Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
Seventy Five percent bitches . . grow your own, or make sure its real
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That is my garden right now ... 3 out of 4 are known girls.
Samwell, might I ask you to keep it cool with fonts&formats? cn
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
random spew here and there is funny
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I once knew a cat who believed the very same thing. As one who likes to walk barefoot, imagine my amusement.
cn
potpimp
Sector 5 Moderator
Hey, you're the mod here not me, so that's completely your call bro. Glad you got the hard gig, not me, LOL. The OP didn't PM me until today about closing it but I see things have calmed down a bit so it's no big deal.Dissenting opinion.
1) This is the Politics forum. "Went off course" is not imo an actionable criterion. If that were enforced, activity in this section would drop to near nothing.
2) I do not see there to be a clear winning/losing side. In my estimation, the general silliness is in balance.
3) I received no PM. Did you maneuver around me? Hmpf.
I see no good reason to close this thread that can be defined and applied to others in this section.
Were this thread in the "real" side of RIU, I could see that. But this is ... cn
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Works for me potpimp, I am hard pressed to think of a more important or more urgent issue that we collectively are facing then private ownership and redesigning of the gene pool we all swim in, Monsanto want's to be the lifeguard...sort of like having a hungry shark overseeing our 'safety'...
If anyone has an update on the Monsanto Protection Act, please post it because I'm not finding such...this is from last year:
Congress’ Big Gift to Monsanto
Written by Lisa Cerda 14 Dec 2012
We must convince legislators this week to strip both the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5973) and the Farmers Assurance Provision (Section 733) of dangerous riders. Chairman Rep. Kingston (R-GA), House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, was convinced by Monsanto to attach a rider aptly name the “Monsanto Protection Act,” which if passed would give Monsanto immunity, while leaving consumers, the environment, and farmers without meaningful legal recourse.
Monsanto lobbyists bought themselves several anti-regulatory riders that if passed will gut the USDA’s ability to regulate the use of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). The review and approval process for new GE crops would be sped up in some instances and authorize the USDA to consider exempting certain GE crops from any review at all.
The Agriculture Appropriations could become part of an Omnibus Appropriations Bill and the Farm Bill could be buried in a deficit-reduction agreement to avoid scrutiny under the pretense of avoiding their pending "fiscal cliff."
Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is currently circulating a letter to his colleagues in Congress opposing the “Monsanto Protection Act” attempting to protect millions of health conscious Americans.
Federal courts have recognized the threat that genetic contamination poses to "a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.”
House and Senate leaders are working behind closed doors until their ready to vote. Amendments won't be allowed so you must put pressure on Congress to reject Monsanto's riders now!
In GEERTSON SEED FARMS vs. MIKE JOHANNS, Sec. of the USDA, Ca., government argues that “even if the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa could result in the elimination of all non-genetically engineered alfalfa--in other words, there would be no alfalfa grown in the United States that does not contain the engineered gene that confers tolerance to glyphosate--such a result would still not constitute a significant environmental impact because APHIS has determined that the introduction of that gene to alfalfa is harmless to humans and livestock, that is, it is not toxic or pathogenic.”
The government’s belief is irrational because the engineered gene eliminates or least greatly reduces the availability of non-engineered plants and varieties of Alfalfa. Eventually all edible plants in our entire food system will have the same fate, which has a significant effect on the human environment, consumer choice, and farmer’s choice.
Why would one company be allowed the power to genetically destroy the purity and health benefits of agriculture or control the food chain of the world? Why wouldn’t the government look at the cumulative effects of eating only bio-engineered foods by humans and animals? Why would farmers plant bio-engineered crops that require a greater supply of round up with each harvest, impacting their health, consumer’s health, water quality and the environment?
In a 2009 press advisory, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."
AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found here. They call for:
● Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
● Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
● Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
● For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
Farmers receive intimidating letters from Monsanto threatening them when cross contamination or cross pollination is suspected. The only benefactor when cross contamination occurs is Monsanto, who is suspected of spreading its toxic seeds in an attempt to corner new markets. Monsanto has filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers and won judgments for those who made use of its seed without paying required “royalties” between 1997 and April 2010.
Earth quake stricken Haiti’s received a toxic gift from Monsanto, 475 tons of genetically modified seeds, along with the accompanying fertilizer and pesticides as earthquake relief. Again, trying to corner a new market, Monsanto is facing growing opposition from Haitian farmers and a 200,000-member national coalition who is encouraging farmers to burn Monsanto’s distributed seeds.
They are calling on the government to reject additional shipments. Farmers wish to preserve their organic agriculture that respects the environment, and fights against its degradation. They are defending their native seeds and their rights.
The US is the only developed nation to allow humans to consume milk from cows given Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone. It is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the U.S. are injected with rBGH, a synthetic hormone created by using molecules and DNA sequencing that are a result of molecular cloning.
Peer-reviewed research has identified rBGH as a risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer. If you have consumed US dairy products, you more than likely consumed Monsanto’s genetically engineered growth hormone.
Two key political figures, instrumental in the approval of rBGH, were actually affiliated with Monsanto. Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, reviewed her own report on rBGH following its approval. Monsanto’s legal representative Michael R Taylor became the FDA’s deputy commissioner for policy. He wrote the FDA’s rBGH labeling guidelines claiming that there is no difference between rBGH and regular milk. This is partly why rBGH is still legal in the United States. Taylor returned to work directly for Monsanto, until Obama made him the Food Safety Czar.
Monsanto has stacked the deck in their favor, and you’re losing the right to choose what you consume as each day passes. You are being exposed to toxins, and may be experiencing health impacts that are related to your intake. Consider writing down what you eat daily, products you consume, and talk to your doctor about your concerns.
Ask the restaurants you frequent whether they buy GMO food products and let them know that if they do, they will lose customers. Keep fighting a good fight and keep pressure on your legislators!
More on GMOs
• A Guide to Avoiding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) at the Grocery Store
• Why Other Countries Are Scared of GMOs and We're Not
• GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria
[video=youtube_share;s3OUJeVOyZY]http://youtu.be/s3OUJeVOyZY[/video]
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/why_i_support_legal_marijuana/
[h=1]Why I Support Legal Marijuana[/h] George Soros | The Wall Street Journal | October 26, 2010
Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.
Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.
The racial inequities that are part and parcel of marijuana enforcement policies cannot be ignored. African-Americans are no more likely than other Americans to use marijuana but they are three, five or even 10 times more likely—depending on the city—to be arrested for possessing marijuana. I agree with Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, when she says that being caught up in the criminal justice system does more harm to young people than marijuana itself. Giving millions of young Americans a permanent drug arrest record that may follow them for life serves no one's interests.
Racial prejudice also helps explain the origins of marijuana prohibition. When California and other U.S. states first decided (between 1915 and 1933) to criminalize marijuana, the principal motivations were not grounded in science or public health but rather in prejudice and discrimination against immigrants from Mexico who reputedly smoked the "killer weed."
Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade—and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.
This was just one reason the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy—chaired by three distinguished former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico—included marijuana decriminalization among their recommendations for reforming drug policies in the Americas.
Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana—and often other drugs as well—and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I'd much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.
California's Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use and small-scale cultivation of marijuana, wouldn't solve all the problems connected with the drug. But it would represent a major step forward, and its deficiencies can be corrected on the basis of experience. Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws. And just as California provided national leadership in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, so it has an opportunity once again to lead the nation.
In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.
These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
DESPITE HIS CLAIMS, IT'S OBVIOUS HE WANTS TO CONTROL ALL THE SEED, FOOD,... SUPPLY
[h=1]Why I Support Legal Marijuana[/h] George Soros | The Wall Street Journal | October 26, 2010
Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.
Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.
The racial inequities that are part and parcel of marijuana enforcement policies cannot be ignored. African-Americans are no more likely than other Americans to use marijuana but they are three, five or even 10 times more likely—depending on the city—to be arrested for possessing marijuana. I agree with Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, when she says that being caught up in the criminal justice system does more harm to young people than marijuana itself. Giving millions of young Americans a permanent drug arrest record that may follow them for life serves no one's interests.
Racial prejudice also helps explain the origins of marijuana prohibition. When California and other U.S. states first decided (between 1915 and 1933) to criminalize marijuana, the principal motivations were not grounded in science or public health but rather in prejudice and discrimination against immigrants from Mexico who reputedly smoked the "killer weed."
Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade—and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.
This was just one reason the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy—chaired by three distinguished former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico—included marijuana decriminalization among their recommendations for reforming drug policies in the Americas.
Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana—and often other drugs as well—and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I'd much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.
California's Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use and small-scale cultivation of marijuana, wouldn't solve all the problems connected with the drug. But it would represent a major step forward, and its deficiencies can be corrected on the basis of experience. Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws. And just as California provided national leadership in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, so it has an opportunity once again to lead the nation.
In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.
These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
DESPITE HIS CLAIMS, IT'S OBVIOUS HE WANTS TO CONTROL ALL THE SEED, FOOD,... SUPPLY
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Who is this you speak of exactly, you blathering crazy man?
echelon1k1
New Member
George Soros... http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/
Has at one stage or another, been a member of or had close ties to the Carlyle Group, CFR, ECFR, Bilderberg
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto
I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
also a big contributor to MPP & DPA...
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Just what everyone in Cali wants to be paid to do. Mutate DNA and play G-d for profit
echelon1k1
New Member
John Francis Queeny founded Monsanto.Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto
I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.
A couple of years ago Soros bought $312.6 Million in Monsanto shares, he may still be up there with the largest shareholders. Him & Gates have been buying in recently. Don't know if he was ever CEO, you got a link for that?
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/11/16/george-soros-whats-his-fund-been-buying/
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Being from St. Louis, I was sure he founded the company there. I can unlike others here admit I am wrong when I am. It isn't often I am. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2010/11/soros-buys-897813-monsanto-shares.html
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
It was founded in St. Louis, Mo. someone said Canada or someplace earlier here ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
While speaking of Threads and Webs ~ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2490337/posts
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
HIS HISTORY SAYS IT ALL ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Yes and was the ceo and is the founder of Monsanto
I am a woman, not that it matters. Trolls can't really read.
George Soros
Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) is a publicly traded American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.[SUP][5][/SUP] Founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
George Soros (pron.: /ˈsɔroʊs/ or /ˈsɔrəs/;[SUP][2][/SUP] Hungarian: Soros György; Hungarian: [ˈʃoroʃ]; born August 12, 1930, as Schwartz György) is a Hungarian-American business magnate, ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros
George Soros founded Monsanto 29 years BEFORE he was born?
and aparently george soros NEVER worked for monsanto... ~http://www.nndb.com/company/163/000049016/
you are misinformed.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no mention of monsanto at all in that citation