> 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.