Washington, D.C. (March 1.)
48. U.S. EPA. Communications, Education, And Public Affairs. 1994. Press advisory. Craven Laboratories, owner, and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington, D.C. (March 4.)
49. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Press advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington, D.C. (March 29.)
50. U.S. Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney. Western District of Texas. 1992. Texas laboratory, its president, 3 employees indicted on 20 felony counts in connection with pesticide testing. Austin, TX. (September 29.)

On two occasions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[57][58][59] In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[60][61][62] In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $50,000, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.[43][63][64] Craven Laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto. {For 2-decades with a ruling from the FDA that the modified crops do not contain drugs, there is no regulatory safety review. There is still oversight in Europe—jk.}
Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also said that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities.[65]
Difference between regulatory registered and commercialized formulations
In November 2009, a French environment group (MDRGF) accused Monsanto of using chemicals in Roundup formulations not disclosed to the country's regulatory bodies, and demanded the removal of those products from the market.[66][67]
False advertising
In 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general.[53] Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and "practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish.[54]
Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case in France in 2001 for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use; glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed by the European Union as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms". In January 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising.[55] The result was confirmed in 2009.[56]
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
yeah, all that verbiage and NO CREDIBILITY

read the fucking label on roundup, or the MSDS(2006 version):

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

heres the 1995 version:
http://www.uww.edu/adminaffairs/riskmanagement/msds/files/roundup_ready-to-use_weed_and_grass_killer_the_solaris_group_9.25.95.pdf


the differences are obvious:

added notes on "Moderate Toxicity" in FISH, but the product directions have alwyas insisted the product not be used in aquatic weed control and should not be used in waterways pond or other places where fish and frogs hang out.

its a weed killer for gardens and farm fields not rivers and lakes.



ohh look a study from the calif dept of pesticide regulation:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf

yep, shit's awful we gotta get rid of it.

ohh wait, government regulators seem to think it is OK when used in accordance with the directions.

you have painted yourself into a corner, relying on crazy bullshit from eco-loons and european eco-nauts.

curiously even in europe, glyphosate is regarded as safe by science as well as the people who use it.

only whiney lefty fearmongers have a problem with the product when used as directed.

i used that shit for years, and i aint dead.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
yeah, all that verbiage and NO CREDIBILITY

read the fucking label on roundup, or the MSDS(2006 version):

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

heres the 1995 version:
http://www.uww.edu/adminaffairs/riskmanagement/msds/files/roundup_ready-to-use_weed_and_grass_killer_the_solaris_group_9.25.95.pdf


the differences are obvious:

added notes on "Moderate Toxicity" in FISH, but the product directions have alwyas insisted the product not be used in aquatic weed control and should not be used in waterways pond or other places where fish and frogs hang out.

its a weed killer for gardens and farm fields not rivers and lakes.



ohh look a study from the calif dept of pesticide regulation:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf

yep, shit's awful we gotta get rid of it.

ohh wait, government regulators seem to think it is OK when used in accordance with the directions.

you have painted yourself into a corner, relying on crazy bullshit from eco-loons and european eco-nauts.

curiously even in europe, glyphosate is regarded as safe by science as well as the people who use it.

only whiney lefty fearmongers have a problem with the product when used as directed.

i used that shit for years, and i aint dead.

You kinda skipped over the falsefication parts there didn't you. And then changed the reference to your anecdotal experience with one of their chemicals.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You kinda skipped over the falsefication parts there didn't you. And then changed the reference to your anecdotal experience with one of their chemicals.
does your car have a warning on the window informing you "Not for use as a boat"?

glyphosate was never intended for use as an aquatic agricultural weed control, was never marketed as such, and the label's instructions have always specified "Not For Use In Ponds Streams Lakes and Rivers"

table salt can kill fish too. that doesnt make it into fish poison.

does your box of Morton's Iodized Salt warn you against dumping it into streams rivers ponds and lakes?

Roundup has ALWAYS had these warnings.

glyphosate doesnt have toxicity data for space aliens, unicorns, and the Tuatha De Dannan either.

if it turns out to be toxic to these things, that would be "fraud" too in the damaged minds of the lefty eco-nauts.

i DID use the shit for years, and suffered no ill effects.

i realize REALITY is a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes the eco-loons will lie through their teeth to advance their agenda (see Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, "Hide The Decline", and the great garbage crisis of the 80's)

this does not mean i assume every word out of a government or corporation's spokesmouth is true, but their motives are easy to identify, and thus their words can be measured logically, while the eco-loons lie for an agenda, and keep slinging those same lies despite the proof that it is entirely untrue.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharda-sekaran/ethan-nadelmanns-fiery-te_b_6146410.html
The link is to a recent talk (Oct 2014) by snake oil salesman for "legalization" Ethan Nadelmann. It's a desperate attempt to fool folks into thinking DPA effort's are in the name of human rights etc and not on behalf of Monsanto et al...He is a prime time example of sprinkling a little truth into the soup of lies so that folks think they are eating healthy. The cannabis plant along with many well intending yet narrowly focused unwitting folks are being used like a Trojan horse to solidify and reinforce biotech's place in the law and in our culture.
Please take some time to check outhttp://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/where you can read the rest of the piece below and discover much that has been researched and posted about this topic.
http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/…/proposition-19-monsa…
"The DPA is the leading organization spearheading the reform of Cannabis policies in the United States, and has been made up of some of the most powerful and influential characters in today’s global petro-bio-chemical-military-banking-industrial complex.
Some of the Directors of DPA include the following:
Paul Adolph Volcker is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) whose career is closely associated with that of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975-1979, governing board member of the Federal Reserve in 1979, and was Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.
Volcker is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as Undersecretary of the Treasury from 1969-1974 before his time with the Federal Reserve. Volcker is chairman of Wolfensohn & Co. and has ties to Chase Manhattan Bank. He is also linked to the Brookings Institute, as well as being an Honorary Trustee at the Aspen Institute, chairman of the Group of 30, and on the board of the Institute for International Economics.
Frank Charles Carlucci III is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since at least 1995. His government service included positions as Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1980-1982 and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978-1980.
Carlucci is a director on United Defense Industries (the United States' largest defense contractor), which is owned by the Carlyle Group, a merchant bank based in Washington, D.C., of which Carlucci is the chairman. Carlucci joined Carlyle in 1989.
Before returning to Government service, Carlucci was Chairman and CEO of Sears World Trade, a business he joined in 1983. He was President Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in 1987 and Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1988.
Nicholas Katzenbach is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and became General Counsel of the IBM Corporation from 1969 until 1986.
Mathilde Krim is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and was a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1980.
George Soros is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and is Chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros was among the highest paid hedge fund managers in 2009, taking home about $3.3 billion. At the end of 2009, he owned about $6.95 billion distributed among 697 stocks.
Soros’ top 5 investment shareholdings are in gold, Petrobras petroleum company, Hess Corp petroleum company, Monsanto corporation, Citigroup Inc., and Suncor Energy Inc.(petroleum company).
That’s right, George Soros, who is famous for being one of the most powerful and influential persons in world economics and whose speculations alone are said to have ‘broke the Bank of England‘, is one of the key directors for the organization that is leading the charge to regulate, control and tax Cannabis in California. All the while George Soros is one of the major shareholders in the worlds largest GM Seed bio-technology corporation known as Monsanto."
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind?

No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt.

Marijuana needs to be legal for you to do anything you want with, and taxed just like anything else people make money on. It's a plant so no sales tax, only on your revenue.

Fuck your stupid, legal to grow illegal to sell.

anyone here turn down seeds that produce a crop of weed in 6 weeks total time from seed to harvest at 50% thc?
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind?
My Medicine is wearing off
No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt.
lack of protein is making me crazy and aliens implanted a radio receiver in my head
Marijuana needs to be legal for you to do anything you want with, and taxed just like anything else people make money on. It's a plant so no sales tax, only on your revenue.

Fuck your stupid, legal to grow illegal to sell.
Do you need help with the co pays for your psycotic meds?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Will it cause cancer? More cases of marijuana toxicity syndrome? Anaphylaxis shock? According to evolution the reason marijuana acts like it does is millions of years of selection. When man fucks with shit, bad happens. The cane toad in Australia is a menace. How would you get rid of marijuana which needs a genetic test to figure out the bad kind?

No thanks. I'll take my under 20% THC. If weed were completely legal like any other plant, like a tomato, I could just make some killer bubble melt.

Marijuana needs to be legal for you to do anything you want with, and taxed just like anything else people make money on. It's a plant so no sales tax, only on your revenue.

Fuck your stupid, legal to grow illegal to sell.
Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda

Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began.

GMO's, vaccines, climate change.. all a liberal hoax to steal your tax dollars and kill off the population or put them in FEMA camps for the illuminati to train to spread chemtrails and have lizard people as babies..

9/11!!!
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda

Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began.

GMO's, vaccines, climate change.. all a liberal hoax to steal your tax dollars and kill off the population or put them in FEMA camps for the illuminati to train to spread chemtrails and have lizard people as babies..

9/11!!!
muivxglEkU1rpsd72.gif

how awkward.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Do you know what GMO even means? Why do you comment on things you don't know anything about? All that does is spread misinformation and propaganda

Genetically modified organism. Do you eat corn, bananas, peas, peaches, pears, and nearly 90% of the other shit on the market? Guess what? You're ingesting GMO's. GMO's feed the world, and we've been modifying our produce for nearly 12,000 years. We've simply shorthanded the process to where we can do it in a lab in a fraction of the time, and it's led to one of the biggest advancements in agriculture since it began.

GMO's, vaccines, climate change.. all a liberal hoax to steal your tax dollars and kill off the population or put them in FEMA camps for the illuminati to train to spread chemtrails and have lizard people as babies..

9/11!!!
Uh...er...lol yes quite awkward for Padawanbater2 = http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/09/19/genetic-modification-explained/
The difference between GM and selective breeding.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism. Rather, it is the conscious selection for desirable traits. Pro-GM campaigners argue that humans have been ‘genetically modifying’ organisms for thousands of years, albeit without knowledge that the favourable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. For example, humans have always selected cows with the highest milk yield and bred from these to produce herds with good milk production. A chance mutant grape with no seeds was bred to produce seedless grapes now available in our shops and supermarkets.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Measure-P-The-Freedom-to-Garden-Human-Rights-Restoration-Act/850681861641320?ref=hl
The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act is now working with Americans for Cannabis and is asking all the anti GMO, seed saving, organic food and cannabis communities everywhere to join with us in working for truth, responsibility and fundamental human rights.
If you understand that the "legalization movement" was created and is propelled by corporate interests intent on solidifying government jurisdiction over all natural plants, thereby lending to the legal foundation needed for corporate control and privatization of the plants we all need to survive/live, then we hope you will join with us to stand up for the self evident unalienable human rights that you and every human is naturally endowed with when born into this interdependent web of life.
Restoring your natural human rights not only secures your right to take care of yourself to the best of your abilities, but it also protects all naturally occurring plants&seeds under the wing of your restored and protected human rights. Such protections of your rights and of natural plants&seeds creates liability for any cross pollination from genetically engineered crops (currently non existent in law) thereby making every individual into a firewall of protection between Monsanto et al and the natural world we are all born from and need to live.
Even "decriminalization" of cannabis is not sufficient because we must trim back governments assumed 'god like' jurisdiction over natural plants by reasserting our natural human rights to grow the natural plants of earth for our own needs/necessities if we are to have any realistic chance to stop Monsanto et al before they have genetically polluted/contaminated and achieved 'legal' control of the entire natural food chain.
Constitutionally, the US governments jurisdiction over plants&seeds should end with commerce (not reach into areas of doing for yourself) and such jurisdiction is to be exercised only in ways that enhances and protects your naturally endowed human rights and is never to be used for extinguishing said rights as it is being used for now due to the corporate take over/occupation of the US government.
We the people of the cannabis community of the US have the glaringly obvious opportunity/responsibility to repair this unjust abuse of law and power that is inherently self destructive to all humans the world over, but will we live up to that responsibility?
The US constitution has accounted for our one day needing to repair the circumstance we now collectively find ourselves in. The words we need to engage as 'the people' have always been there waiting for us and they reside under the 9th amendment in the federal constitution as well as being repeated in every state constitution I know of:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Those words when combined with any states reproduction of said words in their respective constitutions, give every 'body' legally recognized as 'the people' (even at the county level or any incorporated area within any county etc) the ability to repair these self evident human rights etc. if they can vote such into their local laws as we attempted to do in LC California in the last election with the Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/americans4repeal/
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
So you support legal to grow and possess
Illegal to sell

Because once you put profit into it with legalization this will be the end result
NOBODY supports your "illegal to sell" nonsense.

i dont sell my dope


but some people wanna get that cheddar, and some fools dont wanna grow.

thats how commerce works.

no matter how you plot and scheme, some people are gonna move bricks, and some people are gonna buy their dope.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
So you support legal to grow and possess
Illegal to sell

Because once you put profit into it with legalization this will be the end result
No, I support common sense (which your proposal is far from) = 2 separate matters (jurisdictions,or need to be etc) and should be handled separately. Folks should as 'the people' restore and secure their natural self evident rights to do for themselves ie The Freedom to Garden Act etc (as long as not harming others or the environment etc) and then Caesar etc can hash out the commerce issues just as long as such does not begin to deny or disparage your natural human rights to garden for your own needs. GMO cross pollination would begin to disparage your right to 'grow the natural plants of the earth' as described and defied in the above mentioned attempted Act.
 
Top