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

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?


  • Total voters
    369

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Frank aside from your showing up again in spite of your pledge as 'fact' that you were not going to do so, and regardless of your usual M.O. and inaccurate assumptions, how in the world could you possibly state that the proposed ballot measure has nothing to do with Monsanto?
That could be the wackiest or most inaccurate thing you've written so far.
I wonder what corporation would be more opposed to this proposal Frank? Maybe the corporation for public broadcasting sounds more plausible to you?
Of course your assertion the proposed measure would be a "blanket ban on all GMO's for the State of California" is again and also inaccurate Frank because of section 3(c)...I thought we already had this talk?
You misrepresented the Bill as a way to stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains.

When in truth it's a total ban* on all GMOs in the State of California. Sure it might potentially effect Monsanto, but they don't even produce cannabis plants or seeds, do they?

AND even if they did, you Bill would still allow them to patent a strains genetic structure that they cross bred themselves, just they wouldnt be allow genetically modify them.

Your Bills link to Cannabis is so indirect it doesn't even exist except in your head.

My best guess, you're an organic farmer or some other vested interest who stands to gain from a ban on GM Food?

CS: Your opinion is meaningless in this, you'd ban anything that comes from an animal too.

*Section C is so restrictive and specifically says "...these regulations will be liberally construed..." making research for medical reasons full of red tape and UNPROFITABLE thus meaning it won't happen.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
You misrepresented the Bill as a way to stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains.

When in truth it's a total ban* on all GMOs in the State of California. Sure it might potentially effect Monsanto, but they don't even produce cannabis plants or seeds, do they?

AND even if they did, you Bill would still allow them to patent a strains genetic structure that they cross bred themselves, just they wouldnt be allow genetically modify them.

Your Bills link to Cannabis is so indirect it doesn't even exist except in your head.

My best guess, you're an organic farmer or some other vested interest who stands to gain from a ban on GM Food?

CS: Your opinion is meaningless in this, you'd ban anything that comes from an animal too.

*Section C is so restrictive and specifically says "...these regulations will be liberally construed..." making research for medical reasons full of red tape and UNPROFITABLE thus meaning it won't happen.
Truly Frank I'm beginning to have serious concern for either your eye sight or your ability to understand what your reading?
When did I ever write that the proposed Act in any way would "stop Monsanto gaining Patents on Cannabis Strains"? It didn't happen Frank, only in your wet dreams maybe.
I would never claim that this proposal in ant way stops the Monsanto patenting process because it doesn't.
This to we also covered in a past discussion here when a poster (I think it was you Frank?) said they would support banning the patenting of DNA sequences and why didn't the "bill" do that...and in response I explained exactly why it cannot and why such a law would need to come from the federal congress.
As far as sec3(c), you are assuming again Frank, I would imagine that most folks would want the controls on research and further I don't think any amount of controls will stop any research in this area whatsoever...it would be like regulating digging at the mother-load gold mine Frank, such could never stop the quest for gold...only humans evolving beyond such notions would ever stop such.
But thanks for being so consistently inconsistent in all that you say and do here Frank, otherwise I would have stopped seeing you here 3 threats back lol...and I'm starting to like seeing you...gives me my first laugh in the morning...kind of like some soldiers use to 'love' the smell of napalm in the morning;)
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Why would they champion the competition's product? 'Twas Geigy, no? cn
Just wanted to post this for consideration...(not as 'fact'...for Frank)
Welcome To The Spin Machine
By Michael Manville

SNIP

The oldest and most aggressive of the food biotech companies, Monsanto deserves a close look from anyone interested in genetic engineering. It was founded in 1901, as Monsanto Chemical, to make saccharin, a substance whose production was at that time monopolized by Germany. It began as a small concern--the initial investment was $5,000--but grew rapidly and diversified. In 1929 it began to produce polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and eventually became the world's largest supplier of them. PCBs had a variety of uses, but were used mostly to insulate electrical transformers. Evidence of their toxicity was first reported in the 1930s, and in the 1960s Swedish scientists documented high levels of them in dying wildlife. PCBs were finally banned in 1979, and the United States has classified them as a "probable human carcinogen." PCBs have left a broad legacy of environmental degradation; they are the major pollutant at a number of Superfund sites, and most notoriously in the Hudson River, where years of PCB discharge from General Electric has left 2.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment.

Like other chemical companies, Monsanto was also a producer of DDT, the pesticide famously indicted by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. Monsanto had actually stopped making the pesticide by the time Carson's book was first serialized in the New Yorker, but the company, fearful that public attitudes would turn against pesticides in general, took action nevertheless. Rather than confront Carson's evidence, however, it hired a ghostwriter to pen The Desolate Year, a parody of Silent Spring that depicted a pesticide-free America being ravaged by insects. The Desolate Year was mailed free to over 5,000 media outlets, and applauded by Walter Sullivan in the New York Times.

The late 1960s would bring other problems, however. In the company's 1977 official history, Faith, Hope and $5,000: The Monsanto Story, the author--a former Monsanto PR director--looks back wistfully at the tumult of the sixth decade, and notes with sympathy that while Dow was being castigated for its involvement with napalm, Monsanto had little to do with war-related controversy. The author does concede, however, that the company was "occasionally mentioned as a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T weed and brush killers, some of which were identified as defoliants used during the war in Vietnam."

This sentence could be called disingenuous, or more accurately an astounding act of omission. It is, in truth, an extremely oblique way of saying that Monsanto made Agent Orange. The world's most notorious defoliant is indeed created by combining the herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4,D, and frankly Monsanto sells itself short by using such sterile language to describe its product (the sentence I just quoted is the most the book says about AO, and the defoliant is never named). Although a number of corporations made Agent Orange, and all assured the Defense Department that it was perfectly safe for humans, Monsanto's version was significantly more potent than those of its competitors. When a coalition of Vietnam Veterans successfully sued the manufacturers of AO, a judge ordered that Monsanto pay 45.5 percent of the damages, in recognition of its product being so much more heavily laden with dioxins.

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=234
 

dabumps

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure I've heard they have already done it. What it's going to come down to is when the federal ban on MJ is lifted it will be like the wine industry. There will be the 90% of the U.S. pop that just wants to get high off of what GM super high THC monsonto has created and then there will be your connoisseurs that only smoke non gmo, organic, dirt grown, budskies.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I'm pretty sure I've heard they have already done it. What it's going to come down to is when the federal ban on MJ is lifted it will be like the wine industry. There will be the 90% of the U.S. pop that just wants to get high off of what GM super high THC monsonto has created and then there will be your connoisseurs that only smoke non gmo, organic, dirt grown, budskies.
Or just as proudly non-GM, hydroponic, synthetic-nute bud. I am not disparaging soil grows but will demand moral parity for the other way, which is also good. cn
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Or just as proudly non-GM, hydroponic, synthetic-nute bud. I am not disparaging soil grows but will demand moral parity for the other way, which is also good. cn
I have excellent taste. Done properly, there's zero difference between organic and synthetic grown bud.

Sativa is very harsh, no matter how it's grown. My Afghani Kush is just as minty as the best organic. Mine is actually better, hardly any cough. My bud's organic OG always make me cough up a lung.

I have no explanation for this, but pure Afghani actually gives me no paranoia. Yet all OG does. :confused:
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
From foreverflyhi...
Lol too high to get into that conversation. Interesting topic tho. Read a couple pages, people seem to be either in favor or the complete opposite, barley in between.

Im a paranoid person when it comes down to GMOs or Monsanto/government. Mix that with weed, FUCK that haha

I say fuck Monsanto/government/monocultures/GMOs, we need sustainable communities and no government. ANARCHY:leaf:
 

dabumps

Well-Known Member
Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Why bump quotes without comment or elaboration? cn
I guess to simply post others view points to the poll question.
I've come to understand that many folks stay clear of 'politics' in life and in the RIU forum because of the...well lets say S.H.D.T.'s usual banter.

From ProfessorPotSnob...
No thanks , I dont fuck with Monsanto gear even in my Vegetable Garden , strictly non GMO and nothing but old school genetics for me in all ways .. I have a feeling that in time we will see much worse than this , the fem Industry is leading the way now ......
From 2d9s...
Monsanto is only in for the money and that alones means you're on the low end.
i'd rather be my own geneticist ...
: )
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.
I couldn't agree more, and with terminator gene technology readily available and deducing that the best case scenario for Monsanto et al is to monopolize cannabis by way of simply making sure that naturally occurring varieties remain schedule 1 = illegal while GMO varieties are approved as safe by the FDA and federal laws passed to make them available for everything from 'medicine' to industry etc...the future looks grim for cannabis...
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.
I have searched for evidence of the claim in the bolded, and found none outside anti-BigAg echo chambers. cn
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I guess to simply post others view points to the poll question.
I've come to understand that many folks stay clear of 'politics' in life and in the RIU forum because of the...well lets say S.H.D.T.'s usual banter.

From ProfessorPotSnob...


From 2d9s...
But as they've already posted, can you convince me that this isn't a sort of spamming? Unless you "add value" with some sort of informative comment, I think you're simply padding your post count. cn
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Well GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in rats and now there bugs "armyworms" that are immune to the GM in the corn and will start to destroy crops world wide. There are reoccuring weeds called "superweeds" and they have adapted to the pesticides (the reason they genetically modify the veggies in the first place) and are having to be treated with heavier and heavier pesticides. If you look into systemic resistance you will see that any chemical you put in or on your plants eventually becomes more or less "part of your plant" so even if you wash your soy and corn it still has pesticides in it. There is no positive side to GMOs. I'm sorry there is one side. A few people get incredibly rich and run a monopoly on our food supply. GMOs are wrong even in a world based on a guilty pleasure such as weed.
GMO's have NOT been shown to cause cancer in rats, either the study is flawed, or Roundup spiked drinking water is a magic health potion, since the non-GMO roundup dosed "control" group lived longer and was healtheir than the GMO, non GMO and GMO + Roundup groups.

the studyt was flawed, and not even a study. it was an excuse to take pictures of mice which were GMO's themselves, which were specifically designed to get cancer, when they shockingly enough GOT CANCER.

all that study proves is, Onco-mice tend to get cancer, no matter what you feed them, but they SEEM to get cancer less when dosed with Glyphosate in their water.

you dont know shit about agriculture, you know even less about herbicides, and you know nothing at all about how, and why GM organism are created.

armyworms my ass.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
GMO's have NOT been shown to cause cancer in rats, either the study is flawed, or Roundup spiked drinking water is a magic health potion, since the non-GMO roundup dosed "control" group lived longer and was healtheir than the GMO, non GMO and GMO + Roundup groups.

the studyt was flawed, and not even a study. it was an excuse to take pictures of mice which were GMO's themselves, which were specifically designed to get cancer, when they shockingly enough GOT CANCER.

all that study proves is, Onco-mice tend to get cancer, no matter what you feed them, but they SEEM to get cancer less when dosed with Glyphosate in their water.

you dont know shit about agriculture, you know even less about herbicides, and you know nothing at all about how, and why GM organism are created.

armyworms my ass.
Let me guess, he'll respond with "Dr you're wrong, GMOs are BAD! Ban them, ban them now! WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more, and with terminator gene technology readily available and deducing that the best case scenario for Monsanto et al is to monopolize cannabis by way of simply making sure that naturally occurring varieties remain schedule 1 = illegal while GMO varieties are approved as safe by the FDA and federal laws passed to make them available for everything from 'medicine' to industry etc...the future looks grim for cannabis...
all this talk about "terminator genes is Ridonkulous.

GMO's and Monsanto are not the first group to put out a cultivar that can only be grown from purchased seeds

Triticale failed as a cereal crop for developing nations for just that reason, and it was simply a hybrid.

the need for cash money to buy seeds prevented any but the wealthy nations' farmers from planting it,, and all things considered wheat was more profitable.

these days the "wondergrain" triticale is almost exclusively a forage/pasturage crop and even in that capacity, white clover and sorghum are better choices since they self-seed.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
all this talk about "terminator genes is Ridonkulous.

GMO's and Monsanto are not the first group to put out a cultivar that can only be grown from purchased seeds

Triticale failed as a cereal crop for developing nations for just that reason, and it was simply a hybrid.

the need for cash money to buy seeds prevented any but the wealthy nations' farmers from planting it,, and all things considered wheat was more profitable.

these days the "wondergrain" triticale is almost exclusively a forage/pasturage crop and even in that capacity, white clover and sorghum are better choices since they self-seed.
Perhaps this Terminator gene forces people to speak like Austrians, body build and go back in time stealing people's motorcycles?

Other side effects may include; compulsion to run for Governor of California.
 
Top