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: -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?