▲ 516 ▼ US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift, AP sources say (apnews.com) submitted 2 years ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, I have no idea what that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Apparently an invasive species that affects soil PH, not many animals eat it, it attracts ticks, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Invasive species are covered by an entirely different set of laws and agency of enforcement. I'm ok with putting jurisdiction over all drugs under the DNR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I realize the post is about controlled substances, but the comment thread started with The idea that something you can just grow yourself like a plant of a fungus is illegal is ridiculous on the face of it. The idea that not being able to grow any plant you want is ridiculous is not well thought out. Something being natural doesn't mean it should be available to anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I genuinely think the only legal restriction on growing plants should be if there is credible evidence that it harms the local ecology, and then a ban can be bypassed if the harmful plant is grown in an environment that would prevent that harm (eg in an indoor lab setting where seeds/spores/etc wouldn’t be able to escape). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Apparently an invasive species that affects soil PH, not many animals eat it, it attracts ticks, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Invasive species are covered by an entirely different set of laws and agency of enforcement. I'm ok with putting jurisdiction over all drugs under the DNR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I realize the post is about controlled substances, but the comment thread started with The idea that something you can just grow yourself like a plant of a fungus is illegal is ridiculous on the face of it. The idea that not being able to grow any plant you want is ridiculous is not well thought out. Something being natural doesn't mean it should be available to anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I genuinely think the only legal restriction on growing plants should be if there is credible evidence that it harms the local ecology, and then a ban can be bypassed if the harmful plant is grown in an environment that would prevent that harm (eg in an indoor lab setting where seeds/spores/etc wouldn’t be able to escape). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Invasive species are covered by an entirely different set of laws and agency of enforcement. I'm ok with putting jurisdiction over all drugs under the DNR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I realize the post is about controlled substances, but the comment thread started with The idea that something you can just grow yourself like a plant of a fungus is illegal is ridiculous on the face of it. The idea that not being able to grow any plant you want is ridiculous is not well thought out. Something being natural doesn't mean it should be available to anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I genuinely think the only legal restriction on growing plants should be if there is credible evidence that it harms the local ecology, and then a ban can be bypassed if the harmful plant is grown in an environment that would prevent that harm (eg in an indoor lab setting where seeds/spores/etc wouldn’t be able to escape). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I realize the post is about controlled substances, but the comment thread started with The idea that something you can just grow yourself like a plant of a fungus is illegal is ridiculous on the face of it. The idea that not being able to grow any plant you want is ridiculous is not well thought out. Something being natural doesn't mean it should be available to anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I genuinely think the only legal restriction on growing plants should be if there is credible evidence that it harms the local ecology, and then a ban can be bypassed if the harmful plant is grown in an environment that would prevent that harm (eg in an indoor lab setting where seeds/spores/etc wouldn’t be able to escape). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I genuinely think the only legal restriction on growing plants should be if there is credible evidence that it harms the local ecology, and then a ban can be bypassed if the harmful plant is grown in an environment that would prevent that harm (eg in an indoor lab setting where seeds/spores/etc wouldn’t be able to escape). permalink fedilink source parent