ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Then prepare to grow for yourself if you will legally be able to.
Because GMO weed is on the way
Because GMO weed is on the way
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
citation needed.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
(especially if you are doc or dd )
Please consider helping us with this text asap.
This is a ruff draft of the text that can be adapted for any locality. All suggestions are encouraged, welcome and will be thoroughly considered. Please use this if you can. If you can make it better, please do so and send it back to us so we can forward it to others, thanks! Here's what we have so far...
'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant Protection Act'
An Act to restore and protect the natural Human Right to grow and use natural seeds and plants for the basic necessities of life.
Whereas in the State of (here using the Ca. example where any state/county etc can be inserted/substituted) California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to declare and restore the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the restoration of those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to declare, restore and protect such inherent self evident human rights in effort to repair such governmental negligence, and to enumerate such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
and also in accordance with the (using the Ca. example where any other state and state constitution can be sited inserted/substituted in this regard) California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 24.:
(states vary slightly on how they word this part, this is the CA. example)
"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",
and, whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to declare, restore and specifically protect the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use natural seeds and the plants thereof as described and defined in Section 4.(d) herein, and to protect the same natural seeds and plants from cross pollination induced genetic modifications or other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA:
Section 1., Findings:
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds of this earth, as defined in Sec 4 (d) herein, and care for the naturally occurring plants thereof , to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such fundamental human rights have been recognized as self evident, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside and apart from the jurisdictional responsibility of government to regulate commercial endeavors and activities as defined in Sec 4 (a) herein. And further, that commercial jurisdiction has allowed for the genetic engineering of DNA, seeds and plants and has allowed for the privatizing/patenting and legal protections of such which has left all naturally occurring seeds and plants legally unprotected and physically vulnerable to irreparable genetic modifications from cross pollination contamination with said genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, and that human beings have a naturally endowed right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds and plants of this earth free of genetic modifications stemming from contamination from genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants.
Section 1.(a)
That all (example)County of Lake residents residing within the (example)unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2., Section 2.(a) and all other Sections and provisions of this Act, and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any county permitting or other state statutes that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.
Section 2., Responsibilities:
Any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be in compliance with all other provisions of this Act, and shall take reasonable care to prevent all negative impacts on the environment relating to all types of run off or any other preventable negative impacts to the environment including any toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants, and any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be responsible to mitigate any circumstances of negative impacts to the environment or possible toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants as determined and directed by the (example)county Environmental Health Department as directed by Section 2.(a), in response to any complaint or other circumstance as described in Section 2.(a) herein.
Section 2.(a)
The (example)County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall respond and administer to complaints and other circumstances that may arise related to Section 2., and Section 3.(b) of this Act, and shall develop whatever standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes necessary to implement its authority under this Act as consistent with existing law and as described in Section 2., and in Section 3.(b) herein pertaining to protecting the environment and guarding against public health risks as long as such standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes are not in conflict with any Sections, provisions or definitions of this Act, and all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a neighbor (or other resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county, except In circumstances of a clear and present immediate toxic threat to public health, in which case(s) a written and signed complaint is not required.
(continued on next post)
Please consider helping us with this text asap.
This is a ruff draft of the text that can be adapted for any locality. All suggestions are encouraged, welcome and will be thoroughly considered. Please use this if you can. If you can make it better, please do so and send it back to us so we can forward it to others, thanks! Here's what we have so far...
'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant Protection Act'
An Act to restore and protect the natural Human Right to grow and use natural seeds and plants for the basic necessities of life.
Whereas in the State of (here using the Ca. example where any state/county etc can be inserted/substituted) California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to declare and restore the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the restoration of those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to declare, restore and protect such inherent self evident human rights in effort to repair such governmental negligence, and to enumerate such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
and also in accordance with the (using the Ca. example where any other state and state constitution can be sited inserted/substituted in this regard) California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 24.:
(states vary slightly on how they word this part, this is the CA. example)
"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",
and, whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to declare, restore and specifically protect the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use natural seeds and the plants thereof as described and defined in Section 4.(d) herein, and to protect the same natural seeds and plants from cross pollination induced genetic modifications or other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA:
Section 1., Findings:
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds of this earth, as defined in Sec 4 (d) herein, and care for the naturally occurring plants thereof , to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such fundamental human rights have been recognized as self evident, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside and apart from the jurisdictional responsibility of government to regulate commercial endeavors and activities as defined in Sec 4 (a) herein. And further, that commercial jurisdiction has allowed for the genetic engineering of DNA, seeds and plants and has allowed for the privatizing/patenting and legal protections of such which has left all naturally occurring seeds and plants legally unprotected and physically vulnerable to irreparable genetic modifications from cross pollination contamination with said genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, and that human beings have a naturally endowed right to have and plant the naturally occurring seeds and plants of this earth free of genetic modifications stemming from contamination from genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants.
Section 1.(a)
That all (example)County of Lake residents residing within the (example)unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2., Section 2.(a) and all other Sections and provisions of this Act, and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any county permitting or other state statutes that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.
Section 2., Responsibilities:
Any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be in compliance with all other provisions of this Act, and shall take reasonable care to prevent all negative impacts on the environment relating to all types of run off or any other preventable negative impacts to the environment including any toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants, and any individual exercising the rights and exemptions described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall be responsible to mitigate any circumstances of negative impacts to the environment or possible toxic health risks to humans related to the growing and processing of natural seeds and plants as determined and directed by the (example)county Environmental Health Department as directed by Section 2.(a), in response to any complaint or other circumstance as described in Section 2.(a) herein.
Section 2.(a)
The (example)County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall respond and administer to complaints and other circumstances that may arise related to Section 2., and Section 3.(b) of this Act, and shall develop whatever standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes necessary to implement its authority under this Act as consistent with existing law and as described in Section 2., and in Section 3.(b) herein pertaining to protecting the environment and guarding against public health risks as long as such standards, protocols, definitions and appeals processes are not in conflict with any Sections, provisions or definitions of this Act, and all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a neighbor (or other resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county, except In circumstances of a clear and present immediate toxic threat to public health, in which case(s) a written and signed complaint is not required.
(continued on next post)
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
(continued from previous post)
Section 3., Special Circumstances:
Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of commerce related activities as defined in Section 4.(a) herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2. or Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute, or if an individual is in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers.
Section 3.(a)
This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.
Section 3.(b)
In effort to further assure protection of the restored rights and the other needed protections established by this Act, the (example)county Environmental Health Department shall continually remain vigilant to do everything possible within it's authority under law to protect all naturally occurring seeds and plants from cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, including, but not limited to not allowing open air grown genetically engineered crops.
Section 3.(c)
With respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in regards to Section 1., and protecting home gardeners and naturally occurring seeds and plants from irreparable genetic modifications from genetically engineered DNA cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants, this Act shall be applied to hold individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, liable and monetarily responsible for all reparations, including, but not limited to environmental restorations and all other types monetary restorations that might arise from such irreparable genetic modifications to a home gardeners naturally occurring heirloom seeds and plants, including punitive awards.
Further, with respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants resulting from a genetically engineered source, this Act shall be applied to deny individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, any counter claims or other claims against any home gardener relating to patent infringement.
Section 3.(d)
The protections, exemptions and rights established by this Act, including Section 3.(c), shall not apply in circumstances where it can be shown that a home gardener knowingly and intentionally planted genetically engineered DNA as seeds, or plants, or where a home gardener has by whatever method knowingly and intentionally cross pollinated their own garden's seeds or plants with genetically engineered DNA as defined in Section 4.(g) herein.
Section 4., Definitions:
(a) For the expressed purposes of this Act, in Section 3., the word "commerce", and in Section 1., the words phrased as "commercial endeavors and activities " shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.
(b) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
A written and delivered inquiry or an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.
(c) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean:
For use as food, medicine, fiber, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life.
(d) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. and Section 3.(b) of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Seeds and plants species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature exclusively through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance, and specifically free from (absent of) genetic modifications induced by cross pollination from genetically engineered DNA or contamination in any way related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds, plants and/or the pollen thereof.
(e) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 50% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface to allow for said sun light to shine inside the structure for the intended purpose of sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in, and is being used for sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in.
(f) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "genetic engineering" shall be taken to mean:
The development and application of scientific procedures and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population, and more specifically the group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics.
(g) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as “Genetically Engineered” (also commonly referred to as “Genetically Modified”, “GM”, “Genetically Modified Organism”, or “GMO”) , shall be taken to mean produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:
(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or
(b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.
For purposes of this definition: “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.
Section 5., Severability:
If any provision, or any part of any provision and/or Section of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the (example)County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
Section 3., Special Circumstances:
Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of commerce related activities as defined in Section 4.(a) herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2. or Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute, or if an individual is in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers.
Section 3.(a)
This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.
Section 3.(b)
In effort to further assure protection of the restored rights and the other needed protections established by this Act, the (example)county Environmental Health Department shall continually remain vigilant to do everything possible within it's authority under law to protect all naturally occurring seeds and plants from cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, including, but not limited to not allowing open air grown genetically engineered crops.
Section 3.(c)
With respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in regards to Section 1., and protecting home gardeners and naturally occurring seeds and plants from irreparable genetic modifications from genetically engineered DNA cross pollination or any other contamination's related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds and plants, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants, this Act shall be applied to hold individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, liable and monetarily responsible for all reparations, including, but not limited to environmental restorations and all other types monetary restorations that might arise from such irreparable genetic modifications to a home gardeners naturally occurring heirloom seeds and plants, including punitive awards.
Further, with respect to any litigation that might arise within the jurisdictional reach of this Act, in every circumstance of cross pollination or other contamination to a home gardener's natural seeds or plants resulting from a genetically engineered source, this Act shall be applied to deny individual's, corporations, and patent holders of said genetically engineered DNA, any counter claims or other claims against any home gardener relating to patent infringement.
Section 3.(d)
The protections, exemptions and rights established by this Act, including Section 3.(c), shall not apply in circumstances where it can be shown that a home gardener knowingly and intentionally planted genetically engineered DNA as seeds, or plants, or where a home gardener has by whatever method knowingly and intentionally cross pollinated their own garden's seeds or plants with genetically engineered DNA as defined in Section 4.(g) herein.
Section 4., Definitions:
(a) For the expressed purposes of this Act, in Section 3., the word "commerce", and in Section 1., the words phrased as "commercial endeavors and activities " shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.
(b) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
A written and delivered inquiry or an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.
(c) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean:
For use as food, medicine, fiber, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life.
(d) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1. and Section 3.(b) of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Seeds and plants species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature exclusively through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance, and specifically free from (absent of) genetic modifications induced by cross pollination from genetically engineered DNA or contamination in any way related to genetically engineered DNA, seeds, plants and/or the pollen thereof.
(e) For the expressed purposes of this Act, and in particular Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 50% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface to allow for said sun light to shine inside the structure for the intended purpose of sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in, and is being used for sprouting seeds and/or growing plants in.
(f) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "genetic engineering" shall be taken to mean:
The development and application of scientific procedures and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population, and more specifically the group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics.
(g) For the expressed purposes of this Act, the words phrased as “Genetically Engineered” (also commonly referred to as “Genetically Modified”, “GM”, “Genetically Modified Organism”, or “GMO”) , shall be taken to mean produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:
(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or
(b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.
For purposes of this definition: “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.
Section 5., Severability:
If any provision, or any part of any provision and/or Section of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the (example)County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this story is fake or real news...?
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/monsanto-creates-first-genetically-modified-strain-of-marijuana/
MONSANTO CREATES FIRST GENETICALLY MODIFIED STRAIN OF MARIJUANA
April 9th, 2015 | by Bob Flanagan
BIOTECH
87
FacebookTwitter100.5k
St-Louis, MO | Monsanto, the multi-billion agribusiness giant, has announced today it has patented the first genetically modified strain of marijuana.
The news that has been welcomed by scientists and leaders of the agriculture business alike as a move forward towards the industrial use of marijuana and hemp products could bring a major shift towards marijuana policies in the U.S.A. and ultimately, to the world.
Under present US federal law, it is illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, or cultivate marijuana, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, although it has been decriminalized to some extent in certain states, Monsanto’s interest in the field has been interpreted by experts as the precursor to “a major shift in marijuana policy in the US” as it is believed the company would not have invested so much time and energy if it had not had “previous knowledge” of the Federal government’s “openness” towards the future legalization of marijuana.
Advocates for the legalization of marijuana see the bold move of Monsanto to work on GM marijuana strains as a “great step towards legalization on a massive scale” in the US
Lawyer and marijuana law specialist, Edmund Groensch, of the Drug Policy Alliance, admits Monsanto’s involvement in marijuana projects could definitely help the pro-legalization activists.
“Currently, Federal law criminalizes marijuana and hemp derivatives because public opinion is still against it and legal commercial production in the U.S. is currently handled by a patchwork of small farmers whom are not trusted by investors. A major player as Monsanto could bring confidence within government and towards investors in the market if it were to own a large part of the exploitable lands and commercial products”.
Other experts, such as James Adamson, president of Medical Marijuana Technologies, believe the only way marijuana is to become legal in the US is through the branding of a GM strain
“There is presently no way to control the production of marijuana and the quality of the strains. A GM strain produced by a company with the credentials and prestige of Monsanto would definitely lend a massive hand to pro-legalization activists within certain spheres of government and within the business world” he explains.
Although Monsanto’s testing on cannabis is only at an experimental stage, no plan has yet been released by the agriculture business firm as to what purposes the patented strain would be used for, although specialists believe answers should come this fall as rumors of a controversial new bill which could “loosen up laws around medical marijuana” is reportedly scheduled to pass before congress coming this fall.
Critics fear genetically modified cannabis will mix with other strains and could destroy the diversity of DNA, a reality dismissed by most studies claim experts.
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/monsanto-creates-first-genetically-modified-strain-of-marijuana/
MONSANTO CREATES FIRST GENETICALLY MODIFIED STRAIN OF MARIJUANA
April 9th, 2015 | by Bob Flanagan
BIOTECH
87
FacebookTwitter100.5k
St-Louis, MO | Monsanto, the multi-billion agribusiness giant, has announced today it has patented the first genetically modified strain of marijuana.
The news that has been welcomed by scientists and leaders of the agriculture business alike as a move forward towards the industrial use of marijuana and hemp products could bring a major shift towards marijuana policies in the U.S.A. and ultimately, to the world.
Under present US federal law, it is illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, or cultivate marijuana, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, although it has been decriminalized to some extent in certain states, Monsanto’s interest in the field has been interpreted by experts as the precursor to “a major shift in marijuana policy in the US” as it is believed the company would not have invested so much time and energy if it had not had “previous knowledge” of the Federal government’s “openness” towards the future legalization of marijuana.
Advocates for the legalization of marijuana see the bold move of Monsanto to work on GM marijuana strains as a “great step towards legalization on a massive scale” in the US
Lawyer and marijuana law specialist, Edmund Groensch, of the Drug Policy Alliance, admits Monsanto’s involvement in marijuana projects could definitely help the pro-legalization activists.
“Currently, Federal law criminalizes marijuana and hemp derivatives because public opinion is still against it and legal commercial production in the U.S. is currently handled by a patchwork of small farmers whom are not trusted by investors. A major player as Monsanto could bring confidence within government and towards investors in the market if it were to own a large part of the exploitable lands and commercial products”.
Other experts, such as James Adamson, president of Medical Marijuana Technologies, believe the only way marijuana is to become legal in the US is through the branding of a GM strain
“There is presently no way to control the production of marijuana and the quality of the strains. A GM strain produced by a company with the credentials and prestige of Monsanto would definitely lend a massive hand to pro-legalization activists within certain spheres of government and within the business world” he explains.
Although Monsanto’s testing on cannabis is only at an experimental stage, no plan has yet been released by the agriculture business firm as to what purposes the patented strain would be used for, although specialists believe answers should come this fall as rumors of a controversial new bill which could “loosen up laws around medical marijuana” is reportedly scheduled to pass before congress coming this fall.
Critics fear genetically modified cannabis will mix with other strains and could destroy the diversity of DNA, a reality dismissed by most studies claim experts.
Last edited:
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
5/27/15...
Turning Point interviews the President of the California Grange Bob McFarland about GMO's and the new seed regulation law in Ca. We also talk with Bob about the latest Ca hemp regulations and the need for guarding against GMO cannabis.
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/turning-point-interview-with-california-grange-president-bob-mcfarland
Turning Point interviews the President of the California Grange Bob McFarland about GMO's and the new seed regulation law in Ca. We also talk with Bob about the latest Ca hemp regulations and the need for guarding against GMO cannabis.
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/turning-point-interview-with-california-grange-president-bob-mcfarland
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Today on Turning Point (10am - 11am pst, kpfz.org) we will ask Sheriff Tom Allman about his conclusion that GMO cannabis is being grown in Mendocino county in spite of the Mendo GMO ban...
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/mendo-sheriff-exposes-gmo-cannabis-labs
https://soundcloud.com/turningpointkpfz/mendo-sheriff-exposes-gmo-cannabis-labs
i'm still not sure how they'd go about patenting a 'living' plant life.
vidalia onions can only be called that if they come from vidalia, ga..what happens when you grow a vidalia outside of vidalia? they're called sweet onions.
therefore, the name is the patent NOT the plant.
vidalia onions can only be called that if they come from vidalia, ga..what happens when you grow a vidalia outside of vidalia? they're called sweet onions.
therefore, the name is the patent NOT the plant.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
6/17/15, Turning Point interviews Dr. Vandana Shiva about the threat of GMO cannabis. Dr. Shiva voices support for the Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act effort/concept etc.We also talk about other genetic engineering concerns.
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/s8h7ez40dmlr6vwwxlxya4hg40sl81he?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
http://vandanashiva.com/
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/s8h7ez40dmlr6vwwxlxya4hg40sl81he?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
http://vandanashiva.com/
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
6/24/15 Turning Point: Urgent call to action to demand language banning GMO cannabis on the 2016 CA ballot. We also discuss United Cannabis and their biotech interests and connections, and much more <3
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/2xn8zajw3qyypwvf0nu60of8enkwbzed?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe src="https://app.box.com/embed/preview/2xn8zajw3qyypwvf0nu60of8enkwbzed?theme=dark" width="500" height="88" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Fight for your natural human rights and to end discrimination so that future generations may enjoy their natural birth rights. Please don't negotiate for the evolution of prohibition where somehow you trade your human rights (and the rights of the yet unborn) for a chance to be treated like anyone on parole or probation etc. If someone has a natural right to grow carrots in their yard for their own needs (non commercial), then of course you have the same equal rights to grow cannabis for your own needs, that's called equal protection and it's what we all should be fighting for. It's the least we owe to those who come after us. Instead we fight to institutionalize and regulate and continue to profit from unconstitutional discrimination. We should all be demanding justice for crimes against humanity because thats what cannabis prohibition amounts to. What would the world look like if we had never been robbed of this plant = best food, fiber, medicine etc and our basic most fundamental human rights to grow natural plants for our own needs? Why aren't the Soros gangs = DPA, MPP etc fighting to expose these crimes against humanity that have impacted the whole world? Why aren't they at least fighting for restoration of your natural human rights? Why aren't they fighting to end unconstitutional discrimination? Why are they funding the evolution of prohibition instead of funding the fight to end prohibition? The better question is why are you helping with their efforts instead of fighting on behalf of all that I have just stated?
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
I feel that simply supporting "legalization" without a full understanding of the consequences of what we gain verses what we give up in the scenario of the corporate "legalization" scheme now coming to fruition without first resetting the jurisdictional lines governing the process. I exist to do my part in living up to our responsibilities to our children and all of our fellow humans, that's why I cannot support what's going on in Colorado, as it is happening at the true cost of everyone's naturally endowed human rights. Do we really have the right to extinguish the rights of even the yet unborn? I'm posting this interview in hopes that you seriously take the time to hear it and then let me know what you think or if you have questions I can respond to in hopes of communicating a complete understanding of the core issues I'm working on and trying to explain here:
1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?
2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?
3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities? The so called cannabis issue is really a fundamental jurisdictional and human rights issue that anyone who eats food and is concerned about privatization of the food chain should be deeply concerned about. If you think you've heard it all in terms of "legalization" , please hear this interview and maybe think again...Lorraine Dechter, General Manager of KZYX interviews Ron Kiczenski for the Cannabis Hour's May 5, 2016 episode. This is a show Monsanto, the Drug Policy Alliance, MPP , and NORML (and Colorado) would not want you to hear:
1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?
2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?
3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities? The so called cannabis issue is really a fundamental jurisdictional and human rights issue that anyone who eats food and is concerned about privatization of the food chain should be deeply concerned about. If you think you've heard it all in terms of "legalization" , please hear this interview and maybe think again...Lorraine Dechter, General Manager of KZYX interviews Ron Kiczenski for the Cannabis Hour's May 5, 2016 episode. This is a show Monsanto, the Drug Policy Alliance, MPP , and NORML (and Colorado) would not want you to hear:
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Well I'm gonna do my part Monday.
Equal Rights. Fair Taxation. Sensible Regulations.
ASA's annual California Citizen Lobby Day is the state's largest medical cannabis lobby day. We bring hundreds of medical cannabis patients and stakeholders to Sacramento to talk with lawmakers and staff about legilsation that affects their lives. This is a great chance for patients, advocates, industry workers, researchers, and concerned community members to make a difference in California.
There is a lot on the table this year:
Equal Rights. Fair Taxation. Sensible Regulations.
ASA's annual California Citizen Lobby Day is the state's largest medical cannabis lobby day. We bring hundreds of medical cannabis patients and stakeholders to Sacramento to talk with lawmakers and staff about legilsation that affects their lives. This is a great chance for patients, advocates, industry workers, researchers, and concerned community members to make a difference in California.
There is a lot on the table this year:
- ASA is promoting a bill to protect medical cannabis patients from discrimination in employment, parental rights, housing, and access to health care.
- Two bills on the table this year will impose excessive taxation on medical cannabis consumption and cultivation - on top of existing sales tax and local taxes!
- Other bills make changes in the way that commercial medical cannabis businesses and organizations are licensed and regulated.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No matter how one looks at the potential up side or down side of GMO, the absence of proof is not proof, . At one time, lead in paint was not known to cause brain damage to children, so it was used everywhere. At one time PCB's were not known to be a carcinogen, so it was used all over this country and even evaluated as a softening agent in chewing gum. In both cases, the proof of harm was missed in small trials and only later was it determined to cause harm long after those products had caused serious harm to large groups of people and the environment. The kinds of tests currently used to evaluate safety are limited and insufficient for the kinds of risks imposed by GMO.
When risks are low, then, yes, a test that demonstrate the absence of harm would be enough to release a product for general use. When the risks are high, such as harming people or permanent harm to the environment, then no, a test that fails to prove harm isn't enough. Failure to prove harm is not the same as proving the product is safe. We simply don't know enough about the technology of GMO to release it into the environment. Carefully monitored and controlled research into GMO is fine. As is the use of GMO technology to aid in development or production of naturally produced strains of crops. GMO MJ, maybe later, but not now.
Last edited:
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
The only thing to advocate for at this point is the full restoration of our naturally endowed human rights, and all other commercial regulations need to necessarily be constructed on that foundation or the injustice simply continues termed as "legalization". So while it sounds like a good thing your doing Grandpapy, it's truly a big mistake and is the perfect example of the cart before the horse, or better yet, like trying to count to 3 using only 2 fingers that can only be counted once each I'm sorry to say because I'm guessing you truly do have good intentions. Please take the the time to hear the interview and understand my previous post.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
The camels nose is already inside the tent as GMO cannabis is being distributed in Colorado. Conveniently the Colorado laws have no requirement to disclose GMO cannabis and in fact avoid any mention of GMO's all together. Normally a GMO crop needs to be approved by the FDA before it is allowed to be sold to the public, (even though FDA does no testing and relies entirely on the applicants own testing results. In my opinion, if allowed, all GMO's should be banned from open air cultivation and only be allowed in strictly controlled and contained environments as to protect the commons from cross pollination contamination. Fogdog, did you have time to check out the interview I posted 2 posts back?
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
I can't think of an easier way to tell my Rep., face to face it's a God given Right.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
We should be telling this to federal judges face to face in civil proceeding based on these three questions:
1. Does government have jurisdictional authority to "schedule", or "regulate" your access to naturally occurring plants outside of commercial activity?
2. Do you understand that by agreeing to government holding such jurisdictional reach as to essentially have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species, does in fact extinguish your naturally endowed constitutionally protected right to grow even a carrot, and that the only reason you can do so now is because they still allow you to?
3. Do you understand that by supporting and passing any "regulation" at this point (without first addressing the 1st question posed here), is viewed in the broader sense of the law as consenting to the jurisdictional authority and agreeing that government does have authority to generally outlaw any natural plant species and thereby your access to it even outside of commercial jurisdiction/activities?
Legislators are exactly the wrong place to go for proper remedy in our circumstance. If we don't first settle settle the jurisdictional issue, the legislators will just continue to serve their corporate sponsors while baiting us into thinking we are getting something done, Colorado is a perfect example = human rights ignored in trade for corporate ability and dependency access for 'the people'.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I want GMO weed
- auto flower
- high potency
- very fast harvest time
-smooth taste
and if you can infuse some Coca DNA into it
- auto flower
- high potency
- very fast harvest time
-smooth taste
and if you can infuse some Coca DNA into it
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
ChesusRice, I'm not saying you shouldn't have that choice, but the fact remains that many (possibly the majority) folks do not want to consume GMO cannabis, so as long as you keep the offspring separated we will all get along just fine
