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

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?


  • Total voters
    369

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
dude i'm beginning to think theres just no point responding to you at all because you just keep repeating inflammatory incoherent bs that is apparently reinforced by some serious delusional thinking on your part...not sure exactly why or what it is bro but seriously i think you have some issues that might well be better off worked out in a more professional setting...honestly...:peace:
 

Trousers

Well-Known Member
dude i'm beginning to think theres just no point responding to you at all because you just keep repeating inflammatory incoherent bs
Dude, you are a liar and that is a fact.
You should just block me if you are afraid of the truth.
It is not inflammatory. You post lies and represent tham as truth. That makes you a liar.

Good luck with that hot mess.

Do you want to defend your actions?
Are you saying that you did not post articles that are full of lies?

This thread is littered with your lies and spam.


that is apparently reinforced by some serious delusional thinking on your part...
What specifically is delusional?
Are you saying you did not post lies and spam?
Grow up.




not sure exactly why or what it is bro but seriously i think you have some issues
More, "I'm rubber you are glue." You have the mind of a child.
My issue is that you post lies and present them as truth, all the while being an insulting and coy prick.



that might well be better off worked out in a more professional setting...honestly...:peace:
You are a liar. You can deny it all you want, but you are a liar.
50 years old and full of shit. You are ignorant on purpose.
You have been shown to be a liar at least 57 times in this thread.

Stop lying and present something that is verifiable to back up your dubious opinions.
The easiest way for you to stop being a liar is to stop posting.

Do you want to get back to talking about GMOs or do you just want to argue some more about your lies and lying ways?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
imo we must settle the cannabis question by way of the constitution and in court as plaintiffs, otherwise we leave the door wide open to gmo cannabis being the only legal cannabis in the coming times of the laws changing, and if we leave it up to congress etc i feel this will be the outcome...
its a plant, it comes from where we all come from and goes to where we all go, its your relative, will the real cannabis lovers please stand up' for the plants natural right to exist...stand up for your natural right to partner with the plant for your food, meds, cloths and shelter etc...stand up for truth, not lies built from compromise...
theres only one place other than a battle field where this can be resolved by the facts and that is the court room...
but pro cannabis folks almost always only go to court as the defendant...loosing battle, wrong field...
folks who love cannabis must walk into court as plaintiffs seeking to affirm the rights we were all born with...


Cannabis is prohibited as a species, not by cultivar.
Theoretical GMO cannabis is still cannabis, and thus still prohibited.

any loosening of the cannabis prohibition would unleash a storm of LOLsuits each claiming that this strain or that is also a new cultivar and thus not prohibited.

and that is why there is no GMO dope program.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Cannabis is prohibited as a species, not by cultivar.
Theoretical GMO cannabis is still cannabis, and thus still prohibited.

any loosening of the cannabis prohibition would unleash a storm of LOLsuits each claiming that this strain or that is also a new cultivar and thus not prohibited.

and that is why there is no GMO dope program.
not sure i understand doc?
it seems to me that all congress has to do is simply allow for individual state laws under the condition that the only cannabis 'cultivars' legal under each state law would be FDA approved /registered/permitted etc and i'm guessing that there would be some mechanism which would give genetically engineered plants the exclusive advantage within that process...just my opinion...and considering that Monsanto has done gene ohm mapping of cannabis under fed anti-bio-terrorism programs (at least) it seems they might be plenty ready for such a change in the law that in my opinion they are pushing hard for under the radar...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
not sure i understand doc?
it seems to me that all congress has to do is simply allow for individual state laws under the condition that the only cannabis 'cultivars' legal under each state law would be FDA approved /registered/permitted etc and i'm guessing that there would be some mechanism which would give genetically engineered plants the exclusive advantage within that process...just my opinion...and considering that Monsanto has done gene ohm mapping of cannabis under fed anti-bio-terrorism programs (at least) it seems they might be plenty ready for such a change in the law that in my opinion they are pushing hard for under the radar...
cannabis prohibition is not that simple.

the supreme court ruled that the congress has no power to prohibit cannabis, only to tax it, and several previous attempts to ban cannabis by requiring a "Tax Stamp" which was never available for sale, and never issued were struck down as backdoor prohibition.

the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" (lol) is still issued today, but only a few, and all are bought directly by a few universities running the FOURTY YEAR LONG "study" on medical uses of cannabis, with no results yet published.

after failing to ban weed by legislation, the congress created the Food and Drug Administration which they granted the power to "Regulate" dope, which immediately crafted regulations which banned cannabis, despite having been repeatedly informed that "regulating" does not allow prohibition...

thus, the congress gave bureacrats a power the congress never had, and the bureaucrats now exercise this power through the controlled substances list, which lists the SPECIES cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug (absolutely prohibited).

changing those regulations will require re-writing the entire Controlled Substances Act or removing cannabis from Schedule 1, and neither of those things are gonna happen.

any new cultivar of cannabis as well as THC (and all it's variants) are prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act through the magical power of bureaucracy to acquire authority from congress that congress never had to begin with.

the only way around this would be to issue a company (possibly monsanto) a fat stack of "Marihuana Tax Stamps", which would allow them to produce "Marihuana" but would still give them no power to distribute it, or any drug derived from it without FDA approval, which is also a highly unlikely scenario.

only synthetically created cannabinoids can be produced (lol demerol) and they are scheduled by the FDA just as any new synthetic drug would be.

creating some cunard where GMO dope plants were declared "Synthetic" would be very unlikely, and any patents on a new "synthetic" dope cultivar would only last 20 years.

Cannabis prohibition is trapped in a bureaucratic Pandora's Box, and the mandarins in washington aint even gonna think about opening it.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
i would argue that copy/paste text which is unattributed is ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.
what is relevant (imo as the OP) is CR's ideas for how cannabis should be 'legal' which is ironically not what you're posting about and its probably where you (CR) and i see very close to eye to eye...can you post your ideas again here for a refresher so i can be sure that my assessment is accurate?...
Wups. I was ambiguous.
What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
Their content otoh may or may not be relevant.
Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Wups. I was ambiguous.
What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
Their content otoh may or may not be relevant.
Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion.
but thats why the Copy/paste spammers prefer to leave their shit unattributed.

including a byline from "Slate dot Com", or Huffpo, or MSNBC would impeach their wall of text before anyone even looked at the content of the copy/paste.

most unattributed Copy/paste remarks also suffer from a distinct lack of context, and a few have been edited to make the meaning of the text quite different from the original.

without attribution, the copy/paste might well be a deliberate falsehood, thus i consider such posts irrelevant until attribution is supplied.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Wups. I was ambiguous.
What I meant to say is that the act of posting unattributed C&Ps is not to be ignored.
Their content otoh may or may not be relevant.
Even attributed C&Ps can be damned tedious, especially if they keep coming from one or two obvious propaganda clearinghouses. My opinion.
I'll remember this next time Winter Woman regurgitates the daily right wing talking point
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
cannabis prohibition is not that simple.

the supreme court ruled that the congress has no power to prohibit cannabis, only to tax it, and several previous attempts to ban cannabis by requiring a "Tax Stamp" which was never available for sale, and never issued were struck down as backdoor prohibition.

the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" (lol) is still issued today, but only a few, and all are bought directly by a few universities running the FOURTY YEAR LONG "study" on medical uses of cannabis, with no results yet published.

after failing to ban weed by legislation, the congress created the Food and Drug Administration which they granted the power to "Regulate" dope, which immediately crafted regulations which banned cannabis, despite having been repeatedly informed that "regulating" does not allow prohibition...

thus, the congress gave bureacrats a power the congress never had, and the bureaucrats now exercise this power through the controlled substances list, which lists the SPECIES cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug (absolutely prohibited).

changing those regulations will require re-writing the entire Controlled Substances Act or removing cannabis from Schedule 1, and neither of those things are gonna happen.

any new cultivar of cannabis as well as THC (and all it's variants) are prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act through the magical power of bureaucracy to acquire authority from congress that congress never had to begin with.

the only way around this would be to issue a company (possibly monsanto) a fat stack of "Marihuana Tax Stamps", which would allow them to produce "Marihuana" but would still give them no power to distribute it, or any drug derived from it without FDA approval, which is also a highly unlikely scenario.

only synthetically created cannabinoids can be produced (lol demerol) and they are scheduled by the FDA just as any new synthetic drug would be.

creating some cunard where GMO dope plants were declared "Synthetic" would be very unlikely, and any patents on a new "synthetic" dope cultivar would only last 20 years.

Cannabis prohibition is trapped in a bureaucratic Pandora's Box, and the mandarins in washington aint even gonna think about opening it.
i thought all that ended with the marijuana tax act?
some years back (like mid 90's) i was working with hprco in applying for a DEA permit to grow 347,000 or so acres of cannabis in 18 states and i never read or encountered anywhere in that paper work about still issuing tax stamps over the three or so years...not saying your incorrect doc just saying im not familiar with that?
i did do a gig in Arizona once though that was tax stamp protected (tax was punitive so any further punishment was double jeopardy), but that was a state law etc...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
i thought all that ended with the marijuana tax act?
some years back (like mid 90's) i was working with hprco in applying for a DEA permit to grow 347,000 or so acres of cannabis in 18 states and i never read or encountered anywhere in that paper work about still issuing tax stamps over the three or so years...not saying your incorrect doc just saying im not familiar with that?
i did do a gig in Arizona once though that was tax stamp protected (tax was punitive so any further punishment was double jeopardy), but that was a state law etc...

whoops youre right!

the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.

the mechanism used to be the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" which was printed in limited numbers and only available to the Univ of Missouri for the "Investigational Study"

now the CSA has a loophole that allows the DEA to permit a specific quota of a Schedule 1 "Narcotic" for use in specifically allowed research.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
whoops youre right!

the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.

the mechanism used to be the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" which was printed in limited numbers and only available to the Univ of Missouri for the "Investigational Study"

now the CSA has a loophole that allows the DEA to permit a specific quota of a Schedule 1 "Narcotic" for use in specifically allowed research.
not that they issue them to anyone but the chosen few though...
when i was involved in their application process they had violated their own mandated by law protocol etc many times before their final rejection of our app...
we were setting them up for a civil case but by the end i had already decided that a permit was not worth a court battle, but our inherent right to grow and utilize plants was worth going to court over...so i went that rout instead...
my point is though that DEA/DOJ could have been challenged many times over the years as to their obligations and protocols for issuing those permits...its not the road i choose but its a road untraveled for the most part...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
not that they issue them to anyone but the chosen few though...
when i was involved in their application process they had violated their own mandated by law protocol etc many times before their final rejection of our app...
we were setting them up for a civil case but by the end i had already decided that a permit was not worth a court battle, but our inherent right to grow and utilize plants was worth going to court over...so i went that rout instead...
my point is though that DEA/DOJ could have been challenged many times over the years as to their obligations and protocols for issuing those permits...its not the road i choose but its a road untraveled for the most part...
well since the supreme court has ruled that refusing to process an application does not constitute rejection of an application, they are well protected.

i wouldnt got to the DEA for ANYTHING. they, and the ATF are the worst of the bunch in washingtons bumper crop of dim witted assholes with an ounce of power and a ton of megalomania
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
well since the supreme court has ruled that refusing to process an application does not constitute rejection of an application, they are well protected.

i wouldnt got to the DEA for ANYTHING. they, and the ATF are the worst of the bunch in washingtons bumper crop of dim witted assholes with an ounce of power and a ton of megalomania
the instance i was referring to was about certain protocol mandated by law within the process of processing an app, not about 'refusing' or necessarily rejecting the app...
in any case though its all moot to me as i'm in total agreement with the second part of your post concerning going to the gangsters for anything etc, and thats in part why i backed out of that project.
 

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
for good measure...

FOOD RANT
[h=2]"Monsanto Poised To Take Over the Weed Industry"[/h]by Rick Paulas
on August 21, 2013 1:05 PM



http://www.kcet.org/living/food/food-rant/monsanto-to-take-over-the-weed-industry.html









[h=1]"Manipulating Marijuana: Monsanto and Syngenta Invest In RNA Interference Technology"[/h]

By Tracy Giesz-Ramsay, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, July 30 2013




http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2013/07/30/Manipulating-Marijuana-Monsanto-and-Syngenta-Invest-RNA-Interference-Technology





[h=2]"Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?"[/h]

http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/08/monsanto-ready-to-enter-medical-marijuana-war/




 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Just don't buy theirs or grow your own...

The sky isn't falling.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
whoops youre right!

the US government still has a mechanism by which certain special persons can produce "Marihuana" legally, which is strictly prohibited under the Scedule 1 drug category.

the mechanism used to be the "Marihuana Tax Stamp" which was printed in limited numbers and only available to the Univ of Missouri for the "Investigational Study"

now the CSA has a loophole that allows the DEA to permit a specific quota of a Schedule 1 "Narcotic" for use in specifically allowed research.
I think you meant University of Mississippi. Also there is a case in North Carolina where a person is fighting this....he bought pot tax stamps etc.
 
Top