California Cannabis Hemp Act of 2014

DNAprotection said:
all im saying is that if 'monsanto et al' is already in washington 24/7 lobbying for this or that, why then wouldn't they have something to say about any fed law concerning cannabis thats being considered?...the big biotech corps are in the business of making money pure and simple, so they work with the crops that rule the market etc, are you saying monsanto et al is totally ignorant of the food, med, fiber and other raw material uses such as composite building materials, plastics and fuels etc potential markets of the plant ?
monsanto in particular has already done plenty of gene ohm mapping of the species through gov projects, its only a matter of customizing from there...
if they are ignorant of such uses and dont see the coming markets for the plant with coming law reform and are not lobbying behind closed doors to effect that process then they are not as good at what they do then i give them credit for ;)
Click to expand...


I agree with all that you said. I still see no rational reason for the GM clause in the initiative.

Do you think Monsanto is somehow going to corner the cannabis market? How exactly?

Do you think Monsanto is going to genetically engineer cannabis to make it better (maybe make it bigger and call it 'cannaBus, yo!') and then patent their genetic enhancements in order to sell the 'cannaBus, yo!' seeds? That is possible and I say, right on! Why would that be a problem? As you said, Monsanto is in the money business and they will certainly be interested in cannabis, but so what?

What I am trying to get you to answer is this: What is your problem with Monsanto doing their genetic science on cannabis?
 
desert dude said:
I agree with all that you said. I still see no rational reason for the GM clause in the initiative.

Do you think Monsanto is somehow going to corner the cannabis market? How exactly?

Do you think Monsanto is going to genetically engineer cannabis to make it better (maybe make it bigger and call it 'cannaBus, yo!') and then patent their genetic enhancements in order to sell the 'cannaBus, yo!' seeds? That is possible and I say, right on! Why would that be a problem? As you said, Monsanto is in the money business and they will certainly be interested in cannabis, but so what?

What I am trying to get you to answer is this: What is your problem with Monsanto doing their genetic science on cannabis?
Click to expand...

over all it 'gives me the creeps' mainly because i feel they have little or no respect for any species in general beyond its profit potential etc...beyond that dd i think people should be free to be whatever they want to be as long as it doesn't cross over into my right to be me you see...
i agree with you about the wording of that initiative because for the most part at this point the point of that paragraph seems moot due to fed law still being what it is etc and especially its failed attempt at legally viable wording.
feds are gonna set some regulative standards imo (thats why they are happy with Colorado and the WaCo laws setting the stage for such) that all states who pass cannabis laws will need to comply with in order to proceed with no hassles etc...if i were running monsanto i would be lobbying for genetically engineered 'safe' varieties to be part of those new gov regs for the states...such would also give the feds a way to keep saying what they've been saying all along (for die hard drug warriors and their ongoing treasure hunt) about the 'dangerous weed' by keeping non FDA certified/unregistered cannabis in schedule 1...are you saying such is not a possibility?
 
DNAprotection said:
over all it 'gives me the creeps' mainly because i feel they have little or no respect for any species in general beyond its profit potential etc...beyond that dd i think people should be free to be whatever they want to be as long as it doesn't cross over into my right to be me you see...
i agree with you about the wording of that initiative because for the most part at this point the point of that paragraph seems moot due to fed law still being what it is etc and especially its failed attempt at legally viable wording.
feds are gonna set some regulative standards imo (thats why they are happy with Colorado and the WaCo laws setting the stage for such) that all states who pass cannabis laws will need to comply with in order to proceed with no hassles etc...if i were running monsanto i would be lobbying for genetically engineered 'safe' varieties to be part of those new gov regs for the states...such would also give the feds a way to keep saying what they've been saying all along (for die hard drug warriors and their ongoing treasure hunt) about the 'dangerous weed' by keeping non FDA certified/unregistered cannabis in schedule 1...are you saying such is not a possibility?
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, I suppose. I can't imagine the government being so blatantly in bed with an individual company as to give them a cannabis monopoly, even if they really wanted to do it.

What you are suggesting is that Monsanto will come up with some genetically engineered variant of natural cannabis and that the feds will then say, "this is the only legal cannabis" and will retain natural cannabis in schedule 1. In other words, the government will grant a monopoly to Monsanto. Is that right? How does the California clause preclude such an outcome?

The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural life form is unpatentable, i.e. nobody can patent cannabis in its natural form, so there is that.

When it comes to cannabis, the only strains that I am personally interested in are the low/zero THC/high CBD varieties. I have no interest in getting high. To me, the high CBD strains are the varieties that seem to be medically beneficial. Having said that, I have zero interest in moralizing on the subject and it is none of my business if other people like the high THC varieties.

Personally, I want Monsanto and every other GM company to "improve" the natural plant and I am happy to see them get a patent on their work and to profit from their work. I certainly do not support any sort of collusion with the feds that makes cannabis, or any other life form, the sole property of any individual or company. To my knowledge nothing similar to that has ever happened.

Many people on RIU rant and rave about GM corn/soybeans/alfafa, etc and make absurd claims that farmers have no choice but to become Monsanto's slaves. The simple fact is, the GM crops are widely used because farmers choose to use them.
 
Why Monsanto?
MOnsanto specializes in crops they can pair with herbicides

If you want to fear a boogeyman
Fear Big tobacco
 
ChesusRice said:
Why Monsanto?
MOnsanto specializes in crops they can pair with herbicides

If you want to fear a boogeyman
Fear Big tobacco
Click to expand...


What is it that you fear "Big Tobacco" (BT) is able to do? Be specific, please.

The only thing I can think of is that BT will try to create a "brand" like Marlboro cigarettes. My response to that is: so what.

When I say "Monsanto" above I am referring to all of the genetic engineering companies. Maybe we ought to create a nick name for them, TheDevil or some such?
 
desert dude said:
What is it that you fear "Big Tobacco" (BT) is able to do? Be specific, please.

The only thing I can think of is that BT will try to create a "brand" like Marlboro cigarettes. My response to that is: so what.

When I say "Monsanto" above I am referring to all of the genetic engineering companies. Maybe we ought to create a nick name for them, TheDevil or some such?
Click to expand...

Phillip morris Genetically engineers tobacco already
They also have the jump on cannabis
 
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...nies-Prepare-to-Enter-Marijuana-Business.aspx

Tobacco companies lied to
America for more than a century about the dangers of smoking. They deliberately
targeted kids. They even had doctors promote cigarettes as medicine. And today
we are paying the price.

Though smoking is down,
three times as many Americans still smoke tobacco as marijuana. Tobacco use is
our nation’s top cause of preventable death and contributes to about 430,000
deaths each year. Tobacco use costs our country at least $200 billion annually —
which is about 10 times the amount of money our state and federal governments
collect from today’s taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

We know if it’s
legalized, marijuana will be commercialized, too. A commercial marijuana
industry will act just as the tobacco industry acts. Big Tobacco may even take
over a marijuana industry once it’s up and running. According to a report
commissioned by tobacco company Brown and Williamson:


The use of marijuana …
has important implications for the tobacco industry in terms of an alternative
product line. [We] have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package
it, the distribution to market it.
​

Then there’s Altria, the parent company
of Phillip Morris. It recently bought the Web domain names
“AltriaCannabis.com” and “AltriaMarijuana.com.”

If this sounds
frightening, it is. Big Tobacco has worked long and hard for decades to conceal
the harms of its product — and hundreds of millions of lives have been lost
worldwide in the past century. Big Tobacco knows it has to replace those lives
with new customers every year. Who does it go after? Kids. Consider:


  • The Liggett
    Group:     “If you are really and truly not going to sell [cigarettes] to
    children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years.”
  • R. J.
    Reynolds:     “Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper over
    the long term, we must get our share of the youth market.”
  • Lorillard: “The
    base of our business is the high school student.”
  • Phillip Morris:
    “Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer… Because of our high
    share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip Morris will suffer more
    than the other companies from the decline in the number of teenage
    smokers.”

We would be incredibly
naive to think a commercial marijuana industry wouldn’t employ all of the same
strategies to convince people — especially young people — to use marijuana.


We don’t need Big
Marijuana targeting us and saddling our country with enormous social costs. And
we don’t need Big Tobacco taking over Big Marijuana.
 
Not to mention all the shit that is gonna be sprayed onto the marijuana to avoid decrease in crop outputs due to budworms, fungus gnats, thrips, spider mites, powdery mildew etc etc.
 
ChesusRice said:
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...nies-Prepare-to-Enter-Marijuana-Business.aspx

Tobacco companies lied to
America for more than a century about the dangers of smoking. They deliberately
targeted kids. They even had doctors promote cigarettes as medicine. And today
we are paying the price.

Though smoking is down,
three times as many Americans still smoke tobacco as marijuana. Tobacco use is
our nation’s top cause of preventable death and contributes to about 430,000
deaths each year. Tobacco use costs our country at least $200 billion annually —
which is about 10 times the amount of money our state and federal governments
collect from today’s taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

We know if it’s
legalized, marijuana will be commercialized, too. A commercial marijuana
industry will act just as the tobacco industry acts. Big Tobacco may even take
over a marijuana industry once it’s up and running. According to a report
commissioned by tobacco company Brown and Williamson:

The use of marijuana …
has important implications for the tobacco industry in terms of an alternative
product line. [We] have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package
it, the distribution to market it.
​

Then there’s Altria, the parent company
of Phillip Morris. It recently bought the Web domain names
“AltriaCannabis.com” and “AltriaMarijuana.com.”

If this sounds
frightening, it is. Big Tobacco has worked long and hard for decades to conceal
the harms of its product — and hundreds of millions of lives have been lost
worldwide in the past century. Big Tobacco knows it has to replace those lives
with new customers every year. Who does it go after? Kids. Consider:


  • The Liggett
    Group:     “If you are really and truly not going to sell [cigarettes] to
    children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years.”
  • R. J.
    Reynolds:     “Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper over
    the long term, we must get our share of the youth market.”
  • Lorillard: “The
    base of our business is the high school student.”
  • Phillip Morris:
    “Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer… Because of our high
    share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip Morris will suffer more
    than the other companies from the decline in the number of teenage
    smokers.”

We would be incredibly
naive to think a commercial marijuana industry wouldn’t employ all of the same
strategies to convince people — especially young people — to use marijuana.


We don’t need Big
Marijuana targeting us and saddling our country with enormous social costs. And
we don’t need Big Tobacco taking over Big Marijuana.
Click to expand...

yeah its so hard to convince young'uns to smoke weed.
they reject the Assassin of Youth in droves.
 
ChesusRice said:
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...nies-Prepare-to-Enter-Marijuana-Business.aspx

Tobacco companies lied to
America for more than a century about the dangers of smoking. They deliberately
targeted kids. They even had doctors promote cigarettes as medicine. And today
we are paying the price.

Though smoking is down,
three times as many Americans still smoke tobacco as marijuana. Tobacco use is
our nation’s top cause of preventable death and contributes to about 430,000
deaths each year. Tobacco use costs our country at least $200 billion annually —
which is about 10 times the amount of money our state and federal governments
collect from today’s taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

We know if it’s
legalized, marijuana will be commercialized, too. A commercial marijuana
industry will act just as the tobacco industry acts. Big Tobacco may even take
over a marijuana industry once it’s up and running. According to a report
commissioned by tobacco company Brown and Williamson:

The use of marijuana …
has important implications for the tobacco industry in terms of an alternative
product line. [We] have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package
it, the distribution to market it.
​

Then there’s Altria, the parent company
of Phillip Morris. It recently bought the Web domain names
“AltriaCannabis.com” and “AltriaMarijuana.com.”

If this sounds
frightening, it is. Big Tobacco has worked long and hard for decades to conceal
the harms of its product — and hundreds of millions of lives have been lost
worldwide in the past century. Big Tobacco knows it has to replace those lives
with new customers every year. Who does it go after? Kids. Consider:


  • The Liggett
    Group:     “If you are really and truly not going to sell [cigarettes] to
    children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years.”
  • R. J.
    Reynolds:     “Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper over
    the long term, we must get our share of the youth market.”
  • Lorillard: “The
    base of our business is the high school student.”
  • Phillip Morris:
    “Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer… Because of our high
    share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip Morris will suffer more
    than the other companies from the decline in the number of teenage
    smokers.”

We would be incredibly
naive to think a commercial marijuana industry wouldn’t employ all of the same
strategies to convince people — especially young people — to use marijuana.


We don’t need Big
Marijuana targeting us and saddling our country with enormous social costs. And
we don’t need Big Tobacco taking over Big Marijuana.
Click to expand...


Tobacco companies want to keep their business alive and growing. Those dirty capitalists! Do you lie awake at night trembling and worrying whether to drink Coke or Mountain Dew? Reading this kind of drivel is what makes you lefties a laughing stock.

Seriously, is this supposed to be scary? Some sort of indictment? Who gives a fuck if RJ Reynolds creates a brand of cannabis? Don't like it, don't buy it.

Sometimes I drink Budweiser, and I like it. Sometimes I drink Heinekin, and I like it too. Usually, I drink Jack Daniels and I like it too. Mostly, I don't drink any alcoholic drink.
 
desert dude said:
Tobacco companies want to keep their business alive and growing. Those dirty capitalists! Do you lie awake at night trembling and worrying whether to drink Coke or Mountain Dew? Reading this kind of drivel is what makes you lefties a laughing stock.

Seriously, is this supposed to be scary? Some sort of indictment? Who gives a fuck if RJ Reynolds creates a brand of cannabis? Don't like it, don't buy it.

Sometimes I drink Budweiser, and I like it. Sometimes I drink Heinekin, and I like it too. Usually, I drink Jack Daniels and I like it too. Mostly, I don't drink any alcoholic drink.
Click to expand...
Fucking pussy...
 
desert dude said:
Anything is possible, I suppose. I can't imagine the government being so blatantly in bed with an individual company as to give them a cannabis monopoly, even if they really wanted to do it.

What you are suggesting is that Monsanto will come up with some genetically engineered variant of natural cannabis and that the feds will then say, "this is the only legal cannabis" and will retain natural cannabis in schedule 1. In other words, the government will grant a monopoly to Monsanto. Is that right? How does the California clause preclude such an outcome?

The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural life form is unpatentable, i.e. nobody can patent cannabis in its natural form, so there is that.

When it comes to cannabis, the only strains that I am personally interested in are the low/zero THC/high CBD varieties. I have no interest in getting high. To me, the high CBD strains are the varieties that seem to be medically beneficial. Having said that, I have zero interest in moralizing on the subject and it is none of my business if other people like the high THC varieties.

Personally, I want Monsanto and every other GM company to "improve" the natural plant and I am happy to see them get a patent on their work and to profit from their work. I certainly do not support any sort of collusion with the feds that makes cannabis, or any other life form, the sole property of any individual or company. To my knowledge nothing similar to that has ever happened.

Many people on RIU rant and rave about GM corn/soybeans/alfafa, etc and make absurd claims that farmers have no choice but to become Monsanto's slaves. The simple fact is, the GM crops are widely used because farmers choose to use them.
Click to expand...

dd you are putting a lot of words in my mouth that i would not have put there myself...
never said gov would grant any monopoly...only said gov will most likely develop standards and regs that few other then biotech will be able to comply with when it comes to growing cannabis.
for example setting a thc % level and anything beyond that would still be schedule 1 etc and that all legal or non schedule 1 cultivars would be registered etc...only way to achieve that kind of consistency is through genetic engineering.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural life form is unpatentable, i.e. nobody can patent cannabis in its natural form, so there is that."

its not about the patent ability of naturally occurring life forms, its about using those blue prints as a starting point and then engineering a unique genetic sequence which is then patent able...
 
DNAprotection said:
dd you are putting a lot of words in my mouth that i would not have put there myself...
never said gov would grant any monopoly...only said gov will most likely develop standards and regs that few other then biotech will be able to comply with when it comes to growing cannabis.
for example setting a thc % level and anything beyond that would still be schedule 1 etc and that all legal or non schedule 1 cultivars would be registered etc...only way to achieve that kind of consistency is through genetic engineering.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural life form is unpatentable, i.e. nobody can patent cannabis in its natural form, so there is that."

its not about the patent ability of naturally occurring life forms, its about using those blue prints as a starting point and then engineering a unique genetic sequence which is then patent able...
Click to expand...


That is precisely what I strongly support. Why would anybody spend large amounts of time and money to create a valuable thing if they are not allowed to profit from their work?

Monsanto's BT cotton/corn seeds, etc are dominant in the market place because they are cheaper to raise. No farmer is forced to plant a GM crop, they CHOOSE to do so. Despite the hillbilly stereotypes so popular here from urban, progressive hipsters, farmers are not stupid.
 
desert dude said:
That is precisely what I strongly support. Why would anybody spend large amounts of time and money to create a valuable thing if they are not allowed to profit from their work?

Monsanto's BT cotton/corn seeds, etc are dominant in the market place because they are cheaper to raise. No farmer is forced to plant a GM crop, they CHOOSE to do so. Despite the hillbilly stereotypes so popular here from urban, progressive hipsters, farmers are not stupid.
Click to expand...

Half right

BT cotton is a real winner, is survives without additional pesticides and doesnt die from boll weevils.

BT corn not so much...
corn borer and root worm are not as sensitive to BT, and i for one am concerned about the long term effects of BT INSIDE a staple crop.

BT corn hasnt taken off like BT cotton, it's still a fringe player.

monsanto's big winner in corn is Roundup Ready. corn feils are highly susceptible to weeds, and glyphosate resistant corn allows mechanized spraying instead of labour intensive hoeing.

roundup ready crops are a good thing for big producers, allowing more mechanization in the harvest and less loss to weeds. as long as the Glyphosate is used properly (according to the directions) it's pretty damned safe for the applicator and the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Cannabis Stocks are Facing a Big Cash Problem: Here’s Why
Replies
1
Views
442
WHATFG
WHATFG
DNAprotection
Missing GMcannabis Regulations Cultivates into Bio-Threat to National Security
Replies
2
Views
2K
gearshift
gearshift
G
Vaping Warning by CDC Should Worry Cannabis Players
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
6K
AquaTerra
AquaTerra
G
Health Canada Testing of Cannabis for Medical Purposes for Unauthorized Pest Control Products
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
5K
gb123
G
JaJaJaJa
New DEA Rule Says CBD Oil is Really, Truly, No-Joke Illegal
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Vnsmkr
Vnsmkr
Back
Top