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

[curious2garden]

The terms are used to highlight a technical distinction. While one can parse the words to make selective breeding a sort of genetic manipulation, the term "genetic engineering" has been used specifically to denote the snipping and splicing of direct genetic material, followed by the (re)introduction of that manipulated molecule into a germ line. cn

What I tried to say was it doesn't really matter where the genetic alteration came from the end results are the same. So you can go the quick and precise route or you can take the slow, 'hands off' approach. Personally I think it's a false dilemma. But this is a field I don't have the background to 'have' an opinion worth anything LOL.

Merry Christmas, CN and everyone.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

It is obviously not even close to the same. How are you going to introduce bacterial DNA into a species not receptive to it except with genetic engineering?

 

[DNAprotection]

What I tried to say was it doesn't really matter where the genetic alteration came from the end results are the same. So you can go the quick and precise route or you can take the slow, 'hands off' approach. Personally I think it's a false dilemma. But this is a field I don't have the background to 'have' an opinion worth anything LOL.

Merry Christmas, CN and everyone.

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you to<3
I like your post because it just feels honest and frankly I don't think even the most qualified 'experts' in this field can guarantee that they have enough knowledge to know for sure whether or not they are doing any isolated or collective short term damage let alone long term damage as they go willy nilly into splicing genes like a bull in a china shop.
There are more variables than we even know of and the odds of not irreversibly harming ourselves or other species or the commons in this 'wild west' R&D period would probably compare to the odds of winning the lottery 100 times in a row I'm guessing.
ps, as others have pointed out, there is a world of difference between species and varieties and sub varieties of such that have the natural ability to genetically mix in the pro creation process whether guided by humans or not, and splicing genes that would not normally by nature have any ability to mix and or procreate.

 

[DNAprotection]

Better living through Chemistry.
--Monsanto

The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs.

Does it make a difference if the proteins are cleaved by a restriction enzyme or by years of selective breeding, if the end product is the same?.

The cannabis of the 60's for the most part was fertilized (seeded), which means it was far less 'potent', and the more generations of full fertilization/pollination the less 'potent' a strain will become ie "hemp" or what is called by some "industrial hemp" or "no high" or "ditch weed", and conversely the more in a row generations a strain is kept from pollination the more 'potent' it will get, and when you add those variables alone (of course there are many more) with selective breeding its easy to understand how one can say the 60's cannabis didn't compare to the now kind, but in no way does that qualify as genetic engineering or modification = gene splicing.

 

[DNAprotection]

If the good dr thinks its been wacky up till now, wait till he sees the Monsanto flying pigs I recently liberated who in turn will be pulling my slay tonight, speaking of which its past time for me to shuv off! So a very Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night<3

 

[canndo]

The biotech revolution has ensured that we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes. Why do you want poor people to starve?

Most of the most recent biotech revolution does not "ensure we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes". In fact very few of the most recent advances have potentiated higher yields or more resistence to pests resulting in net increases in yeild. This is The biotech industries dirty little secret. Most of theh advances are self serving or B2B improvements that don't do much to feed the masses - They may preduced prettier fruit, fruit that may be more adaptable to long distance shipping but not much else. They do try to perpetuate the idea that they are single handedly feeding the world where no one else is capable of doing it.


Propaganda Desert Dude, simple Monsanto and big Ag propaganda. There are some studies that tend to indicate that there was no real net energy gain resulting from the green revolution either. I've not studied those in any sort of depth so I can't say definitely one way or another, what I can say is that the recent "advances" aren't nearly what they are cracked up to be.

 

[canndo]

Right, as recently as 14 years ago they thought 90% of the nucleus contained "junk DNA". Now we know differently. We barely are scratching the surface, but let's just throw it all out there into the wild, almost completely untested, because that's smart.

Reality is we should abolish patent law. Do that and no one bothers with GMOs because they haven't improved anything, at all, and to think we'll be able to by randomly inserting genes that will alter incredibly complicated systems that took billions of years to evolve (all without causing any harm) with a gene gun is pretty hilarious at best. The human ego knows no boundaries.

GMOs may or may not represent improvements as yet but they do indeed present the distinct possibility if not the evenatuality of "improvements". Engineering a bug that eats oil spills could be considered an improvement, designing a goat that puts human insulin in it's milk could be an improvement as well. While it may be fun to randomly insert genes into complex systems and see what comes out, that is rarely what happens of late - and if taken at it's highest level, isn't that random alteration of genes the rough equivelent of evolution itself?

I personally don't think that it is wise to introduce interspeciies genetic alterations into nature and I think that if we wait for nanotechnology to make its presence known, there may well never have been a need for this sort of genetic engineering.

 

[canndo]

Now that's what I'm talking about, thanks<3
I would add 'or will think for a long time to come', which is why its just not wise to mess with the houses foundation until we have a better grip on what actions do or do not bring the house down. That's what labs are for, what's going on now is fueled purely by profit margins, and that's always a dangerous motivation, it's what motivates paid killers and diverts them from their consciences.
Watch the teli for 10 minutes and you will see probably at least 2 commercials trying to sell you 'medicine's' that have possible side effects that sound like they are reading from the causes of action in a criminal prosecution, most all including death...and these are some of the same folks who are busy redesigning our genetic existence...OK...

Comparing what is a legal requirement to list all, no matter how remote, "side effects" of a drug that is advertised to the general public with the results of genetic engineering is hardly fair or accurate. Again, While I do not believe that we are yet (or ever) capable of asessing the risks and dangers of introducing modified organisms into nature, claiming that we should not do so simply because one of the side effects of cialis is 4 hour erections isn't much of an argument.

 

[canndo]

Then for Jesus' sake, I hope you fail.

The marijuana plant has inherent in it as it stands a penchant for making complex, novel chemicals. Many of those chemicals are only now being recognized as possibly highly beneficial to medicine. Given that thes tiny factories might well be harnessed to produce even more of these chemicals - why on earth would you have me fail?

 

[canndo]

Better living through Chemistry.
--Monsanto

The cannabis of today bears zero resemblance to the cannabis of the 60's. It's been genetically engineered. That genetic engineering did not occur by our direct manipulation of the cannabis genome but via decades of selected, focused, breeding programs.

Does it make a difference if the proteins are cleaved by a restriction enzyme or by years of selective breeding, if the end product is the same? But if we can arrive at one faster than the other does that make it more or less useful? Should one be banned and the other embraced, why?

Genetic modifications can be harmful to the carrier and to the population. It really doesn't matter how the genetic modification occurred, does it?

Science has come so far so fast we have to rely on very strong peer review and ethics committees. I think it's impossible to legislate things like science and morality. It just won't work. It's been tried in the past, the Catholic Church and Galileo, the Scopes Monkey Trial, etc....

This is a comon misreprentation of genetic engineering. Selective breeding could be considered engineering but only at a rudamentary level. It becomes questionable if and when genes foreign to the organism are introduced. Implanting a gene present in bacteria in a plant without a mechamism for that gene to be eradicated naturaly may well be.... unwise and there is no parallel in nature.

 

[canndo]

Then he should watch his tongue when he spews his gun "logic." For many of us guns mean life or death in bad neighborhoods. He can always make a come back and get a new job. I'm not Hindu, so I can't make a come back after death. Nor can my family. If because of him they ban guns, that's much more harsh and judgmental imo.

Typicaly, you do the same as those who's reaction are kneejerk only. Nowhere have I proposed that guns be banned as a mater of course but that seems to be the only way you are capable of reading my statements. To me, that sort of kneejerk reaction is the real threat to your family and mine.

 

[canndo]

Merry Christmas everyone - enjoy your time with your family, your friends and most importantly, with yourself.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

GMOs may or may not represent improvements as yet but they do indeed present the distinct possibility if not the evenatuality of "improvements". Engineering a bug that eats oil spills could be considered an improvement, designing a goat that puts human insulin in it's milk could be an improvement as well. While it may be fun to randomly insert genes into complex systems and see what comes out, that is rarely what happens of late - and if taken at it's highest level, isn't that random alteration of genes the rough equivelent of evolution itself?

Those goats aren't being released into the wild, and I know of no source of human insulin. Just close counterparts. Being a diabetic with a father who is also considered an expert in the field, many people don't do as well on the synthetics as they do the old school pig insulins. I have done fine on both synthetic and non. But that's also an isolated product (not a whole food) that can be vigourously and has been well tested in comparison to the current state of the garbage on grocery store shelves.

Even Monsanto admits their plants produce unknown (in effect) proteins. Probably why they won't serve their own food at their cafeterias. I'm not a baby with the bathwater kind of guy but no question none of this stuff should have ever entered the open environment.

I personally don't think that it is wise to introduce interspeciies genetic alterations into nature and I think that if we wait for nanotechnology to make its presence known, there may well never have been a need for this sort of genetic engineering.

I agree.

 

[curious2garden]

This is a comon misreprentation of genetic engineering. Selective breeding could be considered engineering but only at a rudamentary level. It becomes questionable if and when genes foreign to the organism are introduced. Implanting a gene present in bacteria in a plant without a mechamism for that gene to be eradicated naturaly may well be.... unwise and there is no parallel in nature.

The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.

Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...

 

[Grandpapy]

The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.

Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...

I agree, the problem is not the science but the people behind it, just like with guns, every now and then someone just snaps, or maybe they just need to get the company though the next quarter.

Not all have the good nature or morals of cn. And if it's a "Corp" no one is responsible or held accountable should something go wrong.

 

[DNAprotection]

Comparing what is a legal requirement to list all, no matter how remote, "side effects" of a drug that is advertised to the general public with the results of genetic engineering is hardly fair or accurate. Again, While I do not believe that we are yet (or ever) capable of asessing the risks and dangers of introducing modified organisms into nature, claiming that we should not do so simply because one of the side effects of cialis is 4 hour erections isn't much of an argument.

I thank you for responding with heart and intelligence in all the posts you've made on this thread, and yes just like doni says, " Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up." Donald Rumsfeld,

I should say though that the point of pointing out industry side effects was made in a corroborating evidence or credibility sort of way, not as any sort of front line argument.
ps, Merry Christmass

​

 

[Dr Kynes]

The question the op essentially asked is should we legislate genetic engineering? What I'm saying is we have a duty to keep legislation off the backs of our scientists. My argument is that with the exception of CN most likely none of us have earned the ticket to an opinion at this level. This is rare air stuff and it's best we trust our scientists and the peer review system to try to keep as much legislation off their backs as possible. So far as I'm aware all of our scientists are human and have as much to fear from an accident as any other of us.

Frankly I think prohibition is a failure, no matter the venue; gun, drugs, science etc...

what you are forgetting is that political opinions, illogical faith based beliefs and unreasoning fears are only detrimental to science if they come from people with R's behind their names.

if your wildeyed yammering and demands that SOMEBODY do SOMETHING comes from unwashed hippies, lazy indolent Occupy morons, the Anarcho-Black Bloc, or the Worker's World Party then your shit is pure win and awesome.

opposing those demands simply proves that your not THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!

the blather about aboloishing patent law is just another front for the neo-luddite eco-brigade who want us all to "Live Simply" but when you run the numbers most of the population of developed nations will have to "Simply Stop Living".

but only developed nations... third world nations need their turn at bat, otherwise it's just not fair.

 

[DNAprotection]

...reasons why your little bill is a good idea
for stoners, it will keep Monsanto from making GMO dope to poison all the little potheads.
for anarcho-occupier nutbars,, it puts corporations in their place
for econauts it preserves nature's balance
for religious wackadoos it protects Intelligent Design's designs\
for socialists it stigmatizes profit
for communists it "protects the commons" while expanding "the commons" to include ephemeral ideas and the natural world
for the anti-hitler brigade you conflate genetic science with eugenicists and drop the the H-Bomb like Harry Truman. ...

I feel this post makes appropriate another 'just like doni say's' "If you try to please everybody, somebody's not going to like it." Donald Rumsfeld.

​

 

[DNAprotection]

Most of the most recent biotech revolution does not "ensure we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes". In fact very few of the most recent advances have potentiated higher yields or more resistence to pests resulting in net increases in yeild. This is The biotech industries dirty little secret. Most of theh advances are self serving or B2B improvements that don't do much to feed the masses - They may preduced prettier fruit, fruit that may be more adaptable to long distance shipping but not much else. They do try to perpetuate the idea that they are single handedly feeding the world where no one else is capable of doing it.


Propaganda Desert Dude, simple Monsanto and big Ag propaganda. There are some studies that tend to indicate that there was no real net energy gain resulting from the green revolution either. I've not studied those in any sort of depth so I can't say definitely one way or another, what I can say is that the recent "advances" aren't nearly what they are cracked up to be.

Yup its just like doni says "There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact." by Donald Rumsfeld

 

[DNAprotection]

...Life is much more complicated than anyone thought.

Thought this was worth repeating because its probably the best argument...but no worries cuz doni's got it all figured out and after this quote hes going to redesign our DNA

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.