The OP idea would invert a longstanding principle to the effect that all that is not banned is allowed, and it’s the ban that has to be limited. You don’t want to crack open that door. Besides, what’s the range of substances that can exist, and that a human being can be detectably exposed to, before the level of toxicity kills or incapacitates, that are NOT psychoactives or performance-enhancers? That’s gonna be one LONG “kosher” list…
(I imagine the reason you have specific lists is that it would be illegally vague to outlaw the stuff in terms of “any substance that gives you a buzz” or “any substance that artificially improves your athletic performance”. )
I had my Vegemite taken away by Customs in Helsinki. Their rules say “if our machine can’t identify it we won’t let it in”. And surprise surprise, it didn’t know what Vegemite was. Note that Singapore had no such problem earlier in the same trip.
The state of Louisiana has a law banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of hallucinagenic plants. Yes you read that right any psychoactive plant and the law seems to rest entirely on intent, this should terrify anyone who knows anything about horticulture as every yard has several hallucinagenic plants in it.
Actually, that one defines the meaning of “hallucinogenic plant” for the purposes of the bill to be a list of specific plants, given as a list of 40 species or entire genuses. It also notes:
I took it as listing 40 examples but not exclusive, but I may have misread it.
Oh and I know about the exemptions, the thing is having to prove that in court and bankrupting yourself in the process. So the prosecutor introduces the fact you have Bob Marley posters up and other crap to prove you were growing with intent to consume your hedges, the jury is old people angry they are missing Matlock, how do you think your chances go?
