5 ms·

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 shoul

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.

tsimionescu 6mo ago
[flagged]
- oompydoompy74 6mo ago
  Yeah you can buy those legally online and plant them in your yard right now. This take is based on all of human history until the last 2 - 300 years.
- Woshiwuja 6mo ago
  Yes it should be OK, poisoning people is still illegal
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  >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.
  - oompydoompy74 6mo ago
    Fully agree with this. Well put.
  - tsimionescu 6mo ago
    > 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.
    - vel0city 6mo ago
      > 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.
- vel0city 6mo ago
  > 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.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  >So it should be OK to sell hemlock or nightshade just going to highlight this part: "At the minimum, [...] for my own personal consumption."
muyuu 6mo ago
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
jdrormdj 6mo ago
Human consumption of potatos is also strongly regulated. You can not just grow and eat potatoes, without paying taxes!
- Throaway199999 6mo ago
  Is there a potato-eating-tax I didn't know about? I better call my accountant...
  - jdrormdj 6mo ago
    It produces CO2. We cull millions of cows for this reason!
    - Throaway199999 6mo ago
      Because they eat potatoes?
- kube-system 6mo ago
  No, they are loosely regulated.
stronglikedan 6mo ago
> Regulating human consumption of anything that grows from the ground is absolutely ridiculous. As always, it depends. While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good.
- hrimfaxi 6mo ago
  > While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good. That doesn't match my experience at all.
- computerphage 6mo ago
  It didn't used to be regulated. How do you explain the fact that not everyone used to be an opiate addict?
  - HaloZero 6mo ago
    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
    - MSFT_Edging 6mo ago
      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.
    - computerphage 6mo ago
      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"
something765478 6mo ago
> 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. There should be some exceptions, like banning invasive species, but in general, you're absolutely right.
tengbretson 6mo ago
The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  >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.
  - tengbretson 6mo ago
    A whole brick of asbestos? Buddy, we've got you for intention to sell. Why don't you step out of the vehicle.
  - loosescrews 6mo ago
    Aren’t there laws regarding the transport of hazardous materials?
everdrive 6mo ago
Try not to think about poppy flowers I guess.
whalesalad 6mo ago
I don't know how anyone could disagree with this.
ranger_danger 6mo ago
As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.

tsimionescu 6mo ago

[flagged]

oompydoompy74 6mo ago
Yeah you can buy those legally online and plant them in your yard right now. This take is based on all of human history until the last 2 - 300 years.
Woshiwuja 6mo ago
Yes it should be OK, poisoning people is still illegal
cucumber3732842 6mo ago
>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.
- oompydoompy74 6mo ago
  Fully agree with this. Well put.
- tsimionescu 6mo ago
  > 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.
  - vel0city 6mo ago
    > 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.
vel0city 6mo ago
> 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.
john_strinlai 6mo ago
>So it should be OK to sell hemlock or nightshade just going to highlight this part: "At the minimum, [...] for my own personal consumption."

muyuu 6mo ago

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

jdrormdj 6mo ago

Human consumption of potatos is also strongly regulated. You can not just grow and eat potatoes, without paying taxes!

Throaway199999 6mo ago
Is there a potato-eating-tax I didn't know about? I better call my accountant...
- jdrormdj 6mo ago
  It produces CO2. We cull millions of cows for this reason!
  - Throaway199999 6mo ago
    Because they eat potatoes?
kube-system 6mo ago
No, they are loosely regulated.

stronglikedan 6mo ago

> Regulating human consumption of anything that grows from the ground is absolutely ridiculous. As always, it depends. While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good.

hrimfaxi 6mo ago
> While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good. That doesn't match my experience at all.
computerphage 6mo ago
It didn't used to be regulated. How do you explain the fact that not everyone used to be an opiate addict?
- HaloZero 6mo ago
  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
  - MSFT_Edging 6mo ago
    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.
  - computerphage 6mo ago
    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"

something765478 6mo ago

> 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. There should be some exceptions, like banning invasive species, but in general, you're absolutely right.

tengbretson 6mo ago

The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.

cucumber3732842 6mo ago
>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.
- tengbretson 6mo ago
  A whole brick of asbestos? Buddy, we've got you for intention to sell. Why don't you step out of the vehicle.
- loosescrews 6mo ago
  Aren’t there laws regarding the transport of hazardous materials?

everdrive 6mo ago

Try not to think about poppy flowers I guess.

whalesalad 6mo ago

I don't know how anyone could disagree with this.

ranger_danger 6mo ago

As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.