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

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?

  • Total voters
    369
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
bluntmassa1 said:
Don't get caught it's a felony for me too. They can seize everything too but I don't technically own my home I couldn't wash that kind of money. Lol

Plus I go to prison I see my friends but that ain't happening I don't talk to rats and I don't deliver.
Click to expand...
I still want some GMO weed
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
GMO is not the same thing at all.

When one is vaccinated, it stops there. A person who doesn't get a vaccination cannot be affected by your choice.

When one plants GMOs capable of reproducing and releasing pollen, their plants contaminate any other plants around that are able to cross pollinate with the GMOs. Once in the environment, its too late. And then the mega-corporation has a lock on any previously natural plants in the area because they now contain their patented genes. Not only that, but people who don't want or need that patented gene in their plants will have to take special measures to prevent it. In other words, GMO's contaminate the environment yet it's everybody else's responsibility to avoid the contamination if they want to live free of it. The GMO laws are a completely bassackwards legal construct that's being foisted on a mostly unwilling population.

Its not just about MJ, all agriculture are in play..
Click to expand...
This is exactly the basis of the suit we are writing at this time and hope to file in the next 30 days. There is much more to it including restoring your naturally endowed rights as the basis for protecting the natural heritage from the eminent threat you have described here, We need more Fogdogs in this world <3
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think you are confused about what GMOs are. Commericially available and high quality weed is already being produced with stunningly powerful and tasty quality. Produced using the same techniques used to grow excellent crops. And they keep coming up with better genetics all the time. Commercialization is already happening without Monsanto's help. And people are free to exchange seed and continue the work of improving MJ genetics.

Standard methods of horticulture are proven safe and effective. GMOs cannot be tested to prove safety. The science is too new to really understand what the long term effects will be from unnaturally produced mutations of crops. And to benefit nobody but Monsanto, they patent an entire genome because they managed to splice in one set of genes. People end up accidentally illegally growing Monsanto's synthetic genetics because Monsanto puts the onus of keeping one's own line of seed pure while Monsanto does all it can to contaminate it. All the while, they put all the risk on the community and the environment to truly test the safety of this new tech which Monsanto will own and protect. Its a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition which should be rejected at the outset.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the protection for Monsanto from being sued for damaging other crops ? You will have the proof in your non sellable plants. If I can sue a paint company for over spraying their patented paint on my next door house, Why can`t people do the same to Monsanto ?
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
What exactly is the protection for Monsanto from being sued for damaging other crops ? You will have the proof in your non sellable plants. If I can sue a paint company for over spraying their patented paint on my next door house, Why can`t people do the same to Monsanto ?
Click to expand...
Because the only foundation you would have for such a suit is the protection of your human right, such then in turn creates the basis by which you then can protect the natural heritage. At this point, in the void where your human right once existed, now exists only commercial jurisdiction and thereby prevails commercial laws concerning 'intellectual property'.
Once again I will try and convey this life choice we should all be very seriously considering, in fact considering such as if your life depended on it.
Are you satisfied with your current status in law with respect to your extremely fragile 'civil right' to grow and eat a carrot outside of commercial activity?
The equation of life necessarily endowed you with a human right to grow and eat a carrot, and the protection of such naturally endowed human rights is the foundational basis for the existence of the U.S. Constitution.
At present, and at the will of corporate influences, commercial jurisdiction has supplanted your human right with a reversibly fragile 'civil right' to grow and utilize natural plants, and such is the basis for jurisdictional authority to 'schedule' (regulate, tax, outlaw) beyond commercial activity.
Maybe you are satisfied with your fragile 'civil right' to live, but in your capitulation, the systematic resulting consequence of your life choice is to extinguish the natural rights of the yet unborn, so what gives you that right?
Please understand and consider the following 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?
Please forward this message along with this simple carrot test on human rights:
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:
Thanks and have a thoughtful day <3
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
If my documented and tested garden contains no Monsanto genetics during veg, then the damage shows after flower, How did it get there ?

You can`t pollinate a plant in veg.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
I`m growing in Mexico just over the boarder, or Canada, just over the boarder, US regulations do not apply in either Country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top