Monsanto cannabis yes or no? more needed 4poll here@RIU, also ballot prop...

Bigtacofarmer

Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised at all. I think the biggest reason cannabis and psychedelics are illegal is they make you see things from a different perspective. Its pretty tricky to get a bunch of stoners all psyched up to destroy anything, unless you add alcohol. It may take some education, and telling alot of people but I think its pretty safe to say anyone with half a brain and a little compassion for anything can see it.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised at all. I think the biggest reason cannabis and psychedelics are illegal is they make you see things from a different perspective. Its pretty tricky to get a bunch of stoners all psyched up to destroy anything, unless you add alcohol. It may take some education, and telling alot of people but I think its pretty safe to say anyone with half a brain and a little compassion for anything can see it.
I totally agree bro, but I can't help thinking we need to get our 'Act' together before things get worse.
Our corps run Gov has known this since the mid 70's that cannabis cures cancer, their response publicly was to end all research in that direction and replace it with research seeking to find harmful effects etc...now those same corps/gov interests are seeking to own regulate and control the evolution of the plant through patented genetics...federal laws soon to be forthcoming in that respect...best case scenario for Monsanto et al is to manipulate coming fed law to keep all naturally occurring varieties of cannabis in schedule 1 while approving as 'safe' genetically engineered patented varieties through the FDA processes etc...Monsanto et al has exampled with corn and other ops like the temporary testing of order 81 when the USA first occupied Iraq, how they intend to proceed on all fronts...and they know that we are mostly uninformed and unorganized in any response, not to mention a thing called controlled opposition which is always at play when we think we are 'acting' on an issue.


  1. Iraq and Washington's 'seeds of democracy' - Engdahl

    www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/.../Iraq.../iraq_and_seeds_of_democr...
    'The reason we are in Iraq is to plant the seeds of democracy so they flourish there and spread ... Administrator, of a newly created Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA. ... Buried deep among the Bremer laws was Order 81, 'Patent, Industrial ...


  2. ORDER 81: Re-engineering Iraqi agriculture | Global Research

    www.globalresearch.ca/order-81-re-engineering-iraqi.../870
    They've even created a new law – Order 81 – to make sure it happens. .... Coalition Provisional Authority administrator Paul Bremer departed Iraq in June 2004 ...


  3. [PDF] Order Number 81 - IraqCoalition.org

    www.iraqcoalition.org/.../20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Apr 26, 2004 – COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81 ... necessary to benefit the people of Iraq occurs in a manner acceptable to the ...
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
From Independent Science news yesterday:
Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

January 21, 2013
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson
How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).
The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.
In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.
The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.
It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.
Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).
Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.
Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.
The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:
1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).
Gene VI (upper left) precedes the start of the 35S RNA

This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).
2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.
3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.
Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.
Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.
There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).
The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.
Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.
Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.
Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information. We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.
This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.
This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.
A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.
Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.
What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.
Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.
But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.
To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
[h=1]We almost have 200 votes in the poll, thanks to all<3

"Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of our Live"
[/h][video=youtube;wnlTYFKBg18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=wnlTYFKBg18[/video]


Published on Oct 8, 2012
Are you and your family on the wrong side of a bet?

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.

More information can be found at: http://geneticroulettemovie.com
and http://responsibletechnology.org
 

tricloud

New Member
If you buy feminized marijuana seeds or grow feminized clones you are already buying into the Monsanto mentality....
 

buckaroo bonzai

Well-Known Member
Clips of CGC in the NatGeo Documentary "Marijuana Gold Rush---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNWxBNhVTYY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Clean Green Certification - Medical Cannabis Quality Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iii4ocJOuKc&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Clean Green Certified Carbon Footprint Reduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZGWCXd8RoI&feature=youtube_gdata_player




chris is a good guy and the first to put this out--:joint:
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Historically their own filings against farmers show that more farmers in court is what Monsanto wants so farmers should give them what they want ;)...

http://princevega.com/2013/02/18/monsanto-slapped-with-a-7-7-billion-lawsuit-by-5-million-farmers/

Excerpt:
"Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars). The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the &#8216;suicide belt&#8217;, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges. The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from &#8220;renewal&#8221; seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year&#8217;s harvest."
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
The new fed bills recently introduced in congress may end up being a perfect vehicle for making fed approved 'safe' cannabis the only 'legal' cannabis.
Keep a good watch for amendments etc...

I woke up this morning to the radio blaring Al Gore seemingly lecturing me on the virtues of 'spidergoat' farming...for a brief moment thought I died and woke up in 'hell'
then I remembered hearing about this bit a year or so ago...

BBC News - The goats with spider genes and silk in their milk

I was reading this letter this morning and somehow I couldn't help replacing the recipients to be Monsanto et al and the issue of the war over the gene pool...

 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Monsanto&#8217;s Patents on Life

By Katherine Paul, Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Feb. 27, 2013


http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27105.cfm

Excerpt:

"The real issue is this: Why have we surrendered control over something so basic to human survival as seeds? Why have we bought into the biotech industry&#8217;s program, which pushes a few monoculture commodity crops, when history and science have proven that seed biodiversity is essential for growing crops capable of surviving severe climate conditions, such as drought and floods?"

Imagine the opportunity cannabis has the potential to provide Monsanto et al in their effort to control seeds.
What better way to begin the process of all seeds needing to be gov approved than to start with a species that is already illegal?
If we had fought in court for our self evident unalienable rights to posses and plant seeds when gov first began to impose on these rights we wouldn't be waiting for congress to further harm us in this area by way of 'legalization' and whatever that ends up meaning after the smoke clears.
Its never to late to stand up and fight for whats right until we no longer recognize what is right.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Thanks in large part to Michigan folks imo...

Gr8 response to this poll, thanks to all<3



Leading environmentalists set record straight about Mark Lynas
Tuesday, 05 March 2013 20:25

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/april/16a-anti-gmo-efforts-us#.UTp90VeJAdd
Sidebar: Anti-GMO Grass-Roots Effort Gains Ground in U.S.
By Linda Marsa|Thursday, March 07, 2013

http://www.newera.com.na/articles/50697/Millers-promise-to-strengthen-anti-GMO-measures
Millers promise to strengthen anti-GMO measures 04 Mar 2013 -

Gene giants seek "philanthrogopoly"
Friday, 08 March 2013 19:30


Monsanto threatens to sue EFSA over publication of GM maize data
Friday, 08 March 2013 19:2


Pawar challenged on GM crops
Monday, 04 March 2013 18:01

Farmers' seed options drastically reduced in GMO-producing countries
Friday, 01 March 2013 11:05





 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
March against Monsanto May 25th, 2013


[video=youtube;LICQCxq1FqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=LICQCxq1FqU[/video]
 

buckaroo bonzai

Well-Known Member
Historically their own filings against farmers show that more farmers in court is what Monsanto wants so farmers should give them what they want ;)...

http://princevega.com/2013/02/18/monsanto-slapped-with-a-7-7-billion-lawsuit-by-5-million-farmers/

Excerpt:
"Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars). The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the &#8216;suicide belt&#8217;, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges. The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from &#8220;renewal&#8221; seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year&#8217;s harvest."

bongsmilie :shock::shock::shock:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130513/POLITICS03/305130400/High-court-rules-Monsanto-patent-case?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

High court rules for Monsanto in patent case

Washington &#8212; The Supreme Court has sustained Monsanto Co.'s claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer.

The justices, in a unanimous vote Monday, rejected the farmer's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.

Justice Elena Kagan says a farmer who buys patented seeds must have the patent holder's permission. More
than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
The case had been closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies. But Kagan said the court's holding only "addresses the situation before us."

Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the expensive, patented seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.
He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.

Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years. In 2007, Monsanto sued and won an $84,456 judgment.
Bowman said he should not be liable, in part, because soybeans naturally sprout when planted.
Kagan said the court did not buy that argument. "We think the blame-the-bean defense tough to credit," she said.
The case is Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796.



:shock::shock:
they allready hold ALL the patents on cannabanoids---

http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/proposition-19-monsanto-and-gmo.html

PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS
Researched and written by Conrad Justice Kiczenski - September, 2010

An article by D.M. Murdock written in August 2010 and entitled &#8220;Why hemp could save the world&#8221; states:

&#8220;Hemps prohibition has led to untold suffering around the globe. If we&#8212;the global human population&#8212;had been able to grow the miracle plant hemp (Cannabis genus) locally and to use it for local industries and businesses, including and especially for fuel, we would never have needed to be addicted to oil, for one, an addiction that is at the root of much misery. We would never have allowed ourselves to be lorded over by international oil-mongers whose crimes against humanity have become legion, including wholesale invasion of other lands and slaughter of countless people.&#8221;

&#8220;None of this oil-related horror&#8212;along with the deplorable degradation of the environment globally&#8212;would have occurred if hemp had not been prohibited but had been used wisely and intelligently as a major foundation of human society. Indeed, hemp-based economies could still save the human world, while hemp planting could go a massively long way in rescuing the natural world as well.&#8221;

&#8220;It is said that hemp has up to 50,000 uses, from fiber to fuel to food, but I'll just provide a taste here:&#8221;

&#8220;In modern times, hemp has been used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food, fuel, and medical purposes.&#8221;

&#8220;Hemp is one of the faster growing biomasses known, producing up to 25 tons of dry matter per hectare per year, and one of the earliest domesticated plants known. &#8220;

&#8220;One highly important use of hemp has been in detoxifying nuclear waste, as demonstrated by experiments in the Ukraine, for example, on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Moreover, hemp fuel could actually replace the dangerous and costly nuclear power industry.&#8221;
SEE:
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-hemp-could-save-the-world

>>> The agenda of the government in its policies against Cannabis have always been to deprive the people access to the plant, while maintaining control over it for the governments own self-interest. This self-interest extends to a multitude of industries including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the entirety of the banking and corporate establishment which has become empowered through disconnecting people from their one true source of independence and sustenance, the Earth. Cannabis prohibition has served to redirect human evolution from that of a decentralized agrarian lifestyle and natural economy, to a centralized petro-chemical military dictatorship controlled through the artificial economic will of private banks and other trans-national corporate interests.

The next stage in continuing this control, is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.

To achieve this end, the foundation is already being laid in the form of California&#8217;s upcoming initiative on the 2010 ballot. This initiative is called Proposition 19: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

The leading advocate for Proposition 19 is the organization known as the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). The DPA is the leading organization spearheading the reform of Cannabis policies in the United States, and has been made up of some of the most powerful and influential characters in today&#8217;s global petro-bio-chemical-military-banking-industrial complex.

Some of the Directors of DPA include the following:

Paul Adolph Volcker is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) whose career is closely associated with that of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975-1979, governing board member of the Federal Reserve in 1979, and was Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.

Volcker is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as Undersecretary of the Treasury from 1969-1974 before his time with the Federal Reserve. Volcker is chairman of Wolfensohn & Co. and has ties to Chase Manhattan Bank. He is also linked to the Brookings Institute, as well as being an Honorary Trustee at the Aspen Institute, chairman of the Group of 30, and on the board of the Institute for International Economics.

Frank Charles Carlucci III is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since at least 1995. His government service included positions as Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1980-1982 and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978-1980.

Carlucci is a director on United Defense Industries (the United States' largest defense contractor), which is owned by the Carlyle Group, a merchant bank based in Washington, D.C., of which Carlucci is the chairman. Carlucci joined Carlyle in 1989.

Before returning to Government service, Carlucci was Chairman and CEO of Sears World Trade, a business he joined in 1983. He was President Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in 1987 and Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1988.

Nicholas Katzenbach is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and became General Counsel of the IBM Corporation from 1969 until 1986.

Mathilde Krim is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and was a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1980.

George Soros is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and is Chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros was among the highest paid hedge fund managers in 2009, taking home about $3.3 billion. At the end of 2009, he owned about $6.95 billion distributed among 697 stocks.

Soros&#8217; top 5 investment shareholdings are in gold, Petrobras petroleum company, Hess Corp petroleum company, Monsanto corporation, Citigroup Inc., and Suncor Energy Inc.(petroleum company).

That&#8217;s right, George Soros, who is famous for being one of the most powerful and influential persons in world economics and whose speculations alone are said to have &#8216;broke the Bank of England&#8216;, is one of the key directors for the organization that is leading the charge to regulate, control and tax Cannabis in California. All the while George Soros is one of the major shareholders in the worlds largest GM Seed bio-technology corporation known as Monsanto.


The Monsanto corporation brought you things like Agent Orange, Terminator Seeds, Monsantos Round-up ready Herbicide, and Genetically Modified and Patented Organisms made from Soybean, Corn, and Cotton to name a few. Genetically engineered crops entered the market in 1996 and to this day around 90% of all Soy, Corn, and Cotton grown in the U.S. have been Genetically Engineered and patented by a handful of bio-chemical corporations, with Monsanto owning 90% of all GMO patents.

The value of the Cannabis plant as an industry, without factoring in the value of Cannabis as a food or medicine, was estimated to be in the billions in 1938 by an article published by Popular Mechanics Magazine at that time, so its no wonder why one of Monsanto&#8217;s major shareholders would have in interest in advocating for one of the main tenants of prop 19, which is to &#8220;Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes&#8221; and to &#8220;adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry&#8221;. Prop 19 is doing nothing less then opening the floodgates for Monsanto and other petro-chemical, GMO seed and pharmaceutical corporations to commercialize, regulate, control and tax Cannabis through genetic engineering, patenting and licensing.

Monsanto and the Drug Policy Alliance are not the only entities leading the charge to regulate Cannabis through genetic engineering. As published in the September 2009 issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany, Researchers from the College of Biological Science of the University of Minnesota have identified the genes in the Cannabis plant that produce tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC), claiming in a press release that it is &#8220;a first step toward engineering a drug-free Cannabis plant&#8221;. George Weiblen, an associate professor of plant biology and a co-author of the study, said &#8220;Cannabis genetics can contribute to better agriculture, medicine, and drug enforcement&#8221;.

George Weiblen conducts his research under a permit granted by the DEA to import Cannabis from outside of the U.S. The two sources from which these imports come from are the Kenex corporation based in Ontario Canada and the HortaPharm corporation based in Amsterdam. These two corporations are two of the very few entities which have acquired a DEA permit to import Cannabis into the United States. The history and role of these corporations illustrate the potential of Genetic Engineering in the global Cannabis market.

Kenex corporation initiated its research program on industrial hemp in 1995 in cooperation with Ridgetown College of University of Guelph in Ontario. A research license was granted by Health Canada to proceed with the program. The scope of the project was expanded in 1996 making it the largest hemp research project in Canada.

It is interesting to note that Kenex&#8217;s research program on hemp was initiated at the University of Guelph, which is also home to 24 ag-biotech research facilities, and is heavily funded by the ag-biotech industry, including research funds from Monsanto corporation, Bayor Incorporated, Dupont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical corporation to name a few.

The University of Guelph Impact Study in 2007 states:
&#8220;Multi-national companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayor Crop Science, and Semex have set up in Guelph because of the ability to closely interact with research and the ease of access to human, capital, and government resources, as well as the ability to attract investment.&#8221;

The University of Guelph has recently genetically engineered and patented the genome of a pig, which they have trademarked the EnviroPig. The University of Guelph has also recently partnered with the Monsanto corporation to genetically engineer a Glyphosate-resistant ragweed, and has contributed significant research and development into genetically engineering strains of Soybean crops. Some of the first Genetically Engineered Canadian bred Soybeans were developed at the University of Guelph, including the GMO Soybean strain called &#8217;OAC Bayfield&#8217;. GE Soybean research at the University of Guelph has been vitally important to the growth of the GMO Soybean industry.

On January 2, 2003, the Guelph Mercury reported the following:

&#8220;Since the Canadian hemp ban was lifted in 1998, researcher Peter Dragla of the University of Guelph's Ridgetown College has been selecting and breeding hemp plants to meet industry needs. Now, besides working on varieties with lower levels of tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC)&#8230; he's striving to develop hemp breeds with larger seeds.&#8221;

After Kenex corporations Hemp industry was born in a partnership with the Ridgetown college of the University of Guelph, Kenex became Canada&#8217;s largest Hemp producer and Supplies Hempseeds for food to companies like Nutiva, based in California.

One of the only other international companies which has acquired a permit to import Cannabis into the U.S. from the DEA is known as the HortaPharm R&D company based out of Amsterdam.

HortaPharm was founded in the late 1990&#8217;s by a man named David Watson.

>>>David Watson is credited for developing some of the most widely used Cannabis strains in the world, including his famous strain called Skunk #1 which was imported and used in George Weiblens research to develop GE Cannabis strains at the University of Minnesota.

An article from: http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39 reports the following on Mr. David Watson:

&#8220;Are your expensive Dutch female (Cannabis) seeds hard to clone, or when you try to breed them, all you get are hermaphrodites?&#8221;

&#8220;Thank Dr Frankenbeanstein, aka the Skunkman, whose real name is David Watson.&#8221;

&#8220;At a 1997 Vancouver Hemp conference, Watson spoke of his research. His main focus was to stop growers from cloning nor being able to create any seeds from strains being bred in Amsterdam. The funding for this research came partially from the Dutch Government, the rest from the DEA. Watson had been busted for growing in Santa Cruz California on March-20-1985 and resurfaced in Amsterdam to start his seed company Cultivator&#8217;s Choice. DEA supported the Watsons application for a license to grow for research in Holland, even though they should have been extraditing him back to Cali for his 1985 Santa Cruz grow bust! DEA endorsement was so strong that he was the first to be granted a permit in Holland when several universities and domestic research groups with PHD&#8217;s and legitimate reasons for research were denied! The Dutch government even supplied three greenhouses for Watson to do his heinous experiments, while normal Dutch growers lost all of their equipment and had to serve murder-like sentences at that time! Dutch seed companies have become the Monsanto of the cannabis seed industry, and hope to make us all seed junkies at $20 a seed.!&#8221;

&#8220;The license gave Watson control over what researchers are allowed access to pedigreed seeds of predictable quality! The object is to patent up every possible combination of cannabinoids with efficacy for every possible disease they can treat, and every possible genetic sequence! Once ready to make the move, they will shut down every medical cannabis grower for patent fraud&#8221;

&#8220;Monsanto terminator technology is being applied to Cannabis by (David Watson) at Hortapharm in Holland.&#8221;

SEE: http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39

The following article published in the UK Independent on September 27, 1998, Interviewed Mr. Watson on the intent of his research in Cannabis with his company HortaPharm:

"It looks like dope, but really it's hope," explains David Watson. What he means is that many of these plants have been specifically bred not to produce an intoxicating resin or hashish. Indeed, HortaPharm hopes to thwart the aims of the average recreational user.&#8221;

The team is already close to finding their own commercial Holy Grail - seeds that will produce a one-off, female, seedless crop of plants with no psychotropic effects for the consumer. Why, you might ask, would they want to do that?

HortaPharm is only interested in developing female plants that are sterile, but this is not just to protect their genetic copyright. "If a plant is not kept busy producing seeds, all its energy can go into resin production," says Watsons Dutch colleague and biochemist Etienne de Meijer.

Watson believes the bright future of (Cannabis) is contained in the greenhouses of HortaPharm and GW Pharmaceuticals.

At his Amsterdam glasshouses, he nods conspiratorially at the healthy- looking garden produce. "Don't say anything yet, but we are also working on putting THC into tomatoes," he confides. Then he cackles reassuringly: "Only kidding!"

SEE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cannabis-a-year-that-changed-minds-1200871.html

David Watson has stated "HortaPharm has built up over many years the most extensive 'Living Library' of Medicinal Cannabis varieties in the world&#8221;.

In July 1998, Speaking at the International Cannabinoid Research Society conference in Montpellier, Dr Geoffrey W Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, said that HortaPharm will provide GW with exclusive access to its entire range of cannabis varieties for the development of medicines. The worldwide rights acquired by GW for an undisclosed sum cover varieties grown to date with certain exceptions and all varieties to be bred in the future. Plant registrations arising from the Dutch breeding program will be owned by GW pharmaceutical.

Under the agreement GW Pharma will be responsible for the development of specific drug delivery technologies to administer the pharmaceutical grade medicinal cannabis. This work will include a vaporizer for which HortaPharm has a patent pending.

In addition GW Pharma will fund HortaPharm's botanical research and HortaPharm scientists will
assist in the UK Glasshouse propagation, cloning and cultivation program.

David Watson, CEO of HortaPharm has stated &#8220;As soon as Dr Guy's clinical research indicates the exact desired composition our scientists can breed and register new medicinal varieties".

An article published by Cannabis Culture Magazine in May 2002, states:

&#8220;GW's miracle pot may soon be among the first cannabis plants ever patented. Although some industrial hemp genetics have been copyrighted as intellectual property, Guy is seeking to register marijuana varietals distinguished by specific morphological characteristics, such as color, leaf size and shape, and smell.&#8221;

&#8220;According to preliminary information provided exclusively to Cannabis Culture, GW's medical devices will revolutionize the way cannabis is ingested. Cannabis extracts blended in precise ratios will be packaged in a "canister" that joins to an electromechanical device that delivers controlled aerosolized doses of plant-derived cannabinoids without delivering harmful combustion by-products.&#8221;

&#8220;The canisters and delivery devices will be dispensed by pharmacists, and closely monitored by pharmacists, doctors, and GW itself.&#8221;

&#8220;"Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching and producing medicines, but as soon as those medicines are given to patients, they can be improperly used," Guy explains. "Patients might use too much, too little, or they might divert their medications to other people. For medications like cannabis that are controlled substances, it's essential that medical personnel be able to monitor dosage patterns. Our devices are like a digital camera that records details of time, date and other particulars every time it is used."&#8220;

&#8220;"Physicians will be able to monitor patient usage remotely," continued Guy. "People won't be able to tamper with our devices, even though they are portable and easy to use. You'd need a metal saw or a blowtorch to get into one of them. These controls answer concerns of those who worry that our extracts will be used inappropriately. And, these devices can be adapted for other medicines, ensuring patient safety and medical efficacy."&#8220;

&#8220;Dr Guy and his representatives have engaged in high level discussions with the DEA, FDA, the Office for National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) and senior state officials in California and Maine.&#8221;

&#8220;"We've made some progress in the US," Guy says. "We've commenced pre-clinical research in laboratories and other research in a university. This research is aimed at cell protection properties, general pharmacology, and the enhancement of effects afforded by beneficial synergy created when cannabinoids are blended together rather than isolated. The DEA has approved importation of our extracts into the US. They haven't said no to us on anything we've asked so far. They are playing it by the book. We look forward to continued progress."&#8220;

&#8220;"GW occupies a lead position world-wide," concludes Guy. "We are uniquely placed to become the first company to achieve regulatory approval for prescription cannabis-based medicines."&#8220;

SEE: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2400.html

In an interview with Cannabis Culture Magazine, the Chairman of GW Pharma Dr. Geoffrey Guy said &#8220;We deserve to make a fair return on our investment, and that's why we pursued patents for our plants, extracts, processes, and delivery devices."

In 2009 in Canada, GW Pharma has succeeded in "artificially manipulating" and Patenting a &#8220;Novel Reference Cannabis Plant&#8221; with a "knock out gene" that uses &#8220;monogenic mutation" to "block the cannabinoid biosynthesis in Cannabis sativa&#8221;. This technology is being used to artificially engineer the levels of medicinal compounds in the plant.
SEE: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396

In May of 2003, GW Pharma and Bayer Incorporated had reached a Marketing Agreement on Pioneering a New cannabis-based medicinal extract product called Sativex.

Bayer reportedly paid $60 Million to GW Pharma to obtain exclusive rights to market Sativex in the UK, And reportedly paid $14 Million for the marketing rights in Canada.

&#8220;Bayer corporation is also one of the largest biotechnology and GM producers in the world and has brought to market genetically engineered strains of rice, corn, rapeseed, and canola. Bayer is the world's leading pesticide manufacturer and the world's seventh largest seed company. Bayer CropScience is responsible for the majority of GM field trials in European countries. Bayer's GM crops are mostly "Liberty Link" - designed to be resistant to its "Liberty" herbicide. In 1925, Bayer was one of the chemical companies that merged to form the massive German conglomerate IG Farben, which was the largest single company in Germany and it became the single largest donor to Hitler's election campaign. After Hitler came to power, IG Farben worked in close collaboration with the Nazis, becoming the largest profiteer from the Second World War.&#8221;
SEE: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history

&#8220;An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984.&#8221;

&#8220;The documents examined by the Times provide evidence of unrestrained corrupt practices by a pharmaceutical industry giant. According to The Times, records suggest that the reason for continuing to sell an AIDS infected blood product, was to get rid of inventory and "the company hoped to preserve the profit margin from 'several large fixed-price contracts.'&#8220;&#8221;

SEE: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php

In 2007 Monsanto partnered with the patent holder of Sativex, Bayer, in a long-term agreement to cross-license their technologies.

"According to chairman of the Board of Management of Bayer CropScience Dr Friedrich Berschauer the agreements are an important step for Bayer as they could significantly broaden the availability of its LibertyLink technology outside its core cotton and canola seed business."

""At the same time, the agreements enable us to facilitate the development and commercialization of new technology solutions in the future," he said."

SEE: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance

While corporations like Bayer and GW Pharma are building patent monopolies over Cannabis strains, processes and medicinal compounds, an ongoing propaganda campaign in the U.S. continues to serve their Cannabis monopoly interests.

Before the reefer madness campaign of the 1930&#8217;s, relatively few peoples utilized the psychoactive properties of Cannabis through smoking in the U.S.. Hemp was outlawed in part because the white farmers of the 1930&#8217;s did not even know that the outlawing of the mysterious new menace called &#8220;Marijuana&#8221; was the same plant they were growing in their fields. Throughout history, this psychoactive knowledge of Cannabis has come and gone and those who have had a deep understanding of botany, especially of psychoactive plants were often accused of being either savages or witches. Reefer Madness not only created a hysteria against Cannabis, but it widely proliferated the knowledge of Cannabis&#8217;s psychoactive properties and attracted a new underground culture around the plant. This new culture has been heavily influenced by both the mainstream and the underground media.

For example, there are 60 different cannabinoids in the Cannabis plant. Many of which have been identified, genetically isolated and patented by both the U.S. government and other international companies for their medicinal properties. Though the underground and mainstream media in the U.S. around Cannabis tends to be exclusively focused on the psychoactive effect that is produced from the plants chemical compound known as THC. This has helped to create a culture of Cannabis plant breeders in the U.S. who produce strains with a very high yield of THC.

While THC has been conclusively shown by scientific studies done by the Medical College of Virginia, researchers from the University of Madrid, and researchers from the SETH group to contain definite cancer-destroying properties (SEE: http://www.globatron.org/contemporary-culture/thc-kills-brain-tumor-cells), the Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research in 2006 also states that &#8220;A high dose of delta9-THC, the main Cannabis component, induces anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers.&#8221;. That same journal also states that &#8220;These effects of Delta9-THC are significantly reduced by cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant.&#8221; The conclusions of these studies show that cannabidiol (CBD) has anti-psychotic properties which naturally balance out and reduce the reported psychoactive and anxiety-like effects of high doses of THC.

Unfortunately, because of media-hype and plant breeding techniques used in the U.S., there is little knowledge of or desire to breed Cannabis strains that contain a more harmonious balance of CBD to THC levels. This has left the common population with strains devoid of CBD and with artificially high levels of THC. Studies have shown that breeding Cannabis with high levels of THC selectively reduces the amount of CBD over time. DEA eradication has has also created an environment devoid of natural Male Cannabis pollen in the air, which has forced the over-production of THC in today&#8217;s Cannabis strains, decreasing the amount of CBD in strains that are accessible in the underground market.

Cannabis underground cultural media sources like &#8220;High Times Magazine&#8221; have also helped to proliferate breeding techniques such as buying genetic clones and sterile "Feminized Seeds", rather then harvesting and saving heirloom seed. This has left underground growers dependent on genetic clones from other sources and without a reliable seed supply. Some of the gods of this underground Cannabis culture are people such as the Skunkman aka David Watson, who is ironically also one of the only people to have acquired a DEA Cannabis import license. DEA is well aware of the influence that media sources like "High Times" plays in the underground culture. For example, In the late 1980&#8217;s the DEA targeted High Times Magazine in operation &#8220;Green Merchant&#8221; to compile lists of potential growers and make raids on their gardens.

This combination of DEA eradication and cultural media manipulation of breeding techniques has allowed corporations like Bayer and GW Pharma to attain a patent monopoly over Balanced THC to CBD Cannabis strains.

GW Pharma is undertaking a major research program in the UK to develop, patent and market distinct cannabis-based prescription medicines with both High THC and High CBD compounds. GW Pharma is even patenting the CBD to THC "ratios" found in their plant varieties and other products. The cannabis for this program is grown in a secret location in the UK. As of at least 2003, GW Pharma has been granted an import license from the DEA and has imported its first cannabis extracts into the US.

The following report dated September 23, 2009, is an excerpted article from Cannabis Culture Magazine and chronicles some important history, background, and intentions of Bayer and GW pharmaceuticals in the cannabis industry:
SEE: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19879

&#8220;Patented Pot vs. the Herbal Gold Standard by David Malmo-Levine&#8221;

&#8220;How patented marijuana strains and medicines may threaten the re-legalization movement, curb information sharing, set up a monopoly for certain breeders and medicine producers and limit users to a more expensive and inferior product. Their economic value to the pharmaceutical houses which produce them will be directly proportional to the severity of the prohibition against the use of cannabis.&#8221;

&#8220;During the last decade a split has developed within the marijuana community. One group is comprised of those who believe that the community's interests are best served by patenting marijuana strains and marijuana medicines in order to make them safer, more effective, more legitimate, more understood or, perhaps most importantly, more readily accessible since they will be legally available. The other group consists of those who believe natural cannabis medicine and strains are the "gold standard"; the safest, cheapest and, largely because of the ease with which it can be titrated, the most effective form cannabis medicine will take. This second group denies any real advantage of marijuana patents to the consumer, challenges any claim of exclusive rights of the first group to sell a particular strain and opposes the exploitation of a combination of patents and prohibition to force consumers to settle for an inferior product.&#8221;

&#8220;Within the first group we find those such as Britain's GW Pharmaceutical, who (with the help of pharmaceutical-giant Bayer) is now selling their whole-plant cannabis spray Sativex. This group also includes the Toronto-based Cannasat Therapeutics, The Nevada-based Dynamic Alert Ltd and various other smaller operations. These companies are looking to patent cannabis medicines, strains of cannabis or both - if they haven't already done so.&#8221;

&#8220;Even the US government has gotten in on the action. Patent #6,630,507 was awarded to the US Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, and states that cannabinoids are neuroprotectants and anti-inflammitory agents, useful in the prevention and treatment of stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorders, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and HIV dementia as well as many other diseases.&#8221;

&#8220;GW Pharmaceutical was granted a license to grow cannabis for medical research in 1998 and it's partner Bayer was granted a patent for Sativex in 2006. Sativex comes in a 5.5 ml spray bottle for $102 U.S. Dollars, which supplies about 51 sprays - enough for an average ten day supply. It is now available in Canada for MS and cancer pain, and has most recently become available in Britain and parts of Spain for use in the treatment of some other symptoms and syndromes.&#8221;

&#8220;GW Pharmaceutical has even patented a strain of cannabis called "Grace" in Canada. It was patented in 2005 under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. Under this 1994 Act, all plant species (except algae, bacteria, and fungi) are eligible for "protection" (exclusive rights to sell) for 18 years. Medicine patents last between ten to twenty years depending on the country.&#8221;

&#8220;Proponents of plant and medicine patents contend that there's no controversy, that patents encourage innovation as it covers the costs of research and development, that standardization and research are impossible without patents, that patents create products superior to traditional botanical medicines, that crude plant drugs are more dangerous and less effective than patented plant products and that patenting cannabis medicines will speed up their legalization - or at the very least expand the number of people who have access to cannabis medicine. The evidence proves otherwise.&#8221;

&#8220;Ethan Russo, an employee of GW Pharmaceuticals , writing for the on-line journal "Cannabinoids", listed the benefits of pharmaceuticalized cannabis medicines in his article "Cannabinoid Medicine and the Need for the Scientific Method". They are; 1) pharmaceuticalized cannabis products will gain widespread trust of physicians and medical consumers, 2) crude herbal materials can't be standardized, 3) crude herbal materials are full of micro-organisms and 4) most of the non-GW Pharmaceuticals strains of cannabis have no CBD in them.&#8221;

&#8220;In our view none of Russo's claims are accurate; 1) the pharmaceutical industry is currently losing the trust of consumers as herbal medicines make a comeback, 2) "crude herbal materials" can easily be standardized without patents if the herb is legal 3) properly grown organic cannabis is relatively free of microbes and metals, and 4) if cannabis were legal, those high CBD strains would be more easily attainable among all breeders.&#8221;

&#8220;Dr. Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharma stated in 2005:
"To protect our extensive investment, we have sought to identify and patent certain inventions throughout the growing, extraction and manufacturing process. My comments to Mr. Lucas were made as a friendly and, hopefully, helpful gesture as I did not wish him to invest a great amount of effort into obtaining approval for a product as a prescription medicine only to find that he did not have the freedom to operate in the first place."&#8220;

&#8220;Even before GW and Bayer had secured their patent on Sativex, Dr. Guy was already threatening to sue Philippe Lucas of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society for infringing Sativex's imminent patent with VICS's "Canna-Mist" spray. Just type "Bayer" and "patent" into Google (over two million sites) if you want evidence of Bayer's habit of suing at the drop of a hat for all sorts of patent-related matters.&#8221;

&#8220;Evidence of an attempted Canadian medical marijuana monopoly began back in 2000, with a leaked, unpublished document entitled "Draft Statement of Work for The Development of a Comprehensive Operation for the Cultivation and Fabrication of Marijuana in Canada". The plan called for a seed monopoly - "a licit source" only - and the eventual phase-out of all but a pharmaceutical "inhaler" device. According to the anonymous source who leaked the document, the first version of the plan also called for cannabis strains to be patented "as if they had been genetically modified". It appears that GW Pharmaceutical and Bayer have now done so with the Cannabis strain "Grace".&#8221;

&#8220;There are many herbal medicines that have successfully fought off attempted patents and monopolies. The anti-bacterial neem tree and even the vision-producing ayahuasca have all been subjects of patent attempts. Neem tree activists have used defenses such as "traditional knowledge" and "prior art" and "community heritage" in order to legally protect their healing tree from monopoly. Unfortunately, the patent on a strain of ayahuasca remains in effect to this day.&#8221;

&#8220;Cannabis monopolies are nothing new. One can argue that the prohibition of Moses's holy kanneh-bosm annointing oil - found in Exodus 30:32 - a prohibition for people other than priests and kings - was a type of cannabis monopoly. When botanical medicine became popular again in the fourteen hundreds, women healers were first called "unschooled" and later called "witches" to prevent them from competing with the newly emerging male pharmacists. The same thing happened in the mid eighteen hundreds, except this time instead of "witches", these botanical healers were called "quacks".&#8221;

&#8220;The modern version of this monopoly began in 1910 with the Flexner Report - a report that succeeded in closing down all the naturopathic and herbal medicine schools by the 1930's. This report was partially engineered by the Rockefeller Foundation. The removal of these schools would assist the Rockefeller family in protecting their investments in pharmaceuticals from botanical competition. The Rockefeller Institute and Rockefeller Foundation were also key players in the development of the sciences of genetics and molecular biology - the fields in which the concepts of patenting of life-forms originated. Standard Oil - now Exxon/Mobil and a host of other oil companies - was the Rockefeller Foundation's source of income. Interestingly, in 1927 Standard Oil became business partners with Bayer - the marketer and distributor of Sativex in Canada.&#8221;

&#8220;Bayer had much to do with the development of the Codex global anti-herbs and anti-vitamin regulations. This was instituted in 1961, coincidentally (or perhaps not) around the same time as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was instituted and the first Plant Patent Act was created.&#8221;

&#8220;What we know for certain is that nobody should have a monopoly on the emerging herbal health-care economy - especially corporations like Bayer and Exxon, who have had questions raised about the amount of influence they have welded in geopolitics, and what they've done with that influence.&#8221;

&#8220;When the modern patent was issued in the 1400's in Italy, they were for "new and inventive devices". This soon turned into a big money maker for kings and queens, who would issue patents for such things as salt. After a public outcry, James the first of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for 'projects of new invention'. It can be argued that a similar reform is due again today.&#8221;

&#8220;Perhaps lessons can be learned from those within the medical profession who have tried to pass off discoveries as inventions, and those who have not. Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, famously rejected attempting a patent, explaining that it was like attempting to patent the sun. This is seen by some to be his most "winning story" - what he lost in potential revenue he gained in reputation and positive influence on the world.&#8221;

&#8220;Joseph Lister was an English professor of surgery who discovered - or popularized - "antiseptic" surgery. He invented a carbolic acid spray as a method of preventing infection, but considering the fact that he didn't invent the spray bottle nor carbolic acid, he didn't bother attempting to patent his spray. He alerted the world to his discovery in the British medical journal The Lancet in 1867, and was eventually made a Baron - the first doctor so honored. They even named the first mouthwash after him - Listerine.&#8221;

&#8220;William Thomas Green Morton was a dentist from Boston. He discovered - or popularized - the fact that ether was a good anesthetic. He was successful in patenting his technique - on November 12th, 1846 he was granted U.S. Patent No. 4848. But he could not collect any money as it was merely the use of an agent already well known. His apparatus was not essential to anesthesia - fabric soaked in ether was all that was necessary. He died broke and his reputation suffered for "nostrum mongering" - for being a huckster and an opportunist.&#8221;

&#8220;George Washington Carver refused to patent any of his discoveries, saying, "God gave them to me, how can I sell them to someone else?" Ten years after his death, the United States government acquired the Missouri farm which was Carver's birthplace and dedicated it as a national shrine. The Carver epitaph reads: "He could have added fortune to fame, but, caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world."&#8220;

&#8220;Perhaps one day those who are currently attempting to patent cannabis medicines and cannabis strains will wake up to the fact that a good reputation is worth much more than a patent, and the gift of a new strain or new technique given to the world will return the most precious form of good karma upon the giver, while the person who attempts to "patent the sun" - patent a gift from nature or a traditional medicine bred and developed over thousands of years - will eventually suffer the worst forms of infamy. It is up to the entire cannabis community - especially the activist community, to see that sharing is rewarded and hoarding is punished.&#8221;

&#8220;GW adopts an aggressive approach to securing intellectual property rights to protect techniques and technologies involved in the development program. Protection is sought in the areas listed below:

&#8226; Plant variety rights
&#8226; Methods of extraction patents
&#8226; Drug delivery patents
&#8226; Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis
&#8226; Methods of use patents
&#8226; Design copyright on devices
&#8226; Trademarks&#8221;

&#8220;GW States on their website:
&#8220;In the last few years our intellectual property portfolio has developed considerably. The patent portfolio has more than doubled in size and comprises 42 patent families, within these families there are numerous granted patents both in the UK and in various territories around the world. GW has also developed a trademark portfolio of 21 UK registered trademarks with equivalent marks registered in many other territories around the world. GW also holds nine registered design rights and nine plant variety rights.&#8221;&#8221;

&#8220;It appears that "Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis" means "Patents on cannabinoid ratios".&#8221;

&#8220;Their ratio is 51% CBD and 49% THC:

Guy&#8217;s publicly-traded company has developed three types of medicine made from cannabis extracts: a high-THC extract called Tetranabinex, a mostly-CBD extract called Nabidiolex, and the 51-49% mixture of CBD and THC, called Sativex.

CBD began to be studied in the 1960's. Research into it's anti-psychotic (or anti-THC overdose) qualities go back to the 1980's.&#8221;

&#8220;As stated in Neems court challenge data:

&#8220;The issuance of a patent is prohibited if the patent would have been 'obvious' in light of prior art. The standard for patentability requires that the differences between a patentable invention and its prior art must be great enough so that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not consider the invention to be obvious at the time of patenting. Neems Patent No. 5,124,349 was found to not meet this standard.&#8221;

&#8220;An Indian government challenge in the United States led to the revocation of a patent on another Indian plant, turmeric, whose medicinal qualities have been known for centuries. That challenge was accepted as a result of India showing that the knowledge had been found in the Indian pharmacopoeia.&#8221;

&#8220;In the United States, prior existing knowledge to deny a patent is accepted in terms of publication in any journal, but not of knowledge known and available in oral or folk traditions.&#8221;

&#8220;This narrow view of prior knowledge has been responsible for any number of patents for processes and products derived from biological material, or their synthesis into purer crystalline forms.&#8221;

&#8220;A Third World Network expert group recommended in 1998 that developing countries apply a broad concept of 'prior art' to ensure that patents are granted to actually 'new' inventions, and to stick to the need of novelty of the process itself as a condition of granting a patent. The developing countries were also advised to deny patents for new uses of a known product or process, including second use of a medicine or for incremental additions to get a new patent on a prior one.&#8221;

&#8220;The expert group advised developing countries to define and interpret 'novelty' according to generally accepted concepts, namely, any prior disclosure whether written or not destroys novelty. Knowledge like use of medicinal plants diffused within a local or indigenous community should also be deemed prior art and patent denied.&#8221;

&#8220;And writing such a rule into their legislation would prevent patenting of knowledge or materials developed by and diffused within local or indigenous communities.&#8221;


Due to the high proliferation of pollen inherent in growing industrial Hemp, possibly the greatest threat posed to natural Cannabis strains is in the commercialization of artificially engineered industrial Hemp strains. The following document from the University of Kentucky in 1998 reports that France already holds Patents to industrial Hemp genetics, and is importing Hemp strains into Canada.

SEE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: GLOBAL OPERATIONS, LOCAL IMPLICATIONS
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf

One has to wonder, if Monsanto&#8217;s Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Proposition passes in California this November, where are the strains going to come from to provide for the &#8220;statewide regulatory and commercial industry&#8221; called for in the initiative? In the initiative, the only legal Cannabis strains protected by law, are those derived from licensed dealers. If this new industry is to be in accordance with federal law, the only legal seeds that can be attained are from corporations that hold DEA permits for Cannabis production and importation into the U.S.. These permits have been monopolized by Corporations like Kenex, HortaPharm, and GW Pharma, all of which appear to be heavily influenced by the bio-tech seed industry.

The only other legal source to obtain Cannabis seed is from within the United States, exclusively in the University of Mississippi&#8217;s Cannabis research program. The UM website describes it as follows:

&#8220;Since 1968, the University of Mississippi has maintained the nation&#8217;s only legal marijuana farm through a grant from the National Institutes of Health&#8217;s (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). In that time, the project has provided marijuana and its compounds to researchers around the country conducting HHS-approved studies of the plant, its chemical components, and their potential beneficial and harmful effects.&#8221;

&#8220;Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly joined the project when he came to Ole Miss in 1976 and has been Marijuana Project director since 1980. In the &#8217;80s and early &#8217;90s, ElSohly&#8217;s work focused on analyzing marijuana samples seized by the DEA to develop a marijuana &#8220;fingerprinting&#8221; system that is still being used to trace crops to their sources globally. The responsibility of analyzing the material for the DEA also provided UM researchers the opportunity to study a wide variety of plants leading to a better understanding of the many chemicals found in Cannabis.&#8221;

&#8220;In recent years, with some support from NIH, ElSohly and other UM researchers have studied Cannabis to develop new medicines and new ways of delivering the chemical compounds in marijuana, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), to treat a range of chronic conditions&#8212;from nausea due to chemotherapy for cancer patients to neuropathic pain for multiple sclerosis patients.&#8221;

&#8220;UM has patented and licensed to a pharmaceutical company a THC suppository to deliver to cancer patients the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana without the undesirable side effects.&#8221;

SEE: http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers

El Sohly also has a contract with Mallinckrodt, a giant chemical and bio-tech company that plans to market a THC-extract pill as an alternative to Marinol.
SEE: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18The Monsanto corporation merged with Mallinckrodt in the 1930's.
SEE: http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf

The following is an article found in Cannabis Culture Magazine published in February 2000, entitled &#8220;Genetically Modified Medpot&#8221; and reports that UM&#8217;s cannabis genetics are allegedly derived from Monsanto.
SEE: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1322.html

&#8220;Pharmaceutical companies may seize control of Canada's medical marijuana supply.&#8221;

&#8220;A source within the Ministry of Health, who wishes to remain anonymous, has provided documents and information to Cannabis Culture, describing how Canadian pot is to be grown for upcoming medical trials. The documents call for 185 kg (408 pounds) of pot to be grown in the first year, and double that amount for the second through fifth years.&#8221;
&#8220;The thirty-five page guideline document, with the weighty title, Draft Statement of Work for The Development of a Comprehensive Operation for the Cultivation and Fabrication of Marijuana in Canada, is still open to revisions. It includes proposals for how marijuana should be grown, processed and fabricated. Included in these guidelines is the potential to give a notorious pharmaceutical company exclusive rights for selling seeds to the budding medpot industry.&#8221;

&#8220;Mississippi schwag&#8221;

&#8220;According to the document, "the acquisition of seed will be performed by Health Canada during the project initiation stage. The prime contractor can choose to provide their own seed so long as it is from a licit source."&#8220;

&#8220;Which presents a problem. How many licit seed sources exist? In North America the only licit source is the University of Mississippi. Concerns about the effectiveness of notoriously schwaggy U of M bud prompted Dr Kilby of the Community Research Initiative of Toronto to state that he would prefer clinical marijuana come from another source (see CC#22). It would seem that Health Canada recognized these concerns when it began looking for private contractors to do the job.&#8221;

&#8220;Yet will the bud really be any different than that produced by the University of Mississippi? Cannabis Culture's anonymous source within the ministry gave us the scoop.
Advertisement&#8221;

&#8220;"Scheduled labs around the country which are already growing marijuana are using seeds from the University of Mississippi," reported the official. "The genetics come from Monsanto."&#8220;

&#8220;Health Canada spokesperson Jeff Pender knew of the recent guidelines document that had been released, but denied knowledge of where the seeds will come from.&#8221;

&#8220;"Where would a potential grower get the seeds from?," repeated Pender when I asked him this question. "I'm not really sure. I guess? I could find out for you. I imagine growers could order seeds from the US."&#8220;

&#8220;Pender eventually suggested that the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which also gets its cannabis from the University of Mississippi, might be a source for contracted growers looking to buy licit seeds. If the unnamed source at the Ministry of Health is correct, all of these seeds would originally have come from Monsanto.&#8221;

&#8220;Monsanto's marijuana&#8221;

&#8220;The US-based Monsanto corporation became infamous last year when the public discovered that the huge pharmaceutical company was responsible for producing Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, for producing and selling Roundup to be sprayed on South American villages, for experimenting with dangerous genetically modified foods, and ? most recently ? for creating the dreaded "terminator" seed.&#8221;

&#8220;Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to produce a plant that will not produce viable seed, meaning that growers would be forced to go back to Monsanto each year to buy more seed stock to replant. Governments and public alike became wary of the concept when it was discovered that the terminator seed could possibly cross the species barrier, possibly spreading infertility among the plant kingdom like a disease.&#8221;

&#8220;Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.&#8221;

&#8220;Pharmaceutical schwag&#8221;

&#8220;Interestingly, low-potency pot of the kind produced by Monsanto seeds at the University of Mississippi is exactly the kind of product the Ministry of Health is asking for from contractors. The guidelines ask specifically for "standardized marijuana cigarettes with THC content of between 4% and 6% and weighing [about] 850 mg."&#8220;

&#8220;Which means the cigarettes to be used for clinical trials will be phatties containing over three-quarters of a gram of schwag bud each! These fat joints will deliver about twice the tar per dose as marijuana currently available from experienced growers, which reaches between 8-10% THC.&#8221;

&#8220;The Health Canada document seems concerned that smoking can cause harm, and promises to explore other methods soon after the initial trials are run. Yet the product they choose to use is guaranteed to maximize the risks and problems associated with smoking. Could it be that the Ministry of Health is creating its own excuse not to use smoking as a delivery method?&#8221;

&#8220;Our anonymous source within the ministry assures us that the government plans to eventually only allow the use of inhalers, similar to asthma inhalers.&#8221;

&#8220;"The inhaler gets rid of any small industry that might develop, by regulating the delivery system. The other idea that didn't go through was to develop a seed system that would allow cultivars from across Canada which would then be grandfathered. What this means is that once the cultivated varieties were tested they would be introduced just the same as if they had been genetically modified."&#8220;

&#8220;Patented seeds and dose delivery methods could mean complete pharmaceutical control of medicinal cannabis sometime in the near future.&#8221;


The Cannabis legalization movement is heavily influenced from major shareholders in the Monsanto GMO seed industry. Mr. George Soros is the prime example. Soros is not only a major financier of DPA as well as being on the Board of Directors of the Drug Policy Alliance, but has also financed many different Cannabis legalization organizations across the country including the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). Soros is credited with putting financial muscle behind many of the state initiatives easing marijuana laws &#8212; beginning with a 1996 California ballot question to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. From 1996 to 2000, Soros backed medical marijuana questions there and in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.

An associated press article dated August 27, 2008 reports that a measure that would ease Marijuana laws in 2008 was on the ballot in Massachusetts largely because of billionaire financier George Soros.

Keith Stroup, founder of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has even stated that "All of us owe George Soros a great deal of gratitude".

If California&#8217;s Control Cannabis Proposition does not pass this November, Monsanto&#8217;s funding will undoubtedly legalize Cannabis for corporate exploitation sometime in the near future. This will Inundate the medicinal and industrial Cannabis market with artificially engineered and patented Cannabis strains from the only DEA permitted sources available: GW Pharma in partnership with Bayer Inc. and HortaPharm, Kenex corporation, and the University of Mississippi&#8217;s Marijuana program, all of which appear to be influenced heavily by the GMO seed industry.

Since the only licit sources of Cannabis are derived from interests in connection with the bio-tech industry, this will force anybody who wishes to grow natural non-patented and non-engineered Cannabis strains to attain their seeds from &#8216;illicit&#8217; sources.

Other then exposing the imminent threat that Cannabis legalization organizations are posing to natural Cannabis strains in collusion with trans-national GMO seed companies, our responsibility towards this sacred plant compels us to attain natural variety Cannabis seeds and protect them from genetic contamination. Just like the Mayans have learned with Maize, artificial genetic contamination is causing the extinction of natural plant varieties around the planet:

FIGHTING GMO CONTAMINATION AROUND THE WORLD:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=575
As we can learn from the Mayans in the foregoing article, the concept of saving seeds is sacred and central to their spiritual and physical way of life. The same is true for cultural and religious practices all around the world, whether you&#8217;re a Christian, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or just a plain old Human Being, the concept of saving seed is as old as human society itself. If corporations like Monsanto, GW Pharma, Bayer and HortaPharm are allowed to carry out there interests, they will hold the genetic copyrights to all Cannabis strains on the planet. GW Pharma and HortaPharm have stated their intent to engineer Cannabis strains similar to Monsanto&#8217;s terminator seed technology. Their strains seem to be artificially manipulated to produce "one-off sterile females" which prevents reproduction of harvest-able seeds. These are the kinds of strains that are waiting to be controlled, regulated, licensed and taxed after the potential passage of proposition 19 in California and many similar initiatives across the United States being funded directly by Monsanto shareholders.

This investigated report was written and compiled by Conrad Justice Kiczenski. Conrad is 19 years old, lives in Lucerne, California, is an organic gardener, and is the host and producer of Guerrilla Radio on KPFZ 88.1 FM in Lake County.

For more information about Conrad and his radio show Guerrilla Radio, SEE:

www.ustream.tv/channel/guerrilla-tv

www.radicaljusticeman.podomatic.com

www.guerrillaradiokpfz.podomatic.com

www.community.kpfz.org/blog/15

www.konocti.org/cms/guerrillla-radio

www.myspace.com/radicaljusticeman




 
Top