[HN Gopher] Legal use of hallucinogenic mushrooms begins in Oregon
___________________________________________________________________
Legal use of hallucinogenic mushrooms begins in Oregon
Author : pseudolus
Score : 170 points
Date : 2023-01-03 14:28 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Honest question: is there a silent tug of war over the use of the
| word "legal" regarding drugs in the U.S.?
| redwood wrote:
| What do you mean?
| lost_tourist wrote:
| Not really, the feds seem to be leaving it up to the states for
| now as long as you keep it to cash transactions and don't use
| banks, so it's state level legal (in Oregon) for now. There is
| no silent battle.
| adrusi wrote:
| Well about one time in three that someone mentions "legal weed"
| in the circles I run in, someone will drop a remark about how
| there's federalism-themed ambiguity over how legal it actually
| is, so I'm not sure how "silent" it really is.
| balls187 wrote:
| Not just drugs, but in certain communities push for the word
| "decriminalizing"
| AntiRush wrote:
| Decriminalization and legalization are different things.
|
| Decriminalization is removing criminal penalties - there may
| still be fines or other non criminal penalties.
| 1986 wrote:
| Decriminalization and legalization are distinct things.
| Legalization means just that, the act becomes legal.
| Decriminalization means that the act isn't _legal_ but the
| perceived severity is reduced and punishment for it is moved
| out of the bounds of the criminal justice system (e.g.
| getting caught with a joint becomes a ticket, like a parking
| ticket or an open container ticket, instead of sending
| someone to jail)
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| I wouldn't call it a "tug of war" but it seems like a lot of
| people are/were happy to just leave a lot of things as
| expensive civil infractions (not the case here) because they
| implicitly trust the cops/DA to only enforce it on people who
| are "violating cultural standards" (e.g. drinking in broad
| daylight on your front porch somewhere "nice" vs the same
| behavior in the hood).
| dekhn wrote:
| No? What do you mean? Federal vs. state? Enforced or not?
| Liquix wrote:
| Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary
| owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying
| license fees, getting inspected, etc - had to get "creative"
| with their accounting and investment strategies, as the legal
| profits their business generated cannot be deposited into
| (federally monitored) bank accounts. It doesn't make much
| sense and seems to be arbitrarily enforced.
| notch656c wrote:
| They are not legal profits. And what they are doing in
| getting creative is pretty much vanilla money laundering.
| But to enforce the law would just invite the more violent
| cartels to do it instead.
|
| The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really
| insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-
| scheduling cannabis.
| dekhn wrote:
| Ah, I see. Dispensaries, not consumers. As pointed
| elsewhere in this thread, lands under federal jurisdiction
| also apply federal limits.
|
| Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
| bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing
| the remaining barriers.
|
| At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed
| world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently
| elected reps are more cautious.
| adolph wrote:
| Yes, it is an effort on the part of federal government to
| create an unfavorable business climate for certain
| activities that are not otherwise prosecuted.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Yes. While at a national park in Colorado I had a pipe
| confiscated despite the contents being "legal" in Colorado.
|
| I also spent an hour lined up against a wall while MP's buzzed
| around and tried to get CSPD to extradite me from a military
| base over some "spice" (that awful engineered-to-be-legal weed)
| which turned up in a search of the truck I had borrowed to buy
| a couch on Craigslist.
|
| So in gray areas like those, the tug of war still lives. But
| nobody I know of is afraid that the feds are gonna kick their
| door in over something that's legal in CO.
|
| Edit: grey area was the wrong phrase. But when the military is
| trying to hand you off to the cops and the cops won't take you,
| you know the system still has some kinks.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| Both of those situations are clearly federal jurisdiction, so
| it's unfortunate but not an example of a legal gray area.
|
| A gray area would be when federal agents/LEO attempt to
| enforce federal laws in places where the state has
| jurisdiction (such as raids of dispensaries).
| notch656c wrote:
| Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the
| US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about
| federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal
| land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the
| kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon
| as they become political enemies with someone they are
| cooked.
|
| But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal
| agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag
| me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract
| because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in
| the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all
| about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-
| federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending
| on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other
| way. As soon as they become political enemies with
| someone they are cooked.
|
| Your last two sentences are correct, but there are
| actually grey areas here. It's actually more complicated
| than it seems. IANAL, but I have worked in drug policy
| previously, so I have worked with lawyers who are very
| well-versed on the nuances of this law.
|
| The ambiguity isn't whether marijuana falls under the CSA
| (it does) - it's the extent to which federal agents can
| pursue violations of it in specific circumstances.
| Especially since this often involves the cooperation of
| local law enforcement (ie, subject to the state), and
| some states even statutorily prohibit local law
| enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement with
| matters that are legal under state law.
|
| A lot of it is grey specifically because aspects of these
| issues haven't been definitively tested in court in
| recent years, and as time goes on, they become more murky
| because state laws change, and federal agents become less
| excited about pressing the issue with the possibility of
| an unfavorable court ruling.
|
| > But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a
| federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me
| and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI
| tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
| It's truly insane.
|
| I'm sorry that happened to you. That's awful.
| vernon99 wrote:
| This is history in the making. Huge props to Oregon legislators
| for spearheading the change. Soon we'll see official psychedelic
| therapy centers operating in the open and this is hands down one
| of the best things for the society.
| pelasaco wrote:
| [flagged]
| theodric wrote:
| With the right controls applied, aged milk is quite a good
| thing. Same goes for drugs-- crude and refined alike.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| I think it will. I highly doubt we find that psychedelics are
| the cure all for mental conditions that its proponents claim.
| brutusborn wrote:
| Do you doubt the validity of current research? Every time I
| look at MAPS research it becomes clearer that psychedelics
| have very high efficacy for some issues. I'd be interested
| to hear why this hasn't convinced you.
| pelasaco wrote:
| > I think it will.
|
| Me too. It was just a rhetoric question. I saved this
| thread for revisit later pinging the CEO @
| http://peerboard.com about it ;)
| anotheraccount9 wrote:
| There is magic mushroom cheese, you know.
| cronix wrote:
| This was an initiative petition referendum, nothing to do with
| legislators. Any citizen can make a bill and if they gather
| enough verified signatures from registered voters, it will be
| voted on by the people during a regular election. Oregon
| decriminalized personal amounts of all hard drugs with that
| ballot measure in 2020, not just psychedelics.
| davidw wrote:
| They were actually different measures:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_109
|
| https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali.
| ..
|
| Source: voted for both of them. 110 probably needs some
| tweaking (hah hah) and/or better implementation, but I still
| think the basic idea is a good one.
| code_runner wrote:
| "One of the best things for society" is a very very bold claim.
| For the uninformed like myself how would psychedelic therapy be
| THIS beneficial?
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| What you're witnessing is a radical restructuring of what is
| socially acceptable, or seen as good.
|
| This statement about what is "good for society" can't be
| evaluated by statistics or metrics. It has to be believed,
| taken on faith.
|
| Oh, they'll cite studies about miraculous results with
| overcoming addiction and depression. Pardon me for being
| skeptical about the massive amount of junk science that has
| over promised, under delivered, or been outright
| unrepeatable.
|
| This is no different than the "AI" algorithms that are
| quickly making their way into decision making in society.
| It's a black box that worked great in the lab, so let's ship
| it to everyone. Surely it will be good for us!
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > This statement about what is "good for society" can't be
| evaluated by statistics or metrics
|
| I'd beg to differ. One can think up any number of metrics
| that would be inarguably good for society. Reduction in
| suicide would be a huge one. Reduced crime rate. Reduced
| addiction rate. Increase in lifespan. Increase in standard
| of living. Reduction of domestic violence. There are many
| more dimensions you could measure, establishing direct
| causation is the tricky part but it is certainly possible
| to establish if the state of society in general is
| improving.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| No, you've missed my point completely. You are talking
| about the ends. I'm talking about the means.
|
| Yes, a society with less suicide is a better thing. We
| can achieve that in many ways -- however, some ways come
| with significant or unpredictable side effects.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| no one is going to force you to take psychedelics. I
| understand and support skepticism, but I have yet to hear a
| cogent argument backed by evidence for why these substances
| should be so harshly criminalize. The overwhelming
| consensus among experts is that these drugs are at the very
| least much safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs
| like adderall
| spritefs wrote:
| People don't make decisions in a vacuum. I'm personally
| less worried about myself and more about children who
| don't know any better and fall for all the reddit-tier
| bullshitting with respect to these substances
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
| lurquer wrote:
| Don't remove fences unless you are damn sure why they were
| put up in the first place.
|
| The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return as they
| always do.
| Stupulous wrote:
| It's not as though this is some thousand-year-old fence;
| psychadelics were illegalized under Nixon. If there was a
| reason other than 'they are drugs', it has not been made
| public, and all research at the time suggested that they
| should not have been illegalized. I'm open to being told
| I'm wrong, but 3 pages of google results did not push me
| in that direction.
| notch656c wrote:
| These drugs have been illegal for a lifetime. It's hard
| to get people to accept even overwhelmingly beneficial
| technology into the main fold of society. I'm not
| optimistic anything beyond weed is gonna get legalized
| federally in our lifetime.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| As cannabis (and now psilocybin) have demonstrated, we
| don't really need federal legalization to make
| significant strides at the state level. If anything, it's
| a positive pushback against nearly a century of dramatic
| overreach by a federal government granted far too much
| power. At some point, the federal government will have to
| face the awkward situation that 100% of the desirable to
| live in states are in open contempt to federal law, and
| they have to play catch-up.
| notch656c wrote:
| Generically (not always true) red states have that for
| gun stuff (decriminalized unregistered / federally
| illegal NFA items) and blue states have that for pot and
| maybe even something else. It's hard for me to imagine
| the government will eventually catch up to freedom-
| leaning on either side, but I agree improvements at the
| state level is far better than nothing.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| If you do the slightest bit of research into the
| criminalization of drugs in the US you will find that the
| people putting up those fences were laughably far from
| protectors of society. They were demonstrably more
| motivated by racism and classism than by a desire to
| safeguard social progress.
| lurquer wrote:
| US laws are not the fence.
|
| Well-functioning societies have steered clear of
| intoxication. A
|
| A Clear-headed, rational, and objective view of reality
| is the goal.
|
| There's nothing new about messing with your perception of
| reality.
|
| Wise men steer clear of it. Wise men counsel against
| intoxication of any kind. Fools don't ask why.
| mythrwy wrote:
| I think maybe there is no "clear headed and rational
| view" of reality in truth.
|
| There is only perspective, which somehow relates to a
| thing we like to call "reality" but the relationship is
| tenuous at best and doesn't always directly correspond.
|
| Understanding the role of perspective I believe can be
| valuable. Sometimes maybe a shakeup helps to understand
| perspective is just that, or otherwise produce a
| different way of looking at things.
| andrew_ wrote:
| There is much new speculation by historians and
| archeologists that psychedelics are widely responsible
| for giant leaps in civilization and "society." Your take
| is a puritanical, modern view without regard to history
| or nuance.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| Can you give a few examples of such well-functioning
| societies?
| notch656c wrote:
| Spending a tiny fraction of your life intoxicated allows
| you to make rational decisions despite occasional
| enjoying altered consciousness. There may be some level
| of brain damage but depending on the substance and how
| often it's used I question whether it's necessarily going
| to be the limiting factor in the aging body.
| notch656c wrote:
| I think we're better off with a rich, mixed, and
| multicultural society but it may actually be true that a
| more homogenous society that tosses fringe races into the
| shredder or whatever is actually a safer place for the
| "right" people. Maybe they were protectors in their own
| racist way.
| hericium wrote:
| Psychiatry barely understands HOW exactly many prescription
| meds work so don't expect exact answer on how non-
| prescription substances work.
|
| But if approached properly, single session with psychedelics
| may have beneficial effects of months or even years of
| psychotherapy. Week or two after such session you start
| noticing that some things simply stopped being problematic.
| briffle wrote:
| nothing better than seeing expensive ad-buys for very
| expensive drugs, and they say "XXXXX is thought to work
| by".. you have spent millions on development, billions on
| marketing, and you think???
| hericium wrote:
| Substances are tested and when it is found that they have
| beneficial effects on certain conditions, outweighing
| negative side-effects in individuals with these
| conditions - they are accepted for use after clinical
| phases.
|
| Would you rather have no meds for some conditions because
| we don't fully understand how existing ones work, or
| would you dissect living humans' brains for faster
| research?
| Stupulous wrote:
| As a depression treatment, it far exceeds the state-of-the-
| art SSRIs, which perform only slightly better than placebo.
| It's cheaper, more effective, and lasts longer. ~10% of
| Americans suffer from depression, and more than a third of
| them don't respond to SSRIs at all. Dramatically reducing the
| suffering of 3% of the population at net-negative cost is a
| big deal.
|
| For comparison to topics-de-jour, in the US 0.3% of the
| population will get an abortion in a given year, 3.5% are
| gay/bi, 0.3% are trans, <0.03% die from gun violence (and
| over half are suicides potentially reduced by this treatment)
| each year, and about 1/40th of them are killed by law
| enforcement. Improvements in these areas will have a smaller
| effect size (ie. protecting gay marriage will not improve the
| lives of gay people as much as curing someone's depression
| will, gun control will not end all gun violence).
|
| Big caveat here is that this treatment is relatively new, and
| depression treatments tend to be promising initially with
| results that fade in the long term. Additionally, the
| legalization of that treatment does not mean everyone who
| needs it will get it. On the other hand, depression is only
| one of the many issues that can be treated with psychadelics.
| We'll have to wait and see
| lostmsu wrote:
| I am curious about side effects, especially long term IQ
| changes.
| Stupulous wrote:
| Absolutely, I should have brought up risks as well.
| Triggering early schizophrenia is a big one, personality
| changes also seem like a significant concern. I'm not
| aware of any IQ changes- if you have a study, send it my
| way if you please. If you're just gesturing at the fact
| that long-term research is lacking, I'm very much in
| agreement.
| bradly wrote:
| Fwiw at least in the US it not likely to be cheaper. Until
| covered by insurance, a professionally administered
| experience will most likely be be similar to a guided
| ketemine session which is currently around $450 a session
| when it costs penny to make.
| asdff wrote:
| I get why some people would want or need a physician, but
| these drugs should be offered at cost in take home form
| too. We let people take opioids and amphetamines at home
| without supervision, and for most people that's fine.
| bradly wrote:
| They do. Sublingual ketemine is about $3 a dosage with a
| prescription, but it is usually only offered after a
| series of IV or IM treatments.
| sowbug wrote:
| I'm with you in spirit, but practically speaking it's an
| excellent idea to have a friend with experience to
| accompany you during your first session.
|
| Even if your friend just sits there for four hours while
| reading a book, it's comforting to know that someone you
| trust is there to say "yes" when you start asking "is
| this really happening?" That can make the difference
| between a wonderful experience and an alarming one.
| Loveaway wrote:
| Humans are the most insane species on this planet. Most
| problems of society do not stem from a lack of resources, but
| from a severe cluelessness of our own nature. If you could
| ask any animal for advise on the human condition, I'd bet
| they'd be utterly baffled as to wtf we're doing or trying to
| do. Mushrooms give perspective. Among all the noise, they
| tend to reveal a more sane view of life and let people
| recognize what's truly important. I think if more people are
| open for trying it society will likely change for the better.
| chaps wrote:
| Just one example:
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/psilocybin-
| mush... "More than 80% of those who were
| given the psychedelic treatment had drastically reduced their
| drinking eight months after the study started, compared to
| just over 50% in the antihistamine control group, according
| to results published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry. At the end
| of the trial, half of those who received psilocybin had quit
| drinking altogether, compared to about one-quarter of those
| who were given the antihistamine."
| gausswho wrote:
| that the placebo led to abstinence in 25% of cases makes me
| concerned about a selection bias in the pool
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| What % would you expect to be affected by the placebo?
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| I think most adults are in a steady state for their
| habitual behaviors around diet / exercise / drinking /
| drugs. Would be surprised by anything larger than 10%
| change in control tbh
| TylerE wrote:
| FTA: "helped people with alcohol use disorder reduce
| drinking for at least eight months after their first
| treatments, results from the largest clinical trial of
| its kind show."
|
| This isn't a genpop study.
| TylerE wrote:
| Also, both prongs were given psychotherapy, also.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Is it that hard to imagine twelve psychotherapy sessions
| convincing someone to quit drinking for eight months?
| rhacker wrote:
| Sounds like anti-histamines are a good mechanism to stop
| drinking!
| chaps wrote:
| No need for the silly reductionist snark there, friend.
| They were also given 12 psychotherapy sessions during the
| 8mo study.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| I think it could still qualify if the only outcome is that it
| reduces the amount of resources and power given over to
| enforcement agencies in the drug war. However, we won't see
| positive outcomes unless that energy is redirected towards
| prosecuting actual crimes committed against people and
| property.
|
| If psychological and medical research on psychoactive
| substances is successfully resumed I believe we will see
| helpful and possibly ground breaking applications of these
| drugs. They're indisputably powerful compounds, the question
| is simply whether those effects can be harnessed by medicine
| and therapy to provide long lasting interventions.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxm8QwvESJk&ab_channel=TEDME.
| ..
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02872-9
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206443
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156539/
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8901083/
|
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/.
| ..
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| It can help treat a range of issues: addictions, various
| traumas, depression, fears and anxieties. Also, it can be
| very dangerous for anyone with genetic predispositions to a
| range of mental health issues, such as bipolarism and
| schizophrenia, so anyone who is dealing with mental health
| issues ought to know their family history or get personally
| tested for the genetic markers.
| paisleypepper wrote:
| This is very serious.
|
| My brother's schizophrenia started while I sat with him on
| the grass trying to comfort him after he had taken
| mushrooms.
|
| This led to moment after moment of things that are
| difficult to for me to talk about. My family spent 3
| Christmases at the state hospital to be with him. Thanks to
| the help he was able to get at the hospital and through
| continued care, he's now able to live with my parents.
|
| Please be wise.
| meowmeowmoo wrote:
| They have genetic markers for all these? Any good test
| recommendations?
| marmadukester39 wrote:
| Very interested to know this
| briffle wrote:
| The Oregon Legislators did very little for this. This was a
| state Ballot Measure spearheded by several groups gathering
| signatures. One of the more prominent groups was a bunch of
| veterans who had used it to treat their PTSD.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I'd rather see progress made on helping decrease fentanyl
| overdoses first.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| are you aware that we can make progress on multiple things at
| once?
| tsukurimashou wrote:
| is Hallucinogenic a correct term to describe psychedelics?
| asdff wrote:
| At sufficient doses. You don't have to trip every time you do
| it, you can take enough to just be stoned.
| deemster wrote:
| Some folks prefer the word entheogen. It's derived from the
| Greek word entheos, which means 'god within'.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| I kind of hate the word entheogen now. Not because of the
| word but because of the people who use it. Sort of like the
| righteous vegan or fanatical winter cyclist, the dude-bro-
| Joe-Rogan-mystical-shaman types are super annoying. Like we
| get it, you did a bunch of drugs and it was earth shattering,
| it doesn't need to become 100% of your personality.
| asdff wrote:
| How many of these people are you running into? I don't
| think I've ever heard the word entheogen spoken.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| When I was in university and hanging out with the types
| of people that go to music festivals and raves, you'd run
| into that kind of person sort of often.
| antihero wrote:
| Psychedelics are a class of hallucinogen along with
| dissasociatives (ket) and deliriants (datura and other kinds of
| terrible thing)
| stelliosk wrote:
| What are the chances there is a repeat of the opioid crisis and
| in 10-15 years there is an investigation into what went wrong?
| rongenre wrote:
| We're more than 20 years into marijuana being legal with no
| reefer madness.
| [deleted]
| Maursault wrote:
| Opioid use is 8000 years old, but Morphine was only isolated
| 219 years ago. Psilocybin was first isolated by Albert Hoffman
| in 1958. Though mushroom use for religious purposes is known to
| be at least 6000 years old, I think it is likely that humans
| have been using them ever since they first stepped into the
| Americas. There is a big difference between smoking opium and
| shooting morphine. There is little to no difference between
| taking a psilocybin pill and eating mushrooms. Have you heard
| of any mushroom-eater epidemics in the last 6000 years? I think
| there has been plenty of time for at least one, but you think
| another 10-15 years will do it?
| [deleted]
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Why do you say that? Isn't psilocybin non-addicting? Wouldn't
| that be a major difference to the opioid epidemic? I'm not sure
| I follow the analogy you're trying to make.
| di456 wrote:
| There is a rich history already, here's a good starting point.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Sabina
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Near zero. Hallucinogenic mushrooms aren't very addictive,
| don't have billion dollar companies pushing them, and don't
| have the same risk of death.
|
| It's possible Oregon regrets this for some reason I can't
| imagine, but a repeat of the opioid crisis isn't a realistic
| outcome.
| stelliosk wrote:
| Not addiction or deaths but long term psychological problems.
| Surely there are companies lobbying...
|
| https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/03/us-
| dru...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Psychological problems are not comparable to addiction and
| death, particularly as our current resarch seems to show
| them solving more problems than they cause.
|
| There are always companies that will try to make bank in an
| emerging market, but the details are different than an
| entrenched company using their power like in the opioid
| crisis.
| yonaguska wrote:
| The article you linked has nothing to do with your
| assertion of long term psychological problems.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| It won't be an addiction crisis but possibly a crisis of
| another kind, perhaps socioeconomic. Mind changes and shifts in
| priorities of an already disenfranchised youth could deplete
| the stock of candidates who want to contribute to the
| capitalist system. The 1960s could be nothing compared to the
| mid-late 2020s.
| di456 wrote:
| The ability to think independently and outside of the box
| nurtured by psychedelics actually turned out well for
| capitalism. It was not good for military recruiting and war
| support though.
|
| The rise in software and hardware innovations that came out
| of the SF counter culture included Steve Jobs and Apple. He
| did quite a bit of acid.
| [deleted]
| stelliosk wrote:
| Some good feedback... not sure why downvoted was a fair enough
| question?... point was are the long term side effects fully
| understood before mass circulation? How much lobbying has gone
| into getting it over the line? Is history going to repeat?
| di456 wrote:
| I didn't downvote but it is a low effort question, that may
| be why.
| sowbug wrote:
| The human body rapidly develops tolerance to tryptamine-based
| psychedelics (i.e., most of the ones being discussed here). In
| general, if you take a tryptamine, then taking more won't do
| anything for at least a couple weeks. (Tolerance isn't all-or-
| nothing; even if a person has developed it, it's still possible
| to get a small response with a gigantic dose.)
|
| But even if there were no such thing as tolerance, psychedelics
| aren't pleasant in the day-in-day-out way that a beer after
| work can be, or that I imagine an opioid would be. They require
| far too much emotional work. It's typical to take a moderate
| mushroom dose, and then spend a month or two "integrating" the
| experience (i.e., figuring out what the heck all those insights
| mean).
| eh9 wrote:
| There's a shop in Portland that just got busted for selling
| shrooms out of a storefront. They were selling for a while, but
| then they started advertising on a billboard and the pigs(ACAB)
| shut it down.
|
| I would love it if someone explained what they were thinking when
| they opened a shroom shop right on a Main Street. This happened
| recently[1].
|
| [1] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/12/08/portland-
| police...
| eh9 wrote:
| I love when anti-cop sentiment gets me downvoted by capitalists
| (lol, not my peers).
| seanw444 wrote:
| It's annoying and unnecessary, even as someone who isn't an
| utter back-the-blue person myself. Your point would have been
| perfectly conveyed without shoving "pigs(ACAB)" in there.
|
| Kind of for the same reason that vegans making it a point to
| tell you they're vegan, despite nobody asking, is quite
| obnoxious.
|
| It only serves to discredit your point.
| eh9 wrote:
| I don't think so. In this specific instance, the cops
| particularly sucked. This shop wasn't hurting anyone and
| based on the lines out the door they were providing a much
| wanted service for the community.
|
| I thought the donut munchers were supposed to serve and
| protect? Whose interests were being served and protected?
|
| Fuck the police. It's still considered murder if a cop did
| it.
| 93po wrote:
| I don't find the sentiment annoying but I do think the
| sentiment could be less ham-fisted (hah).
| eh9 wrote:
| Lol. I'll encode it a bit next time. 1312
| chrononaut wrote:
| Constantly stating "ACAB" works against what you're trying to
| accomplish in your peer group. In fact, in order to influence
| substantial changes within any organization you would want
| that organization populated by people you trust and respect.
| Stating "ACAB" just discourages the very changes you want to
| see.
| eh9 wrote:
| Nah. The change I want to see is the police abolished.
| There's no improvement there. They should literally only be
| social workers trained in deescalation.
|
| Police are murderers. You don't reason with undertrained,
| trigger happy, usually racist, terrorists.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| We've seen in Portland how society functions without
| policing. No thanks.
| eh9 wrote:
| Just... fine? Spend the money they spend on police on
| housing and maybe things look closer to Germany.
|
| Seriously though, how are things even remotely worse with
| less policing?
| laserdancepony wrote:
| I am now 100% sure you mistake HN for some kind of
| revolutionary forum.
| eh9 wrote:
| Lol. I deeply don't, but you don't know what the fuck
| you're talking about. Keep listening to Fox News, bud.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| I knew, it had to come to this. Your kind is destroying
| everything it touches. I'll just find a new website
| without your kind when it get's unbearable.
| eh9 wrote:
| You're right. It's not worse in any way shape or
| quantifiable form. Your kind is just easily scared.
| eh9 wrote:
| HOW IS IT WORSE, BUD???? Is this a revolutionary
| question?
| laserdancepony wrote:
| I'm not your peer by visiting this website. I think you may
| conflate things.
| eh9 wrote:
| You're right. Let me get my "hacker" news in a place that
| verifies for "hackers".
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| HN is not a revolutionary platform.
| [deleted]
| eh9 wrote:
| I wasn't aware I was taking a revolutionary stance. This is
| a common sentiment in my community.
| wnolens wrote:
| > This is a common sentiment in my community
|
| I think you are in a bubble. Even in NYC where cops are
| quite hated, I never hear the ACAB/abolish sentiment.
| eh9 wrote:
| Idk bud. I think you're in a bubble. I happen to be
| brown. Maybe that skews my sample.
| bradlys wrote:
| HN in general isn't a super progressive space. It's
| inherently capitalistic (it's owned by a VC) and that is
| going to favor cops more often than not. (Need someone to
| be the strong arm of capital)
| smm11 wrote:
| My college girlfriend/'drug addict' gets more correct with every
| passing day.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever
| substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. If I
| intentionally fused it with a far more dangerous chemical, and I
| don't make that obvious to the purchaser, then yeah, that should
| be a felony. Just like how false advertising is something you can
| take to court.
|
| We treat the population too much like children. Let people make
| their own decisions. If it kills them, it kills them. They made
| their choice. If they want help, they'll seek it on their own.
|
| If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people
| due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses.
|
| If you drive under the influence of chemicals that reduce your
| motor skills and reaction time, and alter your perception of
| reality, that is an obvious offense.
|
| Other than those cases which we can almost all agree should be
| intervened, why are we telling people what they're allowed to do
| with their bodies?
| hericium wrote:
| > I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever
| substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways.
|
| You could start thinking outside the frames your government
| and/or religious leaders wants you to to keep between.
| throwawayfear wrote:
| > If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure
| people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses.
|
| Too many good innocent people will be unable to fix the issue
| once it gets started. This view may appear well intentioned but
| the end result is suffering for people who are lied to by
| people offering prescriptions or who fall for the people who
| talk up legal things that they themselves like but that are
| actually bad for health. (Like alcohol)
| crystalmeph wrote:
| I'm actually in agreement with you here, but I can see the
| other side. You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a
| certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the
| detriment of both themselves and society at large. If you make
| it illegal, the proportion who fall to its ill effects may be
| reduced, even if the cost to those who still use it is greatly
| magnified. It's a classic case of what's best for society
| versus what's best for the individual.
|
| I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules
| results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of
| enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put
| in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not _always_
| just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing
| people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good
| thing for society.
| kickopotomus wrote:
| > You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain
| proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of
| both themselves and society at large.
|
| I can understand why someone may take this stance, but I
| think this argument is something of a hasty generalization
| when it comes to drug policy. For starters, the policy alone
| (prohibited vs decriminalized vs legalized) does not appear
| to be the determining factor in the "certain proportion" of
| the population that use drugs problematically or otherwise.
| The US consistently has some of the highest drug usage and
| abuse rates compared to our western counterparts in Europe. I
| don't know of the exact reason for this. Could be other
| cultural differences between the US and Europe. Could be the
| fact that most European countries approach drug abuse as a
| public health issue opposed to a criminal one, and focus on
| harm reduction and rehabilitation instead of jail time.
| asdff wrote:
| >you have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain
| proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of
| both themselves and society at large
|
| The problem is you can extend this to all sorts of things
| that people abuse. Sugar, video games, alcohol, caffeine,
| etc. The solution is not to put people in jail and ruin their
| lives, its to educate them on the risks and to provide
| solutions to get help when needed.
| seanw444 wrote:
| As with most issues, this one can be reduced to collectivist
| vs. individualist. I'm primarily an individualist. Hence my
| opinion.
| nickpp wrote:
| Well said. Nanny state vs the sovereign individual.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| Yes, and the world consists only of responsible sovereign
| individuals, who need no guidance at all.
|
| I refer to the 18th century gin craze, here's an
| impressive print: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
| commons/d/d0/William_...
| notch656c wrote:
| This picture is a like a caricature of satire for poking
| fun at prohibitionists, complete with the think of the
| children meme in forefront with the falling toddler. I
| love it.
| para_parolu wrote:
| In addition to sovereign individuals the world also have
| only responsible nanny states, who would not abuse their
| citizens.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| That reduction is lossy. There's a large middle ground
| where free individuals make agreements with each other to
| cooperate in ways that make them all better off.
|
| The previous commenter's handle alludes to one possible
| item, crystal meth: that's a substance that doesn't seem to
| have any redeeming value, and a lot of risk for other
| cooperative endeavors. So perhaps we should all agree not
| to traffic in it. (And if we later find a good use for it
| that stance can be revised.) Mushrooms have a very
| different calculus, and all that said I agree in general
| that the drug war has been very badly conceived and
| executed.
| nickpp wrote:
| Not to take from the (very real I am afraid) dangers of
| substance abuse (starting with alcohol and sugar, of
| course) - I am curious: who you trust more to decide for
| the individual: the person itself or the larger social
| group?
| anon291 wrote:
| An individualist with no definition of an individual is
| quite useless.
|
| In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational
| actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways
| to declare particular individuals as wards of another
| (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality,
| the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates.
|
| So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist,
| we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal,
| which means at least making concessions that those taking
| drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of
| particular civil rights.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational
| actors
|
| It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that
| depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of
| rights, independently of how people might make use of
| them.
|
| The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for
| _laissez-faire_ capitalism depends on the rational (in a
| very particular technical sense) actors, but this is
| (while people who identify as "classical liberals"
| overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates
| of _laissez-faire_ capitalism) not the same thing.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| > why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with
| their bodies
|
| I don't think this is a useful defense of permissiveness,
| because it proves too much. We don't let people mutilate
| themselves either, because we consider it an indication of
| wrong thinking. It just isn't the case that all choices are
| respected, because not all behavior is accepted either.
|
| I don't think the state treats subjects like children. It
| treats them like components, components exist within tolerances
| or they are discarded/altered. The state isn't my parent, it is
| my master.
| anon291 wrote:
| > if it kills them, it kills them
|
| This attitude is fine, and I understand it, if it's accompanied
| by actually letting people fail. Unfortunately, when they do
| fail, it's the impetus to start yet another social welfare
| program for people who made terrible decisions, instead of just
| regulating the terrible decision out of existence to begin
| with.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| puritanism and moral authoritarianism. People love imposing
| their morals on others, and most are taught from a young age
| that drugs other than alcohol and caffeine are bad
| seanw444 wrote:
| I personally don't take anything (other than maybe some over-
| the-counter painkillers when I've got a minor injury, or what
| doctors prescribe to me - just to quell the gotchas). I don't
| drink or smoke cigs, because of the obvious health defects
| that are associated with them. Drinking less so, but I am
| personally concerned about acquiring an addiction.
|
| But if there was one thing I would consider trying, it's
| psychedelics. It can help you think outside the box,
| apparently has some link to treating depression, and they're
| not particularly addictive (other than an adrenaline junkie
| type of addiction, which can develop with anything).
|
| Point being, I don't do anything of the sort. But it baffles
| me that people are incapable of allowing others to do things
| that they personally don't want to partake in.
| sys32768 wrote:
| If you are in society and altering your mind and impairing your
| judgement, you're no longer the default "you" but a chemically
| compromised and unpredictable actor, who may be out of control.
|
| In her third week of college, my daughter found the naked body
| of a student who leapt through the eighth story dorm window to
| his death while tripping on magic mushrooms.
|
| She is traumatized for life because somebody chose to make a
| choice with their body by ingesting unpredictable drugs.
|
| I am fairly confident, given the state of pro-psychedelics
| evangelism today, that the young man expected a fun trip.
| Instead, he died and could have killed another student with his
| fall.
| andrew_ wrote:
| Was it this one this one [1]?
|
| They don't know if he fell, jumped, or slipped. They only
| have released anecdotals that he ingested psilocybin. You
| don't know what kind of trip the young man had, you don't
| know if he had suicidal tendencies, you're speculating that
| psilocybin, if even ingested, was responsible based on
| nothing but your own bias. Hell, we have people falling out
| of windows to their death trying to catch cell phones they've
| dropped.
|
| > If you are in society
|
| Here we go. Every time I see a sentence start with this, I
| know that there's a "we need to protect everyone from
| themselves" take that's sure to follow.
|
| This is the kind of boomer anecdote I call bullshit on. My
| father is in his late 70s and any time low-dose medicinal
| studies around psychedelics are brought up he defaults to the
| same kind of Nixon-esc paranoia about "gateway drugs" and "I
| heard about..." boomerisms, because he lived through the 60s
| and saw things he didn't like, and is incapable of
| considering new information. It's the same kind of thinking
| that has cannabis still illegal at the federal level.
| Psilocybin, like any intoxicant or stimulant, can be lethal
| _when abused_. You can die from taking too much Tylenol, and
| the doses aren 't even that high [1].
|
| [1] https://nypost.com/2010/11/08/death-plunge-at-the-st-
| george-...
|
| [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441917/
| sys32768 wrote:
| No, it was this one. [1]
|
| I would respond more in depth, but your total lack of
| sympathy shows a dismissive bias as tenacious as any boomer
| you insult.
|
| [1] http://www.montanakaimin.com/features/a-death-at-aber-
| hall/a...
| TinyRick wrote:
| Sad story, condolences to all who knew Otto. Something
| that stuck out to me from that article was that his
| floormates were aware of his condition prior to his death
| and were worried for his and their own safety, but
| weren't sure what to do. I imagine the legality of the
| substance played a role in that; they were likely
| conflicted as to whether to seek medical/police help
| which would almost guarantee legal issues for Otto, or do
| nothing and risk his well-being.
| LevGoldstein wrote:
| > leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death
| while tripping on magic mushrooms
|
| So if keeping them illegal apparently utterly failed to
| prevent people from having ready access to them as your
| anecdote suggests, what was the benefit of keeping them
| illegal in the first place? Other than funneling government
| coffers into the prison-industrial complex, itself
| perpetuating far more tragedy and engendering a far more
| dangerous society as a result...and not just for your
| daughter, but for everyone.
| armatav wrote:
| They're not joke substances.
|
| But for every mushroom related death, there are literally
| tens of thousands of alcohol related deaths.
| sys32768 wrote:
| I don't disagree. Not long after that incident, a drunk
| frat student plunged to his death at the same college.
|
| Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled
| Sin City, a sort of padded playground where people can
| choose to risk hangovers, overdose or death by their
| substance of choice, without being amid general society.
| Then after they sober up, they get to return to society.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| Perhaps you know already, but for the record the Oregon
| law only allows psilocybin use under trained supervision.
|
| In the case of alcohol, in my opinion we need a similar
| cultural attitude. Your state flips on your 21st birthday
| from absolute prohibition to...as much as you want. We
| need not so much a place for people to safely binge, as
| to guide them to considering for themselves why they
| would want to in the first place. Some people always will
| of course, just like there will always be people who
| drive like assholes.
| cjwilliams wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment and think that legalizing drugs like
| psilocybin is a positive step. But I have learned from seeing
| the consequences of drugs like fentanyl and meth that some
| substances are too dangerous and addictive to be available to
| the public. And in practice, cities don't have enough resources
| to deal with the consequences associated with them that you've
| listed. It is not practical to allow the use of drugs that
| consistently drive people to lives of crime and dependence.
| Often lives are damaged irreparably and the societal costs are
| incalculable, but emergency bills and social services can alone
| be staggering high.
| monocasa wrote:
| But drugs like fentanyl and meth are still available to the
| general public despite being illegal. So the question instead
| is do the practical effects of illegality help society, and
| that's not at all clear.
| seanw444 wrote:
| And many people are too afraid to get help because of the
| potential consequences.
| Wohlf wrote:
| I no longer believe this after Oregon decriminalized
| drugs, there are no consequences and people still do not
| seek out help.
| monocasa wrote:
| It takes time to see results. For instance it took a few
| years after Portugal decriminalized all drugs before
| their program really hit it's stride. There's a lot of
| societal infrastructure that needs to be dismantled and
| reconstructed for the new system and that takes time.
| cjwilliams wrote:
| I think if you look at areas that try to restrict the
| supply of these dangerous drug options you will find that
| that they are less available and expensive. When you look
| at areas like Portland/West Coast of US, you see that with
| increasing availability there are lots of associated
| problems. Perhaps there needs to be institutionally
| provided drug alternatives for those who have already
| become addicted, but id argue its very clear that lowering
| barriers to use has clear negative impacts.
| monocasa wrote:
| I'm not sure that's the case. Meth and heroin was plenty
| cheap and plenty available in the deep south, and it's
| not like they're known for being soft on drug crimes down
| there.
| cjwilliams wrote:
| Availability is more than just price. In the deep south
| its more difficult to buy/sell and use these drugs in
| public than it is in portland.
| monocasa wrote:
| I'm mean, I'm from the deep south. They have a much
| larger issue with hard drugs than the west coast does.
| The drugs are just as available despite the increased
| enforcement.
|
| Drugs have won the war on drugs.
| htag wrote:
| Would drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine be as popular
| if the population had as easy access to less
| dangerous/harmful alternatives like morphine or
| methylphenidate?
| was_a_dev wrote:
| Would that make overdosing a criminal offense?
|
| In the UK, being treated for an overdose is an expense of the
| tax payer. Obviously people still overdose, and that expense
| already exists. But the legality of dangerous substances is to
| minimize the harm, and therefore the cost associated with that
| harm.
|
| A free-for-all approach would either have to accept a greater
| expense (not just economically) or introduce other measures to
| minimize the harm.
| remote-dev wrote:
| What would the punishment for the offense be? If it is prison
| time, that also costs the tax payer.
| was_a_dev wrote:
| I've no idea. It's a complex arguement to make, and my few
| points don't do it justice.
|
| I'm sure there is an optimal balance with legality that
| minmizes harm and cost. I think we are on the conservative
| side of that balance. But going for a free-for-all approach
| is the other extreme side.
| bigfudge wrote:
| Whether free for all drug use would be more expensive is an
| empirical question and- if it displaces any alcohol use --
| the evidence would be strongly that it would cut costs,
| especially if basic standards for purity were enforced.
| notch656c wrote:
| This kind of hazard that helps legitimize criminality of
| risky health decisions (like drug consumption) is one of the
| major reasons why I am against taxpayer funded healthcare.
| was_a_dev wrote:
| You can decriminalize risky health decisions without
| legalizing them. There are other costs to such actions
| other than economical cost.
| seanw444 wrote:
| As am I. If you want to make your own personal decisions,
| you can't rely on someone else's money.
| admissionsguy wrote:
| We treat obese people (as is probably ethical) so we can as
| well treat all the other self-imposed conditions without
| counting the pennies.
| was_a_dev wrote:
| I agree. That is why the cost isn't just economical.
|
| We treat obese people while enacting laws to improve public
| health. Such as food quality laws.
| sterlind wrote:
| I'm really looking forward to psychedelic therapy. I have a very
| rare kind of body image dysmorphia/dysphoria. Traditional
| therapy, SSRIs, etc. have been useless at treating it. I'm scared
| of psychedelics, having had scary bad trips in the past, but with
| a therapist to guide me I'm hopeful that I'll be able to get deep
| into my subconscious and fix something. Uncharted territory I can
| finally explore.
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20230103113223/https://www.nytime...
|
| https://archive.ph/FdubE
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| If journalists would do their duty as the 4th estate they would
| spend less time writing about microaggressions and evaluate the
| words they use to frame government's actions.
|
| Some alternative suggestions for title:
|
| Oregon defies federal government, stops impeding on citizens
| rights
|
| Government no longer violating rights of individuals consuming
| life-enhancing super food.
|
| Government replaces black market of mushrooms with regulatory
| capture to pacify pharmaceutical executives and big government
| spenders
| 93po wrote:
| It's less about having their focus on the wrong places, and
| more about deliberately obfuscating or providing little
| coverage on topics that go against the best interests of their
| advertisers (pharma).
| asdff wrote:
| Journalists at this point are not the 4th estate. The Upton
| Sinclairs are astoundingly rare, most corporate media have
| incentives pretty well aligned with the wealthy elite and/or
| the state to the point where they almost function as a
| privatized arm of the state.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
| scalablehermit wrote:
| Highly recommend reading Michael Pollans "how to change your
| mind". Regarding misconceptions about psychedelics, their root in
| our history, and how they can be used as medicine/treatment.
| Think some of the most notable include historical treatments of
| severe alcoholics back in the fifties. Mental health wise I view
| this as a major opportunity for many to have another tool when
| taking daily anti depressants may not be cutting it. Notably it's
| being used in late state cancer patients to cope with concept of
| death with great success.
|
| Also interesting are psychedelics history with Silicon Valley's
| early days. See interview with pollan:
| https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matter...
| dekhn wrote:
| More on Silicon Valley: https://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-
| Said-Counterculture-Per...
|
| TL;DR the computing world we know today was shaped (at least
| partly) by acidheads and potheads as well as some squares.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Is there anything that can be done for patients with family
| history of schizophrenia?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Avoid them most likely. As people in these circles say,
| respect the mushroom, and avoid it like the plague if you
| have a history of psychosis or schizophrenia.
|
| It's very unlikely that any studies will be done with such
| patients as they probably won't pass through any committee.
| pegasus wrote:
| Avoiding them like the plague doesn't seem very respectful
| to me.
| scalablehermit wrote:
| It's advised to not seek psychedelics in those cases as they
| can introduce psychosis and exacerbate symptoms. It's
| interesting actually because it may be helpful in us
| understanding and treating schizophrenia since it CAN
| introduce temporary psychotic like symptoms.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| [flagged]
| pelasaco wrote:
| China liked it!
| lvh wrote:
| Consumption happens at centers, supervised by a licensed trip
| sitter ("facilitator", sure, whatever). The "streets" of
| Portland aren't affected. You won't be able to (legally) buy
| shrooms the way you can buy pot.
| anon291 wrote:
| One of the key problems with the progressive mindset is the
| assumption that laws will be followed and enforce effectively
| regardless of the policy.
| aqme28 wrote:
| That's very much not true. The main progressive argument
| against strict prohibitions is that people are going to use
| drugs/alcohol regardless of the law, and so a prohibition
| will create a black market with organized crime and
| dangerous conditions for users.
| spyda wrote:
| So-called conservative drug policy has been an abject
| failure. It walked us into an opioid addiction crisis that
| has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Those laws are
| neither followed or enforced effectively.
|
| I'd rather have liberty than a failing drug policy.
| anon291 wrote:
| Arguing that the enforcement is not effective is not the
| same thing as arguing it's bad policy. In particular, the
| data show that prohibition works in general, whether it
| be drugs or alcohol. There is no evidence to substantiate
| the belief that legalizing drugs will lead to lower rates
| of addiction. In particular, the so-called Portuguese
| model advocates in Oregon ignore the fact that Portugal
| has way more drug enforcement with its system than Oregon
| has.
| spyda wrote:
| >In particular, the data show that prohibition works in
| general, whether it be drugs or alcohol.
|
| Opioid overdoses are at an all time high, despite
| prohibition.
|
| Even US alcohol Prohibition wasn't an effective solution
| to America's drinking problem. A much more effective
| solution was what followed Prohibition; *regulation*.
| aqme28 wrote:
| > the data show that prohibition works in general,
| whether it be drugs or alcohol.
|
| This is interesting. I've only seen data that says the
| exact opposite of this. Can you cite anything?
| anon291 wrote:
| Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence
| decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is
| the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a
| drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely
| clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate
| consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that.
| However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer
| problems due to consumption.
|
| EDIT: Source (and good reading): https://www.vox.com/the-
| highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
|
| > Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing
| drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded. > > This is
| not controversial among experts. When I asked
| Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North
| Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he
| responded, "No well-informed historian has believed that
| for 50 years."
|
| Did prohibition have problems? yes. But the problem was
| not that people consumed more. That is a common
| misconception.
| vidarh wrote:
| Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses
| on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.
|
| Some may well believe prohibition increased use, but
| personally I can't recall ever having seen that argument.
|
| With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge
| amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal
| production and distribution and high prices of various
| hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people
| imprisoned as a result.
|
| It would take a massive increase in harm from the drugs
| themselves to outweigh that harm.
|
| That's before considering what investing the same
| resources in other mitigation might achieve.
| anon291 wrote:
| > With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge
| amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal
| production and distribution and high prices of various
| hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people
| imprisoned as a result.
|
| After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account
| for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's
| always going to be illegal producers.
|
| As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for simple
| possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of people
| released by President Biden's pardon.
|
| > Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs
| focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.
|
| Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition
| was repealed? Because it didn't
| vidarh wrote:
| > After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account
| for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's
| always going to be illegal producers.
|
| And? Any reduction reduces harm. It's also interesting to
| focus on one of the lowest harm drugs (far less harmful
| than alcohol), instead of the war on drugs as a whole.
|
| > As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for
| simple possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of
| people released by President Biden's pardon.
|
| Not the relevant number. The relevant number for those
| who committed crimes to further production, distribution
| or to finance their habit _including_ other than
| possession and distribution itself.
|
| E.g. handing out _heroin_ to UK addicts in a pilot scheme
| showed a significant reduction crime _other_ than that,
| often related to financing their habits, alongside a long
| range of other benefits (e.g. more stable living
| situations - unlike the public image, a large proportion
| of even heroin addicts can function just fine if they
| have a steady, clean supply at predictable strength;
| still a dangerous drug but relying on an unpredictable
| street supply makes it _far_ worse)
|
| > Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition
| was repealed? Because it didn't
|
| Are you suggesting the mob made up the total harm?
| Because it didn't. It's also peanuts compared to the
| current war on drugs which is vastly more violent, with
| demand fuelling outright military operations in a number
| of countries on a regular basis.
|
| Supporting the war on drugs is morally no better than
| outright supporting mass murder.
| aqme28 wrote:
| Got it. We just have different metrics for what makes a
| successful prohibition.
| [deleted]
| anon291 wrote:
| What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws
| is to reduce consumption-related harms
| spyda wrote:
| Even the article you linked suggests prohibition isn't
| the solution. It suggests a more balanced approach, i.e.
| regulation.
|
| That is what Oregon is trying with psilocybin.
|
| edit:
|
| This also misses an important part of this whole
| conversation, personal liberty. I don't want to have my
| government determining what I can and cannot consume, as
| long as I can do so without causing others harm.
| vidarh wrote:
| I read the above as pointing out you won't be able to
| _legally_ buy it the same way you can legally buy pot in
| Oregon to consume at home.
|
| I don't think anyone has suggested you won't (continue to)
| be able to buy it illegally.
| lvh wrote:
| OK, so the law won't be followed. Are we under the
| impression there weren't any shrooms available in Portland
| illicitly?
| anon291 wrote:
| Sure there are. The last thing we need is more demands
| for substances that inhibit rational thinking.
| lvh wrote:
| Are you advocating for alcohol prohibition also, or is
| that different? If so, why?
| zopa wrote:
| Really hard not to gloss this as "heal people's trauma,
| and why would they keep voting conservative?"
| anon291 wrote:
| I know lots of conservative druggies too.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Not sure what exactly is going on, but there is a shroom
| store operating quite publicly on the east side.
|
| Regardless, this will have no impact on "the streets of
| Portland". The real problem are much harder, "less fun"
| drugs, namely fentanyl and meth that are destroying people's
| mental health and lifes all over the US. Also, 50% of
| homeless in Portland arrived there homeless.
| lvh wrote:
| This looks like it might be a different place (or at least
| a different location), but here's an OPB/AP article about a
| place that was operating quite openly, illegally, and got
| raided[0].
|
| [0]: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/09/oregon-store-
| allegedl...
| pelasaco wrote:
| Well, lets remember how we got there with fentanyl:
|
| "fentanyl was prescribed by doctors to treat severe pain,
| especially after surgery and for advanced-stage cancer.
| However, most recent cases of fentanyl-related overdose are
| linked to illicitly manufactured fentanyl, which is
| distributed through illegal drug markets for its heroin-like
| effect."
|
| What is harder to be illicitly manufactured? fentanyl or
| "shrooms"
| javajosh wrote:
| To me, that's actually a really cool part of this. I bet a
| lot of people who've done shrooms at parties and casually
| don't really understand it or what it can do for you. But the
| experience really can be enhanced and useful with some sober
| guidance, setting, intentions and so on. Very cool
| experiment. I'm glad Oregon is doing it.
| vidarh wrote:
| I'm sure there are plenty (like me) who haven't tried it at
| all who also don't particularly _want_ to try it in a party
| setting at all but might be inclined to experience it with
| some sober guidance. It 'll be interesting to see how it
| works out.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| [flagged]
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Shrooms are highly unlikely to be sought after by people
| living on the streets. They are orders of magnitude easier
| to manufacture than more common street drugs, yet are rare
| to find people in possession of. They are often not fun,
| especially if you are at a point where you are already
| suffering, not to mention how quickly the brain develops a
| tolerance (often after a single dose). They are nearly
| impossible to abuse.
|
| People on the streets are after opioids, meth, and alcohol,
| all of which have presently-legal analogs already.
| notch656c wrote:
| Normally I'd say you'd be right, but I was homeless on
| the Seattle-Norcal circuit area, with Oregon pretty
| squarely in the heart of that. They're a different breed.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting flamebait and/or
| unsubstantive comments? You've been doing this repeatedly,
| unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys
| what it is for.
|
| If you'd please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick
| to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
| notch656c wrote:
| Sweet, rather than doing it at home exclusively with people
| you trust, some fucking stranger in a facility can watch you
| at your vulnerable moments and you get to pray they don't
| take advantage of it.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| Like how Dr. Hannibal Lecter convinced Mason Verger to cut
| off his own face while on hallucinogens? Yes, there is
| nothing stopping a psychopath, cannibal therapist from
| setting up shop and doing this with a deeply troubled
| patient. It will be a short-lived career, though.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| You...understand that was a _fictional_ event, right? In
| fact it was specifically conceived by its author to be
| shocking, horrifying and extraordinary.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| It never occurred to me that this was fiction, so thank
| you for helping me finally realize that.
| neon_electro wrote:
| Do you feel this way about bartenders?
| notch656c wrote:
| At sober to moderately buzzed no, anything more yes.
| pelasaco wrote:
| are they serving hallucinogenics? Do you trip on bud
| light?
| stuntkite wrote:
| The hallucinogenic (not psychedelic) effects of bud light
| shouldn't be minimized. It takes a lot more work to
| achieve and is pretty miserable, like 30 a night for a
| year, but for sure booze can make you hallucinate. It's
| generally considered to be whatever the opposite of
| therapeutic would be.
| eastof wrote:
| My personal experience is heightened awareness and even
| increased physical strength on mushrooms. Alcohol gets me
| dizzy, confused, and dumb. So comparatively, I'd be more
| concerned about someone taking advantage of me drunk than
| tripping.
| lvh wrote:
| No, but the problem was praying state-licensed
| practitioners don't take advantage of you in an
| incapacitated state. You might not be hallucinating, but
| surely there's an amount of alcohol where you're just as
| helpless if not more than a shroom dose.
| lvh wrote:
| I mean, I think psilocybes (and LSD!) should be fully
| deregulated, sure :)
|
| However:
|
| (1) If you trust your illicit psilocybin sources, OR
| already decriminalizes personal use drugs (Measure 110),
| so, if this isn't your cup of (psilocybin) tea, there's
| nothing stopping you from doing precisely what you propose.
|
| (2) If you have a trip sitter you trust and is willing to
| sit with you, there's nothing stopping you from bringing
| them to said center. Ostensibly having someone experienced
| around can't hurt, and is pretty likely better than what
| most people are getting most of the time. Surely we can
| agree that it's reasonable that some people would get more
| out of a trip if they have professional guidance, and it's
| not just a safety ("is this person going to rob me/assault
| me") issue? Perhaps a problem is one of assumptions: I
| think this is set up to allow recreational use but
| encourage therapeutic use, coupled with the idea that
| therapeutic use is aided (made possible?) by the presence
| of trained staff.
| kodah wrote:
| Mushrooms are already decriminalized in Portland. I've not
| seen any public incidents of folks on Mushrooms. Most people
| just stay home.
| DenisM wrote:
| For some background, there is a documentary that describes the
| past and the current state of using hallucinogenic drugs for
| therapy: "How to Change your Mind" on Netflix.
| kodah wrote:
| I'm a regular user of mushrooms, have been for a bit, and live in
| Oregon. Mushrooms are already decriminalized here and have been
| for some time, same with places in California.
|
| For those that haven't done mushrooms, there's different types of
| mushrooms. They all have different effects, some stronger than
| others. Tripsafe.org has some really good information on
| mushrooms and LSD with respect to the experiences users can
| expect to encounter.
|
| My personal use of mushrooms, which isn't always medicinal doses,
| has been productive. Mostly, I have fun, do things I already love
| doing, and can be a bit more social. Mushrooms end with an
| "afterglow" that is a bit like being on an antidepressant for a
| while, but this depends per strain in my experience.
|
| They're definitely good for addressing trauma and I'd agree with
| the neuroplasticity claims. I won't claim they've "changed my
| life" mainly because hallucinogens will only change what you
| really seek and work to change. In my personal opinion they just
| kind of grease the wheels for change.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I'm in Washington and excited for this development. A few
| friends and I have been penciling out a business concept for
| when it is legalized up here. We have an anesthesiologist, a
| nurse, a private chef, and a paramedic (me), and are all into
| mushrooms. The doctor owns a large amount of land nearby and
| wants to set up some yurts or similar, and do guided trips.
| Nice, but earthy accommodations, a physician if needed for the
| legality of things, a chef for food through the weekend, and a
| nurse and medic who can assist with anything that might be
| needed to reset for the week ahead.
|
| We shall see.
|
| I think your descriptions are accurate, it's very much a
| catalyst. I'd also say to those who are curious, it is quite
| difficult to have a "bad" trip, but to be clear, it's certainly
| possible to have quite "intense" trips, so always a good idea
| to start gently. Microdosing and going from there can be quite
| the ride - to me, everything is a little more vivid, real,
| colors are brighter, etc., but I'm still quite "in the real
| world".
| GaryPalmer wrote:
| Isn't it accepted knowledge that all the strains just differ in
| strength? It's either more or less psilocybin and nothing else
| in the mushroom would change the type of effect you get. I
| tried 3 P. Cubensis strains and found no difference.
| asdff wrote:
| Surprisingly, among growers, they seem to suggest that all P.
| Cubensis have the same potency, save for the notorious PE
| strain which is estimated to be 1.5X as strong.
| sowbug wrote:
| That's generally right for cubensis, except that variation
| from fruit to fruit is generally greater than the variation
| from variety to variety. A notable exception is so-called
| Penis Envy, which is established to be significantly more
| potent in psilocybin and psilocin content. That variety also
| has an interesting origin story:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRArM5Ev4EE
|
| Other Psilocybe types, such as semilanceata, azurescens, and
| baeocystis, differ in that they have more or less of other
| compounds such as Baeocystin, which some believe have
| psychoactive effects.
|
| Many people report nonlinear responses to psilocybin/psilocin
| dosages. For example, 5 grams of dry cubensis is more than
| twice as strong as 2.5 grams. So it's understandable that
| stronger varieties have qualitatively different reputations
| than weaker ones.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Do you think different types of mushrooms have consistent
| qualitatively different effects? Or is it just varying levels
| of potency?
|
| Are all the differences due to the ratio of psilocybin to
| psilocin? Or are there additional molecules that are
| psychoactive and vary between types?
|
| I've seen a lot of online debate over this question - some
| believe that psilocin and psilocybin are the only two
| significant factors, the only differences from this ratio is
| onset time (one converts to the other in vitro), and all
| perceived differences between strains are subjective (i.e.
| people are falsely overgeneralizing their experiences with
| particular strains).
|
| On the other hand, many seem convinced there are significant
| differences between types, which to me would indicate there
| must be additional molecules having an effect.
| taternuts wrote:
| I am also a regular user of mushrooms these days. My usage of
| them is definitely different from when I was younger - when I
| got ahold of them I would always trip pretty heavily and had a
| blast with them. As you get older, heavy trips just don't seem
| to be as enjoyable. Too much shit going on in adults lives I
| think, too many things to think about and it's harder to let go
| and enjoy the trip. Nowadays, I strictly microdose with them.
| To make this more streamlined, I will take a whole batch of
| mushrooms and pulse them into a powder with a coffee grinder,
| then fill up large capsules with them. This has the benefit of
| making each pill about as uniformly dosed as possible as long
| as you fill the capsules with the same amount. With these, you
| can really dose it the way you want. 1-2 capsules is usually
| great for a nice microdose. It will even give me energy similar
| to several cups of coffee, doesn't affect my cognitive ability
| at work at all, and the afterglow as you said is great.
|
| As far as my personal anecdotal experience, if you can get
| Steel Magnolias that's the way to go. Penis Envy's are OK too.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| I can't help but wonder how this can ever be a good idea.
|
| The government shouldn't be telling you how to live your life,
| sure. But that doesn't change reality that the vast majority of
| people out there are not qualified to make a medical assessment
| for themselves about the severity of synthetic substances (and
| many naturally occurring substances as well)f
|
| It feels like the culture of family and community is steadily
| being eroded in the United States in favor of liberalization at
| any cost.
| pstuart wrote:
| You know that many psychiatric medications come with the risk
| of suicide ideation? And that every time a new scrip goes out
| it's an educated _guess_?
|
| People should have the right to treat themselves as best they
| can.
|
| Finally, if you look into the history of the War on Drugs,
| you'll find that the basis of it was oppression of classes of
| people, not safety.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Why would you take what i've said as defending psychiatric
| medications or their side effects?
|
| I'm saying the same thing. It appears irresponsible to resort
| to substances that affect your behavior in non deterministic
| ways to fix a perceived problem.
|
| A child with the privilege of growing up in a good community,
| tends to have better outcomes and socio economic problems
| don't have solutions at the end of a needle.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| > people out there are not qualified to make a medical
| assessment for themselves about the severity of synthetic
| substances
|
| You'll be pleased to hear then that the law we're discussing
| requires trained supervision:
| https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/27/oregon-trains-psilocy...
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| This is some nanny-state bullshit. You should not be able to
| impose your idea of 'culture of family and community' on others
| when there is overwhelming evidence that these substances are
| less harmful and addictive than other already legal drugs like
| alcohol and nicotine.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Addiction and excessive use are the only things about drugs,
| including alcohol, that tend to break apart family and
| community. If there's no stigma attached to occasional and
| social use of psychedelics or other drugs then I don't see how
| they would negatively impact family and community any more than
| occasional use of alcohol does. I agree that some people will
| suffer negative consequences from drug use but upon close
| examination of those cases it's very rarely the drug itself
| that is the source of the trouble. People abuse drugs in order
| to escape otherwise inescapable situations in their lives, if
| every day you wake up to misery and pain then taking a pain
| killer or dissociative is the easiest way to escape that and
| often the only way if the person has no family, community or
| healthcare support.
| Zigurd wrote:
| There are harmful and dangerous drugs. But the harm caused by
| the moral panic over psychedelics, and the expansive,
| unselective Drug War has caused far more damage. We now have a
| legacy of militarized policing, military-style raids on homes,
| and widespread neonazi ideologies and brownshirt gangs in
| police departments. We have privatized prisons. Predictably,
| that led to corruption in prosecutors and judges to fill those
| prisons.
|
| Predictably, too, police culture is one of violence: High rates
| of domestic violence among police is one of the pillars of the
| kind of cultural rot exemplified and spread by Andrew Tate. The
| real problems are not that we lack a "culture of family and
| community" but that, based partly on the Drug War and partly on
| white Christian nationalism, we have a culture of brutality.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I have a great family, live in a great community, and do
| mushrooms about once a month. Conservatives don't have
| exclusive rights to the definitions of family and community.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Good for you. How about the meth head downtown sleeping in
| his own shit and piss?
|
| Great ending, right? Too bad he's too stupid to make the
| right decisions. Or maybe you're saying he made HIS decision,
| so fuck him anyway.
| sowbug wrote:
| Maybe we should make meth illegal.
| [deleted]
| notch656c wrote:
| Freedom means having the ability to fuck up your own life.
| Having a kid means I end up with piss and shit on me and
| wear out my body faster yet society seems to think that's
| fine. I realize that's entirely different but I'm not
| really interested in being in the business of how you want
| to harm your own health.
| beej71 wrote:
| Meth and shrooms are about as related as meth and coffee.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Yeah, he made his decision. What's your point?
| spritefs wrote:
| I see most of the comments here expressing skepticism getting
| downvoted (like what you would expect on reddit)
|
| Personal hot take: I've done this stuff before. I've seen the
| before and after of people who've done it. _None_ of the people
| who did it were better off
|
| When it comes to psychedelics, there are two faces to them: how
| people talk about them and what they actually are. How they're
| talked about is 99% bullshit
|
| People will talk about "life changing experiences", that's cool.
| From the outside, the only changes I see are people turning to
| deadbeats and doing more and more drugs. Of course, Portland is
| already a containment zone for mentally ill people on the
| streets. They could always use more
| t0lo wrote:
| My take is that if you can't articulate your experience, or why
| it made you feel better, it can't be all that constructive.
| TinyRick wrote:
| I'm curious, in what ways do you see yourself as being worse
| off now versus prior to having taken psychedelics?
| moistly wrote:
| > I see most of the comments here expressing skepticism getting
| downvoted (like what you would expect on reddit)
|
| What with the many medical studies demonstrating treatment
| efficacy, it's hardly surprising that scare-mongering anecdotes
| and ignorance-based commentary are downvoted.
| aradox66 wrote:
| I've seen significant negative effects in myself and others,
| but there's way too much clinical evidence at this point to
| dismiss the potential upsides.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-03 23:02 UTC)