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

Harrekin said:

Cock-waffle.

If it was a "numbers" game for you, then you'd have noticed the TRILLIONS of GM crops grown that havnt resulted in a SINGLE problem. Instead you spout about supplanting natural design.

Youre the sort of idiot that's slowing our species' advancement down.

Click to expand...

there are some problems with Gm crops. the weeds and bugs that they kill/ward off by producing insecticide and herbicides are becoming resistant to the insecticide and herbicides. this can result in a food drought since farmers are not spraying the crops anymore. it can be prevented by creating new insecticides and herbicides to fight the evolved bugs/ weeds but one would have to know when the bugs and weeds would be immune to the current cides and predict the future on what would ward/ kill them next. bugs can evolve very fast since their life span is alot shorter than other things. there are many concerns with GM crops and since they havent been about for that long we do not know the side effects. its kind of like the new pills that are always coming out, a few months later they have law firms running ads for suing the companies because the drug had side effects that were unknown. in the US and the capitalist economy people do not care about the side effect their product might have they only care about the money made from their product. people need to care more about the side effects on others and the environment instead of money. money cannot fix what humans have fucked up.

dank smoker420 said:

in DFW there are about 5-10 in the whole 9,000 square miles.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I travel all over the DFW metroplex and I have seen way more than 10 farms.

cannabineer said:

DNA is becoming big business. It is not a technology that can be undone by fiat. I would suggest a better tactic is to adapt patent law to cover the best compromise between corporate entitlement to protection of intellectual property (without which the engine for research goes away) ... and the fact the GM organisms multiply and carry copies of the proprietary bits in perpetuity.
DNA patents are not intrinsically evil. They can be if they're allowed to not expire due to corporate sleight-of-lawyer. Imo the focus is not to kill GM as a lawful enterprise, but to circumscribe it in such a way that it cannot be forged into a durable monopoly. Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

You can play God but only on a turntable, du'ude. cn

Click to expand...

cn through the course of reading your posts and the presenting of your respectable thoughts from a seemingly well functioning sense of logic and open mindedness, I can't help but think that I gave you a ride one day a long time ago when you were at a crossroads and on your way into the University systems of higher edu?

[video=youtube;fgcWfVvT_UM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fgcWfVvT_UM[/video]

Tommy Johnson: I had to be up at that there crossroads last midnight, to sell my soul to the devil.
Ulysses Everett McGill: Well, ain't it a small world, spiritually speaking. Pete and Delmar just been baptized and saved. I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated.

dank smoker420 said:

there are some problems with Gm crops. the weeds and bugs that they kill/ward off by producing insecticide and herbicides are becoming resistant to the insecticide and herbicides. this can result in a food drought since farmers are not spraying the crops anymore. it can be prevented by creating new insecticides and herbicides to fight the evolved bugs/ weeds but one would have to know when the bugs and weeds would be immune to the current cides and predict the future on what would ward/ kill them next. bugs can evolve very fast since their life span is alot shorter than other things. there are many concerns with GM crops and since they havent been about for that long we do not know the side effects. its kind of like the new pills that are always coming out, a few months later they have law firms running ads for suing the companies because the drug had side effects that were unknown. in the US and the capitalist economy people do not care about the side effect their product might have they only care about the money made from their product. people need to care more about the side effects on others and the environment instead of money. money cannot fix what humans have fucked up.

Click to expand...

The bugs dont develop a resistance to the crops, they develop a resistance to the pesticides used as generally GM crops are resistant to a specific type of pesticide and this can result in its overuse/improper use.

The crops themselves arnt actually a factor, it overuse of one type of pesticide that is to blame.

Harrekin said:

The bugs dont develop a resistance to the crops, they develop a resistance to the pesticides used as generally GM crops are resistant to a specific type of pesticide and this can result in its overuse/improper use.

The crops themselves arnt actually a factor, it overuse of one type of pesticide that is to blame.

Click to expand...

Frank look I think its a Russian plot to invade and overthrow your masters...frikin comies...

Russia bans all GM corn imports; EU may also ban Monsanto GMO in wake of shocking cancer findings



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037328_Russia_GMO_Monsanto.html#ixzz27gJ4AQZc


(NaturalNews) Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed a lifetime of Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

Russia's consumer protection group, Rospotrebnadzor, said it was halting all imports of GM corn while the country's Institute of Nutrition will be evaluating the results of the study.

The Russian ban is the latest blow to Monsanto, a company desperately clinging to the myth that its genetically modified crops are "no different" than traditional crops and therefore long-term safety testing is completely unnecessary. Monsanto has assaulted the French study, claiming it did not use enough rats and that the duration of the study was too short -- an absurd claim, given that Monsanto's own studies on animals are only 90 days in duration, while the French study looked at the effects of rats eating GM corn (and drinking trace levels of Roundup herbicide) for two years.

Notably, the large cancer tumors did not begin to appear until after the rats reached adulthood. Monsanto's GM corn has been in the U.S. food supply for more than a decade, and its corn is found in many popular breakfast cereals.

A European ban, too?

In addition to the Russian ban, Monsanto may also soon be facing a European ban. France is reported asking for a European-wide ban on GM corn if its national health agency confirms the findings of French scientists.

On top of that, if Proposition 37 passes in California, food producers will be required to label GMO on foods sold in that state. This is widely expected to cause U.S. food producers to abandon to use of GMO in foods, since virtually all consumers who know anything about GMO would refuse to buy items labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.

Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established

CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement summarizing its findings of the recent rat study, saying:

The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialization of products.

Here's one of the photos released by researchers in the recent study, demonstrating the massive cancer tumors found in rats who were fed GM corn:



Government regulators have been infiltrated by Monsanto; scientists bought off


In truth, Monsanto has managed to influence food regulators all around the world. It has paid money to numerous scientists in the USA, and it has essentially "placed" GMO-pushing individuals such as Michael Taylor into influential positions in government.

The European Union's Food Safety Agency (FSA) is also staffed by decision makers with financial ties to genetic engineering seed companies.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for a national GMO labeling law. He says: "The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."

[video=youtube;4J_YvtbSSqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4J_YvtbSSqg[/video]

Sources for this story include:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/09/25/russia-suspends-import-use...

http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20120920-monsanto-gm-maize-may-fac... English Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037328_Russia_GMO_Monsanto.html#ixzz27gJU3j5g

Harrekin said:

Cock-waffle.

If it was a "numbers" game for you, then you'd have noticed the TRILLIONS of GM crops grown that havnt resulted in a SINGLE problem. Instead you spout about supplanting natural design.

Youre the sort of idiot that's slowing our species' advancement down.

Click to expand...

Frank, I hope people can read this quote for what it is.
Imagine Frank or worse like Monsanto et al who all 'want to build a smarter planet' having control over the gene pool...reminds me of springtime for Hitler.
[video=youtube;K08akOt2kuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K08akOt2kuo[/video]

DNAprotection said:

Frank, I hope people can read this quote for what it is.
Imagine Frank or worse like Monsanto et al who all 'want to build a smarter planet' having control over the gene pool...reminds me of springtime for Hitler.
[video=youtube;K08akOt2kuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K08akOt2kuo[/video]

Click to expand...

Lol, its fucking sad the depths you sensationalists will go to to try force your bullshit into peoples heads.

Harrekin said:

Lol, its fucking sad the depths you sensationalists will go to to try force your bullshit into peoples heads.

Click to expand...

Whats really sad Frank is not your inaccurate conclusions and lack of critical thinking, but its your all out efforts to keep others from considering the most basic and logical questions one could ask in the face of such technologies...like these simple common sense considerations:

Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans

By John London, eHow Contributor

Many people are opposed to genetic engineering.
Genetic modification can seem breathtakingly complex but also breathtakingly simple. People use their advancements in science and technology to the ultimate purpose, namely to improve the lives of humans who suffer. People also try to bequeath future generations freedom from illness and disability. Atomic and then nuclear power was heralded in the past as a solution to another profound human need -- for almost limitless and sustainable energy.
Natural Selection

• One argument within the wider debate about genetic engineering and genetic modification is that it is a speeding up of the process of natural selection. This means that what would take millions of years in terms of evolution, scientists and test tubes can manage and achieve. But that is surely the point of the problem. What takes place in nature is a holistic process that includes all of the possible variables. What takes place in a laboratory holds, by definition, all other factors equal, but nature does not hold them equal. Every action has a consequence.

Human Body

• People know that the human body is very complex and, in a general sense, can be said to be made up of a combination of good and bad genes. The basis of genetic engineering is that the bad genes can be altered so that these no longer pose a threat to the well-being of their owner. The technology exists to do this at the level of sperms and eggs but most governments see this as unacceptable.

Viral Vectors

• Genetic engineering uses a viral vector to carry the functional -- replacement -- genes into the human body. However, two problems result. The first is that the effect that these viral genes may have on the human body is not yet known. The second is that it is not yet known where the functional genes will be placed, so they may replace genes other than the mutated ones. This could cause other as yet unknown illnesses.

Genetic Diversity

• If all defective genes are replaced with functional ones, future generations will all have the same genome. This will mean that while on the one hand everybody will be immune to existing illnesses, everybody will be equally susceptible to as yet unknown diseases or viruses. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to the extinction of humans.

Read more: Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8643156_disadvantages-genetic-engineering-humans.html#ixzz2H9oG1hVb

I can't believe this thread is still going. DNAprotection is certifiably insane. Stop talking to him.

"

If not for a virus, none of us would ever be born.
In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.
The cells that made syncytin were located only where the placenta made contact with the uterus. They fuse together to create a single cellular layer, called the syncytiotrophoblast, which is essential to a fetus for drawing nutrients from its mother. The scientists discovered that in order to fuse together, the cells must first make syncytin.
What made syncytin peculiar was that it was not a human gene. It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.
Viruses have insinuated themselves into the genome of our ancestors for hundreds of millions of years. They typically have gotten there by infecting eggs or sperm, inserting their own DNA into ours. There are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA. Most of this virus DNA has been hit by so many mutations that it’s nothing but baggage our species carries along from one generation to the next. Yet there are some viral genes that still make proteins in our bodies. Syncytin appeared to be a hugely important one to our own biology. Originally, syncytin allowed viruses to fuse host cells together so they could spread from one cell to another. Now the protein allowed babies to fuse to their mothers."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/#.UOjhsKxq2M0

dna you need to study evolution more

DNAprotection said:

Whats really sad Frank is not your inaccurate conclusions and lack of critical thinking, but its your all out efforts to keep others from considering the most basic and logical questions one could ask in the face of such technologies...like these simple common sense considerations:

Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans

By John London, eHow Contributor

​

Many people are opposed to genetic engineering.
Genetic modification can seem breathtakingly complex but also breathtakingly simple. People use their advancements in science and technology to the ultimate purpose, namely to improve the lives of humans who suffer. People also try to bequeath future generations freedom from illness and disability. Atomic and then nuclear power was heralded in the past as a solution to another profound human need -- for almost limitless and sustainable energy.
Natural Selection

• One argument within the wider debate about genetic engineering and genetic modification is that it is a speeding up of the process of natural selection. This means that what would take millions of years in terms of evolution, scientists and test tubes can manage and achieve. But that is surely the point of the problem. What takes place in nature is a holistic process that includes all of the possible variables. What takes place in a laboratory holds, by definition, all other factors equal, but nature does not hold them equal. Every action has a consequence.

Human Body

• People know that the human body is very complex and, in a general sense, can be said to be made up of a combination of good and bad genes. The basis of genetic engineering is that the bad genes can be altered so that these no longer pose a threat to the well-being of their owner. The technology exists to do this at the level of sperms and eggs but most governments see this as unacceptable.

Viral Vectors

• Genetic engineering uses a viral vector to carry the functional -- replacement -- genes into the human body. However, two problems result. The first is that the effect that these viral genes may have on the human body is not yet known. The second is that it is not yet known where the functional genes will be placed, so they may replace genes other than the mutated ones. This could cause other as yet unknown illnesses.

Genetic Diversity

• If all defective genes are replaced with functional ones, future generations will all have the same genome. This will mean that while on the one hand everybody will be immune to existing illnesses, everybody will be equally susceptible to as yet unknown diseases or viruses. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to the extinction of humans.

Read more: Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8643156_disadvantages-genetic-engineering-humans.html#ixzz2H9oG1hVb

Click to expand...

"Ehow contributor"

Do you have some lame list of unscientific bullshit as your "go to" on this topic?

ginjawarrior said:

"

If not for a virus, none of us would ever be born.
In 2000, a team of Boston scientists discovered a peculiar gene in the human genome. It encoded a protein made only by cells in the placenta. They called it syncytin.
The cells that made syncytin were located only where the placenta made contact with the uterus. They fuse together to create a single cellular layer, called the syncytiotrophoblast, which is essential to a fetus for drawing nutrients from its mother. The scientists discovered that in order to fuse together, the cells must first make syncytin.
What made syncytin peculiar was that it was not a human gene. It bore all the hallmarks of a gene from a virus.
Viruses have insinuated themselves into the genome of our ancestors for hundreds of millions of years. They typically have gotten there by infecting eggs or sperm, inserting their own DNA into ours. There are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA. Most of this virus DNA has been hit by so many mutations that it’s nothing but baggage our species carries along from one generation to the next. Yet there are some viral genes that still make proteins in our bodies. Syncytin appeared to be a hugely important one to our own biology. Originally, syncytin allowed viruses to fuse host cells together so they could spread from one cell to another. Now the protein allowed babies to fuse to their mothers."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/#.UOjhsKxq2M0

dna you need to study evolution more

Click to expand...

Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
Who would control this time machine you lobby for tw? Maybe folks like govs and corps? Or maybe just 'harmless' haters like the SHDT?
I'd rather not play those odds tw, I hold my trust in the natural evolutionary processes at this time line thnks.

DNAprotection said:

Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
Who would control this time machine you lobby for tw? Maybe folks like govs and corps? Or maybe just 'harmless' haters like the SHDT?
I'd rather not play those odds tw, I hold my trust in the natural evolutionary processes at this time line thnks.

Click to expand...

I respond to your words tw, but you almost never respond directly to mine?

ginjawarrior said:

while researching this morning i came across this site

populartechnology.net/2008/12/anti-marijuana-resource.html

normally it would be something i ignore for the nonsense it is

but seeing the work thats gone into it i would like to celebrate one of our newest members work

"Marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has been propagandized as "safe" by weak minded idiots. The reality is marijuana is an addictive drug that can cause brain damage, cancer, gum disease, heart disease, infertility, lung disease, obesity, pregnancy failure, viral infections and doubles the risk of car accidents.""

andrew seeing as how you've graced this site how abouts you give us some comment on this

Click to expand...

This one in particular...

"Tw, how in the world is it that you don't connect the dots on this kind of stuff?
There is a count down to new federal laws happening and if you were Monsanto lets say and knowing how you had manipulated the corn markets for example, wouldn't it make sense to you to do the same with cannabis only even more so?
Corn didn't start from a position of being illegal.
If corporate interests can keep naturally occurring varieties of cannabis to be considered 'dangerous' and schedule 1 while they step forward with genetically engineered varieties or the promise of such, then congress could act in response to the wa,co laws by passing federal laws that would require states to conform to the new regulated 'source' of the seed etc...
Its simply 'good' business practice for biotech leaders like Monsanto.
Shoot for it all is what I would do if I were them right now, in other words the best case business scenario in a cut throat capitalist culture.
It only makes sense that a corps like Monsanto would also fund efforts like "andrew"s etc in the count down to such laws.
Its exactly the tactics of Hurst and DuPont et al back in the count down to the marijuana tax act.
After the tax act was passed some of those same corporate interests were involved with the USDA's effort to contract farmers and supply hemp seed to be grown for the war effort in 1942, and one had to contact and grow federal approved/distributed seed.
Now with patentable genetics in reach, the corporate and federal interests could take over the entire source of 'legal' seed to be then supplied to the states who desire to use cannabis in whatever way... "
?

desert dude said:

I can't believe this thread is still going. DNAprotection is certifiably insane. Stop talking to him.

Click to expand...

Its not only still going dd, but people are still voting...and by your standards there are 53 people saying no to GMO cannabis so far that it could be said are ALMOST (give or take error margin lol) as "insane" as me, and only 16 people marked yes votes on GMO cannabis who's thinking on this could maybe be likened to being as 'sane' as yours.
That's better than 3-1 odds so far...gives one hope that some day we might actually be evolved enough to use the technology responsibly if need be...

DNAprotection said:

Its not only still going dd, but people are still voting...and by your standards there are 53 people saying no to GMO cannabis so far that it could be said are ALMOST (give or take error margin lol) as "insane" as me, and only 16 people marked yes votes on GMO cannabis who's thinking on this could maybe be likened to being as 'sane' as yours.
That's better than 3-1 odds so far...gives one hope that some day we might actually be evolved enough to use the technology responsibly if need be...

Click to expand...

I have been here a while. I am not at all surprised that the crazies outnumber us 3:1.

Welcome to the asylum. Pick up a safety restraint harness and proceed to your keyboard.

DNAprotection said:

Tw, everything you wrote about here happens everywhere in 'nature' in 'natural' processes and in 'natural' time, and while it is of course true that humans are a part of 'nature' and therefore human actions are 'natural', that doesn't mean that we 'humans' know it all or anywhere near what we would need to know to understand the collective automatic responses based on the pure and simple numbers and seemingly infinite variables that influence the 'natural' processes of evolution.
To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
Even that basic fundamental tip'o the ice burg info you posted above was only realized in legitimacy in "2000"...
For me this technology can in some ways be likened to having a time machine, and while the notion is intriguing and seems irresistible, would it be wise for one to really use such? Time lines are a very delicate thing, one tiny miniscule seemingly irrelevant change causes a chain reaction that could result in for example a person not being born that was born in a different time line etc or the simple action of turning left lets say instead of going right or even strait ahead etc can result in an entirely different chain of events from that point on.
Who would control this time machine you lobby for tw? Maybe folks like govs and corps? Or maybe just 'harmless' haters like the SHDT?
I'd rather not play those odds tw, I hold my trust in the natural evolutionary processes at this time line thnks.

Click to expand...

enough with your overuse of "nature"

the way evolution works is either something works or it dies

if it works well then it thrives

nature has no plan when a virus injects its dna's into ours the stuff that worked survived the stuff that didint killed them

in the case of dna manipulation in humans its being done in cases where people need it and i applaud that effort

to ban treatment to people because you have the Heebie jeebies about it is plan evil in my eyes

DNAprotection said:

T...
To supplant or highjack the collective natural processes of evolution by way of genetic engineering or gene splicing is to assume that our limited and unduly influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial thinking is now superior to the rest of the collective abilities of nature and its processes, good luck with that.
...

Click to expand...

Dissenting opinion. "Superior" is too hard a criterion ... it's punitive. A more balanced one would be "compatible" in the practical sense. And we're making headway there. The only way to learn is to try. And the prize is so enormously huge that I am all for the trying, and learning. cn

ginjawarrior said:

enough with your overuse of "nature"

the way evolution works is either something works or it dies

if it works well then it thrives

nature has no plan when a virus injects its dna's into ours the stuff that worked survived the stuff that didint killed them

in the case of dna manipulation in humans its being done in cases where people need it and i applaud that effort

to ban treatment to people because you have the Heebie jeebies about it is plan evil in my eyes

Click to expand...

Of course tw you as usual divert into areas of assumptions in effort to avoid responding to the post I specifically ask you to respond to.
Your diversion assumption though seems lacking a proper reading of sec 3(c).

cannabineer said:

Dissenting opinion. "Superior" is too hard a criterion ... it's punitive. A more balanced one would be "compatible" in the practical sense. And we're making headway there. The only way to learn is to try. And the prize is so enormously huge that I am all for the trying, and learning. cn

Click to expand...

I'm not against learning and 'trying' as you state you are in support of cn, I'm simply stating that in my opinion these efforts necessarily should be extremely regulated and highly contained at this time so as to not 'accidentally' or otherwise infringe on the inherent rights of all.

DNAprotection said:

Of course tw you as usual divert into areas of assumptions in effort to avoid responding to the post I specifically ask you to respond to.
Your diversion assumption though seems lacking a proper reading of sec 3(c).

Click to expand...

every single post of yours in this thread is an assumption

who is tw?