Yep you nailed it. It's because they're fucking weak cowards, and Bilderberger puppets to boot.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Pelosi: It would be ‘really important’ to take on medical marijuana in Congress
- Thread starter DoobieDuck
- Start date
Yep you nailed it. It's because they're fucking weak cowards, and Bilderberger puppets to boot.
this is the classic way that dangerous topics in Washington are handled
non-committal statements that beg for some response, lines appear and the discussion gets more heated
any discussion looks good to me, because from what i see you can't make federal MJ law any worse, though some may differ
S
sanvanalona
Why not bash on the true pieces of shit in government: Mcconnell, Boehner, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Supreme court justice Scalia, the list goes on and on. Instead you guys choose to talk shit about one of the only politicians to be on the side of mmj? How does that make sense? Its time to grow up guys, and don't get me wrong we are not speaking of conspriacy theory here: I know about the Bilderbergs and such but kind of a pointless argument here. The point is that we may be seeing the end of mmj prohibition here, and any politician that comes out for this regardless of political affiliation should get props. Unless of course you like the way the game is played now and want to continue the prohibition of mmj, if so they keep the hating going!
sanvanalona: You should look up the term 'Demagogue' (Def) "A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
It is could very well be good thing that MMJ might be debated more on the federal level in public. However, history has proven that both the Dems and Republicans are corrupt (which is public record at this point). They both carry out very similar international policy in trade, economics, and war - but differ in certain national issues (which is more how they pander to get votes from either side by sensationalizing a specific issue rather than having actual moral stances).
Both parties represent the pharmapseudical industries and multi-national corporations first - they are indebted to them for all the funded they get to run for election. If they don't take a stand to protect the corporations who give them their funding - they easily lose all their campaigning money in the future, which to them is political suicide. And if they don't take the corporate money for their campaign, they are destined to lose against the other politicians who did take money and can run ad campaigns and propaganda at a much heavier rate.
It's the oldest trick in the book, it's called Divide and Conquer - you limit the playing field to 2 parties and you influence the direction of either party where it matters (Criminal Banker Bailouts for the illegal actions of the banks under both Bush and Obama - Protection of Big Pharma over Medical Marijuana under both parties)
This achieves a consistency in policy across both parties that benefits the international corporate owning class- no matter whose side you are on - the big pharma and the multinationals win over concern of the public - even on this such as health with MMJ. It's simply a political paradigm - you have an option between the lesser of two evils, but in reality are stuck between 2 choices with very similar outcomes on most issues.
(CONT) Split into 2 posts so it wasn't too long (a lot of people skip reading it, if it is, heh)
It is could very well be good thing that MMJ might be debated more on the federal level in public. However, history has proven that both the Dems and Republicans are corrupt (which is public record at this point). They both carry out very similar international policy in trade, economics, and war - but differ in certain national issues (which is more how they pander to get votes from either side by sensationalizing a specific issue rather than having actual moral stances).
Both parties represent the pharmapseudical industries and multi-national corporations first - they are indebted to them for all the funded they get to run for election. If they don't take a stand to protect the corporations who give them their funding - they easily lose all their campaigning money in the future, which to them is political suicide. And if they don't take the corporate money for their campaign, they are destined to lose against the other politicians who did take money and can run ad campaigns and propaganda at a much heavier rate.
It's the oldest trick in the book, it's called Divide and Conquer - you limit the playing field to 2 parties and you influence the direction of either party where it matters (Criminal Banker Bailouts for the illegal actions of the banks under both Bush and Obama - Protection of Big Pharma over Medical Marijuana under both parties)
This achieves a consistency in policy across both parties that benefits the international corporate owning class- no matter whose side you are on - the big pharma and the multinationals win over concern of the public - even on this such as health with MMJ. It's simply a political paradigm - you have an option between the lesser of two evils, but in reality are stuck between 2 choices with very similar outcomes on most issues.
(CONT) Split into 2 posts so it wasn't too long (a lot of people skip reading it, if it is, heh)
Last edited:
This is how they get away with it over time:
The parties leapfrog each other - continuing the corruption while simply pointing their finger at the other party. This way, each side can always say the other is to blame - when both parties are screwing the public together, Foxnews covers up republican corruption, the more dem leading ones cover up the democrats corruption - and people chose their tv stations based on who supports their ideologies (views) so their beliefs just get reinforced over and over again.
If only both sides could see their interests are not being looked out for by either party, we could rise up against the structure- but the brilliance of the elites trick is that each side thinks its the other side that is corrupt and not theirs. Thus, each re-election all they care about is getting the other guy out and their guy in - which in reality is just musical chairs of the same elites screwing the majority of the public.
Most people who vote for obama will do so, because he doesn't seem to be as horrible as Romney on cannabis- which isn't a vote based on his track record or their approval with his previous actions. It's just simply a blocking method to "keep the other guy out" - rather than actually voting on our beliefs or how we feel about what that politician has done in the past as much. This is partly how people are forced into voting the same system in place - time and time again, given the 2 party paradigm =)
Dank Regards,
Bi0hazard
The parties leapfrog each other - continuing the corruption while simply pointing their finger at the other party. This way, each side can always say the other is to blame - when both parties are screwing the public together, Foxnews covers up republican corruption, the more dem leading ones cover up the democrats corruption - and people chose their tv stations based on who supports their ideologies (views) so their beliefs just get reinforced over and over again.
If only both sides could see their interests are not being looked out for by either party, we could rise up against the structure- but the brilliance of the elites trick is that each side thinks its the other side that is corrupt and not theirs. Thus, each re-election all they care about is getting the other guy out and their guy in - which in reality is just musical chairs of the same elites screwing the majority of the public.
Most people who vote for obama will do so, because he doesn't seem to be as horrible as Romney on cannabis- which isn't a vote based on his track record or their approval with his previous actions. It's just simply a blocking method to "keep the other guy out" - rather than actually voting on our beliefs or how we feel about what that politician has done in the past as much. This is partly how people are forced into voting the same system in place - time and time again, given the 2 party paradigm =)
Dank Regards,
Bi0hazard
Last edited:
S
sanvanalona
Biohazard,
On the core of the issues that your bring up I agree with you, but we also must find some balance here. While I can agree that both sides are very similar to one another and the apparatus that the government has utilized to basically have the enslaved desire slavery is astonishing, no doubt. But, there are differences between the two parties and here is what they are: for the last century any policy that has come out of government to help the "common" man has come out of the democratic party; F.D.R's new deal that created social security, L.B.J. great society that created medicaid/medicare, pell grants, unions, all of these have been democratic ideas/ideals. That to me is the big difference, Republicans on the other hand have given us trickle down economics, tax breaks for the rich, continually try to fight any social program, etc., etc.. So yes there is a lot of back and forth, arguing for one side or the other but they are not equal in my eyes. I see the republicans obviously on the side of the wealthy 1 percenters, and also I watch both fox and msnbc and let me tell you other than current/link t.v. we have no left of center media. It really is all right wing. Look at the tea baggers, they were just a few wackos complaining in D.C. until CNN and MSNBC gave them non-stop coverage. Can you see what I am saying here, although dems are semi in the pocket of large corporations they seem to have somewhat of a conscience, whereas the repubs straight don't give a rats ass.
On the core of the issues that your bring up I agree with you, but we also must find some balance here. While I can agree that both sides are very similar to one another and the apparatus that the government has utilized to basically have the enslaved desire slavery is astonishing, no doubt. But, there are differences between the two parties and here is what they are: for the last century any policy that has come out of government to help the "common" man has come out of the democratic party; F.D.R's new deal that created social security, L.B.J. great society that created medicaid/medicare, pell grants, unions, all of these have been democratic ideas/ideals. That to me is the big difference, Republicans on the other hand have given us trickle down economics, tax breaks for the rich, continually try to fight any social program, etc., etc.. So yes there is a lot of back and forth, arguing for one side or the other but they are not equal in my eyes. I see the republicans obviously on the side of the wealthy 1 percenters, and also I watch both fox and msnbc and let me tell you other than current/link t.v. we have no left of center media. It really is all right wing. Look at the tea baggers, they were just a few wackos complaining in D.C. until CNN and MSNBC gave them non-stop coverage. Can you see what I am saying here, although dems are semi in the pocket of large corporations they seem to have somewhat of a conscience, whereas the repubs straight don't give a rats ass.
sanvanalona,
Definitely all/most mainstream media is not "Liberal", I think is a better way to say it than left. They do help direct the understandings and beliefs of the Left and Right, because there is power in influencing the consent of both sides of the paradigm. But I agree, the media is a corpora-tocracy it represents wealth, as it's money comes from large advertising firms who represent the majority of corporations, from Exxon Mobil to Big Pharma. As such the whole Foxnews push of the "Liberal Media" is BS, and a tactic used to make their listeners shrug off anyone who says something different than FoxNews - when the left is really the center/right wing already. I would argue a lot of censorship of corporate corruption comes from the media's main income coming from advertisers- where the large advertising firms can take away investments into a media company - if they speak bad about any of the corporations the advertising firm represents. To them it's also like shooting their money source in the foot, to expose corruption of companies that the media gets money from - since that could hurt sales or the company's image.
Left and right are just supposed sides of a paradigm, and many would argue that the so called "left" is more in the middle or right than even left. Still calling it a left, is a fallacy that keeps the illusion in place that it still majorly liberal or that-progressive. I'm also not saying that everyone in politics is bad or has bad motives in general - it's more the pressures of the paradigm that help keep policy catered towards the $800+ Billions in donations from the corporate think tanks each year to the political parties. It's more of a corporate bureaucracy (top down) than a bottom-up democracy.
I agree, that over history many of the battles for the common man have been won from the Democrats, however, that doesn't mean that every future action has to be a good deed, just because there have been them in the past. Or for the same matter, that all actions will be bad - but they most likely will align with the interest of the international corporate owning class first and foremost on the federal level.
I also majored in college studying public relations, propaganda models and legally declassified corruptions in US history (with examples of how they used propaganda or the media to influence how people interpreted those corrupt events.)
So you have to take into account the different speaking points the Dems and Republicans use to gain support for what they are doing. Without going to deep into it -
simply Q: "How do you make a good person do something bad?" - A: "Convince the person that what they are doing is for the common good, even if that's not how it will be used." A lot of the tricks on the democrats side, seem to use this platform. Where as the Republicans will just throw down an iron fist in an authoritarian way and say this is the way it is. Which most of the conservative families are used to in family structure -where the father is the patriarch - The children learn to follow orders based on who is given them rather than what they are - or if they are logical or just actions... So the right will use "This is the way it's going to get handled, don't talk back/ask questions" statements and decisions a lot. Although, it morphs every year based on the current beliefs of the populations.
Their techniques are a lot about playing into the way the Dems or Republicans would respond to an event or realization and try to mold that outcome by influencing what they see, and how they interpret what was shown.
Definitely all/most mainstream media is not "Liberal", I think is a better way to say it than left. They do help direct the understandings and beliefs of the Left and Right, because there is power in influencing the consent of both sides of the paradigm. But I agree, the media is a corpora-tocracy it represents wealth, as it's money comes from large advertising firms who represent the majority of corporations, from Exxon Mobil to Big Pharma. As such the whole Foxnews push of the "Liberal Media" is BS, and a tactic used to make their listeners shrug off anyone who says something different than FoxNews - when the left is really the center/right wing already. I would argue a lot of censorship of corporate corruption comes from the media's main income coming from advertisers- where the large advertising firms can take away investments into a media company - if they speak bad about any of the corporations the advertising firm represents. To them it's also like shooting their money source in the foot, to expose corruption of companies that the media gets money from - since that could hurt sales or the company's image.
Left and right are just supposed sides of a paradigm, and many would argue that the so called "left" is more in the middle or right than even left. Still calling it a left, is a fallacy that keeps the illusion in place that it still majorly liberal or that-progressive. I'm also not saying that everyone in politics is bad or has bad motives in general - it's more the pressures of the paradigm that help keep policy catered towards the $800+ Billions in donations from the corporate think tanks each year to the political parties. It's more of a corporate bureaucracy (top down) than a bottom-up democracy.
I agree, that over history many of the battles for the common man have been won from the Democrats, however, that doesn't mean that every future action has to be a good deed, just because there have been them in the past. Or for the same matter, that all actions will be bad - but they most likely will align with the interest of the international corporate owning class first and foremost on the federal level.
I also majored in college studying public relations, propaganda models and legally declassified corruptions in US history (with examples of how they used propaganda or the media to influence how people interpreted those corrupt events.)
So you have to take into account the different speaking points the Dems and Republicans use to gain support for what they are doing. Without going to deep into it -
simply Q: "How do you make a good person do something bad?" - A: "Convince the person that what they are doing is for the common good, even if that's not how it will be used." A lot of the tricks on the democrats side, seem to use this platform. Where as the Republicans will just throw down an iron fist in an authoritarian way and say this is the way it is. Which most of the conservative families are used to in family structure -where the father is the patriarch - The children learn to follow orders based on who is given them rather than what they are - or if they are logical or just actions... So the right will use "This is the way it's going to get handled, don't talk back/ask questions" statements and decisions a lot. Although, it morphs every year based on the current beliefs of the populations.
Their techniques are a lot about playing into the way the Dems or Republicans would respond to an event or realization and try to mold that outcome by influencing what they see, and how they interpret what was shown.
Last edited:
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These “invisible governors” are heroic elite. “It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.” (Continued) "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." -Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
"In the absence of contrasting views the very highest form of propaganda warfare can be fought: the propaganda for a definition of reality within which only certain limited viewpoints are possible."
-C Wright Mills
Also here are some insights into the Propaganda model created in the 1920's used to mold peoples characters through beliefs and perspectives given by the media.
"The general public, are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders who must be put in their place. They are to be spectators of action not participants who must be regimented to abandon any ideas about controlling their own lives. Their task is to develop a philosophy of futility and to follow orders while focusing their attention on more superficial things which comprise much of fashionable consumption." - Walter Lippmann (Pioneer of Propaganda) (1922)
“None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"In the absence of contrasting views the very highest form of propaganda warfare can be fought: the propaganda for a definition of reality within which only certain limited viewpoints are possible."
-C Wright Mills
Also here are some insights into the Propaganda model created in the 1920's used to mold peoples characters through beliefs and perspectives given by the media.
"The general public, are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders who must be put in their place. They are to be spectators of action not participants who must be regimented to abandon any ideas about controlling their own lives. Their task is to develop a philosophy of futility and to follow orders while focusing their attention on more superficial things which comprise much of fashionable consumption." - Walter Lippmann (Pioneer of Propaganda) (1922)
“None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
S
sanvanalona
These are great quotes and for the most part I agree with all of them. I am also a college grad, my degrees are in political science with an emphasis on foreign relations and english literature. I agree that propaganda exists to control the masses, like I said earlier the apparatus that is the government (media propaganda, social control via community, historical fact changing, etc.) has an unbelievable amount of control over the people, but even they have to budge a little and allow for the masses to eat and be healthy to a degree and find ways to occupy their time as opposed to studying the universe around them.......but this topic is much bigger than whether or not Pelosi is providing a path for mmj legalization, which I think she obviously is. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that we will never have big victories, we being the masses and victory meaning a plethora of different things, shit there have only been maybe 2 real revolutions since history has been documented; i also believe we need to take the victories as small as they may be as this is, having Pelosi who is so high up in congress actually bringing mmj to the table. This I see as a good thing, as I do not see the other two branches of government being able to completely legalize mmj, and that is so important to me. Again great quotes!
sanvanalona,
Really enjoying this conversation =) I do hope Pelosi's drive is pure concerning Medical Marijuana. If she can get a debate going that actually looks at the hundreds of peer reviewed primary articles on how safe and medically effective cannabis is - than that is very positive.
Hopefully it's not false promises, used to harness votes prior to an election, like obama saying he wouldn't spend resources going after medical marijuana outlets and then taking, or allowing the DEA to take a more aggressive stand than G W Bush did. Again public debate of medical cannabis is GREAT - but it has to present the medical studies which prove it - there are so many. They can't allow the debate to be framed on opionins of two groups of thought - there are scientific findings here that all point to how safe and effective cannabis is as a medicine =)
I definitely have hope for changes in the system, but a lot of it also relies on the mass public waking up to how they have been taken advantage of, and realize how not to fall for the trickery in the future. the problem is many of them get their viewpoint and interpretation of how they were manipulated or used by the same media outlet/ government / corporate substructure that did the manipulating in the first place.
(CONTINUED Next Page)
Really enjoying this conversation =) I do hope Pelosi's drive is pure concerning Medical Marijuana. If she can get a debate going that actually looks at the hundreds of peer reviewed primary articles on how safe and medically effective cannabis is - than that is very positive.
Hopefully it's not false promises, used to harness votes prior to an election, like obama saying he wouldn't spend resources going after medical marijuana outlets and then taking, or allowing the DEA to take a more aggressive stand than G W Bush did. Again public debate of medical cannabis is GREAT - but it has to present the medical studies which prove it - there are so many. They can't allow the debate to be framed on opionins of two groups of thought - there are scientific findings here that all point to how safe and effective cannabis is as a medicine =)
I definitely have hope for changes in the system, but a lot of it also relies on the mass public waking up to how they have been taken advantage of, and realize how not to fall for the trickery in the future. the problem is many of them get their viewpoint and interpretation of how they were manipulated or used by the same media outlet/ government / corporate substructure that did the manipulating in the first place.
(CONTINUED Next Page)
The way this post relates to Cannabis Legality is that it shows another example of how Corporate interests can change the viewpoint and actions of a government on issues that do not benefit the general public, but support the corporate enterprises first. Like how a lot of funding being used to keep cannabis jail sentences long is coming from Big Pharma and the Prison Industrial complex - they are willing to sacrifice other peoples quality of life in order to protect their industry - from materials you can grow your own and they can't patent and monopolize on sales.
So many pillars have been built on each other over the years, (This is getting a little off topic - but important non the least) to name one in 2004 Movie Studios in hollywood were given access to use real military helicopters, equipment and have personal assistants from the military to recommend "what they said was authentic".
The deal Hollywood made with the military industrial complex is that the Military would have the ability to change any scripts or appearances that dealt with war or the military to paint any picture they wanted on the scenario. For instance in 2004 there was a reality show that followed US soldiers out to battle - partly for recruitment in the US and they refused to show any of the people who died in the shows at all. If they died their whole story was wiped out of the dialogue so that it had the appearance of no one dying. Of course anyone joining knows that is a possibilty, but it's just like the video game reset button - it hides the humanity of what is happening while glorifying war.
Did you ever get a chance to read Walter Benjamin - from the Frankfurt School of thought (he was killed trying to escape nazi germany). He explains that one of Fascism (A merger between the corporation and the state/government) main goals is to make War aesthetic (Beautiful) glorified, something seen with honor consistently.. (which in reality can differ based on the war or reasons we are there). <- This is something hollywood has achieved very well - so has video games, although I do enjoy playing modern warfare or battlefield 3 here and there.
Some other interesting facts: The first First Person Shooter video game was designed by the military in the 80's - after many of the drafted soldiers in the viet nam war refused to fire at targets and would purposely miss to avoid killing in a war they didn't believe in. 1st Person video games, essentially create a fun experience around getting the most amount of kills, this state of Flow rush of getting to the top of the list, being #1 out of peers or people playing - just like any other sport. It creates fun and appreciate and titles of honor out of things that could be seen as deplorable - but this is the psychological tweaking used to change the soldiers refusing to shoot at what ever targets they are told to - by turning it into an aesthetic game.
The internet is key for this mass awakening that needs to happen. The way the newspapers, tv stations, magazines control public opinion (even when good people write for them) is by Chief editors. The Chief editors decide which types of stories get published or not, and usually corruption stories that call out corporations are avoided, because they fear it could loose them investors (because they fear that such articles could alienate other investors or future opportunities). The whole keep business and politics seperate, when politics is business!
If a writer presents exposing corporate corruption stories that the chief editors think are a bad business move to print - they will quickly learn that they have to write other types of stories if they want to get published and keep their job, or they will be replaced by someone who will. This is how over many years, certain issues wouldn't make it to the mainstream exposure lights.
With the internet, that Chief Editors Gatekeeper position is removed (mostly) and the real stories can break, hopefully with lots of sources and citings so they can be used in scholarly arguments.
The future is still left to be etched in time, and we can all play a hand in it.
So many pillars have been built on each other over the years, (This is getting a little off topic - but important non the least) to name one in 2004 Movie Studios in hollywood were given access to use real military helicopters, equipment and have personal assistants from the military to recommend "what they said was authentic".
The deal Hollywood made with the military industrial complex is that the Military would have the ability to change any scripts or appearances that dealt with war or the military to paint any picture they wanted on the scenario. For instance in 2004 there was a reality show that followed US soldiers out to battle - partly for recruitment in the US and they refused to show any of the people who died in the shows at all. If they died their whole story was wiped out of the dialogue so that it had the appearance of no one dying. Of course anyone joining knows that is a possibilty, but it's just like the video game reset button - it hides the humanity of what is happening while glorifying war.
Did you ever get a chance to read Walter Benjamin - from the Frankfurt School of thought (he was killed trying to escape nazi germany). He explains that one of Fascism (A merger between the corporation and the state/government) main goals is to make War aesthetic (Beautiful) glorified, something seen with honor consistently.. (which in reality can differ based on the war or reasons we are there). <- This is something hollywood has achieved very well - so has video games, although I do enjoy playing modern warfare or battlefield 3 here and there.
Some other interesting facts: The first First Person Shooter video game was designed by the military in the 80's - after many of the drafted soldiers in the viet nam war refused to fire at targets and would purposely miss to avoid killing in a war they didn't believe in. 1st Person video games, essentially create a fun experience around getting the most amount of kills, this state of Flow rush of getting to the top of the list, being #1 out of peers or people playing - just like any other sport. It creates fun and appreciate and titles of honor out of things that could be seen as deplorable - but this is the psychological tweaking used to change the soldiers refusing to shoot at what ever targets they are told to - by turning it into an aesthetic game.
The internet is key for this mass awakening that needs to happen. The way the newspapers, tv stations, magazines control public opinion (even when good people write for them) is by Chief editors. The Chief editors decide which types of stories get published or not, and usually corruption stories that call out corporations are avoided, because they fear it could loose them investors (because they fear that such articles could alienate other investors or future opportunities). The whole keep business and politics seperate, when politics is business!
If a writer presents exposing corporate corruption stories that the chief editors think are a bad business move to print - they will quickly learn that they have to write other types of stories if they want to get published and keep their job, or they will be replaced by someone who will. This is how over many years, certain issues wouldn't make it to the mainstream exposure lights.
With the internet, that Chief Editors Gatekeeper position is removed (mostly) and the real stories can break, hopefully with lots of sources and citings so they can be used in scholarly arguments.
The future is still left to be etched in time, and we can all play a hand in it.
Last edited:
Here is my take on the issue...
Currently they (the gov) are shutting down every possible outlet of mmj. Could it be they are intending to wipe out any and all, and put their own pot shops in place...They do need the tax revenue and with shutting down the mmj movement they will be able to run the show like they do with the BIG PHARMA, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO companies...just a thought folks...
Currently they (the gov) are shutting down every possible outlet of mmj. Could it be they are intending to wipe out any and all, and put their own pot shops in place...They do need the tax revenue and with shutting down the mmj movement they will be able to run the show like they do with the BIG PHARMA, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO companies...just a thought folks...
Wait??? Is she lying???
Yep. Her lips are moving. She's lying.
Yep. Her lips are moving. She's lying.
yup,her seat is up for grabs,this guy wants it. he is endorsed by RP! so that means personal liberty,you could always e-mail him if you just wanna ask specificly.
http://www.johndennis2012.com/
http://www.johndennis2012.com/
Your definitely on to whats going on - big pharma has so many medicines with side effects that could be replaced with cannabis - that anyone could grow on their own. Corporations cannot patent anything natural they need to genetically modify it to gain intellectual property rights - then they can patent the medicine and be the only ones able to produce and sell it for many years.
With grown cannabis, any research they did into it wouldn't provide them as much money because a lot of people grow it themselves. The investing companies will not invest in medicines they cannot patent and make a killing on - so they are attacking the home grown use of cannabis while trying to make pills and/or their own medical field to take over..
Here is a perfect example: Why are they raiding dispensaries but not the factories manufacturing marinol (Prescribed Synthetic THC)? They are both medical marijuana, yet one is left alone while the non corporate grown/un patentable cannabis is attacked... That should make the picture pretty clear.
G
Guest 88950
not to add gas to the fire but the Cannabis Plant CAN be patented.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/
"What is a plant patent? A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's heirs or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so reproduced. This protection is limited to a plant in its ordinary meaning:
- A living plant organism which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or genotype, which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which can not otherwise be "made" or "manufactured."
- Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants are comprehended; sports or mutants may be spontaneous or induced. Hybrids may be natural, from a planned breeding program, or somatic in source. While natural plant mutants might have naturally occurred, they must have been discovered in a cultivated area.
- Algae and macro fungi are regarded as plants, but bacteria are not.
EDIT:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/PVPO -- Plant Variety Protection Office
"The Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) administers the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), by issuing Certificates of Protection in a timely manner. The Act provides legal intellectual property rights protection to breeders of new varieties of plants which are sexually reproduced (by seed) or tuber-propagated."
im not sure how existing strains publicly offered could obtain a patent due to prior disclosure and info being public knowledge but if i was a breeder then i would start working some lines that could be protected by intellectual property laws.
Last edited:
that could turn ugly - if someone had patented OG kush or Sour Diesel, people could be sued for making or growing any hybrids of it without consent. Also potentially if they buy it from a not authorized seller of OG Kush etc as defined by the corporation who patented it.
Interesting though, clearly Big Pharma is still threatened by peoples ability to grow their own medicine, rather than buy it each month regardless if they could patent certain strains or not - that's still too much out of their control in their eyes for the amount of research they would have to put into it, just to have people grow it themselves instead - which I think is really how it should be. Wasn't this country founded on self sufficiency and not artificial systems of dependance??
=( The cannabis community should be all about finding which crosses produce the dankest and greatest variety of amazing herb. Especially because of all the medical benefits, patients deserve to have access or breed with strains that work best for them - to try to increase it's medical effects for what they are looking for. There are thousands among thousands of phenotypes already discovered and almost an endless amount that can pop up from future genetic breeding.
Interesting though, clearly Big Pharma is still threatened by peoples ability to grow their own medicine, rather than buy it each month regardless if they could patent certain strains or not - that's still too much out of their control in their eyes for the amount of research they would have to put into it, just to have people grow it themselves instead - which I think is really how it should be. Wasn't this country founded on self sufficiency and not artificial systems of dependance??
=( The cannabis community should be all about finding which crosses produce the dankest and greatest variety of amazing herb. Especially because of all the medical benefits, patients deserve to have access or breed with strains that work best for them - to try to increase it's medical effects for what they are looking for. There are thousands among thousands of phenotypes already discovered and almost an endless amount that can pop up from future genetic breeding.
G
Guest 88950
it WILL GET UGLY if the Cannabis Breeders dont start protecting their future lines right now.
as far as OG Kush / ECSD / NL#5 / Skunk#1.....these would be un-patentable due to them being public knowledge.
as far as OG Kush / ECSD / NL#5 / Skunk#1.....these would be un-patentable due to them being public knowledge.
i suppose there is no free lunch, but the trade of the threat of being sued versus the threat of being arrested, property confiscated, dog shot, and tossed into an ass rape prison...
well, sued sounds like small potatoes
and to be sued you'd have to make it known you're growing these hybrids
