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
Related Stories
Denver's Initiative 301 would decriminalize the use and possession of mushrooms containing the psychedelic compound psilocybin by making shrooms Denver's "lowest law enforcement priority". The vote is on Tuesday, May 7, alongside general elections for mayor, city auditor, city clerk and recorder, and all 13 city council seats. The initiative is supported by Decriminalize Denver, the Denver Green Party, and the Libertarian Party of Colorado. Opponents include the Centennial Institute, a conservative think tank from Colorado Christian University.
Will Denver Vote to Decriminalize Magic Mushrooms?
In 2005, Denver residents voted to become the first major U.S. city to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Two years later, they voted to decriminalize cannabis entirely. For the city's elections this spring, they're being asked if they want to do the same thing for psilocybin, the active ingredient in hallucinogenic mushrooms.
If passed, Initiative 301 would decriminalize the possession and use of a drug that is illegal in all states and at the federal level. No matter the result, it marks the first time in United States history that the legal status of psilocybin has been challenged, and it's putting Denver once again at the center of a debate on drug policy.
[...] State laws would remain unchanged, meaning state prosecutors could continue to bring psilocybin cases to court in Denver. While this type of decriminalization law may reduce drug arrests, drug policy experts consider it more of a symbolic gesture that could precede full legalization, much as cannabis laws did in the mid-2000s.
That fact hasn't been lost in Denver's debate over the issue. Opponents say decriminalization of psilocybin could eventually lead to full legalization, putting Denver—a city already known for its embrace of recreational marijuana—down the path toward becoming a drug haven.
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: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:22PM (13 children)
So, this is actually really exciting news... 'shrooms and peyote, maybe more than other things, always concerned me with respect to quality of the source. Getting the supply chain out in the open should do great things for safety, potency, and general predictability.
It's not like people (should be) using these things like they might eat yogurt - if you're only going to take one trip, it's nice to have some assurance that it will be the one you planned.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:48PM (4 children)
People could easily grow mushrooms at home, and be assured of the quality.
However, in the case of peyote, a sudden increase in demand caused by decriminalization could strain the supply:
Mexico's Peyote Endangered by 'Drug Tourists' [npr.org] (2007)
So if it's suddenly hip to try peyote, even fast growing cultivated buttons take years to grow. Leading to natural and cultivated sources being depleted and driving prices up. Maybe.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:04PM
Either way, if it's not illegal, then supply can ramp up to meet demand... it's not like peyote growing country is in high demand for other agricultural products.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:16PM (2 children)
Someone should save the peyote by making some engineered yeast to produce the drug by tons and make happy every dopefiend. And finaly let the poor plant grow in peace.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)
Mescaline is C11H17NO3. It does seem like a molecule that yeast could be bioengineered to poop out. There might be other substances in the cactus that contribute to the effects, but mescaline should be the main one.
Here's another angle. If "hallucinogens derived from plants or fungi" covers bioengineered yeast, then you could engineer yeast to make LSD and distribute that. I haven't read the exact text of the measure, but if it does happen the feds are going to crash the party.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:25PM
Well, one of the other constituents that contributes to the effect is strychnine. I don't believe that a sub-critical dose has any permanent effects, but it does cause unpleasant reactions that are part of what limited traditional use of peyote.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:20PM (1 child)
I have doubts about peyote, but mushrooms could benefit.
The barriers to entry for growing mushrooms are already very low. People could get started using a grow kit. But you could see tremendous yields with better techniques or farm-scale operations. At some point in between, you can already grow more supply than you could personally use in a lifetime.
Then you could see more people dealing the mushrooms on the street since it would be the lowest enforcement priority. The risk would be cut down from low/moderate to nearly nothing. For finding a dealer, you could find people openly advertising on Craigslist or other sites and apps. Alternatively, the substance would be spread through friend groups. Out of the network of people you know, more of them would know how to get it or be growing it themselves, and would be more open to talking about it.
As far as predictability goes, you wouldn't get the predictability of legalized mushrooms: exact psilocybin amounts on a mandated label or even a pure, water soluble psilocybin product. But there may be ways to estimate the contents with reasonable accuracy, and people willing to help do that given the decriminalized status.
The whole thing could collapse (in Oakland and Denver) if the police decide to ignore the measure(s) or state and federal authorities get involved.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:27PM
True. These local acts are mainly a statement of principles, as the actual criminal statues are, I believe, mainly federal with some state rules.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:20PM (5 children)
Great, even before the mushrooms get adulterated with other lab-synthesized crap so dealers can maximize their profits, there will be mass-freakouts in the streets because fucking noobs eat too god-damn much and then get stuck into 3-hour crying fits in the fetal position.
Mushrooms are not a good drug to have a trip-sitter, either, because having people not on shrooms around ruins the high. When my buddies used to do them, we had a rule, everybody not on shrooms get the fuck out. Either way, it should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Anyway, I've been over shrooms for years. For the past 10 years it's just been only booze and buds and I'm quite happy with those two.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:24PM (1 child)
Also, its Oakland. Could you imagine the horror that will ensue when already-violent and armed minorities get their hands on free-flowing psychedelics? I think an enterprising shroom dealer should dope their mushies with PCP so the rest of us can have many an entertaining evening watching Oakland riots in the evening news.
The added bonus to all this would be all those Bay-area liberals bitching about their property values plummeting. Please, please Oakland, stick it to Trump and pass the law!
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:29PM
California legalization will be timed with the release of next generation Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo consoles, greatly dampening the impact.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:28PM (2 children)
Press X to doubt.
Heroin with fentanyl, cannabis with PCP (or pesticides), sure. What are mushrooms going to be laced with, dirt?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by MostCynical on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:27AM
People have been putting horse tranquillisers in weed for decades.. so maybe putting something in the watering system will have an effect..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by Mer on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:27PM
Mushrooms are usually sold dried, for conservation and to allow more consistent evaluation of doses.
It's super easy to lace dry shrooms, just soak them in a solution and dry them again.
In fact, it's one of the reasons most users prefer to grow their own. There have been cases of dealers taking any kind of shrooms and lacing them with unrelated drugs such as ketamine.
With how easy it is to grow shrooms, that mostly happen because they are not in high demand.
Shut up!, he explained.
(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?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday June 16 2019, @02:28AM (1 child)
All mind-altering substances sold commercially should be legalized, regulated and taxed.
There are a bunch of reasons for that:
1. Black markets invariably attract unethical and unscrupulous folks;
2. Unethical and unscrupulous folks will adulterate their product, use violence and otherwise make things more dangerous, in the pursuit of profit;
3. Attempting to control what a person *voluntarily* puts into his or her body (or carries within it for some period of time, for that matter) is an attack on personal liberty;
4. Enormous sums of taxpayer money could be saved by not jailing folks for exercising (or facilitating the exercise of) their personal liberties;
5. While such changes would bring issues of dependence and addiction to the fore, those with dependence/addiction issues are (and would continue to be) a very small fraction of those who use such substances;
6. A small fraction of the taxpayer money saved by not spending on "enforcement," interdiction and incarceration could provide comprehensive treatment for those with addiction/dependence issues;
7. Criminal convictions, whether for use/possession or sale of such substances negatively impact the earnings potential of those with such convictions. That negatively impacts both specific communities and the larger economy. Remove the restrictions that result in those convictions, and communities and the larger economy would have a better chance to grow and thrive.
I'm sure there are many more good reasons for full legalization of all mind-altering substances. Perhaps some thoughtful person will add to my list?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @02:15PM
BUT THERE DRUUUUUGS!