It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War on Weed Part II: Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for Corporate Cannabis

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

False.


April 2, 2013

Full Text of the just-passed Monsanto Protection Act

April 2, 2013. Washington. Typically, when a law is passed in secrecy and signed by the President in the middle of the night, there is a sinister reason. In the case of the Monsanto Protection Act passed and signed into law last week, that was again the scenario. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans and countless grassroots groups have condemned the new law. But have any of you seen or read it? Neither did we, until now. Here is the full text of the Monsanto Protection Act.


Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is accused of taking $60,000 from Monsanto and secretly sneaking the Monsanto Protection Act 'rider' into a just-passed emergency spending law. Image courtesy of Politico.

One week ago, President Obama signed HR 933 into Law. Titled the, ‘Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013’, the new legislation is a temporary, six-month spending law that appropriates just enough money for government agencies to avoid a federal shut-down. But quietly slipped into the emergency spending Bill at the last minute was a vaguely worded section that seemingly gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.


www.whiteoutpress.com...




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958
Instead of posting a claim from whiteoutpress, how about pointing out the part of the law which

gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.


It's linked right there in your source, after all. Can you read it yourself, or do you make a habit of just believing what someone tells you about something? You see, unlike many, I actually read the law back when it was in effect. It had no connection to food safety laws nor did it give Monsanto any "immunity" from anything. The claim is a baldfaced lie.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

'Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision


“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”


www.ibtimes.com...



What is your problem?

The fact is, you been pissing in many of my threads trying your very best to call me out as a lair. I do not like your snide remarks and your personal "opinions towards me personally.

I read your Rant, and the cherry picking you have done. You may hate me, and for what reason, I don't care. Grow up.
edit on 9-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

What is your problem?
My problem is that this claim is a lie:

gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.
Can you show me where it does so? The law referred to existing laws about plant pests. It had nothing, nothing to do with food safety laws. It had nothing, nothing to do with granting any sort of "immunity" to Monsanto.


The fact is, you been pissing in many of my threads trying your very best to call me as a lair.
No, I didn't call you a liar. But your source is. Don't you care that your source lies to you?



I read your Rant, and the cherry picking you have done. You may hate me, and for what reason, I don't care. Grow up.
I don't know what you mean by cherry picking. I posted the entire section and the reference to the law to which it referred. No. I don't hate you. I don't think ignorance calls for hate. I think it calls for education.

edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

From what I understood, the bill would allow production and sales of goods to continue if there was a ruling against the product to allow time for disputes.

I agree that it does give Monsanto a certain degree of immunity since thier money coffers are possibly much more plentiful than any effort to stop them can pull together.

Edit to add:

I have always been against legalization. There is nothing good to come of it. Decriminalization would have been enough for me.

The weed culture image never really scared anyone. Putting people in jail for marijuana crimes never really sat well with anyone from any walk of life.The only bad light you could put on weed was the fact that it was illegal, which invited criminals to exploit it and people get hurt. I am gald it is decriminalized.

Legalized and mass produced is not going to be what most people that pushed for legalization had in mind.





edit on pSat, 09 Jul 2016 18:57:16 -05002016 116Sat, 09 Jul 2016 18:57:16 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoSaturday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

From what I understood, the bill would allow production and sales of goods to continue if there was a ruling against the product to allow time for disputes.
If by "against the product" you mean a plant being ruled a pest according to Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act, you are correct. If you mean anything having to do with food safety, you are incorrect.



I agree that it does give Monsanto a certain degree of immunity since thier money coffers are possibly much more plentiful than any effort to stop them can pull together.
No immunity. What the law provided for was for farmers to continue to raise and market (for a given period of time) a plant which they had been raising and marketing if the status of that plant (as a plant pest) were to be called into question. It protected farmers from having to tear up their crops.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


I agree that it does give Monsanto a certain degree of immunity since thier money coffers are possibly much more plentiful than any effort to stop them can pull together.


I agree.


I haven't read anywhere of any companies that have won laws suits against Monsanto, or lawsuits of Monsanto using deadly chemicals in their food crops that have been proven to cause cancer.

This is not a company I would defend. Monsanto does not care about Nutrition or growing health foods.

Their only goal, that has been well demonstrated is only "profits" and food control. So far they have grown so big, now they can buy members of Congress and can sit down with Congress to write laws to protect themselves against most account abilities.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




So far they have grown so big, now they can buy members of Congress and can sit down with Congress to write laws to protect themselves against most account abilities.
Please provide citations to those laws.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Please provide citations to those laws.


Please stop being so ignorant here.

I really don't have to, there are thousands of pages in the protection act alone. If one would like to spend a week or so reading all the EPA, and Farmers protection Laws and that's just for starters.

Are you a Lawyer? Or perhaps a corporate Lawyer? If not, stop acting as you understand every law written and passed specially when it comes to giant food corporations.


I am not a lawyer, and I am sure I wouldn't understand some of contexts Monsanto has in many of their protections Laws.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I really don't have to, there are thousands of pages in the protection act alone.
No, there aren't. You posted a source which has the full text of it, remember?

While the full law titled the, ‘Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013’ is quite extensive, the portion being singled out as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ is found under the inconspicuously titled section, ‘Title VII – General Provisions’. Under Section 735, the text reads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




I am not a lawyer, and I am sure I wouldn't understand some of contexts Monsanto has in many of their protections Laws.
You may be right. Try me. Provide citations to just a few of their many protection laws.


edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


No, there aren't. You posted a source which has the full text of it, remember?


I am not interested in your pissing contest, go find someone else to play with.


edit on 9-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What do you mean by "(as a plant pest)" ?

Does this law stop at anything other than a "plant pest" from being called into question?

I do not not know much on this topic and a brief read of the plant protection whatever made me nod off for a couple minutes.

Wiki demands as much attention as I can tolerate so this is all I got:


If a biotech crop had already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reversed that approval, the provision directed the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.[


That is obviously not script from the bill but it says "biocrop" not "pest" is why I am asking about what you meant.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Does this law stop at anything other than a "plant pest" from being called into question?
No, I don't know of any laws which do that. And that's the point. That law was, quite specifically, about plant pests. It had nothing to do with anything else. It had nothing to do with food safety. It had nothing to do with immunity from lawsuits.


That is obviously not script from the bill but it says "biocrop" not "pest" is why I am asking about what you meant.
Well, if you read the post I linked to earlier you would understand. The law was about a situation in which a crop which had been and was being grown may have been declared a pest. The law gave farmers protection from being forced to stop cultivating that crop until the matter had been settled in court.




edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




I am not interested in your pissing contest, go find someone else to play with.

You're not interested in supporting your claims? Ok.
But I'm not going anywhere.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


You're not interested in supporting your claims? Ok.
But I'm not going anywhere.


My OP stands on its own merit and if you disagree, that's ok with me.

However, I am not interested in playing your pissing game, that you are always right.

You and I do not see eye to eye on this topic, and I have no problems with that. It's your snide remarks I will not stand for.

I am not one of your follower's.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
These corporate earth terrorists really need to be stopped.


a reply to: Cobaltic1978
Yep. But save those heirloom seeds and protect your cloned plants from diseases I have no doubt these monsters wouldn't think twice about introducing into the planet.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




You and I do not see eye to eye on this topic, and I have no problems with that. It's your snide remarks I will not stand for.
Actually, I would tend to agree that mega-ag is not really a good thing. However, I do not think that spreading lies is an appropriate approach.

If you won't "stand for" something I've said, please, feel free to alert staff.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The plant gets declared a pest?

Why are you saying "pest" as though it is singular? Your tripping me out. Unless you mean the plant is the pest.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


However, I do not think that spreading lies is an appropriate approach.


I am not spreading lies.

That's a matter of "opinion" and nothing more.

You need to stop calling Members out on ATS, you already violated ATS TC under violations of Manners.

I have tried being cordial toward you, however I find your smug remarks, and name calling unappealing.
edit on 9-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That's a matter of "opinion" and nothing more.
No. It is a fact that the law in question had nothing to do with giving "the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws." Since you were not aware that it is a lie I informed you of the fact.



You need to stop calling Members out on ATS, you already violated ATS TC under violations of Manners.
Then, again, please do alert the staff.


I have tried being cordial toward you, however I find your smug remarks, and name calling unappealing.
I would rather be factual than appealing.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join