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

[DNAprotection]

Listen, you made retarded claims, that puts the onus of proof on you.

So far you've dicked about and talked shite, but have presented nothing to back up your assertions, infact one of your "sources" completely countered the point you were trying to make.

So...ANY proof at all to back up what you're saying or just more cock-swaggle?

Ok Frank, or FFF (frank ferret face) for short...for example why have you still not responded to this,

[SIZE=+2]Killing Cannabis with mycoherbicides[/SIZE] [Also see: http://mycoherbicide.net/MUTABILITY/mutability.htm] John M. McPartland, D.O., M.S.
VAM/AMRITA
53 Washington Street Extension
Middlebury, VT 05753, USA David P. West, Ph.D.
GamETec
363 S. Warren Street
Prescott, WI 54021, USA
Abstract [SIZE=-1]Last year, researchers were funded by the U.S. government to create fungi that destroy drug plants, including marijuana (Cannabis species). The fungi will be genetically engineered. Controversies surrounding this "new solution" for the war on drugs are discussed, including the ethics of exterminating plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with unpredictable environmental pitfalls; exotic pathogens can spread from their intended targets to other organisms. All known pathogens of marijuana also attack hemp; exterminating drug plants will probably spell the demise of a valuable and resurgent fiber and oil-seed crop. Genetically transformed fungi are genetically unstable and mutate easily. Fungi with recombinant DNA may reproduce with native fungi and create new strains of virulent, transgenic pathogens. Once these pathogens are released in the environment, they cannot be recalled. In summary, we argue that research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis is a dangerous misuse of biotechnology, and call for an immediate moratorium.[/SIZE]

Introduction [SIZE=-1]The U.S. Congress recently appropriated $23 million dollars to fund a "new solution" for the war on drugs. The new solution attacks drugs at their source — the drug plants. Researchers say they can eliminate drug plants with fungal pathogens. The fungi would be genetically engineered to kill only coca plants (Erythoxylum species), opium poppies (Papaver species), and marijuana (Cannabis species).[/SIZE] Rep. Bill McCollum, who introduced the appropriation bill, described the tactic as "a silver bullet in the drug war" (Fields 199. The development of transgenic coca and opium pathogens began several years ago, but previous appropriations were relatively small (the 1998 budget was $2.58 million). This year McCollum expanded the program to include marijuana, and moved the budget's decimal point to the right.
A fungal weapon for the war on drugs is not new. Millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s in a world-wide search for fungi which would attack coca (Lentz et al. 1975), poppies (Schmitt & Lipscomb 1975), or marijuana (Ghani et al. 197. See Figure 1. It was a strange era for plant pathologists. While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy—they attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986).
Renewed interest in fungal pathogens for the war on drugs concerns us in its own right. Our law-enforcement lobby wishes to exterminate three plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. Are the targeted plants inescapably evil? Are there no alternative means for reducing their dangers to humans? We wish to report the ethical and scientific controversies pertinent to this issue, framed for consideration by academia, State and Federal government agencies, and others interested in genetically engineered organisms, biological control, and the drug war (Cook et al. 1996).
Killer fungi [SIZE=-1]Experiments with fungi to control plants began in the late 1960s. The initial targets were noxious agricultural weeds that had been accidentally imported from one region of the world into another, where they became more aggressive, because their natural enemies were often absent. Hence, the classical strategy for biocontrol of weeds involves the importation of natural enemies from their native ranges. Classical biocontrol generally enjoys wide approval and is used by organic agriculture, although the strategy does have its critics (Howarth 1991).[/SIZE]
Classical biocontrol of marijuana was originally envisioned by Arthur McCain in 1970 (Shay 1975). McCain, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, suggested, "Just introduce a couple of pounds [of a pathogenic fungus] into an area, and while it wouldn't have much of an effect the first year, in several years it would spread throughout the country with devastating results" (Zubrin 1981). In reality, however, classical biocontrol rarely extirpates a weed, it merely reduces the weed population to a low level (Watson 1991). Reduction without eradication is acceptable for most agricultural weeds, but is unacceptable for "zero tolerance" drug control, which seeks the complete eradication of a crop.
The other biocontrol strategy, inundative release, is also called the mycoherbicide approach. This strategy releases massive amounts of fungal spores upon target plants. The mycoherbicide approach can totally eradicate a field of drug plants. This approach, however, utilizes a delivery system similar to that of chemical herbicides — such as hovering over clandestine fields in a helicopter while releasing the control agent. Thus the mycoherbicide approach, compared to the current herbicide strategy, is equally expensive, exposes pilots to equal danger as they hover over fields, and may require annual retreatment of annual crops. The mycoherbicide approach is not the suggested "silver bullet."
Fear of foreigners [SIZE=-1]The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with controversy. Once a self-perpetuating fungus has been released, it is impossible to recall or control (Lockwood 1993). Despite host-range testing to identify potential nontarget hosts, exotic fungi can spread from their intended targets to other plants. The entire flora of a continent may ultimately be exposed, especially if the fungus produces wind-borne spores (Auld 1991). Because of this concern, only two exotic fungi have ever been intentionally imported into North America—Puccinia chondrillina and Puccinia carduorum.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fear of "collateral damage" to nontarget plants is justified. When Puccinia xanthii, considered a selective selective pathogen of Xanthium weeds, was imported into Australia from North America, the fungus spread to sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) and Calendula officinalis (Auld 1991). Native fungi sold as mycoherbicides may also spread to new hosts after release. For example, Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®), one of only three mycoherbicide fungi commercially available in the U.S., has a wider host range than originally determined, including several economically important legumes (TeBeest 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The situation with fungi is comparable to that with insects. Turner (1985) estimated that 21% of biocontrol insects intentionally introduced into North America have spread to non-target native plants. For instance, the beetle Chrysolina quadrigemina was imported into North America to kill weedy St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum), but it subsequently moved to the ornamental species Hypericum calycinum (Turner 1985). Howarth (1991) described nearly 100 cases where errant biocontrols have driven non-target hosts to extinction, mostly in island ecosystems. Howarth claimed that more species extinctions have been caused by biocontrols than by pesticides.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Non-target hosts at greatest risk to exotic biocontrol fungi include:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1) plants phylogenetically related to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) plants with secondary compounds or morphological features similar to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) plants attacked by fungi related to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4) plants never exposed to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5) plants whose fungal pathogens are unknown (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The study of fungus-host specificity is site-dependent. That is, each potential release site has its own unique flora, fauna, and climactic conditions. Sites with a high degree of biodiversity, such as Amazonia, are teeming with potential non-target hosts. Studies of tropical sites are very complicated and become susceptible to errors of tremendous consequence. The potential spread of fungi away from release sites must also be taken under consideration. Biocontrol agents do not recognize international boundaries, yet host specificity studies rarely consider non-target hosts in neighboring countries (Lockwood 1993).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the case of pathogens of Cannabis, the non-target host at greatest risk, because of its close phylogenetic relationship to Cannabis, is hops (Humulus lupulus). At least 10 fungal pathogens are known to mutually infect Cannabis and Humulus (McPartland 1992). The next closest relatives are the Urticaceae (members of the nettle family) and the Moraceae (mulberry family), with which Cannabis shares at least 20 fungal pathogens (McPartland 1992).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species debate[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]The non-target host at greatest risk is Cannabis itself. Within the genus we find plants cultivated for drugs (marijuana), or fiber (hemp), or seed oil (seed hemp), as well as wild, uncultivated plants (feral hemp). How closely related are these plants? Some taxonomists describe marijuana and hemp as completely separate species (Schultes et al. 1974), whereas other taxonomists say they are the same species, Cannabis sativa (Small & Cronquist 1976).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This "species debate" achieved semantic importance during the 1970s (Small 1979). Drug libertarians promoted the polytypic approach and cited marijuana as Cannabis indica, to argue that statutes written against Cannabis sativa did not apply to marijuana. Conversely, law enforcement agencies have maintained that the genus is monotypic. Now, to rationalize the mycoherbicide approach, law enforcement appears to have reversed its position. Semantics aside, most fungi that attack marijuana also attack hemp (McPartland 1995b, 1995c, 1997, McPartland & Cubeta 1997).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Clearly, the greatest concern surrounding biological control is host specificity. Consider Pseudoperonospora cannabina, a marijuana pathogen promoted by biocontrol researchers (Zabrin 1981, McCain & Noviello 1985). P. cannabina may be identical to Pseudoperonospora humuli, a pathogen of hemp and hops (Hoerner 1940). We have re-investigated several fungi that were originally described as specific pathogens of Cannabis, but under closer scrutiny, turned out to be misidentifications of widespread pathogens that attack many hosts (for example, "Pleosphaerulina cannabina" turned out to be Leptosphaerulina trifolii, "Stemphylium cannabinum" = Stemphylium botryosum, "Sclerotinia kauffmanniana" = Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (McPartland 1995d).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineering[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Wishing to improve host specificity and toxicity of fungal pathogens, researchers are now turning to genetic engineering (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). The use of transgenic organisms, however, elicits a new set of concerns (Levin & Israeli 1996). These are concerns that resulted in the Asilomar moratorium on genetic engineering of human pathogens.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineers have recently been investigating a coca pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli (Sands et al. 1997, Nelson et al. 1997). F. oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli was selected for coca eradication because it caused natural epidemics in Peru and on the former Coca-cola plantation on Kauai, where "containment of the fungus proved challenging" (Sands et al. 1997). Fusarium oxysporum is well known to bioengineers, and previous researchers successfully inserted toxin genes into the species (Kistler 1991). Nevertheless, Gabriel (1991) considered it "unwise" to clone a toxin gene into a necrotrophic pathogen (such as F. oxysporum). He argued that such a pathogen might gain unexpected fitness and radically expand its host range, "a potentially dangerous experiment." Fusarium species can produce a variety of toxic metabolites known as trichothecenes, which gained some notoriety for their reputed use in biological warfare ("yellow rain"). F. oxysporum is known to cause systemic infections in humans (Rippon 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetically transformed fungi have unstable genotypes, making mutations more likely. Experiments have shown F. oxysporum spontaneously mutates its transgenic DNA (Kistler 1991). Furthermore, F. oxysporum utilizes parasexual coupling, and at least 5% of its genome consists of transposons, or moveable pieces of DNA (Kistler 1997). Parasexuality and active transposable elements would facilitate the transfer of recombinant DNA to native fungi, potentially creating new strains of virulent pathogens. The wheat pathogen Puccinia graminis, for instance, hybridizes with other fungi on wild grasses, giving rise to offspring with increased virulence (Luig & Watson 1972, Burdon et al. 1981). This fact is not cited by proponents of biocontrol with rust fungi (Cook et al. 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Gene flow" has been more thoroughly studied in plants than fungi. Levin & Israeli (1996) documented five examples of spontaneous gene flow from crops to native plants, which resulted in new or worse weeds. The introgression of engineered genes from transgenic crops to related weed species has been demonstrated (Brown & Brown 1996), and may arise after just 2 generations of hybridization and backcrossing (Mikkelsen et al. 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Currently, testing for gene flow is not standard procedure during the evaluation of transgenic organisms. This could be accomplished by crossing engineered fungi with related fungi (particularly if the fungi reproduce sexually, and especially if they are heterothallic fungi). Several generations of crossed hybrids are evaluated in serial host studies. Testing for gene flow is especially imperative for biocontrols which have been genetically manipulated to resist fungicides. Researchers have transformed Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®) with a gene for fungicide resistance (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). Imagine if this fungicide-resistant gene introgressed into Histoplasma capsulatum or other human pathogens commonly found in agricultural areas![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species question, round two[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Another Fusarium species, F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis, is the primary candidate to kill marijuana (Hildebrand & McCain 1978, Noviello et al. 1990) and wild hemp in the American Midwest (Shay 1975). See Figure 2. Researchers promote F. oxysporum as a marijuana mycoherbicide because they claim hops, Humulus lupulus, is not susceptible to fusarium wilt (McCain & Noviello 1985). They overlooked "Hops wilt" caused by F. oxysporum in Australia (Sampson & Walker 1982).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]F. oxysporum [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]f. sp. cannabis was originally isolated from hemp cultivars in Italy, by researchers who believed "...the wilt disease and its pathogen have not been previously described" (Noviello & Snyder 1962). In fact, these researchers missed many previous descriptions of this wilt disease (Dobrozrakova et al., 1956, Rataj 1957, Ceapoiu 1958, Czyzewska & Zarzycka 1961, Barloy & Pelhate 1962, Serzane 1962). All previous descriptions attributed hemp wilt disease to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. This fungus is morphologically identical to F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis but has a very broad host range (e.g., cotton, mung beans, pigeon peas, rubber trees, alfalfa, soybeans, coffee, tobacco and many other plants).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland (1995a) proposed that F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis may be a misidentified pathotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. Similarly, the fungus causing tobacco wilt, originally named F. oxysporum f. sp. nicotianae, proved to be a race of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum (Armstrong & Armstrong 1975). According to Kistler et al. (199, F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum consists of at least 10 vegetative compatibility groups (VCGs). Comparing F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis with the genotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum can be accomplished with VCG studies using nit mutants.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Conflicting interests[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]U.S. regulations have prevented the testing of bioengineered fungi in the field (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). But regulatory oversight is lacking in Peru and Columbia (Levin & Israeli 1996). Exigencies generated by the drug war metaphor could dangerously rush these fungi into deployment.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Moreover, saboteurs or irresponsible scientists could breech regulatory barriers, as occurred in Montana where several bioengineered organisms were illegally released around 1987 (Roberts 1987). In Australia, saboteurs illegally introduced the fungus Phragmidium violaceum to control European blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Weedy R. fruticosus was spreading across pastures and impeding Australian cattle ranchers. The government had previously rejected ranchers' requests to import P. violaceum, because of economic objections from commercial blackberry growers and beekeepers. Wind-borne spores of illegally introduced P. violaceum dispersed rapidly across the continent, and the fungus now infests at least four Rubus species (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Australian debacle illustrates how biocontrol may impact competing interests. The first U.S. drug czar, Carlton Turner, recognized that target plants may be considered noxious weeds by one group, and valuable crops by another group (Turner 1985). St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an excellent example. H. perforatum was previously branded a noxious weed. But now it has become the second-best-selling herbal medicine in the U.S. — $121 million dollars of H. perforatum was sold last year, and producers are predicting a severe shortage of raw material (Brevoort 199.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As consultants to the European and Canadian hemp industry, we face a dilemma. As ecologists, we endorse classical (non-engineered) biocontrol organisms as potential replacements of chemical pesticides (McPartland 1984, Doctor 1986). As physicians, we praise the safety of biocontrols over paraquat and other synthetic herbicides (McPartland & Pruitt 1997). Nearly 20 years ago, these reasons guided our decision to search for classical biocontrols against marijuana (McPartland 1983). But times have changed. Hemp cultivation has resurged in western Europe, the former USSR, and China. Last year the Canadian government allowed farmers to grow hemp for the first time in 50 years — 251 farmers successfully harvested 5,930 acres (Cauchon 199. Have our neighbors to the north been explicitly informed of the "Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act" spearheaded by Rep. McCollum? We feel the development of transgenic mycoherbicides against marijuana would endanger hemp cultivation, permanently. Hemp is usually a pest- and disease-tolerant crop requiring little or no pesticide for cultivation; it has been characterized as "an environmentally friendly crop for a sustainable future" (Ranalli1999). Hemp should not be endangered, and research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis should be halted. Moreover, the use of genetically engineered pathogens as a weapon in the drug war should be reevaluated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Acknowledgements[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]We thank David Morris and two anonymous phytopathologists for reviewing and improving our manuscript.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]References[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Armstrong G, Armstrong J. 1975. Reflections on the wilt fusaria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 13:95-103.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Auld BA. 1991. "Economic aspects of biological weed control with plant pathogens," pp. 262-273 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Barloy J, Pelhate J. 1962. Premières observations phytopathologiques relatives aux cultures de chanvre en Anjou. Annales des Épiphyties 13:117-149.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Booker NL, Bruckart W. 1996. "Genetically engineered fungi in agriculture," pp. 149-163 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Brevoort P. 1998. The booming U.S. botanical market. HerbalGram 44:33-46.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Brown J, Brown AP. 1996. Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Annals Applied Biology 129:513-522.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Burdon JJ, Marshall DR, Luig NH. 1981. Isozyme analysis indicates that a virulent cereal rust pathogen is a somatic hybrid. Nature 293:565-566.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cauchon D. 1998. Canadian hemp isn't going to pot. USA Today 17(17)(7 Oct 199:13-14.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ceapoiu N. 1958. Cinepa, Studiu monografic. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine. Bucharest. 652 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cook RJ, Bruckart WL, Coulson JR, Goettel MS, Humber RA, Lumsden RD, et al. 1996. Safety of microorganisms intended for pest and plant disease control: a framework of scientific evaluation. Biological Control 7:333-351.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Czyzewska S, Zarzycka H. 1961. Ergebnisse der bodeninfektionsversuche an Linum usitatissinum, Crambe alyssinica, Cannabis sativa und Cucurbita pepo var. oleifera mit einigen Fusarium-Arten. Instytut Ochrony Roslin, Reguly, Polen. Report No. 41:15-36.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Dobrozrakova TL, Letova MF, Stepanov KM, Khokhryakov MK. 1956. "Cannabis sativa L." pp. 242-248 in Opredelitel' Bolesni Rasteniî, Moscow. 661 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fields G. 1998. U.S. might enlist fungi in drug war. USA Today 17(2(22 Oct 199:1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Gabriel DW. 1981. "Parasitism, host species specificity, and gene-specific host cell death," pp. 115-131 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ghani M, Basit A, Anwar M. 1978. Final Report: Investigations on the natural enemies of marijuana, Cannabis sativa L. and opium poppy, Papaver somniferum L. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Pakistan station. 26 pp. + 12 illus.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hildebrand DC, McCain AM. 1978. The use of various substrates for large scale production of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis inoculum. Phytopathology 68: 1099-1101.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hoerner GR. 1940. The infection capabilities of hop downy mildew. J. Agric. Res. 61:331-334.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Howarth FG. 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review Entomology 36:485-509.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1991. "Genetic manipulation of plant pathogenic fungi," pp. 152-170 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1997. Genetic diversity in the plant-pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 87:474-479.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC, Alabouvette C, Baayen RP, et al. 1998. Systematic numbering of vegetative compatibility groups in the plant pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 88:30-32.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Lentz PL, Lipscomb BR, Farr DF. 1975. Fungi and diseases of Erythroxylum. Phytologia 30:350-367.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Levin M, Israeli E. 1996. "General overview of releases to date," pp. 13-39 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Luig NH, Watson IA. 1972. The role of wild and cultivated grasses in the hybridization of formae speciales of Puccinia graminis. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 25:335-42.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Lockwood JA. 1993. Environmental issues involved in biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22:503-518.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McCain AH, Noviello C. 1985. Biological control of Cannabis sativa. Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp.635-642.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1983. Fungal pathogens of Cannabis sativa in Illinois. Phytopathology 72:797.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1984. Pathogenicity of Phomopsis ganjae on Cannabis sativa and the fungistatic effect of cannabinoids produced by the host. Mycopathologia 87:149-153.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1992. The Cannabis pathogen project: report of the second five-year plan. Mycological Society of America Newsletter 43(1):43.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995a.Cannabis pathogens VIII: misidenfications appearing in the literature. Mycotaxon 53:407-416.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995b.Cannabis pathogens X: Phoma, Ascochyta and Didymella species. Mycologia 86:870-878.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995c. Cannabis pathogens XI: Septoria spp. on Cannabis sativa, sensu strico. Sydowia 47:44-53.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995d. Cannabis pathogens XII: lumper's row. Mycotaxon 54:273-279.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1997. "Krankheiten und Schädlinge an Cannabis," pp. 37-38 in Symposium Magazin, 2nd Biorohstoff Hanf Technisch-wissenschaftliches Symposium. Nova Institut, Köln, Germany.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Cubeta MA. 1997. New species, combinations, host associations and location records of fungi associated with hemp (Cannabis sativa). Mycological Research 101:853-857.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Pruitt PL. 1997. Medical marijuana and its use by immunosuppressed individuals. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 3(3):39-45.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Mikkelsen TR, Andersen B, Jørgensen RB. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Nelson AJ, Elias KS, Arévalo E, Darlington LC, Bailey BA. 1997. Genetic characterization by RAPD analysis of isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erthroxyli associated with an emerging epidemic in Peru. Phytopathology 87:1220-1225.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, Snyder WC. 1962. Fusarium wilt of hemp. Phytopathology 52:1315-1317.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, McCain AH, Aloj B, Scalcione M, Marziano F. 1990. Lotta biologica contro Cannabis sativa mediante l'impiego di Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis. Annali della Facolta di Scienze Agrarie della Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Portici 24:33-44.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ranalli P, editor. 1999. Advances in Hemp Research. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY. 272 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rataj K. 1957. Skodlivi cinitele pradnych rostlin. Prameny literatury 2:1-123.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rippon JW. 1988. Medical Mycology, 3rd ed. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 797 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Roberts L. 1987. New questions in Strobel case. Science 237:1098-8.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sampson PJ, Walker J. 1982. An annotated list of plant diseases in Tasmania. Dept. of Agriculture, Tasmania, Australia 121 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sands DC, Ford EJ, Miller RV, Sally BK, McCarthy MK, Anderson TW, Weaver MB, Morgan CT, Pilgeram AL. 1997. Characterization of a vascular wilt of Erythroxylum coca caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxyli forma specialis nova. Plant Disease 81:501-504.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Schmitt CG, Lipscomb BR. 1975. Pathogens of elected members of the Papaveraceae — an annotated bibliography. USDA-ARS Northeastern Region Report No. 62. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD. 186 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Schultes RE, Klein WM, Plowman T, Lockwood TE. 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harv. Univ. 23:337-367.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Serzane M. 1962. "Kanepju - Cannabis sativa L. Slimibas." pp. 366-369 in Augu Slimibas, Praktiskie Darbi. Riga Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Lativa USSR. 518 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Shay R. 1975. Easy-gro fungus kills pot among us. The Daily Californian, March 14, pg. 3.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Small E. 1979. The species problem in Cannabis. Volume 2: semantics. Corpus Information Services Ltd. and Agriculture Canada. Ottawa. 156 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Small E, Cronquist A. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25:405-435.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]TeBeest DO. 1988. Additions to host range of Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes f. sp. aeschynomene. Plant Disease 72:16-18.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Turner CE. 1985. "Conflicting interests and biological control of weeds," pp. 203-225 in Proceedings 6th International Symposium Biological Control of Weeds.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Watson AK. 1991. "The classical approach with plant pathogens," pp. 3-23 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Zubrin R. 1981. The fungus that destroys pot. War on Drugs Action Reporter: June 1981:61-62.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Figure 1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Healthy marijuana seedling flanked by plants exposed to pathogenic fungi.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Figure 2.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Microscopic spores of Fusarium oxysporum, a potential mycoherbicide of Cannabis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

 

[Harrekin]

Ok Frank, or FFF (frank ferret face) for short...for example why have you still not responded to this,

[SIZE=+2]Killing Cannabis with mycoherbicides[/SIZE] [Also see: http://mycoherbicide.net/MUTABILITY/mutability.htm] John M. McPartland, D.O., M.S.
VAM/AMRITA
53 Washington Street Extension
Middlebury, VT 05753, USA David P. West, Ph.D.
GamETec
363 S. Warren Street
Prescott, WI 54021, USA
Abstract [SIZE=-1]Last year, researchers were funded by the U.S. government to create fungi that destroy drug plants, including marijuana (Cannabis species). The fungi will be genetically engineered. Controversies surrounding this "new solution" for the war on drugs are discussed, including the ethics of exterminating plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with unpredictable environmental pitfalls; exotic pathogens can spread from their intended targets to other organisms. All known pathogens of marijuana also attack hemp; exterminating drug plants will probably spell the demise of a valuable and resurgent fiber and oil-seed crop. Genetically transformed fungi are genetically unstable and mutate easily. Fungi with recombinant DNA may reproduce with native fungi and create new strains of virulent, transgenic pathogens. Once these pathogens are released in the environment, they cannot be recalled. In summary, we argue that research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis is a dangerous misuse of biotechnology, and call for an immediate moratorium.[/SIZE]

Introduction [SIZE=-1]The U.S. Congress recently appropriated $23 million dollars to fund a "new solution" for the war on drugs. The new solution attacks drugs at their source — the drug plants. Researchers say they can eliminate drug plants with fungal pathogens. The fungi would be genetically engineered to kill only coca plants (Erythoxylum species), opium poppies (Papaver species), and marijuana (Cannabis species).[/SIZE] Rep. Bill McCollum, who introduced the appropriation bill, described the tactic as "a silver bullet in the drug war" (Fields 199. The development of transgenic coca and opium pathogens began several years ago, but previous appropriations were relatively small (the 1998 budget was $2.58 million). This year McCollum expanded the program to include marijuana, and moved the budget's decimal point to the right.
A fungal weapon for the war on drugs is not new. Millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s in a world-wide search for fungi which would attack coca (Lentz et al. 1975), poppies (Schmitt & Lipscomb 1975), or marijuana (Ghani et al. 197. See Figure 1. It was a strange era for plant pathologists. While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy—they attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986).
Renewed interest in fungal pathogens for the war on drugs concerns us in its own right. Our law-enforcement lobby wishes to exterminate three plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. Are the targeted plants inescapably evil? Are there no alternative means for reducing their dangers to humans? We wish to report the ethical and scientific controversies pertinent to this issue, framed for consideration by academia, State and Federal government agencies, and others interested in genetically engineered organisms, biological control, and the drug war (Cook et al. 1996).
Killer fungi [SIZE=-1]Experiments with fungi to control plants began in the late 1960s. The initial targets were noxious agricultural weeds that had been accidentally imported from one region of the world into another, where they became more aggressive, because their natural enemies were often absent. Hence, the classical strategy for biocontrol of weeds involves the importation of natural enemies from their native ranges. Classical biocontrol generally enjoys wide approval and is used by organic agriculture, although the strategy does have its critics (Howarth 1991).[/SIZE]
Classical biocontrol of marijuana was originally envisioned by Arthur McCain in 1970 (Shay 1975). McCain, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, suggested, "Just introduce a couple of pounds [of a pathogenic fungus] into an area, and while it wouldn't have much of an effect the first year, in several years it would spread throughout the country with devastating results" (Zubrin 1981). In reality, however, classical biocontrol rarely extirpates a weed, it merely reduces the weed population to a low level (Watson 1991). Reduction without eradication is acceptable for most agricultural weeds, but is unacceptable for "zero tolerance" drug control, which seeks the complete eradication of a crop.
The other biocontrol strategy, inundative release, is also called the mycoherbicide approach. This strategy releases massive amounts of fungal spores upon target plants. The mycoherbicide approach can totally eradicate a field of drug plants. This approach, however, utilizes a delivery system similar to that of chemical herbicides — such as hovering over clandestine fields in a helicopter while releasing the control agent. Thus the mycoherbicide approach, compared to the current herbicide strategy, is equally expensive, exposes pilots to equal danger as they hover over fields, and may require annual retreatment of annual crops. The mycoherbicide approach is not the suggested "silver bullet."
Fear of foreigners [SIZE=-1]The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with controversy. Once a self-perpetuating fungus has been released, it is impossible to recall or control (Lockwood 1993). Despite host-range testing to identify potential nontarget hosts, exotic fungi can spread from their intended targets to other plants. The entire flora of a continent may ultimately be exposed, especially if the fungus produces wind-borne spores (Auld 1991). Because of this concern, only two exotic fungi have ever been intentionally imported into North America—Puccinia chondrillina and Puccinia carduorum.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fear of "collateral damage" to nontarget plants is justified. When Puccinia xanthii, considered a selective selective pathogen of Xanthium weeds, was imported into Australia from North America, the fungus spread to sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) and Calendula officinalis (Auld 1991). Native fungi sold as mycoherbicides may also spread to new hosts after release. For example, Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®), one of only three mycoherbicide fungi commercially available in the U.S., has a wider host range than originally determined, including several economically important legumes (TeBeest 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The situation with fungi is comparable to that with insects. Turner (1985) estimated that 21% of biocontrol insects intentionally introduced into North America have spread to non-target native plants. For instance, the beetle Chrysolina quadrigemina was imported into North America to kill weedy St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum), but it subsequently moved to the ornamental species Hypericum calycinum (Turner 1985). Howarth (1991) described nearly 100 cases where errant biocontrols have driven non-target hosts to extinction, mostly in island ecosystems. Howarth claimed that more species extinctions have been caused by biocontrols than by pesticides.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Non-target hosts at greatest risk to exotic biocontrol fungi include:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1) plants phylogenetically related to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) plants with secondary compounds or morphological features similar to the target species,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) plants attacked by fungi related to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4) plants never exposed to the biocontrol fungus,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5) plants whose fungal pathogens are unknown (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The study of fungus-host specificity is site-dependent. That is, each potential release site has its own unique flora, fauna, and climactic conditions. Sites with a high degree of biodiversity, such as Amazonia, are teeming with potential non-target hosts. Studies of tropical sites are very complicated and become susceptible to errors of tremendous consequence. The potential spread of fungi away from release sites must also be taken under consideration. Biocontrol agents do not recognize international boundaries, yet host specificity studies rarely consider non-target hosts in neighboring countries (Lockwood 1993).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the case of pathogens of Cannabis, the non-target host at greatest risk, because of its close phylogenetic relationship to Cannabis, is hops (Humulus lupulus). At least 10 fungal pathogens are known to mutually infect Cannabis and Humulus (McPartland 1992). The next closest relatives are the Urticaceae (members of the nettle family) and the Moraceae (mulberry family), with which Cannabis shares at least 20 fungal pathogens (McPartland 1992).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species debate[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]The non-target host at greatest risk is Cannabis itself. Within the genus we find plants cultivated for drugs (marijuana), or fiber (hemp), or seed oil (seed hemp), as well as wild, uncultivated plants (feral hemp). How closely related are these plants? Some taxonomists describe marijuana and hemp as completely separate species (Schultes et al. 1974), whereas other taxonomists say they are the same species, Cannabis sativa (Small & Cronquist 1976).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This "species debate" achieved semantic importance during the 1970s (Small 1979). Drug libertarians promoted the polytypic approach and cited marijuana as Cannabis indica, to argue that statutes written against Cannabis sativa did not apply to marijuana. Conversely, law enforcement agencies have maintained that the genus is monotypic. Now, to rationalize the mycoherbicide approach, law enforcement appears to have reversed its position. Semantics aside, most fungi that attack marijuana also attack hemp (McPartland 1995b, 1995c, 1997, McPartland & Cubeta 1997).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Clearly, the greatest concern surrounding biological control is host specificity. Consider Pseudoperonospora cannabina, a marijuana pathogen promoted by biocontrol researchers (Zabrin 1981, McCain & Noviello 1985). P. cannabina may be identical to Pseudoperonospora humuli, a pathogen of hemp and hops (Hoerner 1940). We have re-investigated several fungi that were originally described as specific pathogens of Cannabis, but under closer scrutiny, turned out to be misidentifications of widespread pathogens that attack many hosts (for example, "Pleosphaerulina cannabina" turned out to be Leptosphaerulina trifolii, "Stemphylium cannabinum" = Stemphylium botryosum, "Sclerotinia kauffmanniana" = Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (McPartland 1995d).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineering[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Wishing to improve host specificity and toxicity of fungal pathogens, researchers are now turning to genetic engineering (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). The use of transgenic organisms, however, elicits a new set of concerns (Levin & Israeli 1996). These are concerns that resulted in the Asilomar moratorium on genetic engineering of human pathogens.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetic engineers have recently been investigating a coca pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli (Sands et al. 1997, Nelson et al. 1997). F. oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli was selected for coca eradication because it caused natural epidemics in Peru and on the former Coca-cola plantation on Kauai, where "containment of the fungus proved challenging" (Sands et al. 1997). Fusarium oxysporum is well known to bioengineers, and previous researchers successfully inserted toxin genes into the species (Kistler 1991). Nevertheless, Gabriel (1991) considered it "unwise" to clone a toxin gene into a necrotrophic pathogen (such as F. oxysporum). He argued that such a pathogen might gain unexpected fitness and radically expand its host range, "a potentially dangerous experiment." Fusarium species can produce a variety of toxic metabolites known as trichothecenes, which gained some notoriety for their reputed use in biological warfare ("yellow rain"). F. oxysporum is known to cause systemic infections in humans (Rippon 198.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Genetically transformed fungi have unstable genotypes, making mutations more likely. Experiments have shown F. oxysporum spontaneously mutates its transgenic DNA (Kistler 1991). Furthermore, F. oxysporum utilizes parasexual coupling, and at least 5% of its genome consists of transposons, or moveable pieces of DNA (Kistler 1997). Parasexuality and active transposable elements would facilitate the transfer of recombinant DNA to native fungi, potentially creating new strains of virulent pathogens. The wheat pathogen Puccinia graminis, for instance, hybridizes with other fungi on wild grasses, giving rise to offspring with increased virulence (Luig & Watson 1972, Burdon et al. 1981). This fact is not cited by proponents of biocontrol with rust fungi (Cook et al. 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Gene flow" has been more thoroughly studied in plants than fungi. Levin & Israeli (1996) documented five examples of spontaneous gene flow from crops to native plants, which resulted in new or worse weeds. The introgression of engineered genes from transgenic crops to related weed species has been demonstrated (Brown & Brown 1996), and may arise after just 2 generations of hybridization and backcrossing (Mikkelsen et al. 1996).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Currently, testing for gene flow is not standard procedure during the evaluation of transgenic organisms. This could be accomplished by crossing engineered fungi with related fungi (particularly if the fungi reproduce sexually, and especially if they are heterothallic fungi). Several generations of crossed hybrids are evaluated in serial host studies. Testing for gene flow is especially imperative for biocontrols which have been genetically manipulated to resist fungicides. Researchers have transformed Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®) with a gene for fungicide resistance (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). Imagine if this fungicide-resistant gene introgressed into Histoplasma capsulatum or other human pathogens commonly found in agricultural areas![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The species question, round two[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Another Fusarium species, F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis, is the primary candidate to kill marijuana (Hildebrand & McCain 1978, Noviello et al. 1990) and wild hemp in the American Midwest (Shay 1975). See Figure 2. Researchers promote F. oxysporum as a marijuana mycoherbicide because they claim hops, Humulus lupulus, is not susceptible to fusarium wilt (McCain & Noviello 1985). They overlooked "Hops wilt" caused by F. oxysporum in Australia (Sampson & Walker 1982).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]F. oxysporum [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]f. sp. cannabis was originally isolated from hemp cultivars in Italy, by researchers who believed "...the wilt disease and its pathogen have not been previously described" (Noviello & Snyder 1962). In fact, these researchers missed many previous descriptions of this wilt disease (Dobrozrakova et al., 1956, Rataj 1957, Ceapoiu 1958, Czyzewska & Zarzycka 1961, Barloy & Pelhate 1962, Serzane 1962). All previous descriptions attributed hemp wilt disease to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. This fungus is morphologically identical to F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis but has a very broad host range (e.g., cotton, mung beans, pigeon peas, rubber trees, alfalfa, soybeans, coffee, tobacco and many other plants).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland (1995a) proposed that F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis may be a misidentified pathotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. Similarly, the fungus causing tobacco wilt, originally named F. oxysporum f. sp. nicotianae, proved to be a race of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum (Armstrong & Armstrong 1975). According to Kistler et al. (199, F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum consists of at least 10 vegetative compatibility groups (VCGs). Comparing F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis with the genotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum can be accomplished with VCG studies using nit mutants.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Conflicting interests[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]U.S. regulations have prevented the testing of bioengineered fungi in the field (Brooker & Bruckart 1996). But regulatory oversight is lacking in Peru and Columbia (Levin & Israeli 1996). Exigencies generated by the drug war metaphor could dangerously rush these fungi into deployment.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Moreover, saboteurs or irresponsible scientists could breech regulatory barriers, as occurred in Montana where several bioengineered organisms were illegally released around 1987 (Roberts 1987). In Australia, saboteurs illegally introduced the fungus Phragmidium violaceum to control European blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Weedy R. fruticosus was spreading across pastures and impeding Australian cattle ranchers. The government had previously rejected ranchers' requests to import P. violaceum, because of economic objections from commercial blackberry growers and beekeepers. Wind-borne spores of illegally introduced P. violaceum dispersed rapidly across the continent, and the fungus now infests at least four Rubus species (Watson 1991).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Australian debacle illustrates how biocontrol may impact competing interests. The first U.S. drug czar, Carlton Turner, recognized that target plants may be considered noxious weeds by one group, and valuable crops by another group (Turner 1985). St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an excellent example. H. perforatum was previously branded a noxious weed. But now it has become the second-best-selling herbal medicine in the U.S. — $121 million dollars of H. perforatum was sold last year, and producers are predicting a severe shortage of raw material (Brevoort 199.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As consultants to the European and Canadian hemp industry, we face a dilemma. As ecologists, we endorse classical (non-engineered) biocontrol organisms as potential replacements of chemical pesticides (McPartland 1984, Doctor 1986). As physicians, we praise the safety of biocontrols over paraquat and other synthetic herbicides (McPartland & Pruitt 1997). Nearly 20 years ago, these reasons guided our decision to search for classical biocontrols against marijuana (McPartland 1983). But times have changed. Hemp cultivation has resurged in western Europe, the former USSR, and China. Last year the Canadian government allowed farmers to grow hemp for the first time in 50 years — 251 farmers successfully harvested 5,930 acres (Cauchon 199. Have our neighbors to the north been explicitly informed of the "Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act" spearheaded by Rep. McCollum? We feel the development of transgenic mycoherbicides against marijuana would endanger hemp cultivation, permanently. Hemp is usually a pest- and disease-tolerant crop requiring little or no pesticide for cultivation; it has been characterized as "an environmentally friendly crop for a sustainable future" (Ranalli1999). Hemp should not be endangered, and research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis should be halted. Moreover, the use of genetically engineered pathogens as a weapon in the drug war should be reevaluated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Acknowledgements[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]We thank David Morris and two anonymous phytopathologists for reviewing and improving our manuscript.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]References[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Armstrong G, Armstrong J. 1975. Reflections on the wilt fusaria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 13:95-103.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Auld BA. 1991. "Economic aspects of biological weed control with plant pathogens," pp. 262-273 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Barloy J, Pelhate J. 1962. Premières observations phytopathologiques relatives aux cultures de chanvre en Anjou. Annales des Épiphyties 13:117-149.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Booker NL, Bruckart W. 1996. "Genetically engineered fungi in agriculture," pp. 149-163 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Brevoort P. 1998. The booming U.S. botanical market. HerbalGram 44:33-46.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Brown J, Brown AP. 1996. Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Annals Applied Biology 129:513-522.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Burdon JJ, Marshall DR, Luig NH. 1981. Isozyme analysis indicates that a virulent cereal rust pathogen is a somatic hybrid. Nature 293:565-566.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cauchon D. 1998. Canadian hemp isn't going to pot. USA Today 17(17)(7 Oct 199:13-14.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ceapoiu N. 1958. Cinepa, Studiu monografic. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine. Bucharest. 652 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cook RJ, Bruckart WL, Coulson JR, Goettel MS, Humber RA, Lumsden RD, et al. 1996. Safety of microorganisms intended for pest and plant disease control: a framework of scientific evaluation. Biological Control 7:333-351.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Czyzewska S, Zarzycka H. 1961. Ergebnisse der bodeninfektionsversuche an Linum usitatissinum, Crambe alyssinica, Cannabis sativa und Cucurbita pepo var. oleifera mit einigen Fusarium-Arten. Instytut Ochrony Roslin, Reguly, Polen. Report No. 41:15-36.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Dobrozrakova TL, Letova MF, Stepanov KM, Khokhryakov MK. 1956. "Cannabis sativa L." pp. 242-248 in Opredelitel' Bolesni Rasteniî, Moscow. 661 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fields G. 1998. U.S. might enlist fungi in drug war. USA Today 17(2(22 Oct 199:1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Gabriel DW. 1981. "Parasitism, host species specificity, and gene-specific host cell death," pp. 115-131 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ghani M, Basit A, Anwar M. 1978. Final Report: Investigations on the natural enemies of marijuana, Cannabis sativa L. and opium poppy, Papaver somniferum L. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Pakistan station. 26 pp. + 12 illus.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hildebrand DC, McCain AM. 1978. The use of various substrates for large scale production of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis inoculum. Phytopathology 68: 1099-1101.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hoerner GR. 1940. The infection capabilities of hop downy mildew. J. Agric. Res. 61:331-334.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Howarth FG. 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review Entomology 36:485-509.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1991. "Genetic manipulation of plant pathogenic fungi," pp. 152-170 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC. 1997. Genetic diversity in the plant-pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 87:474-479.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Kistler HC, Alabouvette C, Baayen RP, et al. 1998. Systematic numbering of vegetative compatibility groups in the plant pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 88:30-32.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Lentz PL, Lipscomb BR, Farr DF. 1975. Fungi and diseases of Erythroxylum. Phytologia 30:350-367.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Levin M, Israeli E. 1996. "General overview of releases to date," pp. 13-39 in Engineered organisms in environmental settings, Eds. MA Levin & E Israeli. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Luig NH, Watson IA. 1972. The role of wild and cultivated grasses in the hybridization of formae speciales of Puccinia graminis. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 25:335-42.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Lockwood JA. 1993. Environmental issues involved in biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22:503-518.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McCain AH, Noviello C. 1985. Biological control of Cannabis sativa. Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp.635-642.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1983. Fungal pathogens of Cannabis sativa in Illinois. Phytopathology 72:797.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1984. Pathogenicity of Phomopsis ganjae on Cannabis sativa and the fungistatic effect of cannabinoids produced by the host. Mycopathologia 87:149-153.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1992. The Cannabis pathogen project: report of the second five-year plan. Mycological Society of America Newsletter 43(1):43.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995a.Cannabis pathogens VIII: misidenfications appearing in the literature. Mycotaxon 53:407-416.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995b.Cannabis pathogens X: Phoma, Ascochyta and Didymella species. Mycologia 86:870-878.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995c. Cannabis pathogens XI: Septoria spp. on Cannabis sativa, sensu strico. Sydowia 47:44-53.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1995d. Cannabis pathogens XII: lumper's row. Mycotaxon 54:273-279.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM. 1997. "Krankheiten und Schädlinge an Cannabis," pp. 37-38 in Symposium Magazin, 2nd Biorohstoff Hanf Technisch-wissenschaftliches Symposium. Nova Institut, Köln, Germany.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Cubeta MA. 1997. New species, combinations, host associations and location records of fungi associated with hemp (Cannabis sativa). Mycological Research 101:853-857.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]McPartland JM, Pruitt PL. 1997. Medical marijuana and its use by immunosuppressed individuals. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 3(3):39-45.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Mikkelsen TR, Andersen B, Jørgensen RB. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Nelson AJ, Elias KS, Arévalo E, Darlington LC, Bailey BA. 1997. Genetic characterization by RAPD analysis of isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erthroxyli associated with an emerging epidemic in Peru. Phytopathology 87:1220-1225.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, Snyder WC. 1962. Fusarium wilt of hemp. Phytopathology 52:1315-1317.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Noviello C, McCain AH, Aloj B, Scalcione M, Marziano F. 1990. Lotta biologica contro Cannabis sativa mediante l'impiego di Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis. Annali della Facolta di Scienze Agrarie della Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Portici 24:33-44.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ranalli P, editor. 1999. Advances in Hemp Research. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY. 272 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rataj K. 1957. Skodlivi cinitele pradnych rostlin. Prameny literatury 2:1-123.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rippon JW. 1988. Medical Mycology, 3rd ed. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 797 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Roberts L. 1987. New questions in Strobel case. Science 237:1098-8.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sampson PJ, Walker J. 1982. An annotated list of plant diseases in Tasmania. Dept. of Agriculture, Tasmania, Australia 121 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sands DC, Ford EJ, Miller RV, Sally BK, McCarthy MK, Anderson TW, Weaver MB, Morgan CT, Pilgeram AL. 1997. Characterization of a vascular wilt of Erythroxylum coca caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxyli forma specialis nova. Plant Disease 81:501-504.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Schmitt CG, Lipscomb BR. 1975. Pathogens of elected members of the Papaveraceae — an annotated bibliography. USDA-ARS Northeastern Region Report No. 62. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD. 186 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Schultes RE, Klein WM, Plowman T, Lockwood TE. 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harv. Univ. 23:337-367.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Serzane M. 1962. "Kanepju - Cannabis sativa L. Slimibas." pp. 366-369 in Augu Slimibas, Praktiskie Darbi. Riga Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Lativa USSR. 518 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Shay R. 1975. Easy-gro fungus kills pot among us. The Daily Californian, March 14, pg. 3.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Small E. 1979. The species problem in Cannabis. Volume 2: semantics. Corpus Information Services Ltd. and Agriculture Canada. Ottawa. 156 pp.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Small E, Cronquist A. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25:405-435.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]TeBeest DO. 1988. Additions to host range of Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes f. sp. aeschynomene. Plant Disease 72:16-18.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Turner CE. 1985. "Conflicting interests and biological control of weeds," pp. 203-225 in Proceedings 6th International Symposium Biological Control of Weeds.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Watson AK. 1991. "The classical approach with plant pathogens," pp. 3-23 in Microbial control of Weeds, DO TeBeest, Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Zubrin R. 1981. The fungus that destroys pot. War on Drugs Action Reporter: June 1981:61-62.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Figure 1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Healthy marijuana seedling flanked by plants exposed to pathogenic fungi.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Figure 2.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Microscopic spores of Fusarium oxysporum, a potential mycoherbicide of Cannabis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

Tl;dr

So where exactly has this happened? And from my glance through I saw no mention of any live GM cultures, only normal plant pathogens that could potentially be modified.

Much in the same way that if your auntie had balls, she'd potentially be your uncle however she likely doesn't.

Do try some paragraphs next time, did they not teach you anything in special needs school? It's a pity they couldn't GM your extra chromosome away.

DNAprotection:

 

[DNAprotection]

Tl;dr

So where exactly has this happened? And from my glance through I saw no mention of any live GM cultures, only normal plant pathogens that could potentially be modified.

Much in the same way that if your auntie had balls, she'd potentially be your uncle however she likely doesn't.

Do try some paragraphs next time, did they not teach you anything in special needs school? It's a pity they couldn't GM your extra chromosome away.

DNAprotection:

Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.

now see i READ that "article". if you think thats proof that UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up with the DEA to make Powdery Mildew IV The Reckoning! and unleash it on the world,, youre incredibly high.


this says youre full of shit: http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html


it names names, notably absent from this article : Monsanto, UC Davis and Cannabis.
it turns out, cannabis was PROPOSED as a possible target crop for the mycoherbicisdes youre talking about but no project has as yet been established, further the coca program (not from Monsanto or UC Davis either) is currently "dormant" which for a Federal program is as close as you can get to "dead', and the opium poippy program is being done by Uzbekistan and the UN NOT the US, NOT Monsanto and NOT UC Davis.

aww snap.

Edit: and just for swank,, this is what it looks like when somebody who gives a shit writes their sources down:

Further reading:
Sunshine Project web site, http://www.sunshine-project.org/
Fungus Considered As a Tool To Kill Coca In Colombia, New York Times, 07/06/2000, Vol. 149 Issue 51441, pA1
The Covert Biowar Against Drugs In Central Asia, Dr. John C. K. Daly, http://www.cacianalyst.org/Jan_3_2001/Covert_Biowar.htm
Fungus Versus Coca – UNDCP and the Biological War on Drugs in Colombia, Martin Jelsma, February 2000. http://www.tni.org/drugs/links/fungus.htm
Pleospora fungus. A biological weapon for the drugs war. James Robbins. Sunday, 1 October, 2000, BBC News Online. http://www.pcpafg.org/news/Afghan_News/Year2000/2000_10_02/ West_funds_anti-opium_fungus.shtml
Fight the Fungus. Earth Island Journal, Autumn 2000, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p20
Operation eradicate. Kleiner, Kurt. New Scientist, 9/11/99, Vol. 163 Issue 2203, p20
Coca Killer. Kleiner, Kurt. New Scientist, 03/11/2000, Vol. 165 Issue 2229, p5
Colombia rejects use of fusarium fungus to eradicate illicit crops. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, October 26, 2000 (transcript available in Lexis-Nexis online service; see a local academic library).

 

[Harrekin]

Well I'm glad to finally see what you look like, sorry I've been so hard on you Frank truly I am...
I don't want to seem like you have a mental disability though because I truly believe in folks all being treated equally, so I'll ask once again, why no logical or even reasonable response to that info, let alone all the rest I have posted?
Don't worry Frank its ok if you need to respond with nothing again, I won't abuse you now that I know.

Because its a total fantasy, a "what if" piece but ultimately it's nothing but total cock-balls.

I could post up a whole "cool story" about surviving a zombie apocalypse...but it still doesn't mean the hordes of the undead are clawing at the door.

Can you name a single strain of GM pathogen that specifically destroys drug plants like coca, opium poppies or cannabis?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Because its a total fantasy, a "what if" piece but ultimately it's nothing but total cock-balls.

I could post up a whole "cool story" about surviving a zombie apocalypse...but it still doesn't mean the hordes of the undead are clawing at the door.

Can you name a single strain of GM pathogen that specifically destroys drug plants like coca, opium poppies or cannabis?

psst... just cuz he;'s full of shit doesnt mean it dont exist...

http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html

even a retarded clock is right once a week or so. i had to search that up myself, since all his sources were garbage.

in breif:
Coca Program: dead program from the mid 90's, never fully developed, never reached an operational stage, never used, never involved monsanto, never involved UC Davis, never involved cannabis, only coca
Opium Program: active at time of writing, in Uzbekistan, run by UN, not monsanto, not UC Davis, not cannabis, not US, Not operational yet. still merely investigative.
Cannabis Program: imaginary.

Edit: also the program is NOT a GMO program, its mould breeding with a highly mutagenic mould variety called Fusarium Oxysporum (leaf wilt) which thrives in wet conditions. it's a plague on careless rose growers and people who hate raking up fallen leaves in the autumn. it would have ZERO effect on cannabis outside the tropics, and less then Zero on indoor cultivators. it would fuck up your berry grape and citrus harvests and would qualify as Biological Warfare under the geneva convention. its a pipe dream cooked up by a couple buttfrustrated DEA agents.

in other words:

NOBODY TELL ERIC HOLDER!!!!

Cockbbreath would embrace this like it was a flaccid wilty smegma coated penis and slurp his way to nirvana.

so lets just keep "Agent Green" under our hats.

 

[echelon1k1]

Would the FDA actually independently test any GM cannabis that has been produced for human consumption?

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Playing God in the Garden” New York Times Magazine,October 25, 1998.

The 'erb seems to be working just fine for myself and many of you all (i assume that's why your here) so why change what 'aint broke?

No round up ready cannabis for me thanks....

 

[Harrekin]

psst... just cuz he;'s full of shit doesnt mean it dont exist...

http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html

even a retarded clock is right once a week or so. i had to search that up myself, since all his sources were garbage.

in breif:
Coca Program: dead program from the mid 90's, never fully developed, never reached an operational stage, never used, never involved monsanto, never involved UC Davis, never involved cannabis, only coca
Opium Program: active at time of writing, in Uzbekistan, run by UN, not monsanto, not UC Davis, not cannabis, not US, Not operational yet. still merely investigative.
Cannabis Program: imaginary.

My apologies, my definition of "existing" in the context of a Government programme involves either working towards a product or having a product ready to deploy.

Even then you've to weaponise it and find a delivery system which won't kill your beautiful (hypothetical) little micro-creations.

Its like the people who said we'd be dead 9 days ago, or the people who protested the LHC in CERN before they fired it up, it's sensationalist garbage.

Btw; referencing exercises, I fucking HATED that in college.

 

[cannabineer]

now see i READ that "article". if you think thats proof that UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up with the DEA to make Powdery Mildew IV The Reckoning! and unleash it on the world,, youre incredibly high.


this says youre full of shit: http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-14.html


it names names, notably absent from this article : Monsanto, UC Davis and Cannabis.
it turns out, cannabis was PROPOSED as a possible target crop for the mycoherbicisdes youre talking about but no project has as yet been established, further the coca program (not from Monsanto or UC Davis either) is currently "dormant" which for a Federal program is as close as you can get to "dead', and the opium poippy program is being done by Uzbekistan and the UN NOT the US, NOT Monsanto and NOT UC Davis.

aww snap.

Edit: and just for swank,, this is what it looks like when somebody who gives a shit writes their sources down:

Further reading:
Sunshine Project web site, http://www.sunshine-project.org/
Fungus Considered As a Tool To Kill Coca In Colombia, New York Times, 07/06/2000, Vol. 149 Issue 51441, pA1
The Covert Biowar Against Drugs In Central Asia, Dr. John C. K. Daly, http://www.cacianalyst.org/Jan_3_2001/Covert_Biowar.htm
Fungus Versus Coca – UNDCP and the Biological War on Drugs in Colombia, Martin Jelsma, February 2000. http://www.tni.org/drugs/links/fungus.htm
Pleospora fungus. A biological weapon for the drugs war. James Robbins. Sunday, 1 October, 2000, BBC News Online. http://www.pcpafg.org/news/Afghan_News/Year2000/2000_10_02/%C2%A0West_funds_anti-opium_fungus.shtml
Fight the Fungus. Earth Island Journal, Autumn 2000, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p20
Operation eradicate. Kleiner, Kurt. New Scientist, 9/11/99, Vol. 163 Issue 2203, p20
Coca Killer. Kleiner, Kurt. New Scientist, 03/11/2000, Vol. 165 Issue 2229, p5
Colombia rejects use of fusarium fungus to eradicate illicit crops. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, October 26, 2000 (transcript available in Lexis-Nexis online service; see a local academic library).

Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature.
I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn

 

[Harrekin]

Would the FDA actually independently test any GM cannabis that has been produced for human consumption?

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Playing God in the Garden” New York Times Magazine,October 25, 1998.

The 'erb seems to be working just fine for myself and many of you all (i assume that's why your here) so why change what 'aint broke?

No round up ready cannabis for me thanks....

If they hadn't selectively bred cannabis because "it's not broken, don't fix it" we wouldn't have the awesome "fire" strains that are available today.

If you don't want GM Cannabis, don't buy it or just grow your own from the million other seedbanks.

No need to seek a ban on something you won't partake in, is there?

By the say vein (no pun intended), I say even legalise heroin, crack, etc it won't make a damn bit of difference to my life cos I won't partake anyways, would make it cheaper for junkies so maybe less people getting robbed/murdered.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature.
I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn

most of the referneces i tried to chase down wound up in deadends 404's or whatchoo talkin bout willis'.

even the mutability reference in the header is a deadend to a lawn care site.

the inline citations are dodgey at best, one of them (Doctor 1986) turned out to be a reference to the old yippie pot growing book "Bush Doctor" and the "citation" has to do with long standing myco problems in hydroponic systems, and NOTHING to do with any government plot to manufacture dope strangling mutant mushrooms, despite how it is portrayed.

theres no mention of any of the shit mentioned in the "citation" in "Bush Doctor"

heres the citation im talking about from the footer:

[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE]

and here it is in the context:
"While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy—they attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986)."

nothing like this is found in "Bush Doctor", it appears to be a case of citation inflation.

Or the source is referencing the well known scholarly compendium published in 1978 by the eminent Peter Tosh *PHD, which was also entitled "Bush Doctor", featuring a variety of well source Dub Jams, including the oft cited "Dem Ha Fe Get a Beatin" (Bush Doctor, 197, though i generally prefer his later work including his seminal essay on the medicinal value of cannabis Reggaemyillitis. (Wanted Dread or Alive, 1981) and of course the unforgettable "Legalize It" (Legalize It, 1975)

*Pretty High Dude

Of course one cannot discuss these early works without also citing the most recent efforts made by the top Reggae Experts , like Steel Pulse (Steppin Out 197 Pato Banton (Dont Sniff Coke, 1991)

[video=youtube;9lP_APoRNiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lP_APoRNiY[/video]


as well as the great Rod and the I-Deals (Life In the Hills, 1997)


see how by adding inline citations you can make anything look well researched?

 

[Harrekin]

most of the referneces i tried to chase down wound up in deadends 404's or whatchoo talkin bout willis'.

even the mutability reference in the header is a deadend to a lawn care site.

the inline citations are dodgey at best, one of them (Doctor 1986) turned out to be a reference to the old yippie pot growing book "Bush Doctor" and the "citation" has to do with long standing myco problems in hydroponic systems, and NOTHING to do with any government plot to manufacture dope strangling mutant mushrooms, despite how it is portrayed.

theres no mention of any of the shit mentioned in the "citation" in "Bush Doctor"

heres the citation im talking about from the footer:

[SIZE=-1]Doctor B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.[/SIZE]

and here it is in the context:
"While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy—they attacked poppies and hemp with the same pathogens (Doctor 1986)."

nothing like this is found in "Bush Doctor", it appears to be a case of citation inflation.

In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.

 

[Dr Kynes]

In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.

maybe. maybe its just a shitty writer trying to make his shit look "well sourced" and hoping that nobody chases down his shit and fins old yippie dope grower books from the mid 80's which they still have on their bookshelf, with NO correlation to the subject at hand.

unless the feds are secretly trying to genetically engineer Hydroponic Root Slime into something akin to a 12 Hit Die Gelatinous Cube, you know, for dungeon maintenance.

pity the slow moving adventurers

 

[kelly4]

In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.

Or as everyone else calls it... a HARREKIN.

 

[Harrekin]

Or as everyone else calls it... a HARREKIN.

Weak.

Its a pity the rest of the discussion is too complicated for you, leave the adults talk, the children are over in T&T.

 

[DNAprotection]

Dissenting opinion. Those are all secondary references: news articles and digests of the primary literature.
I was pleased to notice that there were a few primary references in the wall of text DNAp posted. However, Google is truly no replacement for a good library, and I lament not having one nearby. So i cannot check to see if the conclusions in the posted article are honest or not. cn

I wish it were that simple cn, but when some folks started making a stink in the birth of these projects suddenly info on such became harder to find anywhere...
Its called national security and it relates to these posts:

You're an idiot, they'd be hailed as heros by the "drugs are bad" crowd if they not only revealed but used pathogens to wipe out "the bold drug plants".

Again, anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?

I'm thinking you are probably incorrect as with most of your assertions and which is some what exampled with gov's paraquat program in the 70's and the immense public outcry that stopped the program.
Also that was before states started 'dealing' with cannabis laws on their own such as cali etc, and your making the argument that there would be less outcry now over an even more serious threat to cannabis and the health of those who partake?
"anything to back up your bat-shit crazy assertions?"

 

[echelon1k1]

If they hadn't selectively bred cannabis because "it's not broken, don't fix it" we wouldn't have the awesome "fire" strains that are available today.

If you don't want GM Cannabis, don't buy it or just grow your own from the million other seedbanks.

No need to seek a ban on something you won't partake in, is there?

By the say vein (no pun intended), I say even legalise heroin, crack, etc it won't make a damn bit of difference to my life cos I won't partake anyways, would make it cheaper for junkies so maybe less people getting robbed/murdered.

Selective breeding of strains by and for MJ lovers is one thing. We know there is medicinal & recreational value in it. We'd like someone else to experience the taste, smell, high etc... of a particular strain.

On the other hand;

Monsanto GM' the shit outta cannabis is something else. They cannot prove their products are safe and the FDA can't / won't say otherwise. Why would anyone expect differently with pot?

Remember when tobacco companies said ciggarettes were safe? That didn't turn out to well for them.

James Hardie told similar stories about asbestos. That too didn't turn out to well.

 

[DNAprotection]

In lay-mans terms; it's a load of twat-waffle-cock-swaggle.

Frank this is no time to boast about your family reunions! for goodness sake man we are under genetic attack...and they want the cannabis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBEhnZCJKc

 

[Harrekin]

Selective breeding of strains by and for MJ lovers is one thing. We know there is medicinal & recreational value in it. We'd like someone else to experience the taste, smell, high etc... of a particular strain.

On the other hand;

Monsanto GM' the shit outta cannabis is something else. They cannot prove their products are safe and the FDA can't / won't say otherwise. Why would anyone expect differently with pot?

Remember when tobacco companies said ciggarettes were safe? That didn't turn out to well for them.

James Hardie told similar stories about asbestos. That too didn't turn out to well.

Again, you don't have to consume GM cannabis.

Id be supportive of regulations related to labelling of GM cannabis so people have a choice, but the Bill in the OP as presented makes it illegal for GMO's of ALL kinds to even "exist" in California on the basis that it "might" be dangerous.

Lets ban cars, guns, painkillers, etc too because they "might" be dangerous.

DNAprotection; couldn't you at least do your "do gooder" thing about something that is a real, modern day crisis like the overprescription of antibiotics? Bioengineering is the future, trying to ban it will massively slow our species' advancement.

 

[DNAprotection]

DNAprotection; couldn't you at least do your "do gooder" thing about something that is a real, modern day crisis like the overprescription of antibiotics? Bioengineering is the future, trying to ban it will massively slow our species' advancement.

Helping your family can't be my only mission in life Frank, I must think of others as well.