Comment adapted to this post:
That reasonably exemplifies why judicial regulations are absurd — e.g. flagrantly mass-rights-infringing, so undeniably unconstitutional in violation of the illegally judicially disarmed ninth amendment.
Such regulations are not a panacea against abuse, despite the horribly popular delusion to the exacerbatingly contrary.
They merely give our oligarchy more leverage to (sometimes abusively) dominate everyone else, while the response is often a workaround such as the one starring within the prompting article (“free” cannabis with purchase of something such as an $80 t-shirt).
If those regulations are somehow tight, then we still cannot rule out the possibility that regulators are being bribed to look the other way.
Judicial regulations do not regulate. They always take power away from “We the people” usually to (perhaps selfishly) serve oligarchical interests, while too often merely pretending (via horrendous mass-rights-infringement) to address the relatively small number of abuses in society.
Yes, those abuses are serious despite their relative rarity, but never more destructive than logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction — the abuse of law.
Judicial regulations do not concretely conclude that your water is safe to drink, your food is safe to eat, and so on.
They do concretely conclude that your liberty is increasingly at risk, if not outright dangerously removed — via the crushing power of (inclusively unethical) oligarchical favoritism.
There are other ways than law to reinforce credibility among the many (if not overwhelming majority of) people in society who do care about the safety of the products/services they provide to the public.
Word-of-mouth and consumer advocacy (including publicly testing for safety verification) — all in the name of effective education — comes to mind.
And while education can also sometimes fail to protect the public via similar forms of corruption, they cannot fail more than judicial regulations, and they do not have the powerful leverage of law to crush countless innocent lives. That devastation includes the complex wake from legal precedence, which powerful roots bad laws basically into judicial immunity, and then can turn them into even more complexly bad laws that are equally hard to remedy.
Tragedy is inherent within reality. For prime example, each one of us will die at some point, regardless of the rule-of-law.
Judicial regulations merely shift the tragedy target — usually against the financially poor and/or minorities (often while ironically designed and oligarchically proclaimed to protect that excessively vulnerable group), while protecting the oligarchically elite (i.e. the people accountable for those regulations).
In a society with an unalienable right to liberty (e.g. supposedly this American one), the fact is law can only serve to address abuse after harm has occurred, while risk can only be properly addressed by effective education. Otherwise, the term unalienable in that context has no meaning, and we are left with the typical ‘liberty to do whatever the people in power allow you to do for their sake’.
Harm is a critical term therein. Harm cannot be subjectively, nor weakly scientifically (e.g. suggestively) defined, because the oligarchy can basically seize upon their definition of harm to rule over us all. Only a maximally and purely scientifically conclusive definition of harm works in this balancing reality of pure energy (that last phrase in flawless tune with mainstream physics).
Moreover is the critical need to properly educate society about the Rule of Reality.
That Rule purely logically concludes that dominance can never be free within a reality that requires balance for stability (e.g. this one, at least mainstream scientifically speaking) — and the only possible payment for dominance is being dominated in equal measure (it’s all energy, baby).
I’ll spare you all the scientific details here, but they exist in the Liberty Shield informational roots (the section titled “Rule of Reality”, of course). Feel free to challenge me on this (or any other) scientific front, but I remain healthily confident that you will find the logic to be perfectly sound.
That Rule concludes that literally all abuses are fully compensated for in accordance with that demonstrably supreme stability.
Nobody can get away with murder.
Nobody can get away with rape.
Nobody can get away with theft.
Nobody can get away with ruining countless lives via mass-rights-infringement.
And so on.
You may be above humanity’s law (e.g. one of the oligarchs not going to prison, despite your obvious crimes), but you can never be above reality’s law — and ultimately, that’s the only law that truly counts (one that literally determines all outcomes — obviously including horribly agonizing ones).