Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 DNAprotection
Specialist
Registered: 12/23/12
Posts: 1
Loc: cali
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
 Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 
#652563 - 12/23/12 02:25 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just to be clear, this is not 'spam' nor is it an 'advertizement' or anything of the sort.
This is a honest outreach for needed discussion on this urgent topic and we are counting on feedback as to how folks would amend the text of the act if they thought it should be etc.
The DNA Protection Act would ban all genetically engineered cannabis from California before it 'legally' (as in federally mandated) starts and stop whatever may have already begun.
Be it called 'creation' or 'nature' etc, are we prepared to allow it to be genetically redesigned by corporate interests?
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.
The first thing anyone can do to help is to get the word out by re-posting this message and the Act itself anywhere and everywhere you think people might read it.
All forms of volunteerism are needed in this effort from signature gathering to just about any way you can think of to help.
Find us at facebook for more info on volunteering and for progress updates.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.
At this stage all further suggestions on changes or additions to the text of the Act are still welcome, and thank you.
"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"
This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;
section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:
1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.
section 2. DEFINITIONS:
2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.
2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).
2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.
section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:
3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.
3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.
3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.
3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
|
Kief
Tomato Cage Fighter
Registered: 10/29/12
Posts: 36
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: DNAprotection]
#653036 - 12/28/12 01:22 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What could the possible corporate interests be for weed? It is a WEED, one of the most hardy and easy-to-grow crops out there. There is literally no incentive to genetically engineer weed other than to boost its medicinal potential, in which case I am 100% for the idea. Count me on the pro side.
|
 P-O
Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 17,891
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: Kief]
#653702 - 01/04/13 05:42 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Feminized seeds ... aint that Genetically altered ?
|
Hawksresurrection
Registered: 12/04/08
Posts: 13,464
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: P-O]
#653708 - 01/04/13 06:09 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kief said:
What could the possible corporate interests be for weed? It is a WEED, one of the most hardy and easy-to-grow crops out there. There is literally no incentive to genetically engineer weed other than to boost its medicinal potential, in which case I am 100% for the idea. Count me on the pro side.
 Are you kidding me?? Adding different genes to make it pesticide resistant just like they've done to soy and canola and corn, the list goes on.
Quote:
PositiveOutlook said:
Feminized seeds ... aint that Genetically altered ?
Depends on what your definition of genetically altered is. Intentionally breeding for certain traits could technically be considered genetically altered. But what Monsanto does is insert certain genes into their dna/rna type of thing. Say they take a sequence out of of fish dna and insert it into the genetic structure of said plant, then patent it.
--------------------
Dude she isn't as young as she use to be.
-niteowl
|
perkysmiles
Stranger
Registered: 11/07/13
Posts: 1
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
 Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: Kief]
#692442 - 11/07/13 10:44 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kief said:
What could the possible corporate interests be for weed? It is a WEED, one of the most hardy and easy-to-grow crops out there. There is literally no incentive to genetically engineer weed other than to boost its medicinal potential, in which case I am 100% for the idea. Count me on the pro side.
I got news for you. People have been genetically engineering cannabis for a LONG time. How do you think we have SO many strains. I do however disagree with the likes of Monsanto getting in on it. I don't think it should be patented. I think patented genetics are BULLSHIT! Just like Myriad Genetics attempting to patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2. Those fuckers are EVIL! I just don't think genetics should be able to be patented.
|
Mycophile
Registered: 03/17/12
Posts: 2,348
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: Kief]
#692470 - 11/07/13 12:42 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kief said:
What could the possible corporate interests be for weed? It is a WEED, one of the most hardy and easy-to-grow crops out there. There is literally no incentive to genetically engineer weed other than to boost its medicinal potential, in which case I am 100% for the idea. Count me on the pro side.
They will patent and monopolize strains and do everything they can to prevent people from growing their own, kind of like tobacco.
|
Mycophile
Registered: 03/17/12
Posts: 2,348
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: perkysmiles]
#692471 - 11/07/13 12:44 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
perkysmiles said:
I got news for you. People have been genetically engineering cannabis for a LONG time. How do you think we have SO many strains.
Wrong, genetic engineering and cross breeding are 2 completely different things.
|
P-O
Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 17,891
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: Mycophile]
#692755 - 11/09/13 12:43 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mycophile said:
Quote:
Kief said:
What could the possible corporate interests be for weed? It is a WEED, one of the most hardy and easy-to-grow crops out there. There is literally no incentive to genetically engineer weed other than to boost its medicinal potential, in which case I am 100% for the idea. Count me on the pro side.
They will patent and monopolize strains and do everything they can to prevent people from growing their own, kind of like tobacco.
Its legal to grow tobacco
|
WHOISDRO
Artist
Registered: 11/08/13
Posts: 24
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: perkysmiles]
#692765 - 11/09/13 01:29 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
indeed, cross breeding is completely different and has less potential to be harmful than genetic engineering which is what monsantos all about.
i say no to inserting genes for temperature resistance, higher yields, pesticide resistance, different psychoactive properties, just no, theres the reason the herb has prospered under as a species through its evolution.
i say preserve the unique genetic sequence of cannabis. and if monsanto ends up patenting g.modified cannabis i say fuck em, boycott em, we have our own seedbanks and the REAL dna sequences are not goin anywhere
|
Mycophile
Registered: 03/17/12
Posts: 2,348
|
Re: Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013 [Re: P-O]
#692766 - 11/09/13 01:29 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
P-O said:
Its legal to grow tobacco
I know that, I guess you missed what I was saying though.
| |
|
|
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
