9 ms·

Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

172 points by nedsma 10y ago

cryoshon 10y ago
This won't have negative consequences for the public at all. /s
- pygy_ 10y ago
  Zyklon B to buy Agent Orange... Such a nice fit.
  - pinaceae 10y ago
    a bit more complicated - IG Farben also produced multiple Nobel Prices in Medicine, represented the merged version of pretty much the complete German chemical industry. AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben. Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B. History is complicated.
    - flyinghamster 10y ago
      WW2 was in some ways as much a war between corporations as it was a war between governments. Not to mention, some corporations happily played both sides of the conflict; ITT [0] and General Motors [1] among the more notorious examples. [0] http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_05.htm http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_... (drawing on other sources) [1] http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-GM-wheels-2659006.php http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-G...
kriro 10y ago
The PR implications of this, particularly in Germany, will be interesting to follow.
- afandian 10y ago
  What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).
  - creshal 10y ago
    Bayer is "they're crooks, but they're our crooks", basically, while Monsanto is Satan Inc.
  - skrause 10y ago
    In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.
    - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
      any chance this could help the perception of GMOs in Germany then?
      - TillE 10y ago
        No. GMOs are more or less banned throughout Europe for legitimate ecological concerns, with plenty of grassroots opposition in Germany. The fact that it's a field dominated by one of the more evil companies in the world is secondary.
        WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
        to be more precise, they can be sold but then need to be labeled. Prob used in animal feedstock, but not attractive to market for human use in that form. I presume animal feed's still a significant market, but unsure if there's significant GMO market penetration there. Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive). I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans. Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..
shaqbert 10y ago
And yet another global industry is now so concentrated that free market forces are fully contained ... What we eat will be decided in Germany and China now. Guten Appetit!
- daveguy 10y ago
  That's guten 食欲.
- coldtea 10y ago
  As a European, I don't find it being decided in the US any better. And that's where most of the companies that make the decisions are...
- tylershuster 10y ago
  Or you could grow your own food ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- dualogy 10y ago
  > What we eat will be decided in Germany and China now Keeping your own flock of chickens and living off eggs and butter may come back in vogue..
- pitaj 10y ago
  > free market forces Many would claim that any implementation of IP violates the free market. Monsanto lives off of IP.
drcross 10y ago
How can the competition authority allow this to happen?
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  I don't think it's been agreed yet.
- rayiner 10y ago
  It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple buys Netflix), in comparison, doesn't raise the same concerns of immediate and direct reduction in competition.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    In cases where vertical integration raises concerns, antitrust regulators seem to have also gotten more comfortable with attaching merger conditions rather than blocking the merger entirely. For example telecom mergers that produce vertical integration routinely are approved with conditions regarding third-party infrastructure access. The first big deal I can remember with such a condition was the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was approved on condition that Time Warner offer third-party ISPs wholesale access to its cable network. Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.
giarc 10y ago
Another agriculture merger was announced last week, albeit smaller, between Potash and Agrium. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium-merger-1.3757953 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium-merger-1.37579...
chollida1 10y ago
Keep in mind that in today's global environment whenever a merger is proposed it has to go through alot of government scrutiny. Not just in the US, but also with the EU and China. See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government. From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this might be enough, again assuming government approval. They've went from an original offer of $122 to a final offer of $128/share. And the deal includes a breakup fee of $2 Billion for Monsanto if the deal falls through. Monsanto has played this very well but the $128/share offer represents a 21% bump from yesterday's close, which is a bit concerning. With the other offers that have already been presented such a large premium means the market believes that there is a decent chance that this deal doesn't go through, now most likely due to government interference. The typical remedy for governments who object to mergers is to have a company sell of a division or twp to show that the new company won't be a defacto monopoly. Unfortunately in this case there is very little overlap between the two companies. This means that there isn't really anything for Bayer or Monsanto to sell off here. The newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.
- mholmes680 10y ago
  The ability to create seeds that can only be controlled by your own pesticides and/or medications could be interesting. and scary. Politics aside, can that be an antitrust issue? [edit: also, is this another "quiet" inversion also? US loses another business for tax purposes?]
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I would think that you would look at in in terms of the (for example) corn market rather than in terms of the Agglomerated Monster corn market. So the Agglomerated Monster corn would just be a product in the corn market, not a monopoly in the Agglomerated Monster corn market.
    - mason240 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jMyles 10y ago
The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price. IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it. 0: https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23451 https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.displa...
- akvadrako 10y ago
  Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields? The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could. The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".
  - darkarmani 10y ago
    > It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could. What's wrong with that? If your patent passes on its genes onto my corn, then it's no longer exactly your plant.
pearjuice 10y ago
>Bayer has been involved in controversies regarding some of its drug products; its statin drug Baycol (cerivastatin) was discontinued in 2001 after 52 people died from renal failure, and Trasylol (aprotinin), used to control bleeding during major surgery, was withdrawn from the markets worldwide when reports of increased mortality emerged; it was later re-introduced in Europe but not in the US.[0] Can't wait to see what "pharmaceutical" solutions they will bring up together! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Of course there are controversies. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have half the folks crying "Hurry up approval of life-saving drugs! Stop stalling! Too much paperwork!" and the other half "Condemn the heartless drug company that rushed in a drug that killed (some) people! No blood for profit!"
wcchandler 10y ago
one of my concerns regarding this is the likely increase in patenting of genetic plant material, but specifically for the plants that are used in medicine. This will especially be problematic when it comes to medicinal cannabis. Monsanto will engineer a "perfect strain" then make considerable profits off it. That's concerning because it's about to shift the drug war and I'm not sure where it will go.
- pc86 10y ago
  I mean if a company (Monsanto or anyone else) actually does develop a perfect strain for medical use they certainly deserve the profit, don't they? I'm no fan of Monsanto but it doesn't mean that they're not entitled to the things any other company is entitled to in a capitalist society. I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?
MichaelMoser123 10y ago
The faz says that in other news ChemChina is buying Syngenta - these are two big companies; Are there any hidden reasons why agriculture tech companies are so interested in mergers these days? Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area? [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-structure-of-planned-syngenta-purchase-1466178106 http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-str... and that is supposedly because a glut in corn and soybeans is driving prices down; http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-farmers--bottom-line-15228819 http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-...
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  i am wondering about the larger impact of agricultural issues on the economy & politics; i wonder if anyone ran a study of this factor over the long run: for example the crash of 2008 was preceded by a long drought that caused a steep increase of food prices; also Arab countries were then unable to keep up food subsidies, so the Arab spring came and forced the governments out; Also the French revolution was preceded by a drought + the French state was basically bankrupt.
dfeart3453465uf 10y ago
Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time! Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.
- pinaceae 10y ago
  are we for the legalization of drugs today or against? Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    > are we for the legalization of drugs today or against? Nobody in their right mind wants to legalize heroin.
    - newman8r 10y ago
      speak for yourself, there are plenty of people who think full and unquestionable legalization is the best way to start addressing addiction in modern society rather than treating it like a literal war.
      - allendoerfer 10y ago
        I am living in a city whose drug strategy is a model for others [0]. You can both help the junkies and prosecute the dealers all without gang shootings on the streets. [0] http://www.dw.com/en/frankfurt-still-germanys-drug-capital-but-learning-to-cope/a-3474775 http://www.dw.com/en/frankfurt-still-germanys-drug-capital-b...
        burkaman 10y ago
        There is often more than one reasonable approach to a problem.
reacweb 10y ago
Many documentaries have been broadcasted on TV in France about Mosanto. It was depicted a the evil personified (like http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsan...). Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited. Now, I wonder if this was a plot. Maybe Bayer has favored these broadcasts to reduce the cost of takeover. Maybe Bayer is worst than Mosanto. Welcome paranoia.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited. I'm not sure that's a useful heuristic... We all know Monsanto is not innocent of wrongdoing, but I'll bet 90% of what you read/hear about them is a complete misinterpretation or conspiracy theory.
- i_live_there 10y ago
  "Maybe Bayer is worst" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/05/bayer-sells-aids-infected-drug-banned-in-us-in-europe-asia.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/0... http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-hiv/ http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-h...
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  Well Monsanto is one of the companies that produced the chemical weapon Agent Orange, causing birth defects and death in Vietnam to this day, and the last time Bayer, a producer of poison gas in WWI, had a merger, the result was IG Farben, producer of Zyklon B. So what could go wrong?
johnward 10y ago
I thought Bayer was Covestro now. So I had to look it up and Bayer still exists but Covestro was spun off. "Covestro is a spinout formed in the fall of 2015 from Bayer; it was formerly Bayer's $12.3 billion materials science division. "
J5892 10y ago
This is great news for conspiracy theorists.
josh_carterPDX 10y ago
Well this seems absolutely fucking horrible.

172 points by nedsma 10y ago

cryoshon 10y ago

This won't have negative consequences for the public at all. /s

pygy_ 10y ago
Zyklon B to buy Agent Orange... Such a nice fit.
- pinaceae 10y ago
  a bit more complicated - IG Farben also produced multiple Nobel Prices in Medicine, represented the merged version of pretty much the complete German chemical industry. AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben. Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B. History is complicated.
  - flyinghamster 10y ago
    WW2 was in some ways as much a war between corporations as it was a war between governments. Not to mention, some corporations happily played both sides of the conflict; ITT [0] and General Motors [1] among the more notorious examples. [0] http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_05.htm http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_... (drawing on other sources) [1] http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-GM-wheels-2659006.php http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-G...

kriro 10y ago

The PR implications of this, particularly in Germany, will be interesting to follow.

afandian 10y ago
What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).
- creshal 10y ago
  Bayer is "they're crooks, but they're our crooks", basically, while Monsanto is Satan Inc.
- skrause 10y ago
  In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.
  - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
    any chance this could help the perception of GMOs in Germany then?
    - TillE 10y ago
      No. GMOs are more or less banned throughout Europe for legitimate ecological concerns, with plenty of grassroots opposition in Germany. The fact that it's a field dominated by one of the more evil companies in the world is secondary.
      - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
        to be more precise, they can be sold but then need to be labeled. Prob used in animal feedstock, but not attractive to market for human use in that form. I presume animal feed's still a significant market, but unsure if there's significant GMO market penetration there. Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive). I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans. Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..

shaqbert 10y ago

And yet another global industry is now so concentrated that free market forces are fully contained ... What we eat will be decided in Germany and China now. Guten Appetit!

daveguy 10y ago
That's guten 食欲.
coldtea 10y ago
As a European, I don't find it being decided in the US any better. And that's where most of the companies that make the decisions are...
tylershuster 10y ago
Or you could grow your own food ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dualogy 10y ago
> What we eat will be decided in Germany and China now Keeping your own flock of chickens and living off eggs and butter may come back in vogue..
pitaj 10y ago
> free market forces Many would claim that any implementation of IP violates the free market. Monsanto lives off of IP.

drcross 10y ago

How can the competition authority allow this to happen?

richardwhiuk 10y ago
I don't think it's been agreed yet.
rayiner 10y ago
It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple buys Netflix), in comparison, doesn't raise the same concerns of immediate and direct reduction in competition.
- _delirium 10y ago
  In cases where vertical integration raises concerns, antitrust regulators seem to have also gotten more comfortable with attaching merger conditions rather than blocking the merger entirely. For example telecom mergers that produce vertical integration routinely are approved with conditions regarding third-party infrastructure access. The first big deal I can remember with such a condition was the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was approved on condition that Time Warner offer third-party ISPs wholesale access to its cable network. Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.

giarc 10y ago

Another agriculture merger was announced last week, albeit smaller, between Potash and Agrium. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium-merger-1.3757953 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium-merger-1.37579...

chollida1 10y ago

Keep in mind that in today's global environment whenever a merger is proposed it has to go through alot of government scrutiny. Not just in the US, but also with the EU and China. See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government. From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this might be enough, again assuming government approval. They've went from an original offer of $122 to a final offer of $128/share. And the deal includes a breakup fee of $2 Billion for Monsanto if the deal falls through. Monsanto has played this very well but the $128/share offer represents a 21% bump from yesterday's close, which is a bit concerning. With the other offers that have already been presented such a large premium means the market believes that there is a decent chance that this deal doesn't go through, now most likely due to government interference. The typical remedy for governments who object to mergers is to have a company sell of a division or twp to show that the new company won't be a defacto monopoly. Unfortunately in this case there is very little overlap between the two companies. This means that there isn't really anything for Bayer or Monsanto to sell off here. The newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.

mholmes680 10y ago
The ability to create seeds that can only be controlled by your own pesticides and/or medications could be interesting. and scary. Politics aside, can that be an antitrust issue? [edit: also, is this another "quiet" inversion also? US loses another business for tax purposes?]
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I would think that you would look at in in terms of the (for example) corn market rather than in terms of the Agglomerated Monster corn market. So the Agglomerated Monster corn would just be a product in the corn market, not a monopoly in the Agglomerated Monster corn market.
  - mason240 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jMyles 10y ago

The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price. IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it. 0: https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23451 https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.displa...

akvadrako 10y ago
Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields? The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could. The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".
- darkarmani 10y ago
  > It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could. What's wrong with that? If your patent passes on its genes onto my corn, then it's no longer exactly your plant.

pearjuice 10y ago

>Bayer has been involved in controversies regarding some of its drug products; its statin drug Baycol (cerivastatin) was discontinued in 2001 after 52 people died from renal failure, and Trasylol (aprotinin), used to control bleeding during major surgery, was withdrawn from the markets worldwide when reports of increased mortality emerged; it was later re-introduced in Europe but not in the US.[0] Can't wait to see what "pharmaceutical" solutions they will bring up together! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Of course there are controversies. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have half the folks crying "Hurry up approval of life-saving drugs! Stop stalling! Too much paperwork!" and the other half "Condemn the heartless drug company that rushed in a drug that killed (some) people! No blood for profit!"

wcchandler 10y ago

one of my concerns regarding this is the likely increase in patenting of genetic plant material, but specifically for the plants that are used in medicine. This will especially be problematic when it comes to medicinal cannabis. Monsanto will engineer a "perfect strain" then make considerable profits off it. That's concerning because it's about to shift the drug war and I'm not sure where it will go.

pc86 10y ago
I mean if a company (Monsanto or anyone else) actually does develop a perfect strain for medical use they certainly deserve the profit, don't they? I'm no fan of Monsanto but it doesn't mean that they're not entitled to the things any other company is entitled to in a capitalist society. I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?

MichaelMoser123 10y ago

The faz says that in other news ChemChina is buying Syngenta - these are two big companies; Are there any hidden reasons why agriculture tech companies are so interested in mergers these days? Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area? [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-structure-of-planned-syngenta-purchase-1466178106 http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-str... and that is supposedly because a glut in corn and soybeans is driving prices down; http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-farmers--bottom-line-15228819 http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-...

MichaelMoser123 10y ago
i am wondering about the larger impact of agricultural issues on the economy & politics; i wonder if anyone ran a study of this factor over the long run: for example the crash of 2008 was preceded by a long drought that caused a steep increase of food prices; also Arab countries were then unable to keep up food subsidies, so the Arab spring came and forced the governments out; Also the French revolution was preceded by a drought + the French state was basically bankrupt.

dfeart3453465uf 10y ago

Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time! Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.

pinaceae 10y ago
are we for the legalization of drugs today or against? Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  > are we for the legalization of drugs today or against? Nobody in their right mind wants to legalize heroin.
  - newman8r 10y ago
    speak for yourself, there are plenty of people who think full and unquestionable legalization is the best way to start addressing addiction in modern society rather than treating it like a literal war.
    - allendoerfer 10y ago
      I am living in a city whose drug strategy is a model for others [0]. You can both help the junkies and prosecute the dealers all without gang shootings on the streets. [0] http://www.dw.com/en/frankfurt-still-germanys-drug-capital-but-learning-to-cope/a-3474775 http://www.dw.com/en/frankfurt-still-germanys-drug-capital-b...
      - burkaman 10y ago
        There is often more than one reasonable approach to a problem.

reacweb 10y ago

Many documentaries have been broadcasted on TV in France about Mosanto. It was depicted a the evil personified (like http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsan...). Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited. Now, I wonder if this was a plot. Maybe Bayer has favored these broadcasts to reduce the cost of takeover. Maybe Bayer is worst than Mosanto. Welcome paranoia.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited. I'm not sure that's a useful heuristic... We all know Monsanto is not innocent of wrongdoing, but I'll bet 90% of what you read/hear about them is a complete misinterpretation or conspiracy theory.
i_live_there 10y ago
"Maybe Bayer is worst" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/05/bayer-sells-aids-infected-drug-banned-in-us-in-europe-asia.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/0... http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-hiv/ http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-h...
quirkafleeg 10y ago
Well Monsanto is one of the companies that produced the chemical weapon Agent Orange, causing birth defects and death in Vietnam to this day, and the last time Bayer, a producer of poison gas in WWI, had a merger, the result was IG Farben, producer of Zyklon B. So what could go wrong?

johnward 10y ago

I thought Bayer was Covestro now. So I had to look it up and Bayer still exists but Covestro was spun off. "Covestro is a spinout formed in the fall of 2015 from Bayer; it was formerly Bayer's $12.3 billion materials science division. "

J5892 10y ago

This is great news for conspiracy theorists.

josh_carterPDX 10y ago

Well this seems absolutely fucking horrible.