alt Hacker News>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.
Replies
Fully agree with this. Well put.
> 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.