posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:46 PM
S 510 is long read, I just skimmed for any sections of interest, but I'll have to do that during the upcoming week.
At any rate, the language will probably not be so threatening in the bill. Although, as with any piece of language, meaning is created both by what is
said and what is left unsaid. As an amateur gardener, I will have to scrutinize this and break any such stipulations as the OP suggested exist should
it become a law... they can't take my papayas, bananas, coconut palms, or cactus (although I'd survive without the cactus fruit cause they're
really not that tasty).
In all reality, the more I do research, the more I find that many of the plants surrounding me have some edible part or medicinal aspect. This sounds
like a nightmare for law enforcement should it actually be a part of the law...I mean, could you imagine the scenario:
My Nana: Officer, do you really have to plow under ALL the tomatoes and summer squash???
Officer Johnson: Yes ma'am, no food plants...Hey, Officer Smith, are those bromeliads or pineapples??
Officer Smith: Not sure. Just plow 'em under too I s'pose.
Officer Johnson: We've got a problem here. Do these look like pot plants to you Smith?
Officer Smith: Sure do. Ma'am, are these pot plants???
My Nana: Pot? Why, no! Those are okra plants.
Officer Johnson: Oh, ok. [to city bulldozer team] Plow 'em all under boys.
Ha! I smell a sequel to Fahrenheit 451