Regulating human consumption of anything that grows from the ground is absolutely ridiculous. It’s an affront to the natural order. At the minimum, nobody should have the ability to tell me I can’t buy seeds and grow a plant for my own personal consumption.
Because we regulated it when it got bad. Other countries have had opioid epidemics and they’ve had to intervene. China is a very famous example because the British didn’t like the crackdown as it affected other trade
We regulated it as a means to police certain communities.
Hell, Billie holiday suffered from addiction but that bastard Harry Anslinger ordered doctors to not treat her and not provide her with methadone. She died with police stationed at her hospital room door. The FBI also harassed her over songs about lynching.
Nixon is literally on tape saying to go after weed and heroin more harshly as an excuse to arrest more anti-war protesters and civil rights protestors.
I'd argue "cracking down" has done little for controlling drug abuse and has primarily been a method for selective policing. Particularly in the states.
But how do you explain the fact that, before it got bad, it wasn't /already/ bad. You've gotta have some model for why there was a change if the rate wasn't previously at 100% and the claim is that the number "should be 100% unless it was regulated"
We'd probably be better off if people were grinding and smoking poppy seeds. Even Heroin.
We as a society somehow keep making the whole opiate addiction thing worse with increasingly stronger versions. I've read that Heroin overall was a much more enjoyable drug, and harder to OD on. Then Opioids became big, the sackler family got rich, and now you just have a super cheap, super strong drug that isn't even enjoyable. Fentanyl just knocks you out and makes overdosing easier.
I do wonder what a safety minded policy around opioids could look like, as they're not exactly a new problem in the scheme of human history.
>The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.
You could get pulled over with a brick of asbestos in your trunk in all 50 states and not have problems. And this was true 20yr ago as well. The regulations around asbestos are/were primarily restrict commercial manufacture, processing and interacting with it so I suppose they could contrive to get you for "processing" if you consumed it.
what is the logic behind that anything that can be homegrown should be legal? it makes enforcement harder, but it doesn't make any potential damages any better or worse
> So it should be OK to sell hemlock or nightshade and other all-natural plant-based poisons?
Sure, why not? Especially the plant itself, I see little reason to regulate it any more than any other kind of plant. Maybe require good labeling is in place, but other than that why not?
If anything one would regulate cultivating it in the US due to it being an invasive species, and really shouldn't be grown in North America. But the cats out of the bag on that one, its already all over the place.
>So it should be OK to sell hemlock or nightshade and other all-natural plant-based poisons?
Rofl. Yeah sure but who's buying? Approximately nobody. So there's no harm and not even a problem for regulation to solve.
>Maybe even give them to others?
Already illegal depending upon the details of "give".
>Why is it any more or less acceptable to regulate the use of chemistry equipment than of agricultural products?
Because speculative "someone might" or "at scale we've noted that <some numbers near the noise floor>" claims are not sufficient ground for restricting the freedom of individuals. Those who argue otherwise have bad morals.
When you start talking about widespread industry and known, defined and obviously present harms (see for example all those pictures of odd colored rivers in the 50s-70s, use of lead paint in residential settings, etc) it's a different story but the bar for regulating what one may possess and use/consume in the privacy of their own home ought to be many orders of magnitude higher.
> Because speculative "someone might" or "at scale we've noted that <some numbers near the noise floor>" claims are not sufficient ground for restricting the freedom of individuals.
That's not what I asked. I asked what it is, specifically, about agricultural practices that is supposed to make them more worthy of protection than chemical processes. Specifically, why does the GP think it's more ok to ban people from making crystal meth at home than it is to ban them from growing coca leaves or weed.
Note that, of course, meth is much worse for you than either of the previous two. But GP's point was not about harm, but about the supposed right to grow any plant you want.
> it's more ok to ban people from making crystal meth at home
I don't see too many homes exploding because they had a few hemlock plants growing in a planter on the porch.
Regulating industrial chemical manufacturing to places other than residential areas makes a lot of sense. I don't really want my neighbor fabricating toxic sludge next to my backyard garden and where my kids are playing.
