However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.
No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards. These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.
What is this "should" of which you write?
Note that successfully defending yourself in court can be horrendously expensive.
Does fox have some kind of devolution agenda?