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

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?


  • Total voters
    369

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I am unable to find any mention of Pomo people living near Lake Superior.
I can only find mention of a Pomo tribe in California, which is far from large freshwater bodies except Lake Tahoe.
I also cannot find any mention of humans in the Americas prior to an estimated 15 thousand years ago, in Alaska, with younger earliest settlement dates heading south. cn
Goose Lake is "one of the largest" if you were to make a list of maybe the top 15 by surface area.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of pseudo scientific paleontology to argue that the area has been inhabited by humans thousands of years before the Clovis culture. It is political. Some evidence has been found and indeed in the area of Northern California but had to be turned over to tribal authorities who have also impeded archaeological efforts through legal means on the basis that such burial sites were sacred and that they would not suffer them studied. This has allowed a fringe of anthropologists to maintain that the continents were not peopled prior to the Clovis culture, while even the Bering Strait (as has more recently been shown by mainstream geologists) was a land bridge deeper into antiquity. Atlantis and ancient alien theorists do not own that controversy. There is some evidence.

*edit* I see the lake in question has been identified.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
"The largest (natural) lake in the Western hemisphere," is Lake Titicaca. Unless you define depth, surface area or volume as your defining criterium, it's ambiguous.
Surface area is the default criterion. Superior has almost tenfold the area of Titicaca. When not area, the measure has to be specified.

Lakes Baikal and Tanganyika are the most voluminous but are in the Eastern hemisphere. They're also the two deepest, as befits lakes in grabens. cn
 

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.

The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
Be it called 'creation' or 'nature' etc, are we prepared to allow it to be genetically redesigned by corporate interests?
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.
The first thing anyone can do to help is to get the word out by re-posting this message and the Act itself anywhere and everywhere you think people might read it.
All forms of volunteerism are needed in this effort from signature gathering to just about any way you can think of to help.
Find us at facebook for more info on volunteering and for progress updates.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.
At this stage all further suggestions on changes or additions to the text of the Act are still welcome, and thank you.

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
If anything make sure the shit is labeled. If someone wants it, let them have it. I have a problem with deception for profit.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Goose Lake is "one of the largest" if you were to make a list of maybe the top 15 by surface area.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of pseudo scientific paleontology to argue that the area has been inhabited by humans thousands of years before the Clovis culture. It is political. Some evidence has been found and indeed in the area of Northern California but had to be turned over to tribal authorities who have also impeded archaeological efforts through legal means on the basis that such burial sites were sacred and that they would not suffer them studied. This has allowed a fringe of anthropologists to maintain that the continents were not peopled prior to the Clovis culture, while even the Bering Strait (as has more recently been shown by mainstream geologists) was a land bridge deeper into antiquity. Atlantis and ancient alien theorists do not own that controversy. There is some evidence.

*edit* I see the lake in question has been identified.
At 147 square miles, it's not even in the top 100 (worldwide), I am almost sure. cn
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Can you provide a link for these finds of great age? I confess I've not been on top of the lit. cn
Our county's web site gives a description of the general area, but its about as efficient as our county's politicians.
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Clear_Lake_Information/History_of_Clear_Lake.htm

As for the age discoveries, talk to UC Davis and Berkly because its kind of like the 'food pyramid' that guides our school lunches, something keeps science from updating the official policy. In other words a great deal of what one can find on the web or in the library about 'Pomo' Indians is now known to be untrue, but that doesn't change the story.
The word 'Pomo' for example, on the web just now I found a site that claimed the word means 'the people', yet 'Pomo' actually meant 'hole in the ground' or something similar in the native language and was not at all what these first peoples called themselves.
All I can tell you is that those of us who live here and know the UC Davis folks etc know that (in fact its fairly 100th monkey stuff around here) recent finds show us 21-23 thousand years of occupancy by the same line of people.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Our county's web site gives a description of the general area, but its about as efficient as our county's politicians.
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Clear_Lake_Information/History_of_Clear_Lake.htm

As for the age discoveries, talk to UC Davis and Berkly because its kind of like the 'food pyramid' that guides our school lunches, something keeps science from updating the official policy. In other words a great deal of what one can find on the web or in the library about 'Pomo' Indians is now known to be untrue, but that doesn't change the story.
The word 'Pomo' for example, on the web just now I found a site that claimed the word means 'the people', yet 'Pomo' actually meant 'hole in the ground' or something similar in the native language and was not at all what these first peoples called themselves.
All I can tell you is that those of us who live here and know the UC Davis folks etc know that (in fact its fairly 100th monkey stuff around here) recent finds show us 21-23 thousand years of occupancy by the same line of people.
But they must have published. That's the joy of science ... no need to rely on anecdote. cn
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
But they must have published. That's the joy of science ... no need to rely on anecdote. cn
Well cb if you need published data, then I respectfully withdraw the previous number and we can just use the standard accepted number for this area (like the food pyramid) which is about 12,000 years ago...frankly though I don't see how it makes a whole lot of difference because either way the point remains the same.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Well cb if you need published data, then I respectfully withdraw the previous number and we can just use the standard accepted number for this area (like the food pyramid) which is about 12,000 years ago...frankly though I don't see how it makes a whole lot of difference because either way the point remains the same.
It makes a colossal diff to me because the way i understand it, the currently-known wave of human settlers in the Americas came by way of the Bering land bridge as the last ice sheet began to recede, which would make 15 kYa the earliest likely time for the immigration. However I just found today that they found skulls in Brazil that have more of a Melanesian (e.g. Aussie aborigines) bone structure. This suggests that the Asiatics encountered and displaced more Africanoid settlers whose likely way in was by boat. That has some odd parallels to a much later bit of history ... cn

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_humans_americas.html

ceterum censeo publication is the test of an idea in science. This establishes the researcher's priority, and opens the findings to debate by (his) scientific peers. Unpublished data need to be uncontroversial in order to be accepted, and suggesting human presence before the land bridge became passable is much too big to get that pass.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
It makes a colossal diff to me because the way i understand it, the currently-known wave of human settlers in the Americas came by way of the Bering land bridge as the last ice sheet began to recede, which would make 15 kYa the earliest likely time for the immigration. However I just found today that they found skulls in Brazil that have more of a Melanesian (e.g. Aussie aborigines) bone structure. This suggests that the Asiatics encountered and displaced more Africanoid settlers whose likely way in was by boat. That has some odd parallels to a much later bit of history ... cn

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_humans_americas.html

ceterum censeo publication is the test of an idea in science. This establishes the researcher's priority, and opens the findings to debate by (his) scientific peers. Unpublished data need to be uncontroversial in order to be accepted, and suggesting human presence before the land bridge became passable is much too big to get that pass.
Sorry cb, I went'a lookin lol, best I could find for you is my neighbor (the local archeologist) Dr John Parker's web site and I don't know for sure if he has been involved with some of the UC Davis/mount Konocti stuff or not...
http://wolfcreekarcheology.com/
"This web site contains the latest information on the activities of many Lake County and Northern California archaeological projects. It also provides links to various archaeological and historical organization web sites as well as information on endangered historical and archaeological resources."
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Sorry cb, I went'a lookin lol, best I could find for you is my neighbor (the local archeologist) Dr John Parker's web site and I don't know for sure if he has been involved with some of the UC Davis/mount Konocti stuff or not...
http://wolfcreekarcheology.com/
"This web site contains the latest information on the activities of many Lake County and Northern California archaeological projects. It also provides links to various archaeological and historical organization web sites as well as information on endangered historical and archaeological resources."
No worries. If it stands scrutiny, we'll hear about it in time. This would be a dramatic finding and (if confirmed or ruled likely) will end up in popular media, e.g. newspapers and the weekly newsmags. I went a'Googlin' on that premise, but I'm wagering it hasn't been published so far. cn
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
No worries. If it stands scrutiny, we'll hear about it in time. This would be a dramatic finding and (if confirmed or ruled likely) will end up in popular media, e.g. newspapers and the weekly newsmags. I went a'Googlin' on that premise, but I'm wagering it hasn't been published so far. cn
My friend who is 'Pomo' and has a local radio show goes on and on about it every Saturday at 1pm lol...you should call in and ask him...omg that would be sweeet! lol...his name is Clayton Duncan and if you call 707-263-3435 on a Saturday at 1pm-2pm you will automatically be on live with Clayton lol and he will talk your ear off about it.
He is still a little bothered by what we call 'bloody island' so beware...

edit ps...I only lol because Claytons way is much like that of a grand mother...
Call
ok not sure whats up but whenever i edit this and save it has what you see below, if its still there. I did not put it there?










Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
My friend who is 'Pomo' and has a local radio show goes on and on about it every Saturday at 1pm lol...you should call in and ask him...omg that would be sweeet! lol...his name is Clayton Duncan and if you call 707-263-3435 on a Saturday at 1pm-2pm you will automatically be on live with Clayton lol and he will talk your ear off about it.
He is still a little bothered by what we call 'bloody island' so beware...
I'm guessing that was a low point for first nations/next nations relations ... cn

(for some reason, Skype shyte auto-adds ...)
(wait; I think I got it)
(Keep it down over there!)
Aiee, the voices. Who awoke them?
(NOT me Boss ...)
(not me either)
(~stifled giggle~)

Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
I'm guessing that was a low point for first nations/next nations relations ... cn
Very low indeed...
"California's policy at the time of statehood was best exemplified by Gov. Peter H. Burnett, who stated in 1851, "that the war of extermination will continue to be waged until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected." This was one year after California entered the Union as a non-slave state, but the state Legislature enslaved Indians under the "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," which permitted Indians to be kidnapped and sold as de facto slaves and forced to work as indentured servants. Male children could be indentured until 18 years of age, and females until age 15. The California law also declared, "in no case shall a white man be convicted of any illegal act or offense upon the testimony of an Indian." In 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of claims exceeding $1 million, and in 1857 issued bonds for more than $400,000 to pay the expenses of the voluntary militia engaged in "Indian extermination."

Atrocities against Indians in California were the norm. The New York Century, a newspaper of the time, wrote of this period, "In the Atlantic and Western states, Indians have suffered wrongs and cruelties at the hands of the stronger race. But history has no parallel to the atrocities perpetrated in California."
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Very low indeed...
"California's policy at the time of statehood was best exemplified by Gov. Peter H. Burnett, who stated in 1851, "that the war of extermination will continue to be waged until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected." This was one year after California entered the Union as a non-slave state, but the state Legislature enslaved Indians under the "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," which permitted Indians to be kidnapped and sold as de facto slaves and forced to work as indentured servants. Male children could be indentured until 18 years of age, and females until age 15. The California law also declared, "in no case shall a white man be convicted of any illegal act or offense upon the testimony of an Indian." In 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of claims exceeding $1 million, and in 1857 issued bonds for more than $400,000 to pay the expenses of the voluntary militia engaged in "Indian extermination."

Atrocities against Indians in California were the norm. The New York Century, a newspaper of the time, wrote of this period, "In the Atlantic and Western states, Indians have suffered wrongs and cruelties at the hands of the stronger race. But history has no parallel to the atrocities perpetrated in California."
dd I noticed you haven't added your standard typical comment to this one (I hope you are not ill?) so I will do it for you because I just don't feel as though I 'did my job' unless your shinning brilliance brightens my posts...
Rolls eyes. More gibberish.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
[h=1]New chance to comment on genetically modified salmon[/h] Posted 12/28/2012
by - Margaret Bauman
The countdown is on to offer public comment to the federal Food and Drug Administration on its environmental assessment conclusion that a fast-growing genetically modified salmon will likely cause no harm to the environment.
The FDA planned to public a notice in the Federal Register on Dec. 26 and said it would accept comment on the agency's draft environmental assessment and preliminary finding of no significant impact through Feb. 24, 2013.
United Fishermen of Alaska, an umbrella group representing 37 commercial fishing organizations, is urging those in the seafood industry to file their views electronically or in written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Docket number FDA-2011-N-0899, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, ND 20852.
Electronic submissions were also being accepted at http://www.regulations.gov once the notice was published in the Federal Register.
The pre-release of the Federal Register notice is online at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-31118.pdf
Many Alaskans engaged commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries view the genetically modified product proposed by Massachusetts-based Aquabounty as a threat to wild fisheries. The FDA document states that the genetically modified fish appears to be safe to eat and that it is unlikely to harm wild salmon.
AquaAdvantage salmon, as the genetically modified fish is known, is an Atlantic salmon with an extra growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon.
Alaska's congressional delegation is united in its opposition to the FDA's draft environmental assessment, which is clearing the way for approval of the genetically modified fish for human consumption.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, introduced legislation in November 2010 to stop the FDA from approving genetically modified fish. Last November, Begich celebrated Halloween by handing on "no Frankenfish" buttons to fellow senators.
"I've said from the beginning that Frankenfish pose a gravel threat to Alaska's wild salmon stocks, and today's decision by the FDA is foolish and disturbing," Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said on Dec. 21. "As the final process moves forward, I will continue the fight with the Alaska congressional delegation to ensure that this product never hits the market."
Young said he planned to reintroduce legislation that will at a bare minimum require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled to ensure that the public knows what they are purchasing at the grocery store and feeding their families.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in a video released by her office that she does not believe the FDA should approve these fish.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
New chance to comment on genetically modified salmon

Posted 12/28/2012
by - Margaret Bauman
The countdown is on to offer public comment to the federal Food and Drug Administration on its environmental assessment conclusion that a fast-growing genetically modified salmon will likely cause no harm to the environment.
The FDA planned to public a notice in the Federal Register on Dec. 26 and said it would accept comment on the agency's draft environmental assessment and preliminary finding of no significant impact through Feb. 24, 2013.
United Fishermen of Alaska, an umbrella group representing 37 commercial fishing organizations, is urging those in the seafood industry to file their views electronically or in written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Docket number FDA-2011-N-0899, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, ND 20852.
Electronic submissions were also being accepted at http://www.regulations.gov once the notice was published in the Federal Register.
The pre-release of the Federal Register notice is online at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-31118.pdf
Many Alaskans engaged commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries view the genetically modified product proposed by Massachusetts-based Aquabounty as a threat to wild fisheries. The FDA document states that the genetically modified fish appears to be safe to eat and that it is unlikely to harm wild salmon.
AquaAdvantage salmon, as the genetically modified fish is known, is an Atlantic salmon with an extra growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon.
Alaska's congressional delegation is united in its opposition to the FDA's draft environmental assessment, which is clearing the way for approval of the genetically modified fish for human consumption.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, introduced legislation in November 2010 to stop the FDA from approving genetically modified fish. Last November, Begich celebrated Halloween by handing on "no Frankenfish" buttons to fellow senators.
"I've said from the beginning that Frankenfish pose a gravel threat to Alaska's wild salmon stocks, and today's decision by the FDA is foolish and disturbing," Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said on Dec. 21. "As the final process moves forward, I will continue the fight with the Alaska congressional delegation to ensure that this product never hits the market."
Young said he planned to reintroduce legislation that will at a bare minimum require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled to ensure that the public knows what they are purchasing at the grocery store and feeding their families.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in a video released by her office that she does not believe the FDA should approve these fish.
Jesus, they've genetically modified them to be made from STONE?!
 
Top