SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Denver votes to become first U.S. city to decriminalize 'magic mushrooms'
Denver will become the first city in the United States to decriminalize magic mushrooms, based on final unofficial results on Wednesday of a ballot initiative about the hallucinogenic drug.
The initiative called for Colorado's capital to end the imposition of criminal penalties for individuals at least 21 years of age for using or possessing psilocybin, widely known as magic mushrooms.
The Denver Elections Divisions will certify results on May 16, but the final count on its website on Wednesday was 50.56 percent of voters in favor and 49.44 percent against.
If the initiative is approved, psilocybin would still remain illegal under both Colorado and federal law. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration classifies the drug as a Schedule 1 substance, meaning the agency has deemed that it has a high potential for abuse with no accepted medical application.
Also at NYT:
"It's surreal," said Travis Tyler Fluck, a field organizer for the campaign to pass the measure, suggesting that Denver had a sizable population of "psychedelic constituents." "People just don't see it as a threat," he added. "Compared to the 'sinister' LSD, magic mushrooms are tame."
Oof. 🚲 🍄
Previously: Denver, Colorado Will Vote on Psilocybin Decriminalization Initiative on May 7
Related: Study Suggests Psilocybin "Resets" the Brains of Depressed People
Shrooms Safest, Comparatively Speaking
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:52PM (7 children)
It's just that guy's opinion of what other people believe. But I don't think he's wrong. LSD seems to be perceived as dangerous (although it's not addictive and it's difficult to overdose on, it's commonly believed to cause permanent brain alterations - although there's little real science on the topic). Mushrooms are generally perceived as something more harmless.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:09PM (4 children)
I wouldn't say "evil" so much as "powerful". And just as with cars or fire, powerful things are dangerous when used recklessly (as is commonly the case with drug usage in the partying scene).
And actually there's a *lot* or real science about permanent brain alterations. There's nothing obvious for most people, most of the time, but it's well documented that some people will experience various degrees of apparently permanent brain alterations, some on their first exposure. At the very least, that deserves a prominent warning on the box.
Heck, before it was banned there was a lot of really promising research on using it therapeutically - a day or two of tripping balls in the company of a psychologist managed to apparently permanently cure long-term alcoholism in several experimental subjects, as one example. It's not much of a stretch to assume that more negative long-term consequences can potentially result from invoking that kind of power carelessly.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday May 10 2019, @12:24AM (3 children)
This is the right answer: A reasonable (and I would say, important) role of government is to educate, to provide worthwhile information.
The US government, at present, has instead taken the (very) low road, viciously interfering with informed personal/consensual choice.
The government can, and should, stick its oar in to see that we are informed as reasonably possible.
It should not interfere with informed consent. That's tyranny. Or worse.
More on these ideas in: Should There be a Law? [fyngyrz.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday May 10 2019, @12:37AM (2 children)
I agree, with a bit of a proviso for general purposes: to
>It should not interfere with informed consent.
I would add "provided there's a variety of alternatives"
For example, when you have monopoly or oligopoly situations, especially on valuable or necessary goods or services, I think it's perfectly reasonable for government to step in to limit the sort of abuse that people can make an informed "consent" to.
But that's more a matter of limiting what providers can offer to the stupid or desperate, individuals/consumers should be allowed to do as they like, so long as nobody else is harmed by their actions.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday May 10 2019, @01:56AM (1 child)
Yes. Corporations are not at all like people, except in that they often resemble sociopaths and psychopaths. Monopoly is almost always bad. Large established monopolies are almost impossible to compete against, and that is one place (of many) where I think the government should step in.
For instance, at retail, I think that bulk discounts to a retailer should not be allowed. If huge retailer X gets discount Z, then tiny retailer should also be offered discount Z — regardless of quantity. Quantity discounts are another way for large retailers to lock out small ones. Likewise, shipping costs should be an even playfield, regardless of location within the nation. Just as telephone communications (and now, the Internet) needed to go everywhere because people are everywhere, so too do retailers where one can buy product X, particularly in the area of necessary goods as you mentioned. Food, fuel, etc. Goods in general. It's fine that a retail operation needs a base population to be practical; population nexuses are very common in (relatively) unpopulated areas, though large retail operations are not.
Regulation isn't all bad, far from it. Without it, evil people will tilt the playfield. We see this all the time.
I do think automation is going to change the picture pretty soon, but it will likely be very painful getting there.
There are lots of other issues that extend beyond the issue of laws that affect personal and informed consent; pollution, education, healthcare, infrastructure, access to the airwaves, monopolies as you mentioned, rehabilitation vs. revenge. None of them should retard or threaten the individual's ability to make valid personal or consensual choices. The monopoly issue is about making sure they have legitimate choices, as opposed to imposed consequences.
--
Any pizza can be a personal pizza if you believe in yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10 2019, @02:31AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday May 10 2019, @01:31AM (1 child)
I've heard multiple people describe LSD as more "masculine," and mushrooms as more "feminine." It sounds weird assigning gender to a molecule and a hermaphroditic fungus, but it also kind of rings true. My darkest thoughts on LSD have been far more base and animalistic than anything that mushrooms has made me experience, and LSD has has never made me feel as if I was communing with a divine feminine entity. If I had to pick only one of my LSD or mushroom trips to remember, it would be one of the mushroom trips. That being said, I appreciate the effects of microdosing LSD more than comparable levels of psilocybin, and if I had to never use one of those drugs ever again I'd say goodbye to the shrooms.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10 2019, @01:49AM
I almost think it's the opposite. Primal shrooms, groovy LSD. Maybe my mindset was different at different times.