View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #1
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    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.
    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.

    "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.

  2. #2
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    I would vote no. Genetic engineering won't harm anything that animal husbandry and selective breeding doesn't. It just does it faster.

    And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet. That isn't to say it should be completely unregulated, but I wouldn't vote to ban it.

    On a side note, you might get more responses to your post if you put a shorter description of what the law does in simpler terms.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    I am okay with people not being able to claim but a very short IP right over genetic modification, but I don't think we should stop it.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,068

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    i wonder if even one of the bill's proponents have passed a graduate level biotech lab. i'm guessing none. it's sort of like the anti-vaxers who haven't even taken an immunology course, but some blog puts bull**** on the internet and they accept it as gospel.

    i work in this field, and i would vote no.

  5. #5
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    There is considerable abuse with regards to biotechnology, (Monsanto) but that is cause for sensible regulation not a blanket ban. The people who created this particular garbage, are ignorant luddites who have no clue what they are talking about. They utterly fail on basic the taxonomy of living organisms, much less actual knowledge about genetics or biology.

    The first rule about trying to pass a law about something, regardless of whether its plants or guns, is to be educated about the subject in question. Laws based on ignorance inevitably suck.

  6. #6
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,719

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Ignorant anti-science nonsense. Here's a specific example of genetic engineering: Bananas.

    You know what also has unintended consequences?

    Everything.


    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Natural selection of naturally occurring mutations or scientist created ones. What really is the difference other than science, when enough is known, can introduce much less harmful mutations that are targeted to end bad genetic traits or, in animals and plants, maybe let them create new drugs that are much better than existing ones.

    I would agree that due to the Law of Unintended Consequences that they should not randomly experiment on humans, but other than that, I have no problems with it.

    And if a company put forth the funds to do the research, why shouldn't they, at least for a limited time, be the ones to reap the rewards/profits from it?
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Genetic engineering may hold the key to human survival in outer space/planetary colonization. Not only for creating foods on other planets/moons to sustain us, but to adapt our own bodies for the rigors of space travel and or adaptations to alien environments.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.

  10. #10
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.
    I usually hold off on wielding the quote of destiny, but in this case I will make an exception because all but for the above poster clearly call for being dispatched with prejudice and forthwith, therefore you have sealed your own fate and I must admit I love the smell of biotech defenders in the late afternoon...smells like...victory lol...
    I have found that to wield the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny proves the undeniable point much like a simple decapitation or like game over in the video game debate version...once wielded not even the top Monsanto et al scientists can argue against the simple fatal truth of it and even Einstein would in all likelihood argue in defense of its simple equation logic with respect to not having all the numbers to the equations of life itself let alone its symbiotic nature and the possibly devastating chain reactive effects this technology could unleash as we allow the corps/gov to General Custer us all forward redesigning and privatizing the gene pool (we all swim in and come from) for profit...the quote of destiny is awesome and should only be used if ready to behead your opponent. Sometimes its useful to draw your opponent out far enough so as to be naked for their beheading and you folks are there and bare back...
    "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
    Donald Rumsfeld




    To the one undecided poster I suggest researching some down this red road:
    Pirate Television - Thomas Linzey & Katherine Davies: Who Has The Right? - YouTube
    " Published on Mar 7, 2012

    Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."

Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •