Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
MORE ACTUAL SCIENCE & EVIDENCE ~ http://www.ofa.org.au/pages/GMO-Safety-Issues-based-on-Science.html
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
doc I'm guessing you have never been to court to prove your theories and or conclusions here?
Only a judge could make such determinations, and i'm guessing your not quoting a judge above.
You maybe should do the work before you try to run about in big boy pants.
I have done the work, and I can produce quotes from judges and until you can do the same, your words remain impotent whether rooted in truth or not.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/607634-what-does-9th-amen-mean-6.html
As far as GS goes, he is simply a large stakeholder in Monsanto as well as other corps and political groups, but in 1993 he met a man named Ethan Nadleman and it was at that meeting that the drug policy alliance was birthed. DPA has worked at every turn to make sure that questions before judges concerning that which you speak to in the above quote never happen.
MPP and DPA have main objectives to divert or detour any directly confrontational or constitutional challenges to the cannabis laws while they work towards legislation that will 'legalize' through strict regulation...best case scenario for George and his et al gang including Monsanto is manipulate the coming laws to keep all naturally occurring varieties of cannabis in schedule 1 while getting FDA approval for GM/GE patented 'safe' varieties etc. They will simply allow for state laws as long as the source of material is gov certified etc.
As far as this thread goes doc, again you couldn't be more wrong...maybe you missed the conclusions page:
In summery, I want to simply reiterate that life itself and all that exists if seen as numbers represents a 'great' or the greatest equation.
Every behavior, physical appearance and everything about everything and anything is represented by a number in that equation.
Everything everywhere survives in symbiotic relationships with everything else either directly or indirectly.
Each and every symbiotic interaction also creates and represents new numbers in the greatest equation.
The numbers are seemingly endless and simply beyond our calculative abilities at this point in our growth as a species.
When the collective nature designs DNA it automatically knows the numbers of the entire equation and thereby can properly design genetic maps in ways and for reasons that we have only just begun to understand, we have stepped on the first step of the ladder on the way to understanding one might say.
Humans and our still untamed quest for 'gold' or what we still equate as 'riches' are attempting to design DNA and or solve genetic equations that we simply don't know all the numbers for and even one wrong number or one missing number or one out of order number could result in a devastating chain reaction of events that could prove terminal for our species as well as many others.
So it is not and has never been a debate on whether or not GMO's are 'good or bad', that's the debate govs and corps need us to be having because it is unresolvable with the currently known numbers and we will chase each others tails while the corporate run gov keeps on down this dangerous road unchecked by the people.
Currently whether in court or getting something approved by the FDA the corps only needs show that their products or creations are 'not harmful', which is a fairly easy task when neither the corps or the FDA have all the numbers to really prove or disprove such a thing in the short term let alone long term.
The real court and FDA test would be to require that the corps show that they know all the numbers and because of such they know how to design and are convinced that all numbers will interact in non harmful and beneficial ways in the short terms and for generations to come, but they can't give any such showing because they simply don't have the numbers at this point and that point is simply undeniable and non-debatable. Thus all who have jumped on this thread to 'prove' their points about GMO's not being proved harmful have spent every post in drowning irrelevance to the real question we are faced with as a species and the question this thread and the DNA Act proposal seeks to address:
Do we know enough yet?
and,
Are we mature enough yet?
This thread and all its many links to available info and including as 'evidence' the bs and SHDT spam banter reflects as good a representation of all sides and all concerns in the GMO issue as I have seen anywhere.
The only non debatable point though is the one that prevails in the end, 'we don't know all the numbers to the equation' and beyond that we are still clearly unduly motivated by dangerous prejudicial traits already influence everything we do or say or write.
So based on this thread alone the unavoidable answer to bot questions above would clearly be:
No.
and,
No.
It is actually the people who insist we are ready and do know enough, by their very position and disposition 'prove' we are not ready and still lack the knowledge and maturity to engage such technologies, much as a child rushes into a circumstance that they had no idea would turn out to be disastrous simply for lack of information and the maturity to be self-aware of such.
With the awareness of the lack of knowledge, the more mature child would be very much more cautious in approaching and thereby show a greater readiness to engage such technology responsibly when all the numbers of life's seemingly endless interactive equations are known, and, if need be.
Most on this poll have voted 'no' to genetically engineered cannabis, over 3-1, that exhibits a self awareness that if one was attempting to add 10 numbers and yet it was clear that you only had or knew 1 or 3 of those numbers at best, there is no way to add correctly yet, worse is we don't even know the number we are trying to add up to, we only guess its a 10. Still further there are numbers between the numbers and numbers between those and so on and none of which have we even begun to understand.
In terms of survival and preservation of all we symbiotically must survive with, a thinking self aware human would naturally be scrambling all hands on deck to protect this planets DNA offspring from the on going redesigning of such by the corps and their puppet govs who clearly and undeniably know not what they do when adding anything but money and power and control and the prejudices that are required to help perpetuate such behaviors.
So in other words this thread was an exercise/test/challenge in self awareness.
The folks who instantly reflex into assuming, accusing, spamming and demanding 'facts' in their apparent blindness to the undeniable 'fact' of the lack of 'facts' are much like Custer charging on into the little big horn shall we say and paying no mind to adding or even having all the numbers to add first, and so the yes votes on this threads poll can be seen in part as representing the non-viability traits of our species.
Conversely the 'no' votes on this threads poll in their recognition or awareness of the lack of 'facts' can in part be seen as representing the viability traits of our species.
The 'no' votes should give us all encouragement that we can survive and grow and the 'yes' votes and lack of self awareness and other traits within there as exampled by the postings within this thread should show us how hard we need to work to get to a place of continued survival and evolution.
The 'yes' votes and the people here who cast them are mostly 'benign' compared to the 'malignant' people making corporate/gov policy in the USA on this and every other issue.
Every other issue can and does have bad enough consequences as the state of the economy, wars and health or cancer rates etc currently reflects, but this issue of genetic engineering can make the consequences of all other policies put together seem miniscule in comparison.
Life cannot be 'recalled' once that chain of numbers is set in motion, we are not talking about a product failing etc...this effects us all in every way and can easily effect us into extinction if we act as Custer and his crew did.
The corporate gov is charging ahead as we speak just like Custer did.
Your inherent rights to access the commons of nature for your survival and your rights and responsibilities to defend the genetics of yourself and all else in this nature that we are all part of, far outweighs any reach a corp or gov has to destroy such whether intentionally or not in their quest and the motives for such.
Now is the short timed window chance you have to stand up and protect your genetics and the blueprints of all life on this planet before Custer gets to far into the all out charge ahead.
That battle in part will be fought here in cyberspace, but the real fight is outside of these virtual walls and is at hand.
Your choice, even 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice' (as RUSH would say), still represents a number, all those numbers will add up to whatever they may be...I hope the sum total is as viable as this thread and poll have been in helping to determine the aforementioned conclusions.
My undying thanks to all who participated and or viewed.
To all who voted 'no', "so shines a good deed in a weary world"...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
That's an organic farmers website.
Youd find less biased info on the Monsanto website.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Oh Frank it looks like your back to telling jokes again lol...I can only guess that's what you meant because of the punch line "Youd find less biased info on the Monsanto website."
Ok one good joke deserves another
:
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
doc, neither you or Frank or any other members of the SHDT have responded to the conclusions page of this thread which can be found on page 70 lol...
Makes your quote above as empty as your knowledge on this subject.
All your conclusions and so called 'evidence' were found to be conclusively irrelevant to the undeniable surviving fact that the numbers to life's complicated equations are not yet fully known or understood, so attempting to engineer an equation without all the numbers is at the very least foolish and at the very most a crime against nature and the humanity that exists as a part of such.
The responses you've had all through this thread have been rarely more than attempts to malign.
You may be right doc, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic your looking for...its to late to fight, dont try to save me, you may be wrong but for all I know you may be right...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Are you actually quoting Einstein implying he'd support your unscientific stance?!doc, neither you or Frank or any other members of the SHDT have responded to the conclusions page of this thread which can be found on page 70 lol...
Makes your quote above as empty as your knowledge on this subject.
All your conclusions and so called 'evidence' were found to be conclusively irrelevant to the undeniable surviving fact that the numbers to life's complicated equations are not yet fully known or understood, so attempting to engineer an equation without all the numbers is at the very least foolish and at the very most a crime against nature and the humanity that exists as a part of such.
The responses you've had all through this thread have been rarely more than attempts to malign.
You may be right doc, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic your looking for...its to late to fight, dont try to save me, you may be wrong but for all I know you may be right...
His work directly lead to the atomic bomb...he would the said the benefits outweigh the risks, you know, because he uses science and would have been capable of doing a fact based ethical review before research started(including examining the risk/reward ratio)....he would've NEVER followed this simplistic "natural is better" mantra.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Frank you are so far out of context and deep into negligent assumption that I don't know if I have enough rope to pull you back...
Einstein would have in all likelihood been the first to call for all the numbers in the interactive equation of life before we start redesigning such Frank...lol
As far as the unrelated atom bomb reference:
~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
"Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.
In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.
Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted:
"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'".
Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620."
We must simply stand up and defend life and the web that connects it all...such is to fight Monsanto fire with sobering water...in there we will confirm our own rights and it is those common rights that will trump any perceived right Monsanto et al currently enjoys as they attempt to redesign and own the web of life and control the evolution of such...its the ultimate central control power play...its like springtime for Hitler...its payday Monsanto...
[video=youtube;2iIBiVYWT9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2iIBiVYWT9U[/video]
LocalAnarchist
Member
it makes me sick thinking that a billion dollar industry that has been fucking us over with their shit GMO food and chemicals think they can try to fuck with the organic home growers are fucking wrong
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You didn't swear enough, so I don't really know what the crusty fuck you're trying to fucking say. I mean, shit fuck. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you are conceding a faulty premise.
the bill posted in the OP has NOTHING to do with cannabis, nor home growers of cannabis.
it also has NOTHING to do with monsanto
it has NOTHING to do with any evidence of the danger of GMO's
it has nothing to do with the specious and foolish argument that GMO's are unhealthy.
the OP's bill simply declares all GMO's in california to be illegal and gives them 30 days to GTFO.
the premise you have accepted is that GMO's as a class can be described as unhealthy,, dangerous to the eater, dangerous to the environment, dangerous to native plants and animals, etc etc etc.
none of that is true, none of that is supported by science, none of that is even plausible.
the proponents on the "Yes" side have created one giant strawman, and have taken turns gleefully whacking at it with sticks. it is a testament to their own ineffectiveness that they have still been unable to defeat their own shoddily constructed scarecrow.
at question in almost every post in this thread is the premise that GMO's require MORE chemicals to grow, and that they somehow become toxic as a result. this is untrue.
"roundup ready" crops are modified with a gene from another plant, this modification makes the crop plant largely immune to glyphosate, meaning you can use this herbicide to kill weeds. this does not mean you MUST use glypohosate, only that you can. glyphosate is a short lived chemical which is laregly harmless to humans animals and insects, much like DDT which was only toxic to bugs. those in the know are well aware of the fact that DDT was bbanned based on the book "Silent Spring", which was a tissue of lies. the banning of DDT resulted in massive upswwings of malaria in the third world, and a huge resurgence of the tsetse fly (carrier of african sleeping sickness) based on the claim in "Silent Spring" that DDT was weakening the shells of birds eggs.
as a result of the flawed assumption that DDT was to blame, it took another ten years for REAL SCIENCE to reveal that it was mercury contamination of water supplies which was causing the problem, NOT DDT. thus mecury pollution got a ten year free ride while the politicians were screaming about DDT. thats environmentalism for you, selling a scary story to the press and watching the hoi polloi panic so they can get what they want.
banning GMO's is very much the same as banning DDT, it's based on lies, deception,, panic in the media, panic in the masses, and a few grandstanding populist politicians demagoguing an issue whith no foundation in reality. but once the deal is done,, and the ban is in place, getting rid of it takes forever. third world nations are crying out for DDT to eradicate mosquitoes, tsetse flies, bloatflies, locusts, chiggers, and many other pests which bring disease, starvation and ruin on developing nations. several african countries have already begun manufacturing DDT for themselves, despite a global ban on the stuff since the 1970's.
the only evidence brought up in any of the "Yes" crowd's massive link dumps (which i read in their entirety,, thanks insomnia) was a study which demonstrated a link to BT corn and some toxic reactions in rats.
it is important to note that BT crops are NOT glyphosate resitant, they are an entirely different class of GMO, which uses the implantation of a genetic strand from another plant to cause the crop to produce a NATURAL insect toxin that kills budworms, boll weevils, and other plant pests using the same toxic mechanism that other plants use to deter those same pests.
even this study was merely preliminary, and the toxic reactions were within the margins of safety. there were no cancers in the rats, no deaths from toxicity, and no diseases apparent. the only way they discovered the toxicity was in the necropsy of the subjects. and this toxicity was found in rats fed a diet of 33% BT corn.
your statement goes beyond even the most rabidly ardent "yes" supporter by assuming the GMO "industry" has fucked you at all, that GMO's are related to "chemicals" and that this same shadowy "indusrty" cabal will be shutting down seedbanks in amsterdam if they dont sell GMO seeds to potheads.
unclench homey, none of the shit claimed in this thread or the media about GMO's is factual. your dope is safe from Monsanto, from the DEA... not so much.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Lmao!!! Too funny
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Funny because its true.
Why dont you post some more links from "unbiased" organic farming websites to rebut him.
Fucking crusty retard.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein_2.html#1MvFAeMIToM1sfJx.99
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Albert Einstein
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#UTpAFKeYZAzGk3ZZ.99
AS IN ROUND UP AND THEN ROUND UP READY CORN
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
AS IN ROUND UP AND THEN ROUND UP READY CORN
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Albert Einstein
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Most of those quotes could be taken to disprove the anti-GMO side.
He was right tho, stupidity IS limitless with pee-poles like you.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
alright then,put forth a SINGLE cogent reason why banning GMO's is a good idea, and support it with evidence.
possible subjects for your response include:
livestock death or illness from eating GMO feed.
human death or illness from eating GMO food.
GMO's will cross pollinate with native plants destabilizing the ecosystem.
GMO's are responsible for Bee Colony Collapse Syndrome
GMO's cause cancer
GMO's Genetic Modifications will modify the genetic structure of the eater
GMO developers force small farmers to use their seeds
GMO developers are attempting to patent UNMODIFIED organisms by simply mapping and claiming their genetic structure.
GMO developers are attempting to stop home gardeners/pot growers from growing non-GMO dope.
There even is such a thing as GMO dope.
UC davis and Monsanto are teaming up to breed a GMO fusarium leaf wilt fungus to wipe out Non-GMO dope.
ANYONE is actually attempting to create a GMO dope killing organism OF ANY KIND AT ALL.
or you can pick your own topic, just make sure it is specific and that you have evidence to support it.
let the games begin!
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Corporations can buy evidence like governments and lives ~ http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so, challenge declined?
how disappointing.
at least admit you dont want to argue an issue, rather than the weak ass excuse that "science isnt fair"
theres more than enough research money going into testing GMO's. if you cant find evidence to support your claims, one might conclude that it DOES NOT EXIST.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
You have refused to acknowledge the science that has been laid out throughout these 80 pages so how is one more link going to make a difference to someone who obviously has an agenda he mirrors and no ethics