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

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.

You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?

I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.

DNAp ... with all due respect, we ARE Nature.

I would suggest that genetic engineering is an adolescent Nature just discovering how to pleasure herself. Would you deny her those stolen, private moments? cn

desert dude said:

You want to ban science? What are you, a Republican?

I say genetically engineer the shit right out of cannabis, and corn, and wheat, and fish, and humans.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, it is most assuredly appreciated.
The Act would not "ban" medical science in any way as long as its done in a controlled environment by qualified personnel.
Also, I and we have no political affiliation.

cannabineer said:

DNAp ...we ARE Nature.

Click to expand...

Thank you, and yes exactly.
You seem to have a keen sense and ability to articulate the obvious.

DNAprotection said:

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.

Click to expand...

Luddites. I will be happy to vote against this if it ever makes it to a California ballot. One of the dumber ideas to be proposed.

DNAprotection said:

Thank you, and yes exactly.
You seem to have a keen sense and ability to articulate the obvious.

Click to expand...

Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?
Once we understand that we ARE Nature and there is no boundary between Nature and Artifice, the proposal loses meaning.
because now genetic engineering is recognized as nature in operation, and there is no protected class. cn

ceterum censeo the language of section 1 (d) contains the phrase "original and naturally-intended design of life itself", which leads me to ask ... how old do you believe the planet to be?

cannabineer said:

Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?
Once we understand that we ARE Nature and there is no boundary between Nature and Artifice, the proposal loses meaning.
because now genetic engineering is recognized as nature in operation, and there is no protected class. cn

ceterum censeo the language of section 1 (d) contains the phrase "original and naturally-intended design of life itself", which leads me to ask ... how old do you believe the planet to be?

Click to expand...

First I truly thank you for the perception and the questions which seem to be clearly based in critical thinking, something I get excited about...even if I'm not the brightest bulb in the barn.
"Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?"
I know it may appear as such, but it seeks only to not be in conflict with any more existing law then need be. As written it will already face an equal protection/commerce clause challenge from the bio tech industry.
This might also be considered, what is ones definition of the word "animal"?
" how old do you believe the planet to be?"
I truly can only guess, and even my guess would only be based on the 'educated' guesses of those who calculate based on all available dependable data etc, and it seems that earth is at least 4 billion years old, happy birthday.
The phrase that apparently led you to that question is based in the natural evolution of DNA, in other words absent of gene splicing.
Maybe by the time we as a species and in the law realize that "we are nature" and that gene splicing is a natural function of our species natural evolution etc, we will have matured enough to maybe not wipe ourselves out in the RnD process, and maybe laws like the act posted here could give us that little bit of extra evolutionary time...or time out.

We don't know enough about GMO. Cannabis is already getting fucked as it is because of the bullshit Dutch cross breeding.

I got myself some good nearly landrace Afghan Kush. Good stuff. I don't like OG. But unlike OG, no paranoia. It's super sticky, so that's why I question it being pure. I never knew pure Afghan to be sticky like that, but it has the distinct musky mint smell.

My question to the OP is: why the fuck not?

It's a plant, we've been cross-breeding, inter-breeding, self breeding, "cloning", doing tissue cultures for years without any complaint.

Why just use a computer as-is when you now know it's programming language?

DNAprotection said:

First I truly thank you for the perception and the questions which seem to be clearly based in critical thinking, something I get excited about...even if I'm not the brightest bulb in the barn.
"Then why does the text of your proposal seek to divide Nature from Artifice?"
I know it may appear as such, but it seeks only to not be in conflict with any more existing law then need be. As written it will already face an equal protection/commerce clause challenge from the bio tech industry.
This might also be considered, what is ones definition of the word "animal"?
" how old do you believe the planet to be?"
I truly can only guess, and even my guess would only be based on the 'educated' guesses of those who calculate based on all available dependable data etc, and it seems that earth is at least 4 billion years old, happy birthday.
The phrase that apparently led you to that question is based in the natural evolution of DNA, in other words absent of gene splicing.
Maybe by the time we as a species and in the law realize that "we are nature" and that gene splicing is a natural function of our species natural evolution etc, we will have matured enough to maybe not wipe ourselves out in the RnD process, and maybe laws like the act posted here could give us that little bit of extra evolutionary time...or time out.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your replies. i asked the age-of-planet question because you were using language i associate with the "creation scientists". It does not appear that that is your angle..

On the other item, i disagree. i think we should become as good at gen.eng. as fast as we can and apply it to ourselves. It is an article of my faith that our sociopolitical problems stem from our animal human nature. Until we can feed our will back into its substrate, we are captives of wild Nature. Once we can do this - use our will to change the nature of the carrier of our will. (i.e. our headmeat) ... that is when we will have acquired the freedom to survive such a singularity's other consequences.

So I think the great hurdle of our specific* survival is yet to come, and oddly enough I suspect we're better off rushing it and not dithering. My opinion. cn

*adjective pertaining to species

cannabineer said:

Thank you for your replies. i asked the age-of-planet question because you were using language i associate with the "creation scientists". It does not appear that that is your angle..

On the other item, i disagree. i think we should become as good at gen.eng. as fast as we can and apply it to ourselves. It is an article of my faith that our sociopolitical problems stem from our animal human nature. Until we can feed our will back into its substrate, we are captives of wild Nature. Once we can do this - use our will to change the nature of the carrier of our will. (i.e. our headmeat) ... that is when we will have acquired the freedom to survive such a singularity's other consequences.

So I think the great hurdle of our specific* survival is yet to come, and oddly enough I suspect we're better off rushing it and not dithering. My opinion. cn

*adjective pertaining to species

Click to expand...

Your responses are very well thought out in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree or disagree with your conclusions because sometimes if I take a shot without thinking to much (on automatic), I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not...and conversely sometimes when I take my time to aim and double and triple aim, I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not.
One thing that keeps going through my mind though is the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Another one that might be more apropos to gene splicing would be "measure twice and cut once"

DNAprotection said:

Your responses are very well thought out in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree or disagree with your conclusions because sometimes if I take a shot without thinking to much (on automatic), I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not...and conversely sometimes when I take my time to aim and double and triple aim, I seem to be a better shot, yet sometimes not.
One thing that keeps going through my mind though is the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Another one that might be more apropos to gene splicing would be "measure twice and cut once"

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with the latter. "I've cut this board three times already ... and it's still too short!" Gotta love woodworker humor.

As for the first, I submit that human nature is broken. We tend to operate from fear or greed, and the considerate moral veneer is sometimes awfully threadbare. Abandonconflict and I have little flame wars (well, on a weed site, rather polite smolderspats) about the essential goodness or badness of human nature. I'm the one who ... oh look! Brake lights!! cn

cannabineer said:

I absolutely agree with the latter. "I've cut this board three times already ... and it's still too short!" Gotta love woodworker humor.

As for the first, I submit that human nature is broken. We tend to operate from fear or greed, and the considerate moral veneer is sometimes awfully threadbare. Abandonconflict and I have little flame wars (well, on a weed site, rather polite smolderspats) about the essential goodness or badness of human nature. I'm the one who ... oh look! Brake lights!! cn

Click to expand...

Well no matter what they say, I think I'd want you on my team in a skirmish lol.
As for human nature and it's (seemingly) current shortcomings, might it not be natural evolution to grow through these shortcomings by learning, thus inducing natural genetic modification?
From my seat (in the back of the class) it seems like gene splicing would be a short cut to the solution, like cheating on a test...end result is failure to really learn and understand the material.

What about the potential mutation of diseases from GMO's? I read about that some where.

DNAprotection said:

Well no matter what they say, I think I'd want you on my team in a skirmish lol.
As for human nature and it's (seemingly) current shortcomings, might it not be natural evolution to grow through these shortcomings by learning, thus inducing natural genetic modification?

Click to expand...

To the best of (my knowledge of!) our knowledge, I don't think it works that way. That is the basic break between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution. The Lamarckians postulated a "practice effect" in which heavily-used traits could be inherited. But every test to which I have seen Lamarck's ideas subjected, they failed.

From my seat (in the back of the class) it seems like gene splicing would be a short cut to the solution, like cheating on a test...end result is failure to really learn and understand the material.

Click to expand...

My aesthetic take is otherwise. It's like a toddler taking her first two unaided steps ... a source of immense "parental" pride. It's not so much cheating as deriving the correct answer by another route. Jmo. cn

TroncoChe said:

What about the potential mutation of diseases from GMO's? I read about that some where.

Click to expand...

I have a slightly silly mental image of herpes that is Round-up Ready™ ... cn

cannabineer said:

I have a slightly silly mental image of herpes that is Round-up Ready™ ... cn

Click to expand...

Ya, but they got it from a toilet seat.

Monsanto, now there's a roll/role model. I can see it now, people in prison for unknowingly growing a strain that had 10% patented genetics.

Monsanto Weed, finally now i can get rid of those pesky spider mites with roundup

IM all for GMO, but not if it means a company can copyright DNA