SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Efforts To Decriminalize Magic Mushrooms Beginning To Sprout Nationally
Denver and Oakland recently passed measures decriminalizing magic mushrooms, and it appears to be part of a larger, slow-moving movement to make psilocybin (the mushrooms' psychedelic ingredient) available for treatments for depression and other medicinal purposes, and, of course, recreational purposes.
- Oregon: The Pacific Northwest is considering a 2020 ballot measure to allow Oregonians to use "guided psilocybin services" for therapeutic purposes. The Psilocybin Service Initiative is the organization behind the measure, and it is working to get the 100,000 petition signatures needed to secure a place on the state's 2020 election ballot.
- California: After the Oakland measure passed, an organization called Decriminalize California is working on a statewide decriminalization measure for the 2020 election. (A similar measure failed to garner enough petition signatures last year.) According to the organization's strategy timeline, it is fundraising in advance of its fall campaign for petition signatures and promotion.
- Iowa: State Representative Jeff Shipley, a Republican with a libertarian streak, introduced two magic mushroom-focused bills in February. One bill would remove psilocybin from Iowa's list of controlled substances, and the second would allow medical usage of the substance. Since their introduction, the bills have languished in Iowa's house.
Oakland's decriminalization covers hallucinogens derived from plants or fungi, including but not limited to psilocybin-containing mushrooms and mescaline-containing peyote.
See also: Oakland City Council looks to decriminalize 'magic mushrooms' after Denver vote
Oakland Second US City to Legalize Magic Mushrooms
Oakland Decriminalizes Hallucinogenic 'Magic Mushrooms' And Peyote
Previously: Denver, Colorado Will Vote on Psilocybin Decriminalization Initiative on May 7
Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Narrowly Approved in Denver, Colorado
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:41PM (10 children)
Meanwhile, I await TMB's convoluted explanation of how saying "Wow" is spamming. Not even off topic, in this thread!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:47PM (2 children)
I'm not TMB, and he is no AC, but posting the same thing repeatedly - in the same or different threads - is considered spamming. All I can say about your limited vocabulary and creativity is ... Wow
(Score: 0, Redundant) by aristarchus on Saturday June 15 2019, @09:06PM (1 child)
If all you can say is "Wow", you should be spam modded! Just saying.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:34AM
That's what got me the Touché mod. See how that works? Plus, I only said it once, in one thread, as part of a longer post and in a context where it was appropriate. If you can't tell the difference between my post and yours ... Wow!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:56AM (6 children)
This post, to which I respond, entitled 'Wow!", with emphasis in original, along with the original capitalization, reads 'Meanwhile, I await TMB's convoluted explanation of how saying "Wow" is spamming. Not even off topic, in this thread! ' and has been posted by the 2645th user to sign up for this site, under the handle Aristarchus (capitalization added).
Early in the post is mentioned TMB, an acronym that refers to a second user of this site, soylent news, of handle: TheMightyBuzzard. The so called subject matter of the post is that this user, TMB, would consider saying "Wow", to be spamming. Later in the post, it is proposed that such posts, consisting of 'Wow', are not even considered by TMB to be off topic, in this thread.
I ask, with sound mind and heart, on what basis TMB has to declare posts either 'spam', or, alternatively, 'off topic'?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @02:12AM (5 children)
The same basis that *any* logged-in user with mod points has. That is, one's personal judgement. What other basis should there be?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @02:24AM (4 children)
This post, to which I reply, is a response to the last sentence of my prior post, which reads 'I ask, with sound mind and heart, on what basis TMB has to declare posts either 'spam', or, alternatively, 'off topic'?' The response, to which I am, in turn, responding, consists of three sentences the former of which reads 'The same basis that *any* logged-in user with mod points has.' The middle sentence, which is a restatement of the first, reads 'That is, one's personal judgement.', and, finally, the latter of the three queries I, the parent poster, 'What other basis should there be?'
In response, to this inquiry, I would enjoin to state, that this site exists in a state of unfairness and discrimination. Namely, the odorous requirement of "logging-in" may not equally difficult, in full or part, for all readers of this site. Thusly, the 'logged-in user' has had rendered upon themselves a power beyond that which has been allowed the 'non-logged-in user'.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @03:02AM (2 children)
This is the AC to whom you responded.
Firstly, the requirement that logged-in users are the only ones who are granted moderation points was a deliberate decision, no doubt influenced in some way by the fact that the Slash [wikipedia.org] codebase implements moderation points in that way, but apparently because those who created this site believe that it's an appropriate way to handle comment moderation.
I can't say one way or the other (as I wasn't there) if there was explicit malice against anonymous users, although I *suspect* that was not the case.
If I needed to make the choice (keeping other factors constant) as to whether to allow ACs to moderate or not, I would choose the current set up. There are several reasons for this:
Moderation is powerful (or we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?) and if not managed judiciously, is prone to abuse. Limiting the number of mod points each logged-in user gets limits that potential. If ACs were also granted mod points, a single AC could apply dozens, if not hundreds of mod points a day, defeating the primary goal of moderation (to make quality posts more visible).
Personally, I always read at '-1', just because I don't want a view of comments that's been filtered through moderation. However, there are a large number of users who rely upon the moderation system to provide them a curated selection of comments.
You may not agree with the site creators or administrators as to the appropriateness or "fairness" of the current system. You've taken the first step by posting about it here. I commend you for that.
Given that the goal of moderation is to create a tiered system of user-defined quality (not censorship, as anyone is free to, as I do, read at '-1'), how would allowing ACs who may or may not have any stake in the quality of discussion or have any real link to it: "Hey, Bob. Do me a favor and got over to SN and mod down a bunch of posts for me." "What's SN?" "Don't worry about it, just do me this solid, okay?" What's more, ACs posting from multiple locations/VPN/Tor/etc. could mod-bomb users with impunity, thus (as I mentioned) destroying the utility of moderation altogether.
As to the fairness/unfairness of it all, I don't really see why that should be a consideration. What seems unfair *to you* may seem completely fair and reasonable to someone else. How should those subjective claims be evaluated?
You have several options at your disposal.
You can lobby to allow AC mod points, in the comments, via email or twitter, in your journal and/or even by submitting articles that provide evidence that anonymous moderation is superior to the current system.
You can set up your own site (the code is open source [github.com]) which implements the moderation system as you think appropriate.
You can find another existing site where the moderation rules are more to your liking.
In the end, the reason (IMHO) that only logged-in user may moderate is because the people who own and administer (I am not one of those people) this site want it that way. That may seem unfair, but it's their site, not yours or mine.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)
I tire of your long-winded comments.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @09:57PM
I tire of your moronic bullshit.
Your point?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @03:17AM
Same AC again, upon re-reading the posts from both of us, I noted that while you referenced my query (and reiterated it as well) several times, you did not provide an answer that was responsive to it.
I answered your query responsively. Perhaps you'd do me the same courtesy?
I posited that choosing to moderate (or not) was the result of personal judgement. I further asked, referring to personal judgement, "what other basis should there be?"
You responded by suggesting that ACs should be allowed mod points as well as logged-in users. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that ACs were also granted mod points. What basis, other than their personal judgement, should they, as well as logged-in users use?
What say you?