Human Rights vs Civil Rights Cultivates into National Security Complications

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Read full more detailed version of this piece here:
https://www.record-bee.com/2019/04/19/kiczenski-is-cannabis-cultivating-into-a-bio-threat-to-national-security/

Civil rights get you to the market, Human rights get you through life.

Short (extremely edited) version:

In February, 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reported to the Senate that genome editing had become a global danger. The 2019 DNI " Worldwide Threat Assessment" reiterated the 2016 bio-threat danger. There's many important reasons why all commercial crops in America are supposed to be regulated for genome editing (GMO's), yet cannabis legalization laws, as exampled in Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and California, do not require licensed cannabis cultivators to disclose information about genetically engineered cannabis (GEC), aka GMO cannabis, genetically edited cannabis, bio-engineered cannabis, etc.
In December of 2018, Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto announced they had completed mapping the cannabis genome.
Meanwhile, some American growers are following the non official "don't ask, don't tell" policy, claiming they are already gene editing to achieve "certain traits", yet are not required to disclose genetic modifications to state governments or to the public.
According to the US government, "The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and proper labeling of all plant-derived food and feed, including those developed through genetic engineering.". FDA public affairs did not want to be quoted, but said the FDA had no jurisdiction over cannabis, and that the DEA was the authority with jurisdiction.
From DEA Headquarters , Public Affairs Officer, Barbara Carreno, offered this apparent observational comment that "no one at any level appears to be regulating this".
Originally, Congress created the "Controlled Substances Act" (CSA), providing the authority to schedule substances to be restricted to varying degrees from use. The problem here is that the CSA allows for scheduling natural plants as "controlled substances".
Scheduling natural plants resulted in consequences aside from the current jurisdictional quagmire of an ongoing bio-threat to the national security of the United States. The foremost consequence of scheduling natural plants, is that it nullified an American's self evident, naturally endowed, basic human right to access, grow, and use natural plants. At this point in America, to legally grow so much as a carrot you are exercising a "civil right", not a human right. So in effect the Congress scheduled a basic human right into obscurity.
Having no basic human right to access natural plants, means no basis in law by which to protect natural plants or the broader natural heritage from cross pollination contamination with bio-engineered, privately patented plants that enjoy the full scope of protection under intellectual property laws.
Congress will eventually remedy the issue of unregulated GEC by removing cannabis from the CSA, but the CSA problem's will continue.
For example, people in Oregon intend on floating a measure to legalize psilocybin mushrooms, a schedule 1 controlled substance. If "magic" mushrooms were legalized in Oregon, we are right back in the same circumstances of no oversight regulations for bio-engineering "shrooms".
DEA has jurisdiction over all schedule 1 "substances". Any natural life form listed as a schedule 1 controlled substance is outside the jurisdiction of federal agencies that regulate for GMO's. Therefore, as long as natural life forms are considered to be schedulable under the CSA, we will continue to have this gap in the law.
Civil litigation is needed to challenge governments assumed authority to schedule natural plants or any natural life forms, and proceeding on the basis that such government overreach has disparaged a self evident fundamental natural human right. When the basic human right is restored and protected, it establishes the basis for litigating to protect the genetic integrity of natural heirloom plants and all of our natural heritage from the bio-threat of GMO cross pollination contamination forever polluting the natural gene pool we all swim in.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
one of the first things that occur to me is that weed is a recreational drug for most people. i know many use it medicinally, i do myself, but genetically manipulating it doesn't have the same consequences as genetically manipulating a staple food crop...there is no potential for widespread starvation if they fuck it up...just widespread sadness...
i'm not supporting anyone genetically manipulating cannabis...i'm pretty much against it...but i don't see it as a potential end of the world...
the yeasts they are developing as food is a good use of this kind of technology, as long as they know what they're releasing before they release it...but trying to "improve" crops is going against nature...making a plant more productive, or making it better able to resist disease sounds like a good idea on the surface, but no one can consider all the implications...what if those plants start to out compete other species? what happens to biodiversity? what happens when insects and diseases finally mutate into something that can eat those crops? the only crops we have now, since these " super strains" out competed all non modified species?...being able to do something has never been a justification to do it...
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
one of the first things that occur to me is that weed is a recreational drug for most people. i know many use it medicinally, i do myself, but genetically manipulating it doesn't have the same consequences as genetically manipulating a staple food crop...there is no potential for widespread starvation if they fuck it up...just widespread sadness...
i'm not supporting anyone genetically manipulating cannabis...i'm pretty much against it...but i don't see it as a potential end of the world...
the yeasts they are developing as food is a good use of this kind of technology, as long as they know what they're releasing before they release it...but trying to "improve" crops is going against nature...making a plant more productive, or making it better able to resist disease sounds like a good idea on the surface, but no one can consider all the implications...what if those plants start to out compete other species? what happens to biodiversity? what happens when insects and diseases finally mutate into something that can eat those crops? the only crops we have now, since these " super strains" out competed all non modified species?...being able to do something has never been a justification to do it...
The world according to Rumsfeld, aka Rumsfeld's law:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Man's ability to fuck things up knows no limits.
Got that right!

Historically we have done a shitty job. Just look at rabbits and cane toads in Australia. Each brought in to fix one problem then totally disrupting the ecology. Fishermen dumping leftover worms in forests causing widespread damage. Toss GE into the mix and magnify the problems a thousandfold.

Global warming is one of our most threatening screw-ups. We've known for decades that were headed down a destructive path but have done little to correct things. The US is one of the worst polluters and the first to deny it's implication or responsibility. Under Trumpian direction it's only getting worse. Now here in Alberta we've just lost the Dems to the Cons and our new dictator is a Trumpian through and through.

Even a dog knows not to shit in it's own back yard but us superior humans have managed to fill our collective backyard, Earth, to the point that nothing but near extinction of the human species can revert our planet back to a semblance of what it should be.

Back in the 80's we came together to tackle the ozone problem and it is on the mend so why can't we do the same to beat the biggest threat to our species now?

Our inability to learn from our mistakes, arrogance, will be our downfall as a species.

Jah help us all!

Happy 4:20!

:peace:
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Big Oil and Big Coal.
Lobbyists for all the 'Big' drivers are killing us. By us I don't mean me or you. I mean the brainless droids that make up 95% of humanity. Luckily they are too stupid to find a place like RIU so it's cool to speak openly here. ;)

You should read this short story called "The Marching Morons". I read it 40? years ago and thought it prophetic then and it fits like glove now with out Trumpian world.

I piss off everyone around me trying to educate them about the poisons they are exposed too eating/drinking processed crap. I've learned to shut up to preserve friendships but damned if I'll consume any of it.

I'm a freak where I live, I'm almost 65. Got long red hair half way down my back, One of those fierce Nordic faces that's always been great to intimidate attackers long enough to let me me run away really fast! I'm only 140lbs soaking wet and 5'8". Always been a scrapper and with my monster IQ and Bruce Lee movies I was never bothered in junior or senior high. Just known to be crazier than hell and after I got lucky and broke the bully's jaw with a quick snap I saw in a movie I never got hassled. Didn't get laid more for that until I bought a '70 Bonneville with 6" risers and 6" plugs in the front end. Biggest bike at Richmond High and the babes loved it!

What a rush just closing my eyes and looking back.

♫♪ Wasted days and wasted nights . . . ♪♫ pass.gif

:peace:
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Lobbyists for all the 'Big' drivers are killing us. By us I don't mean me or you. I mean the brainless droids that make up 95% of humanity. Luckily they are too stupid to find a place like RIU so it's cool to speak openly here. ;)

You should read this short story called "The Marching Morons". I read it 40? years ago and thought it prophetic then and it fits like glove now with out Trumpian world.

I piss off everyone around me trying to educate them about the poisons they are exposed too eating/drinking processed crap. I've learned to shut up to preserve friendships but damned if I'll consume any of it.

I'm a freak where I live, I'm almost 65. Got long red hair half way down my back, One of those fierce Nordic faces that's always been great to intimidate attackers long enough to let me me run away really fast! I'm only 140lbs soaking wet and 5'8". Always been a scrapper and with my monster IQ and Bruce Lee movies I was never bothered in junior or senior high. Just known to be crazier than hell and after I got lucky and broke the bully's jaw with a quick snap I saw in a movie I never got hassled. Didn't get laid more for that until I bought a '70 Bonneville with 6" risers and 6" plugs in the front end. Biggest bike at Richmond High and the babes loved it!

What a rush just closing my eyes and looking back.

♫♪ Wasted days and wasted nights . . . ♪♫ View attachment 4321072

:peace:
Thank you for sharing your fantasies with us.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DEA has jurisdiction over all schedule 1 "substances".
DEA is a useless, albeit dangerous, money pit like every other three letter agency. Fuck them all.

While they still have the power to fuck with people, most people see them as an unnecessary vestige of the nanny state, which should be disobeyed, at least as far as marijuana anyway.

For instance despite the fact marijuana is still a SCHEDULE 1 "drug", few people believe that horse shit now. Marijuana acceptance is the "gateway" to other radical ideas such as individuals own their own bodies and that the substance itself is not the issue, an individuals choice is the real issue.


Civil litigation is needed to challenge governments assumed authority to schedule natural plants or any natural life forms, and proceeding on the basis that such government overreach has disparaged a self evident fundamental natural human right.
Interesting topic, thanks for posting this.

Civil litigation might help but the thing that has had the most effect historically has been large scale civil disobedience.

For instance it is STILL federally illegal to grow and use marijuana. Yet, here we are in a far different marijuana world than even 10 years ago.

Government overreach and human rights abuse isn't an anomaly, it is the standard. When that reality becomes more generally known / accepted, civil litigation won't be necessary.

Government is and always has been nothing more than a giant contradiction based assumed authority in every regard.

Which is why we have no obligation to obey. IF government edicts sometimes mirror something morally sound, we should follow it, not because it is an edict from government, but because it is morally sound.
If a government edict is not morally sound, we should disobey, because WE are morally sound.
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
DEA is a useless, albeit dangerous, money pit like every other three letter agency. Fuck them all.

While they still have the power to fuck with people, most people see them as an unnecessary vestige of the nanny state, which should be disobeyed, at least as far as marijuana anyway.

For instance despite the fact marijuana is still a SCHEDULE 1 "drug", few people believe that horse shit now. Marijuana acceptance is the "gateway" to other radical ideas such as individuals own their own bodies and that the substance itself is not the issue, an individuals choice is the real issue.




Interesting topic, thanks for posting this.

Civil litigation might help but the thing that has had the most effect historically has been large scale civil disobedience.

For instance it is STILL federally illegal to grow and use marijuana. Yet, here we are in a far different marijuana world than even 10 years ago.

Government overreach and human rights abuse isn't an anomaly, it is the standard. When that reality becomes more generally known / accepted, civil litigation won't be necessary.

Government is and always has been nothing more than a giant contradiction based assumed authority in every regard.

Which is why we have no obligation to obey. IF government edicts sometimes mirror something morally sound, we should follow it, not because it is an edict from government, but because it is morally sound.
If a government edict is not morally sound, we should disobey, because WE are morally sound.
Doing the right thing, it is more important to me than following the rules.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Doing the right thing, it is more important to me than following the rules.
depends on the situation...sometimes what seems like the right thing, isn't, because we're not aware of all the implications...not that i trust the government to keep me informed of things they should, but...
simplified example...when the tourist feed the bears here, the bears are happy, and the tourist get some cool videos.
but those bears keep coming back...they quit foraging, lose any fear of humans, break into vehicles, chase people around their cabins, and end up getting euthanized, because tourists fed them some marshmallows...
like i said, simplified example, but the point remains, sometimes what seems harmless, or even right, isn't...
which is the reason some of those rules exist...how do you tell the useful ones from the stupid ones?
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Which is why we have no obligation to obey. IF government edicts sometimes mirror something morally sound, we should follow it, not because it is an edict from government, but because it is morally sound.
If a government edict is not morally sound, we should disobey, because WE are morally sound.
Words to live by, at least I have.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
depends on the situation...sometimes what seems like the right thing, isn't, because we're not aware of all the implications...not that i trust the government to keep me informed of things they should, but...
simplified example...when the tourist feed the bears here, the bears are happy, and the tourist get some cool videos.
but those bears keep coming back...they quit foraging, lose any fear of humans, break into vehicles, chase people around their cabins, and end up getting euthanized, because tourists fed them some marshmallows...
like i said, simplified example, but the point remains, sometimes what seems harmless, or even right, isn't...
which is the reason some of those rules exist...how do you tell the useful ones from the stupid ones?
If a law disparages a self evident naturally endowed human right, its not only stupid, it will be detrimental.
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
depends on the situation...sometimes what seems like the right thing, isn't, because we're not aware of all the implications...not that i trust the government to keep me informed of things they should, but...
simplified example...when the tourist feed the bears here, the bears are happy, and the tourist get some cool videos.
but those bears keep coming back...they quit foraging, lose any fear of humans, break into vehicles, chase people around their cabins, and end up getting euthanized, because tourists fed them some marshmallows...
like i said, simplified example, but the point remains, sometimes what seems harmless, or even right, isn't...
which is the reason some of those rules exist...how do you tell the useful ones from the stupid ones?
Like stop signs, speed limits and so on. It is good to have rules to go by that make life safer. It's also true that just because it's legal doesn't mean I should do it.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
there are no naturally endowed human rights...rights are a human construct we invented to both protect ourselves, and justify fucking over other people....we're animals that have evolved self awareness...so we're about a step and a half in front of the chimpanzees...take away "society" for a week or two and see how many "rights" you retain

and i'm not trying to be antagonistic...just realistic...we grant rights to each other...there is no divine being dispensing them as we're conceived...and their continued existence depends upon our continued respect of those "rights"....
 
Top