> Is that not the case?
It is the case, and is the reason this set is put together.
Here's a BBC article on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19050342
It is the case, and is the reason this set is put together.
Here's a BBC article on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19050342
So yes it's a risk and it can be used to make illegal/dangerous substances, but none of it is illegal, just risky.
Just major companies don't want to take on the kind of risk that comes with it. Whereas boutique shops have a lot more freedom because they're selling to self selecting audiences, which (generally) understand they're taking on additional risks with the increased benefits.
They may take advantage of having the same freedoms that larger companies just don't exercise, but the idea that their audience is "self-selecting" likely won't hold up or protect them from the kind of litigation that means this is (in practice) a bad idea (from a business survival standpoint).
I see the set as a good thing, but I don't think saying they're protected in any way or that the concerns of larger companies don't apply is accurate.
I need to do some more research to make sure I'm not supporting some sort of kook, but I like what I've read about him (and from him) so far. If he checks out at face value I'll participate in his Kickstarter at a higher-than-strictly-necessary level, just to support what he's doing.
I don't see why the chemicals are such a big deal. Should be an opportunity to teach responsibility.