Lake County 'right to grow plants' proposed ballot measure should be state wide...

[pSi007]

(section) 2.(a)
All who exercise the rights described in section 1., shall take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction, and are responsible to mitigate any possible foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments, and all persons who neglect such practices shall be subject to the authority designated under section 2.(b) herein, but such remedies are to be used to help individuals come into compliance with this section and not to unreasonably burden individuals who exercise the rights described in section 1.
(section) 2.(b)
The County of Lake Environmental Health department shall administer over individual circumstances that may arise related to section 2., section 2.(a), and section 2.(c) herein, but all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor (or resident of the county) complaint in writing has been officially registered with the county, and such authority shall not be blanketly or randomly imposed on those who exercise the rights as described in section 1., or 1.(a).

This part is very important and as long as we have protection rights which re-affirm that the environment will be cared for in a professional manor, this will aid in the combat of local ordinances springing up which declare violation of California Environmental code 15061(b)(3) and subject to CEQA requirements.

addressing environmental issues should be a foundation in the ref as well as personal protection rights. the other 215 stuff is well covered, we need legal ammo vs the environmental code 15061b3. I don't cause any damage to the environment as a blood, bone, and kelp farmer(Not subject to CEQA) but I understand some people would seek extraordinary means of their benefit.

 

[biglungs]

right lol, if you can outlaw (regulate) one species of plant then you can outlaw (regulate) any species of plant, that's how law works...
so you are saying you are a prohibitionist right? (of plants and human rights etc)
you are also saying your extremely anal-retentive about peoples yards meeting your particular standards right?
wow bro, i'm thinkin you would do well working for the state or feds

im saying the prohibibitionists have the law enforcement at there disposal and they dont come to ppls house over vegetables so there is at least one species of plant that can be regulated its a fact. i do t agree with it but thats the way it is even if anyone could grow people from the city who have no yard to grow in would come up and try to rip ppl off. remember that boy in Clear Lake who got fucked up about 10 years ago by those guys from the bay area who came to steal his dads legal plants? I think everyone should be allowed at least six outdoor or 100 square feet a patient indoors other than that the cops are going to fuck with you in most counties. as far as the yard goes i know plenty of people in Lake County who are not wealthy or are poor they dont have 3 cars broken down in there front yard or bummy looking tweekers hanging around all day thats the kind of shit that looks like shit

 

[DNAprotection]

Keep comparing everyone who has a slightly different opinion than you to DEA agents. See how far that gets you changing people's minds.

i know it's hard to face the fact that your views are much in line with that of prohibitionists, but that doesn't change the fact...
as exemplified by their propaganda and legislative efforts it's also no coincidence imo that norml, mpp and the dpa also hold your anti human rights views.
frankly DK there are folks here that do also hold your views, but such views are clearly in the minority...

[h=2]https://www.rollitup.org/politics/773992-your-personal-view-possessing-seeds.html
View Poll Results: is possessing seeds and growing 'any' plants your self evident inherent human right?[/h]Voters 62. You have already voted on this poll

• yes
  
  
  5690.32%
  
• no
  
  
  46.45%
  
• i dont know
  
  
  23.23%
  

Correct. We all are entitled to certain rights. Unlimited growing of whatever you want, where ever you want, when ever you want is not one of those rights.

actually it looks more like this

Humans are naturally endowed with the fundamental right to have and grow the plants of this earth, and the seeds thereof, for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights exist and are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of government to protect an individuals right to engage in commerce.

No. Just not talking you particular seriously because the argument you're making is kinda weak IMO.

hmmm, that's quite typical of what someone says when they cant think of a proper argument

How about opium poppies and coca plants. I want to grow them right next to a middle school because I have a right to do whatever I want right?

well mr anslinger i'm glad your out to protect all the little children, but from what? from plants? if you are truly concerned about future generations then i suggest you protect them from folks like you by assuring that they inherit the ability to employ the freedoms naturally endowed to them by nature.

I don't think you understand what "human right" means.

ok i'm game, i'm always willing to learn new stuff, so tell us all what human rights are according to DK?

I have a very clear understanding of how laws work.

i would also not be opposed to exploring that assumption as well

No. I think prop215 and sb420 were both poorly written. In order to write a good law it requires a collaboration of legal minds and industry professionals.

I agree that if you want a law that is completely oblivious of basic human rights then "legal minds and industry professionals" are exactly who you would want to write it.

Correct. I do not think the regulations for growing carrots should be the same as the regulations for growing opium poppies.

some local govs have already begun passing land use ordinances restricting home food gardens but thats just the beginning, not far into the future genetically engineered and protected by patent law carrots etc will have you thinking the above statement is as obsolete as i knew it was years ago

This all comes back to the fact that you have no idea what human rights really are.

People like you should be dropped in North Korea, DRC, or Belarus for a few years and find out what the phrase "human rights" really means.

In North Korea you can be sent to a concentration camp for the rest of your life if your parents or children speak out against the government. In the DRC at 10 year can be forced into military service. In Belarus they can simply scoop you off the street and torture you without being convicted of a crime.

Those are human rights issues. "I want to grow whatever plant I want because I feel like it" isn't a human rights issue.

When that is your fundamental argument it's hard to take you seriously.

"I want to grow whatever plant I want because I feel like it", im not sure who you are arguing with here as you are arguing against your own quote? (lol)
i guess maybe its not as convenient to argue against things that i have stated?
either way, nowhere here have you shown any knowledge of human rights...you only make general statement boxing at yourself or at shadows...
but i will try and respond to your last diversionary quote above by asking you if from your opinion is it that as long as we are not like north korea then we all have our human rights in tact, is that what your saying?
can you supply a list of those rights so we can be sure you are correct?

 

[DNAprotection]

ps...the poll above didn't seem to copy so here it is again:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/773992-your-personal-view-possessing-seeds.html
62 votes and 56 of them were yes = 90%

 

[DNAprotection]

This part is very important and as long as we have protection rights which re-affirm that the environment will be cared for in a professional manor, this will aid in the combat of local ordinances springing up which declare violation of California Environmental code 15061(b)(3) and subject to CEQA requirements.

addressing environmental issues should be a foundation in the ref as well as personal protection rights. the other 215 stuff is well covered, we need legal ammo vs the environmental code 15061b3. I don't cause any damage to the environment as a blood, bone, and kelp farmer(Not subject to CEQA) but I understand some people would seek extraordinary means of their benefit.

i agree and its a problem in my area...

 

[joe macclennan]

some local govs have already begun passing land use ordinances restricting home food gardens but thats just the beginning, not far into the future genetically engineered and protected by patent law carrots etc will have you thinking the above statement is as obsolete as i knew it was years ago

I am not vested in this argument at all but I am pulling for you folks out there. It is incredibly unfair to give some forms of ag more rights to water than others.

Like grapes for wine to get people drunk is more important than producing medicine to help people. really messed up...

and as far as dna's quote there.^^^ is perhaps the scariest thing ever. TO prohibit people from growing their own food.....

It really is a scary place our country is headed

 

[DNAprotection]

I am not vested in this argument at all but I am pulling for you folks out there. It is incredibly unfair to give some forms of ag more rights to water than others.

Like grapes for wine to get people drunk is more important than producing medicine to help people. really messed up...

and as far as dna's quote there.^^^ is perhaps the scariest thing ever. TO prohibit people from growing their own food.....

It really is a scary place our country is headed

great common sense comment, and i agree that the particular circumstances of any area in the state or country differ and so implementation of a measure (as exampled in op) would very, but imo every human on earth has a vested interest in this part which goes directly to our mutual concerns about our ability to do for our selves:

'Humans are naturally endowed with the fundamental right to have and grow the plants of this earth, and the seeds thereof, for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights exist and are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of government to protect an individuals right to engage in commerce.'

 

[joe macclennan]

good point

 

[pSi007]

If you violate a county 'outdoor ban' ordinance, you can be fined by the Department of Public Health, Land Management division. The local ordinances are supposedly subject to CEQA by a politically motivated force, not danger to the environment. Without evidence and direct proof that growing a couple of cannabis plants will destroy the environment, all local ordinances will be in violation of California general law, Health and Safety code: 11362.5, and should be appealed with a class actions lawsuit against the counties who eliminate the general law of California Health and Safety code: 11362.5-9.


These ordinances are illegal generalizations that ALL cannabis growers are a threat to nature. THIS IS BULLSHIT AND MUST BE APPEALED!



Title 14. California Code of Regulations
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act

Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study

Sections 15060 to 15065

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art5.html

15060. Preliminary Review

(a) A lead agency is allowed 30 days to review for completeness applications for permits or other entitlements for use. While conducting this review for completeness, the agency should be alert for environmental issues that might require preparation of an EIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the authority of the lead agency to require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project. Requiring such additional information after the application is complete does not change the status of the application.

(b) Except as provided in Section 15111, the lead agency shall begin the formal environmental evaluation of the project after accepting an application as complete and determining that the project is subject to CEQA.

(c) Once an application is deemed complete, a lead agency must first determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA before conducting an initial study. An activity is not subject to CEQA if:

(1) The activity does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by a public agency;

(2) The activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; or

(3) The activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.

(d) If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the agency may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR process described in Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be significant or potentially significant.

Authority: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21080(b), 21080.2 and 21160, Public Resources Code.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 65944, Government Code; Section 21080.2, Public Resources Code.

Discussion: This section describes the actions required of the Lead Agency when it receives an application for a project. This section is necessary in order to save time that could otherwise be spent if the agency ignored environmental issues for the first 30 days of reviewing the application. The section is also necessary for allowing the efficiencies that result from moving directly to the preparation of an EIR where the agency can see that one will clearly be required. This avoids the time involved in the separate step of preparing an Initial Study where the Lead Agency believes it will perform the work of identifying effects as significant or non-significant while it does simultaneous work preparing the EIR.

This section also introduces the term "preliminary review" to apply to this early review of an application for completeness and for a possible exemption from CEQA. This term is needed to provide a shorthand way to referring to these early steps and to distinguish them from the more formal Initial Study process that follows preliminary review.

See Public Resources Code Section 21151.7 which provides that EIRs are required for certain projects.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.1, subdivision (b), requires the lead agency, upon the request of the project applicant, to provide for consultation with responsible and trustee agencies before the filing of an application. The consultation is to cover the range of actions, potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and any potential and significant effects on the environment of the project.

The 1998 amendment emphasizes that preliminary review is the appropriate time to determine whether the project is indeed subject to CEQA. Subsection (c) offers basic guidance in that area. Further, accepting an application as complete does not restrict the lead agency from requiring additional information as may be necessary for the environmental evaluation of the project.

15060.5. Preapplication Consultation

(a) For a potential project involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the lead agency shall, upon the request of a potential applicant and prior to the filing of a formal application, provide for consultation with the potential applicant to consider the range of actions, potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and any potential significant effects on the environment of the potential project.

(b) The lead agency may include in the consultation one or more responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies who in the opinion of the lead agency may have an interest in the proposed project. The lead agency may consult the Office of Permit Assistance in the Trade and Commerce Agency for help in identifying interested agencies.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21080.1, Public Resources Code.

Discussion: This section incorporates the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 enabling a project proponent to request a preapplication meeting with the lead agency to discuss their project. The lead agency is responsible for holding the meeting and may ask the California Office of Permit Assistance for help in identifying state and regional agencies that may be interested in the proposed project.

15061. Review for Exemption

(a)Once a lead agency has determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, a lead agency shall determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA.

(b)A project is exempt from CEQA if:

(1) The project is exempt by statute (see, e.g. Article 18, commencing with Section 15260).

(2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2.

(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

(4) The project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. (See Section 15270(b)).

(c) Each public agency should include in its implementing procedures a listing of the projects often handled by the agency that the agency has determined to be exempt. This listing should be used in preliminary review.

(d) After determining that a project is exempt, the agency may prepare a Notice of Exemption as provided in Section 15062. Although the notice may be kept with the project application at this time, the notice shall not be filed with the Office of Planning and Research or the county clerk until the project has been approved.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21080(b), 21080.9, 21080.10, 21084, 21108(b), and 21152(b), Public Resources Code; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68.

Discussion: This section outlines the review of a project to see if the project is exempt from CEQA. This review corresponds to the first steps of the process as shown on the flow chart in Appendix A. Reviewing a project for exempt status at this early time can avoid the expense of the CEQA process.

Subsection (b)(3) provides a short way for agencies to deal with discretionary activities which could arguably be subject to the CEQA process but which common sense provides should not be subject to the Act.

This section is based on the idea that CEQA applies jurisdictionally to activities which have the potential for causing environmental effects. Where an activity has no possibility of causing a significant effect, the activity will not be subject to CEQA. This approach has been noted with approval in a number of appellate court decisions including the State Supreme Court opinion in No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles.

Subsection (d) notes that timing and processing of the Notice of Exemption is to be compatible with the requirement in Section 15062 that the notice not be filed until after the agency has made a decision on the project. Section 15061(d) allows the Notice of Exemption to be completed during the preliminary review and to be kept with the project file during the processing of the project application. By including the notice in the file, the agency would show any people reviewing the file that CEQA had been considered, that the agency regarded the project as exempt, and that the agency would be ready to file the notice as soon as the decision was made on the project.

 

[Dan Kone]

i know it's hard to face the fact that your views are much in line with that of prohibitionists, but that doesn't change the fact...

That doesn't make me similar to prohibitionists.

as exemplified by their propaganda and legislative efforts it's also no coincidence imo that norml, mpp and the dpa also hold your anti human rights views.
frankly DK there are folks here that do also hold your views, but such views are clearly in the minority...

I'd like to see evidence of that. I've never heard about any of those groups saying any such thing.

Humans are naturally endowed with the fundamental right to have and grow the plants of this earth, and the seeds thereof, for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights exist and are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of government to protect an individuals right to engage in commerce.

Repeating that won't make it true.

well mr anslinger i'm glad your out to protect all the little children, but from what? from plants? if you are truly concerned about future generations then i suggest you protect them from folks like you by assuring that they inherit the ability to employ the freedoms naturally endowed to them by nature.

Now you're being ridiculous. Because I disagree with your absurd assertion that it's a human right to do whatever you want regardless of impact that makes me Harry Anslinger. Awesome.

ok i'm game, i'm always willing to learn new stuff, so tell us all what human rights are according to DK?

You have to consider societal impact when talking about human rights. You do not have the right to grow a field of opium poppies across from a middle school because of the potential harm it would cause. Just like it's not a human right for you to swing your fist into someone's face.


Your human rights end where someone else's begin. Saying you have the right to grow as much as you want of what ever you want isn't true because of the potential impact it could have on others. When unregulated even cannabis farming can have unintended negative consequences.


I believe we should change the laws allowing anyone to grow personal quantities of cannabis. However I think this requires a regulation defining what a personal quantity means. Growing an acre of cannabis isn't a human right because it's not for personal consumption. It's for commerce. You do NOT have the right to unregulated commerce. You live in a society whether you like it or not. Everyone has to pay taxes in order for that society to work. Regulation of commerce is a necessary part of that.

I agree that if you want a law that is completely oblivious of basic human rights then "legal minds and industry professionals" are exactly who you would want to write it.

That's because you don't live in the real world.

some local govs have already begun passing land use ordinances restricting home food gardens but thats just the beginning, not far into the future genetically engineered and protected by patent law carrots etc will have you thinking the above statement is as obsolete as i knew it was years ago

Interesting you brought up GMO's. You've made a thread support banning (the hypothetical thing you invented out of thin air) Monsanto GMO cannabis. In fact you support the regulation if not out right banning of GMO's correct?


How come the right to grow what ever you want doesn't extend to Monsanto? To me it doesn't sound like you're fighting for the freedom of people to grow whatever THEY want. It sounds like you're fighting for the "right" of people to grow what ever YOU want them to grow. This isn't so much about human rights as it is lobbying to impose your personal preferences on to everyone.


If what you were doing was fighting for the "human rights" of people to grow what ever they want then you'd be fighting for Monsanto's ability to grow GMO bud too. But you're not. You've just decided people have the freedom to do whatever YOU personally prefer, and they don't have the right to grow what you do not prefer.

 

[Dan Kone]

At this point I feel like it's appropriate to post the lyrics to the Dead Kennedys California Uber Alles. That is starting to seem like the real goal here.

"California Uber Alles"

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president...

Carter Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school!

[Chorus:]
California Uber Alles
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!

[Chorus]

Now it is 1984
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece

Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.

DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
When you mess with President Brown

[Chorus]

 

[Dan Kone]

ps...the poll above didn't seem to copy so here it is again:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/773992-your-personal-view-possessing-seeds.html
62 votes and 56 of them were yes = 90%

Not a very scientific poll. Also it's how you phrased the question.

If you ask a bunch of bud growers if it's a human right to grow bud of course they are going to say yes. If you ask the question "Is it a human right to grow a field of opium poppies across from a middle school" the overwhelming majority of people are going to say no.

 

[joe macclennan]

Interesting you brought up GMO's. You've made a thread support banning (the hypothetical thing you invented out of thin air) Monsanto GMO cannabis. In fact you support the regulation if not out right banning of GMO's correct?


How come the right to grow what ever you want doesn't extend to Monsanto? To me it doesn't sound like you're fighting for the freedom of people to grow whatever THEY want. It sounds like you're fighting for the "right" of people to grow what ever YOU want them to grow. This isn't so much about human rights as it is lobbying to impose your personal preferences on to everyone.

trying not to step on anyones dick here but how can you compare a corporate monstrosity like monsanto and their rights to the basic human RIGHT to grow their own food?

quite a stretch there dan.

and what exactly is wrong with regulating gmo's and where they end up? Or how they are used?

 

[Dan Kone]

trying not to step on anyones dick here but how can you compare a corporate monstrosity like monsanto and their rights to the basic human RIGHT to grow their own food?

quite a stretch there dan.

and what exactly is wrong with regulating gmo's and where they end up? Or how they are used?

Nothing is wrong with with wanting to regulate GMO's. That's my point.

It's perfectly acceptable to want regulations on what Monsanto grows. It is NOT a human right for Monsanto or anyone else to grow whatever they want regardless of impact.

However rights, laws, and regulations have to apply to everyone in order for us to live in an equal society.

If it's not a human right for Monsanto to grow whatever they want, logic and justice dictates that it's not a human right for anyone.

What DNAprotection is advocating is that it's a natural human right for anyone to grow whatever they want, as long has he approves of it. DNAprotection is saying that human rights only extend to his personal preferences. If he doesn't like something (like Monsanto) human rights end.

You can't have it both ways. If what he's saying is true, and it's a human right to grow whatever you want, then that MUST extend to Monsanto as well.

I do not believe it's true that we have the right to grow whatever we what. I believe the people have a right to tell Monsanto what they can't grow if it has an impact on society. Therefor it can't be a human right if it doesn't extend to the people at Monsanto.

It's really easy to say you support equal rights when someone is doing something you agree with. It's not so easy when you talk about extending equal rights to people doing something you oppose. This is what separates people who genuinely fight for human rights from people just trying to impose their will on society. This is why the ACLU fights for the free speech rights of the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church. While I do hope the people in the KKK and the WBC all drop dead, I support their right to free speech.

That's what equality means. That's what human rights means. If you're fighting for the rights of the people you agree with and against the rights of people you disagree with, then you aren't fighting for rights at all. You're fighting to have your personal preference imposed on everyone.

 

[Dan Kone]

For the sake of clarity, I do think it's ok for DNAprotection to want his personal opinions be made into laws. I even agree with many of those opinions.

What I find so completely offensive is that he's disguising his personal opinions as human rights. This is a horrible thing to do. It's no different than what the religious right does when they support the "religious freedom" of their churches to lobby government to trample on the rights of gay people. They defend their rights while they impose on other people's rights. I can't think of anything I object to more than this.

 

[joe macclennan]

Nothing is wrong with with wanting to regulate GMO's. That's my point.

It's perfectly acceptable to want regulations on what Monsanto grows. It is NOT a human right for Monsanto or anyone else to grow whatever they want regardless of impact.

However rights, laws, and regulations have to apply to everyone in order for us to live in an equal society.

If it's not a human right for Monsanto to grow whatever they want, logic and justice dictates that it's not a human right for anyone.

What DNAprotection is advocating is that it's a natural human right for anyone to grow whatever they want, as long has he approves of it. DNAprotection is saying that human rights only extend to his personal preferences. If he doesn't like something (like Monsanto) human rights end.

You can't have it both ways. If what he's saying is true, and it's a human right to grow whatever you want, then that MUST extend to Monsanto as well.

I do not believe it's true that we have the right to grow whatever we what. I believe the people have a right to tell Monsanto what they can't grow if it has an impact on society. Therefor it can't be a human right if it doesn't extend to the people at Monsanto.

It's really easy to say you support equal rights when someone is doing something you agree with. It's not so easy when you talk about extending equal rights to people doing something you oppose. This is what separates people who genuinely fight for human rights from people just trying to impose their will on society. This is why the ACLU fights for the free speech rights of the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church. While I do hope the people in the KKK and the WBC all drop dead, I support their right to free speech.

That's what equality means. That's what human rights means. If you're fighting for the rights of the people you agree with and against the rights of people you disagree with, then you aren't fighting for rights at all. You're fighting to have your personal preference imposed on everyone.

monsanto is not an everyone. It's a global entity. You are comparing apples to turnips here dan.

monsanto cannot have a "human right" because it is not a human.

comparing the rights of monsanto to plant whatever they want wherever they want regardless of the impact on local ecosystems and such to the undeniable human right of growing a vegetable garden for personal consumption is ridiculous.

I must fervently disagree with you on that dan.
what you are speaking of are the rights of a corporation to do business. Not the rights of a man trying to feed his family.

and i'm not saying I disagree with monsanto and what they are doing entirely. SOme of what they do undeniably benefits many people.

and I never even said I support equal rights either. I don't. i believe the private citizen should be protected first and foremost. Before greedy corporations whose main objective is to turn a bigger buck for the current fiscal year.

 

[Dan Kone]

monsanto is not an everyone. It's a global entity. You are comparing apples to turnips here dan.

monsanto cannot have a "human right" because it is not a human.

Splitting hairs. Sure, Monsanto is not a person and does not have human rights. However the people at Monsanto are people and do deserve human rights. People create, plant, and grow the seeds. Why don't those people deserve the same rights that apply to everyone else?

comparing the rights of monsanto to plant whatever they want wherever they want regardless of the impact on local ecosystems and such to the undeniable human right of growing a vegetable garden for personal consumption is ridiculous.

I 100% agree that people have the right to grow a vegetable garden for personal consumption on their own property. As long as that vegetable garden is not somehow having a negitive impact on your neighbors then that is your right.

What I disagree with is the idea that you're allowed to grow things that have a potentially negative impact on society. I don't think farmers at Monsanto have that right. I do not think YOU have that right either.

I also think those vegetable gardens should be regulated in size. If you're growing 20 acres of carrots then it's not for personal consumption, it's for commercial purposes. We have the right to regulate commercial crops. The same should apply to cannabis IMO. A personal cannabis garden does not have a negitive impact on society so you should have the right to grow it. However you do NOT have the right to grow as much as you want because at a certain point it's not for personal consumption and we have the right to regulate commercial crops, just like we have that right to regulate what Monsanto farmers grow. That's why it's necessary to have regulations on garden size.

I must fervently disagree with you on that dan.
what you are speaking of are the rights of a corporation to do business. Not the rights of a man trying to feed his family.

Never once have I said anything supporting banning a man or woman from growing a personal vegetable garden. I do support regulating the size to separate personal from commercial and I support regulating what you're allowed to feed and spray on that garden because that has an impact on society.

and i'm not saying I disagree with monsanto and what they are doing entirely. SOme of what they do undeniably benefits many people.

Some does benefit society. They should be allowed to do those things. Some of what they do harms society. They should NOT be allowed to do those things. As a society we have the right to stop them from harming the rest of us. Those farmers do not have the right to plant whatever they want.

and I never even said I support equal rights either. I don't.

We will just have to disagree about that then. I 100% support equality, even if I oppose some of the results it creates.

i believe the private citizen should be protected first and foremost. Before greedy corporations whose main objective is to turn a bigger buck for the current fiscal year.

Sure, people should be protected and corporations should be limited. But there are people working at those corporations. I have my own corporation and I'm still a human being.

Should the PEOPLE at Monsanto be regulated from planting things that harm society? If so, then that must extend to all of us or we aren't talking about human rights here at all.

 

[joe macclennan]

Splitting hairs. Sure, Monsanto is not a person and does not have human rights. However the people at Monsanto are people and do deserve human rights. People create, plant, and grow the seeds. Why don't those people deserve the same rights that apply to everyone else?

because most legislation is skewed in favor of the corporations. You seem pretty well versed on the subject. I think you know that.

I 100% agree that people have the right to grow a vegetable garden for personal consumption on their own property. As long as that vegetable garden is not somehow having a negitive impact on your neighbors then that is your right.

agree totally. except for this scenario....Lets imagine for a minute that a man grows a fully legal medi grow outdoors. His neighbor decides he wants to plant a legal hemp crop. Now obviously the pollen from the hemp will destroy his neighbors crop. Who wins here? The ag farmer every time. This is why I have a problem with your argument.

now that was a totally hypothetical situation. Lets take a real life scenario that I deal with frequently. Where I live there are many commercial livestock farms. The stench from the waste often permeates our area. This certainly creates a negative impact on me and my neighbors but guess who wins? Not I the private citizen. Commercial ag. wins every time.

thus is the flaw in your argument. I can go on about water rights too. And how these megafarms suck billions of gallons from our water table so they can turn a meager profit. I could tell you about the many wells that have dried up or turned foul due to these things. But it seems like you only want to tout equal for all. THis is NOT equal for all.


I believe you are not being totally honest about private citizens having equal rights compared to corporations. Anyone with any knowledge on the subject knows it to be false.
What I disagree with is the idea that you're allowed to grow things that have a potentially negative impact on society. I don't think farmers at Monsanto have that right. I do not think YOU have that right either.
I agree totally, but it happens all the time. And it is time someone sticks up for the rights of citizens...corporations have enough rights. citizens do not.
I also think those vegetable gardens should be regulated in size. If you're growing 20 acres of carrots then it's not for personal consumption, it's for commercial purposes. We have the right to regulate commercial crops. The same should apply to cannabis IMO. A personal cannabis garden does not have a negitive impact on society so you should have the right to grow it. However you do NOT have the right to grow as much as you want because at a certain point it's not for personal consumption and we have the right to regulate commercial crops, just like we have that right to regulate what Monsanto farmers grow. That's why it's necessary to have regulations on garden size.

of course commercial gardens should be regulated just as commercial ag is supposed to be, they are one and the same really. But you really think that a small mom and pop hobby farm with finite financial resources should be held to the same standards as a large corporation with the ability to hire an unlimited amount of lawyers and who "donates" huge sums of money to their favored legislator of the day? I do not. I believe corporations like this should be held to a HIGHER standard. Now that's not to say mom and pop can dump their lead paint in the neighbors pool or anything. Just that there should be more protection for them against entities like monsanto who come after them because their field was pollinated by the neighbors roundup ready crop?



Never once have I said anything supporting banning a man or woman from growing a personal vegetable garden. I do support regulating the size to separate personal from commercial and I support regulating what you're allowed to feed and spray on that garden because that has an impact on society.

and as far as the farmers here who spread the manure all over??? Or the fact that this manure has ruined lakes and streams?

Some does benefit society. They should be allowed to do those things. Some of what they do harms society. They should NOT be allowed to do those things. As a society we have the right to stop them from harming the rest of us. Those farmers do not have the right to plant whatever they want.

but, to my knowledge farmers plant whatever they want wherever they want...how is this different for the little guy?

We will just have to disagree about that then. I 100% support equality, even if I oppose some of the results it creates.

you cherry picked that statement away from the rest of the qualifying argument. Now you are just trying to make me look bad...which is pretty low imo.


Sure, people should be protected and corporations should be limited. But there are people working at those corporations. I have my own corporation and I'm still a human being.
and a persons rights while working for a corporation should certainly not be infringed upon. This is not the same as the rights of a corporation though dan....and I think you know it. we're going in circles here.
Should the PEOPLE at Monsanto be regulated from planting things that harm society? If so, then that must extend to all of us or we aren't talking about human rights here at all.

ok so i'll respond to the last sentence here too. corporations do things that harm society frequently...what happens when caught? a slap on the wrist with a fine and a wink and it's back to business as usual. they should absolutely be held to a higher standard than this. If you don't agree then I have to wonder why? If your corporation isn't hurting anyone then why not face strict scrutiny?

I didn't feel like multiquoting your post so my responses are bolded in red.

 

[Dan Kone]

• because most legislation is skewed in favor of the corporations. You seem pretty well versed on the subject. I think you know that.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Equality is what I'm advocating. I think a farmer at Monsanto should be punished for harming society in the same way we would be punished. I'm advocating that we all play by the same set of rules. That's justice.

• agree totally. except for this scenario....Lets imagine for a minute that a man grows a fully legal medi grow outdoors. His neighbor decides he wants to plant a legal hemp crop. Now obviously the pollen from the hemp will destroy his neighbors crop. Who wins here? The ag farmer every time. This is why I have a problem with your argument.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

What I am advocating for is that you have the right to do as you please unless you're having a negative impact on society. A neibor should not have the right to blow pollinate your crops. His right to grow hemp ends where your right to have non-fertilized plants begins.

Again, equality and justice. This should be a free country. You should have the right to do what you want. But those rights have to end where other people's rights begin. In this case the hemp farmer would be the one infringing on your rights, so he is in the wrong.

• now that was a totally hypothetical situation. Lets take a real life scenario that I deal with frequently. Where I live there are many commercial livestock farms. The stench from the waste often permeates our area. This certainly creates a negative impact on me and my neighbors but guess who wins? Not I the private citizen. Commercial ag. wins every time
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Well that is regulated to protect the people. You can't put a pig farm in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. However people do have the right to have pig farms. The law says you have to have that pig farm in an agriculturally zoned area. If you move into or next to an agriculturally zoned area you do not have the right to tell them to stop raising pigs.

That's the point of zoning laws. Now if the problem is you're in a residential zoned (excluding RA zoning) area and the stench from that pig farm (assuming the farm is in Ag zoning) is detectable at your house then you have a very legitimate complaint. However your problem isn't with the farm, it's with the county planning department. They screwed up. They should have never allowed these zones to be that close to each other. The government is at fault there, not the farmer.

• thus is the flaw in your argument. I can go on about water rights too. And how these megafarms suck billions of gallons from our water table so they can turn a meager profit. I could tell you about the many wells that have dried up or turned foul due to these things. But it seems like you only want to tout equal for all. THis is NOT equal for all.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

You're right. That is not equality. They are using more of our water than anyone else. I have to agree with you there. Also if megafarms are drawing their water from local water tables it's likely that they are breaking the law. And you're right, the law does not treat them equally. They play by a separate set of rules and that is wrong. They should be drawing water from state reserves not wells. They can be sued for that.

However the solution to that problem is not committing another wrong. If you're fighting for human rights, then you have to fight for those rights to apply to everyone equally. Otherwise you aren't really fighting for human rights at all. You're just fighting for personal preference. Which is ok, as long as we aren't calling it human rights.

• I believe you are not being totally honest about private citizens having equal rights compared to corporations. Anyone with any knowledge on the subject knows it to be false.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

I never said people have equal rights to corporations, only that they should and everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

• I agree totally, but it happens all the time. And it is time someone sticks up for the rights of citizens...corporations have enough rights. citizens do not.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

I agree. I just don't agree that the solution to lack of equal treatment under the law is more unequal treatment under the law.

When it comes down to it you can't both claim it's a human right to grow what ever you want, but then say that only applies to your personal preferences. If it's a right, then it applies to everyone equally. Even a farmer at Monsanto.

• of course commercial gardens should be regulated just as commercial ag is supposed to be, they are one and the same really.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Well there you go then. We have the right to protect ourselves from commercial ag. Commercial farmers do not have the right to grow whatever they want where ever they want. For the same reasons (societal protectionism), you also do not have that right.

It's not a human right to grow whatever you want. That's my whole point.

• But you really think that a small mom and pop hobby farm with finite financial resources should be held to the same standards as a large corporation with the ability to hire an unlimited amount of lawyers and who "donates" huge sums of money to their favored legislator of the day? I do not.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

I do believe in separate standards and rules based on the size of commercial operations. I believe in progressive taxation. There is a good reason for that too. Those who use more resources should pay more in taxes. A larger farm requires more resources than a smaller farm. They also recieve a greater share of benefits of the society we are all funding. Since they are receiving a bigger benefit, they should be taxed more.

Also, it's unfair, but I do believe the best way to have an innovative nation is to encourage competition and give an unfair advantage to small businesses over big business. (the opposite of what we have now) I know that's a little inconsistent of me however it's the only way to make sure the best and the brightest rise to the top.

• I agree totally, but it happens all the time. And it is time someone sticks up for the rights of citizens...corporations have enough rights. citizens do not.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

I agree that corporations should not be treated as people under the law. However the people at those corporations do deserve equal treatment under the law. Do I cease to be a person because I started a medical marijuana collective? I don't think so. And while I don't believe my corporation deserves equal rights, I do still deserve them even though I run a corporation.

If you want to believe it's a human right to grow whatever you want, you don't stop having human rights just because you founded a corporation.

This is why I do not believe it's a human right to grow whatever you want. Because those seeds produced by Monsanto would be included in that. I do not believe you have the right to plant those seeds if they have a negative impact on society.

• and as far as the farmers here who spread the manure all over??? Or the fact that this manure has ruined lakes and streams?
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

As I've said, one person's rights ends where another person's rights begin. You do not have the right to pollute a lake or a stream that others access.

• but, to my knowledge farmers plant whatever they want wherever they want...how is this different for the little guy?
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Farmers are subject to the same regulations that you are. They are people too.

• you cherry picked that statement away from the rest of the qualifying argument. Now you are just trying to make me look bad...which is pretty low imo.
  
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Wasn't my intention. I apologize.

• and a persons rights while working for a corporation should certainly not be infringed upon. This is not the same as the rights of a corporation though dan....and I think you know it. we're going in circles here.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

Well then I'm unclear on what you're saying. Monsanto the corporation is just a piece of paper sitting in the SOS office. It's not a living thing. It can't create a seed. It can't plant a seed. People do that. Saying "Monsanto shouldn't be able to do this" and saying "people who work at or own Monsanto shouldn't be able to do this" is really saying the same thing.

What am I not understanding here?

• ok so i'll respond to the last sentence here too. corporations do things that harm society frequently...what happens when caught? a slap on the wrist with a fine and a wink and it's back to business as usual. they should absolutely be held to a higher standard than this. If you don't agree then I have to wonder why? If your corporation isn't hurting anyone then why not face strict scrutiny?​
  
  
  
  

I completely agree. Corporations, meaning people working at or owning corporations, should be treated equally under the law. It's one of the greatest injustices in our society. It has the potential to ruin our country. I'd argue that this is already ruining our country and we may be passed the point of no return. We should fight back. We should demand they be held accountable. You'll get no argument from me there. I couldn't agree more.

 

[DNAprotection]

lol wow DK, you've been a busy boy for someone who not only doesn't seem to have a clue about me or my opinions, but clearly you are short on a basic understanding of law...
so first lets talk about the GMO thread you referenced, if you would have read it you would know that I actually do not support banning any plants whatsoever and that the thread was simply a conversation starter
secondly if you understood some basics about law then you would understand the conflict that would arise between you having your natural born right to grow plants and a monsanto patent on dna sequencing for example lol...heres a clue, your human rights would be the worst thing that ever happened to monsanto and they would fight against such tooth and nail...
thirdly if you had maintained your basic human right in this area, then there would be no prohibition on cannabis (for example) and look at all the trouble we could have avoided..
fourth (lol) now your saying that i'm trying to make my opinion into law (apparently your last resort argument)...so your calling a self evident natural right 'my opinion'?
dude thats as nutty as everything else you have posted here if not more so...
speaking of personal opinions being made into law though, when you forgo all our human rights and then arbitrarily make up and impose some number of plants we are all allowed to grow, i guess all your conclusions are based on science and fact right? lol...wrong...its about as arbitrary and opinionated as you can get with a law
you try and pass yourself off as rational and reasonable while its plain to see that its your brand of thinking (either oblivious to, or intentionally denying basic human rights) that got us all into this mess to begin with...
much more i could say, but i wont have time until tomorrow Dk, so until then, i'll be back