Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms(denverpost.com)
denverpost.com
Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/08/denver-psychedelic-magic-mushroom/
150 comments
That's what decriminalization means:
> In a federal country, acts may be decriminalized by one level of government while still subject to penalties levied by another; for example, possession of a decriminalized drug may still be subject to criminal charges by one level of government, but another may yet impose a monetary fine. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments from a previously illegal act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization
> In a federal country, acts may be decriminalized by one level of government while still subject to penalties levied by another; for example, possession of a decriminalized drug may still be subject to criminal charges by one level of government, but another may yet impose a monetary fine. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments from a previously illegal act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization
Huh? Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law. Directing law enforcement to de-prioritize it is not the same thing.
Decriminalize is not equivalent to legalize as generally used. For example [1] titled "14 states have decriminalized — but not legalized — marijuana"
Do you have a better word for localities whom do not have the authority to make something legal to effectively do so by directing law enforcement and prosecutors to not pursue a certain offense?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938358/marijuana-...
Do you have a better word for localities whom do not have the authority to make something legal to effectively do so by directing law enforcement and prosecutors to not pursue a certain offense?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938358/marijuana-...
> Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law
No, that'd be outright legalization.
"Decriminalization" would be instructing law enforcement to not ever enforce a law - stronger than deprioritizing, but weaker than legalizing.
It could also include not explicitly criminalizing or legalizing something (that is: Denver could simply not mention psychedelic mushrooms at all), but in this case there's already a higher-level jurisdiction (i.e. the United States) that does explicitly criminalize it, so a lack of specificity would in this case just mean criminalization.
No, that'd be outright legalization.
"Decriminalization" would be instructing law enforcement to not ever enforce a law - stronger than deprioritizing, but weaker than legalizing.
It could also include not explicitly criminalizing or legalizing something (that is: Denver could simply not mention psychedelic mushrooms at all), but in this case there's already a higher-level jurisdiction (i.e. the United States) that does explicitly criminalize it, so a lack of specificity would in this case just mean criminalization.
What's the difference between ignoring a law and deleting it?
Local police are not required to enforce federal law, essentially. They can, if they want -- it's the highest law in the land -- but the obligation is on the Federal Gov to enforce their own laws, hence the FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.
"Decriminalizing" just means the local police will not enforce the law as written, and if the state or Feddy'Gov doesn't like it then they can send state troopers or DEA agents to hang out on every block in Denver to make sure the law gets followed and shroomers get nailed. Contrary to popular belief, the FBI and DEA don't have unlimited resources, and have bigger fish to fry... so nothing happens most of the time.
In the event the local Denver cops do nail you with shrooms, instead of enforcing the law they'll nail you with a fine or something. No idea what the CO State Troopers are up to, or if they'll be acting in Denver against the decrim bill.
"Decriminalizing" just means the local police will not enforce the law as written, and if the state or Feddy'Gov doesn't like it then they can send state troopers or DEA agents to hang out on every block in Denver to make sure the law gets followed and shroomers get nailed. Contrary to popular belief, the FBI and DEA don't have unlimited resources, and have bigger fish to fry... so nothing happens most of the time.
In the event the local Denver cops do nail you with shrooms, instead of enforcing the law they'll nail you with a fine or something. No idea what the CO State Troopers are up to, or if they'll be acting in Denver against the decrim bill.
A city can't delete a federal law. A city can tell its police department(s) to ignore a federal law (in the sense that it's physically and logically possible, not in the sense of it actually being legal; I'm not sure if the federal government has the power to compel local police forces to enforce federal laws).
Decriminalization means that the lowest misdemeanor is replaced by a civil citation or confiscation.
You might still have to pay a fine like a traffic ticket, but it's not a criminal charge or an arrest.
It's also still illegal to purchase but you won't be charged for doing so.
You might still have to pay a fine like a traffic ticket, but it's not a criminal charge or an arrest.
It's also still illegal to purchase but you won't be charged for doing so.
To add a bit more - there are no city/county criminal laws in the United States, only state and federal. But we have Federal, State, City, and County law enforcement officers. So Denver is working to de-prioritize/“decriminalize” for in-city law enforcement officers. I imagine state police and federal officers would not pay too much attention to this if it goes through.
Also, a city has no ability to decriminalize something, as that would have to be done by the state legislature or a statewide vote. So this is really not “decriminalizing” at all... the initiative itself uses the word “deprioritize”: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb4f9c27046803ce123a...
Edit: word choice.
Also, a city has no ability to decriminalize something, as that would have to be done by the state legislature or a statewide vote. So this is really not “decriminalizing” at all... the initiative itself uses the word “deprioritize”: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb4f9c27046803ce123a...
Edit: word choice.
How does this work if someone on for example a green card got caught and cited for possession? Since it’s still a violation of controlled substances act would it affect a citizenship application?
Yes, federal law applies for immigrants.
Decriminalisation != legalisation
IANAL but my understanding is that there are different types of "offences", some of them are "criminal offences" (e.g. theft, assault), others are just "offences" (e.g. speeding). Conviction of the latter do not result in a criminal record, and usually attract lower pernalties.
IANAL but my understanding is that there are different types of "offences", some of them are "criminal offences" (e.g. theft, assault), others are just "offences" (e.g. speeding). Conviction of the latter do not result in a criminal record, and usually attract lower pernalties.
NYC similarly deprioritized marijuana in 2014 but what happened in practice was only minorities were getting arrested during 'stop and frisk' searches in the subway. Now arrests are back up to what they were before.
It's actually kind of a clusterfuck.
It's actually kind of a clusterfuck.
yeah its really awkward when surveys show one distribution of illegal drug use across all races and socioeconomic classes
but then you see a completely different distribution about who gets arrested for it, and it is very disproportionate
all for some edgelord to say "but they commit all the crimes its fact see" and its really like everyone commits crimes, which is a depressing standard from one lens but even more depressing that one group simply doesn't get the privilege of doing illegal things because they'll actually get arrested for it
but then you see a completely different distribution about who gets arrested for it, and it is very disproportionate
all for some edgelord to say "but they commit all the crimes its fact see" and its really like everyone commits crimes, which is a depressing standard from one lens but even more depressing that one group simply doesn't get the privilege of doing illegal things because they'll actually get arrested for it
This paper(1) is by a Black economist at Harvard. On page 5, Blacks are 25% less likely to be shot, though they are more likely to experience non-lethal force. The paper concludes there are a minority of officers who discriminate.
I was quite surprised by that.
I also was curious about that because it didn't match my preconceived notions, so did a rough check of some of the crime stats myself(2). It seems about 25% of fatal shootings are of Blacks, which is about proportionately double the rate. But if you look at something like arrest rate for violent crime as a metric for encounters with police, they're a little bit over 25%, which would be consistent with the former paper's conclusion.
I have no doubt that in the past there was terrible discrimination, and that presently a minority of officers do it, which is still unacceptable. But whenever I see people talking about this topic presently, I never see facts or statistics brought into it and it comes off as hand-wavey virtue signalling.
1- http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
2- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
I was quite surprised by that.
I also was curious about that because it didn't match my preconceived notions, so did a rough check of some of the crime stats myself(2). It seems about 25% of fatal shootings are of Blacks, which is about proportionately double the rate. But if you look at something like arrest rate for violent crime as a metric for encounters with police, they're a little bit over 25%, which would be consistent with the former paper's conclusion.
I have no doubt that in the past there was terrible discrimination, and that presently a minority of officers do it, which is still unacceptable. But whenever I see people talking about this topic presently, I never see facts or statistics brought into it and it comes off as hand-wavey virtue signalling.
1- http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
2- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Today we are talking about drug use and arrest frequency
And you are talking about perceived demographics of police brutality. Are you not signaling with your essay and predilection to post stats on something nobody was talking about?
Sure if you had the stats folder with pdfs and links to contribute to the parent post that would be great! Its not currently practical for everyone to keep a list of every survey and study they have just to have an opinion or observation about something. But you can contribute with supporting or counter logic if thats the kind of signaling you like
And you are talking about perceived demographics of police brutality. Are you not signaling with your essay and predilection to post stats on something nobody was talking about?
Sure if you had the stats folder with pdfs and links to contribute to the parent post that would be great! Its not currently practical for everyone to keep a list of every survey and study they have just to have an opinion or observation about something. But you can contribute with supporting or counter logic if thats the kind of signaling you like
Last time I encountered these sorts of claims on HN I did the above research and the results surprised me. I'd like to find time to further narrow this research as you suggest above, and I suspect I'd find evidence of discrimination, as I suspected the last time. Though I will keep an open mind. In the meantime I would remind you to remember the burden of proof is traditionally on what is being claimed--not on disproving a claim.
Traditionally, but you can contribute if you think fixing the absence will help people or further a discussion
This seems like a false sense of safety. With weed if it's the lowest priority they will ignore the smell/reports of the smell.
With mushrooms they'll find them incident to arrest and thus probably tack on a charge to whatever else they were investigating
With mushrooms they'll find them incident to arrest and thus probably tack on a charge to whatever else they were investigating
Absolutely fantastic news! I've had highly therapeutic experiences using psychedelics even just in the company of close friends and a relaxed, accepting atmosphere. There genuinely is medical benefit to these substances when used in a peaceful environment and amongst those you trust, and I can only imagine the benefit that a trained professional can provide: a psychologist could truly be the 21st century's "shaman." The positive effects of decriminalization/legalization on the nation could be the psychedelic renaissance that Leary always advocated for.
I'm glad that Denver isn't giving into fear mongering regarding the chemistry of our own bodies.
I'm glad that Denver isn't giving into fear mongering regarding the chemistry of our own bodies.
Absolutely agree.
If you can't find a trained guide, having close trusted friends sit for you can be of tremendous therapeutic and healing value. And, yes, working with a trained guide can be of huge benefit -- they support you in creating a safe and powerful set and setting. The work can definitely be shamanic - one of the things these substances have the potential to do is to teach us how to shamanically journey within ourselves. The safer our psyche feels, the deeper we can go.
I want to mention that there are many professions other than psychologist that are a natural fit for safely guiding people in states of expanded consciousness.
Many people who provide this kind of service are trained and apprenticed specifically in this kind of work after education and work experience in other healing and service oriented fields like therapy, counseling, ministry, medicine, nursing, bodywork, music therapy, etc. And they have lots of personal experience being in expanded states themselves, working with a guide (that's part of the apprenticeship).
If you can't find a trained guide, having close trusted friends sit for you can be of tremendous therapeutic and healing value. And, yes, working with a trained guide can be of huge benefit -- they support you in creating a safe and powerful set and setting. The work can definitely be shamanic - one of the things these substances have the potential to do is to teach us how to shamanically journey within ourselves. The safer our psyche feels, the deeper we can go.
I want to mention that there are many professions other than psychologist that are a natural fit for safely guiding people in states of expanded consciousness.
Many people who provide this kind of service are trained and apprenticed specifically in this kind of work after education and work experience in other healing and service oriented fields like therapy, counseling, ministry, medicine, nursing, bodywork, music therapy, etc. And they have lots of personal experience being in expanded states themselves, working with a guide (that's part of the apprenticeship).
How do you go about finding a trained guide? This is the part that has always confused me. In Michael Pollan's interviews on the subject he basically says he was lucky to have money and connections, and otherwise avoids answering that topic.
See resources on this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PsychedelicTherapy/comments/beou26/...
happy to chat more about this - please send a DM
Recommended book for anyone interested in psychedelic therapy: Psychedelic Psychotherapy by R. Coleman. It’s an underrated gem!
If anyone is interested in commentary on this, this video with Anderson Cooper and Michael Pollan is great: https://www.facebook.com/AndersonCooperFullCircle/videos/den.... They talk about the psilocybin vote at the start of the video and at about 3.5 mins in.
I'm most of the way through Michael Pollan's book "How to Change Your Mind" and it is excellent as well.
Its on a my reading list since he talked about it on joe rogan. Is it worth the time? what did you get out of it so far?
You get a lot of history and also the experiences of a pretty normal person. A lot of information about psychedelics comes from people who take a lot of drugs. I am generally not interested in taking substances so I could relate to this book more than other material.
Definitely worth a read.
Definitely worth a read.
I would agree with this. He does a great job at describing things more like a "normal person" than a hardcore drug user/experimenter.
I actually disagree with Pollan on what he thinks drug laws should be. He generally supports decriminalization of some things like mushrooms, but then supports heavy state paternalism by keeping them restricted from any recreational use.
Still, a great read and I really appreciate his work.
I actually disagree with Pollan on what he thinks drug laws should be. He generally supports decriminalization of some things like mushrooms, but then supports heavy state paternalism by keeping them restricted from any recreational use.
Still, a great read and I really appreciate his work.
In general with a lot of authors I prefer hearing their analysis and their experiences and tend to not care much for their solutions. Like you I tend to disagree with thoughts about restrictions but the writing about history and what he experienced is very good. Same could be said for Marx: His analysis of what capitalism is and where it leads is right on but then his solutions are a little questionable.
Interesting, I saw an article claiming it narrowly failed a bit ago and was saddened.
I have never tried them personally, but I suspect the threat of being arrested makes it harder to have a good "set and setting".
I know that I never enjoyed cannabis until a trip to a place it was legal. Knowing that I was 100% ok to imbibe took away all my worries about detection, people knowing I was high, etc, and let me enjoy the experience.
I have never tried them personally, but I suspect the threat of being arrested makes it harder to have a good "set and setting".
I know that I never enjoyed cannabis until a trip to a place it was legal. Knowing that I was 100% ok to imbibe took away all my worries about detection, people knowing I was high, etc, and let me enjoy the experience.
Yes, it's really a completely different experience (in a better way) compared to how it was back in highschool sneaking around with little baggies of weed.
Shrooms are very different. Brain chemistry almost impossible to predict ~ you may think you have a good set and setting, and then get permanently damaged.
Who knew!
Who knew!
Permanently damaged?
Got a source that shows, empirically, you're more likely to be permanently damaged from taking psilocybin than while commuting to work, jogging, swimming, or doing any other normal life activity?
Sure, I'm not going to argue with you that some people shouldn't be doing these things alone. Shit, I would even argue that someone experienced actually should probably be around to assist and guide. Shamans, witches, clergy, magicians, psychologists, gurus, life coaches, etc.... there's no shortage of archetypes to fit the paradigm. It's a real thing, and we should support it.
... and if someone wants to just go trip and journey on their own... they should be allowed... and we should do all we can to help them prepare.
Got a source that shows, empirically, you're more likely to be permanently damaged from taking psilocybin than while commuting to work, jogging, swimming, or doing any other normal life activity?
Sure, I'm not going to argue with you that some people shouldn't be doing these things alone. Shit, I would even argue that someone experienced actually should probably be around to assist and guide. Shamans, witches, clergy, magicians, psychologists, gurus, life coaches, etc.... there's no shortage of archetypes to fit the paradigm. It's a real thing, and we should support it.
... and if someone wants to just go trip and journey on their own... they should be allowed... and we should do all we can to help them prepare.
? I believe the people who went through such experiences.
In my mind it is like riding a bicycle. Sometimes you get permanently damaged from circumstances you can’t control. Not sure why mentioning the risk is triggering...
In my mind it is like riding a bicycle. Sometimes you get permanently damaged from circumstances you can’t control. Not sure why mentioning the risk is triggering...
> Got a source that shows, empirically, you're more likely to be permanently damaged from taking psilocybin than while commuting to work, jogging, swimming, or doing any other normal life activity?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875725
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875725
This paper merely suggests that a drug used for treating schizophrenia can inhibit some aspects of the experiences that individuals have on psylocibin. The paper does not suggest long term damage and if it did, the study would have been terminated early and psylocibin would not be acceptable for continued research in Switzerland (where the study was conducted) or in the US.
Why are you spreading fake and alarmist information?
Story isn't entirely accurate, Connecticut decriminalized them a couple years ago:
https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...
https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...
Sort of. "Connecticut’s drug laws will go from some of the most draconian in the country to some of the most lenient this fall when most drug possession crimes are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors" So drug possession is still a misdemeanor in CT.
When I hear decriminalized I think no criminal penalties and civil infraction only, and technically decriminalization really means no penalties. Sadly, that's not what this is.
Still, the Connecticut policy is a step the right direction.
The Denver one isn't technically decriminalization either, but it's effectively decriminalization, at least in terms of Denver city police.
Also, there are a number of other states that have reduced criminal penalties for drug possession from felony to misdemeanor, such as Oregon and California.
When I hear decriminalized I think no criminal penalties and civil infraction only, and technically decriminalization really means no penalties. Sadly, that's not what this is.
Still, the Connecticut policy is a step the right direction.
The Denver one isn't technically decriminalization either, but it's effectively decriminalization, at least in terms of Denver city police.
Also, there are a number of other states that have reduced criminal penalties for drug possession from felony to misdemeanor, such as Oregon and California.
Good clarification. For all intents and purposes though getting caught with mushrooms goes from being extremely scary to not scary at all. Even though theoretically they can put you in prison for a year for the misdemeanor, in practice you're probably more likely to get a $300 fine as long as you weren't in a school zone.
Even though everyone hated Malloy for whatever reason, he actually did a lot of good stuff for the state and it seems like Lamont is going to keep expanding on the criminal justice reform stuff that he got started. And now that Toni Boucher is finally gone it will hopefully keep passing.
Even though everyone hated Malloy for whatever reason, he actually did a lot of good stuff for the state and it seems like Lamont is going to keep expanding on the criminal justice reform stuff that he got started. And now that Toni Boucher is finally gone it will hopefully keep passing.
Did a search, don't see "mushroom" or "psilocybin" specifically mentioned in either of those links. Mind pointing specifically to what you're referring to?
Search for 'hallucinogenic' in the second link. The text in bold brackets is what was deleted in the new version. It doesn't single out psilocybin specifically, they just decriminalized all drugs including hallucinogens.
Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws.
Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allowing people to pick what's growing in the paddocks around them? The suburban world might end.
Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allowing people to pick what's growing in the paddocks around them? The suburban world might end.
Laws in Australia are already pretty loose: medical marijuana is permitted on a federal level (although in many places the legal hoops required to get a prescription are absurd) and in most states recreational use is more or less decriminalized. I agree that actual legalisation is a long way off, and as usual it looks like our Kiwi brothers will beat us to the punch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_refe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_refe...
Well 'loose' is a matter of judgement. But as you correctly point out, medical use is ludicrously limited. Also 'more or less decriminalised' is an exaggeration, given the number of people I know with criminal records due to mere use (I live in Northern NSW). Cops turn a blind eye when it's useful for tourism (eg. Mardi Grass), but very freely arrest at other times. Of course you're pretty much OK if you wear a suit, but that's not specific to marijuana.
But however you judge that, the fact is that the majority of the population would like the laws much looser than they are, and without something like a CI process, it's not permitted.
But however you judge that, the fact is that the majority of the population would like the laws much looser than they are, and without something like a CI process, it's not permitted.
Are territories and or cities able to independently legalize in Australia?
If the US had not been able to gradually legalize at a state level and build momentum, it seems unlikely that it would have gained such positive momentum overall nationally. Demonstrations through state experiments - showing that the world wouldn't end upon legalization - were important for swaying the fence sitters (and in helping to bury some of the more ridiculous propaganda by the anti crowd).
If the US had not been able to gradually legalize at a state level and build momentum, it seems unlikely that it would have gained such positive momentum overall nationally. Demonstrations through state experiments - showing that the world wouldn't end upon legalization - were important for swaying the fence sitters (and in helping to bury some of the more ridiculous propaganda by the anti crowd).
States yes, cities no (I think). South Australia was an early leader here, but that has been retrenched somewhat (again I think - it's not where I live).
Australian politics is inherently very 'centrist' for cultural and political-structural reasons. Australians culturally are comfortable and skittish, easy to scare. We have compulsory voting (so there's no skewing via getting-out-your-base), and a preferential count which tends to favour the two major parties. This has both positives and negatives, but it does make our politicians risk-averse, even when it comes to popular reforms like with marijuana laws. Not insuperably so (eg. Murdoch failed to stop equal marriage legislation), but change comes slowly.
Australian politics is inherently very 'centrist' for cultural and political-structural reasons. Australians culturally are comfortable and skittish, easy to scare. We have compulsory voting (so there's no skewing via getting-out-your-base), and a preferential count which tends to favour the two major parties. This has both positives and negatives, but it does make our politicians risk-averse, even when it comes to popular reforms like with marijuana laws. Not insuperably so (eg. Murdoch failed to stop equal marriage legislation), but change comes slowly.
Rupert Murdoch is somewhat a foreigner to you, having gained US citizenship in 1985, but he comes from Australia. He was born there. I don't know if you recognize dual citizenship, but if you do then it seems he is still Australian. His son James Murdoch is eligible to have Australian citizenship.
Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over here they make donations to our more-left party. James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg, who is hardly far right by American standards.
Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over here they make donations to our more-left party. James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg, who is hardly far right by American standards.
> Rupert Murdoch is somewhat a foreigner to you,
He gave up his Australian citizenship to further his US business interests. He is widely considered to be an enemy of the nation. I regret my 'foreigner' cheap shot though. It's irrelevant, even a tad xenophobic.
> Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over here they make donations to our more-left party.
Fox News!
The fact that Murdoch may attempt to smear his malign influence also over corporate Dems (a standard balanced corruption portfolio) is little mitigation.
> James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg
Different person.
He gave up his Australian citizenship to further his US business interests. He is widely considered to be an enemy of the nation. I regret my 'foreigner' cheap shot though. It's irrelevant, even a tad xenophobic.
> Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over here they make donations to our more-left party.
Fox News!
The fact that Murdoch may attempt to smear his malign influence also over corporate Dems (a standard balanced corruption portfolio) is little mitigation.
> James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg
Different person.
If you're going to apply the adjective "far" to Fox News, then you'll also need to apply it to the New York Times. According to Pew Research, that is more to the left than Fox is to the right.
I think "far" should be reserved for Slate, Breitbart, NPR, New Yorker, Glenn Beck Program, Daily Show, Sean Hannity Show, Colbert Report, Rush Limbaugh Show, Daily Kos, TheBlaze, Mother Jones.
ABC is near the center. Here is a chart centered on that, and you can pick others by clicking on the dots below:
https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/o...
BTW, now that I think of it, Americans have a stronger case that a foreigner is running their news. By some measures, an Australian is running the largest news source. The change of citizenship is just a business tactic to enable that.
I think "far" should be reserved for Slate, Breitbart, NPR, New Yorker, Glenn Beck Program, Daily Show, Sean Hannity Show, Colbert Report, Rush Limbaugh Show, Daily Kos, TheBlaze, Mother Jones.
ABC is near the center. Here is a chart centered on that, and you can pick others by clicking on the dots below:
https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/o...
BTW, now that I think of it, Americans have a stronger case that a foreigner is running their news. By some measures, an Australian is running the largest news source. The change of citizenship is just a business tactic to enable that.
> Americans have a stronger case that a foreigner is running their news
We'll accept blame for his having been spawned, but he's totally yours now!
We'll accept blame for his having been spawned, but he's totally yours now!
>>Rupert Murdoch is somewhat a foreigner to you, having gained US citizenship in 1985, but he comes from Australia.
This sounds like a very bizarre thing to focus on.
I was born in another country, and have been living in the US for 17 years, i.e. all my adult life. I am absolutely a foreigner when I visit family; I'm unfamiliar with and ignorant of cultural changes, events, news, etc. that have happened since I left.
So if I controlled most of the media outlets back home from where I currently am... does that not strike you as something that my home country's citizens can reasonably take issue with?
This sounds like a very bizarre thing to focus on.
I was born in another country, and have been living in the US for 17 years, i.e. all my adult life. I am absolutely a foreigner when I visit family; I'm unfamiliar with and ignorant of cultural changes, events, news, etc. that have happened since I left.
So if I controlled most of the media outlets back home from where I currently am... does that not strike you as something that my home country's citizens can reasonably take issue with?
To be fair to @burfog there, it was me that brought the 'foreigner' thing up.
> I am absolutely a foreigner when I visit family
Yeah, isn't that odd. I'm a UK expat living in Aus & I feel the same. I'm far more at home in Australia (despite still having an English accent).
Murdoch is a special case in a way because, although dual US/Aus citizenship is a thing, he explicitly renounced Australian citizenship because it was required under US media ownership laws (IIRC) for a deal he wanted to push through. That does make his dominance of the Aus media scene stick in the craw even more, though (as I mentioned above) the whole issue does sniff a bit of a kind of xenophobia I dislike. Besides, there's plenty enough to dislike about Murdoch & his empire without needing to bring nationality into it ;)
> I am absolutely a foreigner when I visit family
Yeah, isn't that odd. I'm a UK expat living in Aus & I feel the same. I'm far more at home in Australia (despite still having an English accent).
Murdoch is a special case in a way because, although dual US/Aus citizenship is a thing, he explicitly renounced Australian citizenship because it was required under US media ownership laws (IIRC) for a deal he wanted to push through. That does make his dominance of the Aus media scene stick in the craw even more, though (as I mentioned above) the whole issue does sniff a bit of a kind of xenophobia I dislike. Besides, there's plenty enough to dislike about Murdoch & his empire without needing to bring nationality into it ;)
What does CI stand for in this case?
Citizen Initiative - an umbrella term for referenda, assemblies, etc. Apologies I don't think the initialism is standard & should have spelled it out.
anigbrowl(1)
I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?
In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot.
The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or buying whisky at a local bar that was distilled in the next city over. Since it's not interstate commerce, it's not one of the enumerated powers, so Congress can't do it without an ammendment.
No ammendment was considered to be needed for marijuana because, by the time the issue came up, our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce. Even if you grow it yourself, you could choose to sell it across state lines, and your decision to grow versus buy was probably impacted by the price of buying it, which in turn depends on the price in other states. In Wickard v. Filburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce, because his decision to do so had an economic impact on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) the court made it clear this applied even if there is no (legal) interstate commerce.
Under these precedents, the 18th amendment would not be necessary. Whether that suggests the poor benighted fools back then just didn't understand their own constitution, or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text, or whether the constitution is a living document that may mean different things in different eras, even if the wording doesn't change is a matter of heated debate. :)
The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or buying whisky at a local bar that was distilled in the next city over. Since it's not interstate commerce, it's not one of the enumerated powers, so Congress can't do it without an ammendment.
No ammendment was considered to be needed for marijuana because, by the time the issue came up, our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce. Even if you grow it yourself, you could choose to sell it across state lines, and your decision to grow versus buy was probably impacted by the price of buying it, which in turn depends on the price in other states. In Wickard v. Filburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce, because his decision to do so had an economic impact on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) the court made it clear this applied even if there is no (legal) interstate commerce.
Under these precedents, the 18th amendment would not be necessary. Whether that suggests the poor benighted fools back then just didn't understand their own constitution, or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text, or whether the constitution is a living document that may mean different things in different eras, even if the wording doesn't change is a matter of heated debate. :)
What a disgusting and disingenuous interpretation — see this for what it is, a blatant powergrab by the federal government that prevents localities (states) from governing themselves. The interstate commerce clause was a mistake and should be abolished.
That complaint would be one to take up with the Supreme Court.
As the law nerd cliche goes, they aren't final because they're right, they're right because they're final.
As the law nerd cliche goes, they aren't final because they're right, they're right because they're final.
Which demonstrates what a fraud our legal system is. "Might makes right".
> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce
ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them.
there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin.
i'd love to see this argued in court.
> or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text
mhmmmmmmmmmmm
ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them.
there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin.
i'd love to see this argued in court.
> or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text
mhmmmmmmmmmmm
> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin.
> i'd love to see this argued in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
> In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
(To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)
> i'd love to see this argued in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
> In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
(To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)
> our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce
...
> (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)
A worthwhile step on the path of disagreement is to separate your perspective from the Supreme Court's. "Our understanding" has not changed - the Supreme Court has merely crafted a tenuous justification for more government power. Which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court is part of the government, thus directly benefiting from increasing that power.
...
> (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)
A worthwhile step on the path of disagreement is to separate your perspective from the Supreme Court's. "Our understanding" has not changed - the Supreme Court has merely crafted a tenuous justification for more government power. Which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court is part of the government, thus directly benefiting from increasing that power.
Recent... and interesting...
> Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
Seems to me that this is actually arguing against the federal government.
But then...
> the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
I will have to dig into this to understand the nuance, but... it seems that it might be slightly different.
> Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
Seems to me that this is actually arguing against the federal government.
But then...
> the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
I will have to dig into this to understand the nuance, but... it seems that it might be slightly different.
the funny thing is, technically, if they did legalize cannabis and psilicybin, federally, THEN, it actually would fall under the commerce clause and they could regulate it as they see fit.
checkmate.
checkmate.
> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin.
The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.
The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.
[deleted]
Wickard v. Filburn, fucking up the separation of powers since 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
In my Constitutional Law class in law school the professor said something like "only in a room full of lawyers could you end up with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause," which I appreciate more and more as time goes by.
[deleted]
It used to be that we recognized the fact that the feds had a very limited constitutional scope. That has been obliterated in the 20th century, with everything being justified under the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause. A centralized bureaucracy has been gradually sapping the sovereignty of individuals, municipalities, and states; and replacing effective, local solutions with broad-brush national solutions that don't work for every one.
This also diminishes the ability of the individual to push for change: one man may convince enough people in a town to do something, but it is much harder for him to do so on a national level.
This also diminishes the ability of the individual to push for change: one man may convince enough people in a town to do something, but it is much harder for him to do so on a national level.
Imagine if all of Europe was supposed to fall under a common legal system.
Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically.
Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.
Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically.
Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.
I assume this is sarcastic?
I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization"? The Constitution authorizes such measures: weights and measures, currency, etc. That's not part of it.
I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization"? The Constitution authorizes such measures: weights and measures, currency, etc. That's not part of it.
Long ago, citizens of US states saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of said states, not of the US. Famously, this influenced Lee's choice to serve in the Civil War, so the change in viewpoint is more recent than then.
The EU may go through a similar transition.
The EU may go through a similar transition.
Maybe the EU ought to take a lesson from the fate of America, and remain a voluntary confederation of states. For reasons outlined in my above post, it may be better that way.
It was tongue in cheek, for sure. My contrast of the EU was to draw a parallel between many sovereign nation states falling under a common union. Hey, kind of like a United States or something. We are not in disagreement there... and also, I'm definitely not against standards... as long as said standards are electively participatory, and not mandated from a high level government.
Well, congress can pass a law (as long as it's constitutional)!
The law that governs mushrooms is the Controlled Substances Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
This handles all sorts of controlled substances, like prescriptions, as well as illegal substances.
Now how does the federal government have control over this? It's probably related to how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, who determine the different schedules of the substances) got started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
And that is under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Also, since there are multiple international treaties involving drug control, that also puts it in the federal government's purview to regulate.
The law that governs mushrooms is the Controlled Substances Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
This handles all sorts of controlled substances, like prescriptions, as well as illegal substances.
Now how does the federal government have control over this? It's probably related to how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, who determine the different schedules of the substances) got started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
And that is under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Also, since there are multiple international treaties involving drug control, that also puts it in the federal government's purview to regulate.
> If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol
It didn't, it needed an amendment to make it impossible to repeal prohibition by mere legislation. Prohibition was passed by statute before the Amendment, which did not authorize prohibition but mandated it.
It didn't, it needed an amendment to make it impossible to repeal prohibition by mere legislation. Prohibition was passed by statute before the Amendment, which did not authorize prohibition but mandated it.
Not really. Abolitionists wanted an amendment because its harder to reverse than a simple law.
Goes to show you that if something is really that big of a flop it WILL get repealed.
Ultimately? It comes down to interstate trafficking, and interstate commerce. edit someone above me hit it in way more detail, but yep...
Psychedelics have their ups and downs, but perhaps their best quality is their ability to enhance perspective. Being able to understand different points of views probably will change humans.
Just recently there was an article on the front or second page of hacker news which claimed caffeine and alcohol are responsible for civilization. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/28/alcohol-caf...)
I can't even imagine what our distant future holds as psychedelics become more accepted, but it is extremely encouraging given the mindset of our current leadership!
Just recently there was an article on the front or second page of hacker news which claimed caffeine and alcohol are responsible for civilization. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/28/alcohol-caf...)
I can't even imagine what our distant future holds as psychedelics become more accepted, but it is extremely encouraging given the mindset of our current leadership!
A theory on psilocybin's role in human evolution:
https://www.inverse.com/article/34186-stoned-ape-hypothesis
It's best to listen to audio of Terence himself laying out the theory, he's a fantastic orator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhFC-sVa9AE
https://www.inverse.com/article/34186-stoned-ape-hypothesis
It's best to listen to audio of Terence himself laying out the theory, he's a fantastic orator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhFC-sVa9AE
I took psilocybin twice in my life. The first time was in my early twenties and it helped me figure out what to do with my life. The second time was following a difficult separation with the mother of my children and helped me move on.
I don't recommend it unless you are followed by a therapist and if you do decide to take some make sure you have integration time a day or two after and that someone is near you while you're on it.
Also read Michael Pollan's How To Change Your Mind prior.
I don't recommend it unless you are followed by a therapist and if you do decide to take some make sure you have integration time a day or two after and that someone is near you while you're on it.
Also read Michael Pollan's How To Change Your Mind prior.
I took psilocybin (est) 100+ times. My recommendations are the opposite of yours. First, I recommend everyone who is highly self-aware and extremely curious about the nature of the mind try it, _multiple times_ . There is literally nothing else (besides other psychedelics) that can - so easily - blow apart the doors of the mind and give access to what lies beneath the surface.
I don't suggest reading anything written in a commercial / contemporary setting prior to the experience. It will "infect" you with somebody else's ideas / models of the mind. What I do recommend, is immersing oneself in the myths and archetypes of one's own culture.
Finally, it goes without saying that psilocybin is not really a party drug and works best for inner exploration (psychonautics). One should minimize outside distractions by laying down, with eyes closed and listening to white noise or minimal ambient music whilst focusing on an "inner dive".
I don't suggest reading anything written in a commercial / contemporary setting prior to the experience. It will "infect" you with somebody else's ideas / models of the mind. What I do recommend, is immersing oneself in the myths and archetypes of one's own culture.
Finally, it goes without saying that psilocybin is not really a party drug and works best for inner exploration (psychonautics). One should minimize outside distractions by laying down, with eyes closed and listening to white noise or minimal ambient music whilst focusing on an "inner dive".
A lot of people use it as a party drug though. It's becoming increasingly common to microdose because it has similar effects at small dosages as MDMA -- elation, putting a shiny glimmer on the world. I'm not recommending it, but I see it increasingly often here where ecstasy used to be the norm.
I'm not sure we should ever be encouraging people to do a deep psychonautic dive. We don't know what past history of mental health issues someone may have in their family or what crucial brain development stages they may be at in their maturing psyche. I'd hate to be the reason someone dove off the deep end into mental illness because they were just at the precipice of brain development. I may not have experience, but I do know that psychedelics are not a one size fits all.
I'm not sure we should ever be encouraging people to do a deep psychonautic dive. We don't know what past history of mental health issues someone may have in their family or what crucial brain development stages they may be at in their maturing psyche. I'd hate to be the reason someone dove off the deep end into mental illness because they were just at the precipice of brain development. I may not have experience, but I do know that psychedelics are not a one size fits all.
As long as the risk is stated, I think encouraging the use of psychedelics is fine.
I don’t frown on people using them as party drugs, but I do hope they eventually do them out of those settings in a more mindful way.
I’ve seen people transform through the use of psychedelics, not because it impregnated them with new ideas but because it let them feel free to explore the wide range of ideas available to them.
I don’t frown on people using them as party drugs, but I do hope they eventually do them out of those settings in a more mindful way.
I’ve seen people transform through the use of psychedelics, not because it impregnated them with new ideas but because it let them feel free to explore the wide range of ideas available to them.
Psilocybin mushrooms are less legal in The Netherlands than in Denver. All because a French student committed suicide in Amsterdam after eating mushrooms.
Don't forget the French guy that felt he had to cut up his dog to release his spirit. In that same year we also had a Brit mutilating himself and trashing his hotel (after consuming a veritable cocktail of alcohol and drugs including mushrooms, an inconvenient detail left out of most reports at the time) and an Icelandic guy that thought he could fly and jumped off a building, breaking his legs and feet.
Notice the trend here? All tourists, all acting alone. Bad set and setting.
Despite multiple researches showing no evidence of any real negative impact on Dutch society, foreign political pressure eventually got them banned. That most of these cases involved people with serious mental issues who shouldn't have taken any drugs in the first place didn't matter.
Truffles don't have the same effect and they taste awful. Fortunately growkits are still perfectly legal. These are a lot cheaper and they have the added benefit of keeping mushies out of the hands of unstable tourists.
Notice the trend here? All tourists, all acting alone. Bad set and setting.
Despite multiple researches showing no evidence of any real negative impact on Dutch society, foreign political pressure eventually got them banned. That most of these cases involved people with serious mental issues who shouldn't have taken any drugs in the first place didn't matter.
Truffles don't have the same effect and they taste awful. Fortunately growkits are still perfectly legal. These are a lot cheaper and they have the added benefit of keeping mushies out of the hands of unstable tourists.
Fairly sure there were very regular problems with tourists losing their minds on mushrooms. I remember one story of a guy on mushrooms who eviscerated his dog cause he thought it was the devil.
Holland suffers a lot from what tourists do while profiting from their lax drug laws. Towns like Roosendaal on the border with Belgium were flooded for years with French and Belgians (like me) coming to fill their backpacks with weed and mushrooms. In the 90s you could walk away with however much you could carry from coffee shops like Koyaanisqatsi. Lots of French dealers would go stock up there.
When the shops were closed on Sundays you'd have dealers in the streets.
It was all fun and games at the time but for the average Dutch person living there it wouldn't have been a lot of fun and I understand they cracked down on it for that reason.
Holland suffers a lot from what tourists do while profiting from their lax drug laws. Towns like Roosendaal on the border with Belgium were flooded for years with French and Belgians (like me) coming to fill their backpacks with weed and mushrooms. In the 90s you could walk away with however much you could carry from coffee shops like Koyaanisqatsi. Lots of French dealers would go stock up there.
When the shops were closed on Sundays you'd have dealers in the streets.
It was all fun and games at the time but for the average Dutch person living there it wouldn't have been a lot of fun and I understand they cracked down on it for that reason.
Depends on where you get the Psilocybin from. Search "Magic Truffles"
True, although those are technically not psilocybin mushrooms. Also, AFAIK the fly agaric (amanita muscaria) is still legal. It is also very clearly references in all kind of folklore (including religions).
Amanita Muscaria does not contain psilocybin and will make you very sick before making you fly. Interesting side note: in eastern Siberia only the shamans were allowed to eat these mushrooms. Other members of the tribe would drink his urine.
> Amanita Muscaria does not contain psilocybin
I never said it does.
> will make you very sick before making you fly.
I've used a.muscaria twice, from a reputable source (no self plucking). It never made me sick. It is perfectly safe to use. It did make me pee a lot, and my pee stank. Back when I bought it, it was legal to buy the powder in The Netherlands. I don't know about the legal state as it is.
I never said it does.
> will make you very sick before making you fly.
I've used a.muscaria twice, from a reputable source (no self plucking). It never made me sick. It is perfectly safe to use. It did make me pee a lot, and my pee stank. Back when I bought it, it was legal to buy the powder in The Netherlands. I don't know about the legal state as it is.
Apparently their sale was banned in the Netherlands around the same time psilocybin mushrooms were. But they grow literally everywhere in autumn, so yeah.
Never tried them myself, but a friend did and he did experience the fairly common symptoms of severe nausea and falling asleep before having a very good trip.
Never tried them myself, but a friend did and he did experience the fairly common symptoms of severe nausea and falling asleep before having a very good trip.
Do acid and molly next.
Molly’s significantly more dangerous than acid or psilocybin, no?
It's kind of apples to oranges. Neither have bad direct side-effects, but they should be taken knowing what you're going into.
Acid you should know that you'll need a good two days free to really enjoy yourself. The first 12 hours will be an intense mental journey. The next day or so is used to recover as you'll be mentally exhausted. If it's your first time though, you may not know how to handle it, so you'll need a guide. That's the biggest risk when taking acid, you need the emotional intelligence or you'll have a horrific time.
MDMA is a much shorter trip and everything will be good, no matter your state of mind. The risk with MDMA is after the trip. You'll be drained of your serotonin so you'll feel fatigued and depressed. It's recommended to take 5-HTP supplements to rebuild your serotonin. Also don't take anymore MDMA for a couple months, I usually wait 3-5 months at least.
tldr: you won't want to abuse Acid because it's so exhausting, you'll want to abuse MDMA because it's so wonderful. Like any drug, you need self control.
Acid you should know that you'll need a good two days free to really enjoy yourself. The first 12 hours will be an intense mental journey. The next day or so is used to recover as you'll be mentally exhausted. If it's your first time though, you may not know how to handle it, so you'll need a guide. That's the biggest risk when taking acid, you need the emotional intelligence or you'll have a horrific time.
MDMA is a much shorter trip and everything will be good, no matter your state of mind. The risk with MDMA is after the trip. You'll be drained of your serotonin so you'll feel fatigued and depressed. It's recommended to take 5-HTP supplements to rebuild your serotonin. Also don't take anymore MDMA for a couple months, I usually wait 3-5 months at least.
tldr: you won't want to abuse Acid because it's so exhausting, you'll want to abuse MDMA because it's so wonderful. Like any drug, you need self control.
[deleted]
That's great advice.
Thanks, I've been contemplating writing articles for my blog about safe tripping for various drugs. I just wasn't sure if there was interest.
It has possibly more negative health effects when abused (or, possibly maybe, even regularly used). It also seems to have a goldmine of beneficial therapeutic effects that we haven't seen before.
And as with nearly all of these things - alcohol, tobacco, and prison are all much worse for you.
And as with nearly all of these things - alcohol, tobacco, and prison are all much worse for you.
Emphasis on possibly: Olney's lesions have never once been observed in a human being
yes, definitely - it probably has something more similar to the safety profile of amphetamines in terms of physical safety, which isn't perfect, but seems to not worry RXing adderall to large swaths of people.
Though it also seems there is something going on neurotransmitter wise that seems to have a more marked effect on immediate anhedonia/depression/fatigue in the aftermath and anecdotally for some people that starts looking a little cumulative.
(ie; someone that uses a lot of MDMA for a few years finds that the depressive hangovers get worse and worse and eventually get to the point where it takes a few months of non-use to even get totally 'right' again)
Though it also seems there is something going on neurotransmitter wise that seems to have a more marked effect on immediate anhedonia/depression/fatigue in the aftermath and anecdotally for some people that starts looking a little cumulative.
(ie; someone that uses a lot of MDMA for a few years finds that the depressive hangovers get worse and worse and eventually get to the point where it takes a few months of non-use to even get totally 'right' again)
Ecstasy 'no more dangerous than horse riding'
Taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse, according to the head of the Government's drug advisory body.
No more dangerous than riding a horse = not unlikely to put a novice in the hospital
Don't get me wrong. I think modern society has way too little tolerance for risk of physical harm but "less dangerous than horse riding" isn't all that safe as far as indoor activities go.
Don't get me wrong. I think modern society has way too little tolerance for risk of physical harm but "less dangerous than horse riding" isn't all that safe as far as indoor activities go.
The comparison is meant to tug at people's intuitions: people let their daughters ride horses. So unless we're about to outlaw horse riding, we ought to not outlaw ecstasy.
Yes.
It's trivial to overdose non-lethally on MDMA and there's a good possibility for permanent brain damage when it occurs, even just from a single overdose. It seems to mostly damage memory from what I've seen.
Years ago when I knew people attending EDM festivals and researched these drugs to understand the risks, it sounded like most of the harm was caused by oxidative stress resulting from the excess serotonin released by the drug vs. normally sufficient standard levels of antioxidants being overwhelmed by all the activity.
AFAIK the same is not true for LSD and shrooms, certainly not marijuana.
It's trivial to overdose non-lethally on MDMA and there's a good possibility for permanent brain damage when it occurs, even just from a single overdose. It seems to mostly damage memory from what I've seen.
Years ago when I knew people attending EDM festivals and researched these drugs to understand the risks, it sounded like most of the harm was caused by oxidative stress resulting from the excess serotonin released by the drug vs. normally sufficient standard levels of antioxidants being overwhelmed by all the activity.
AFAIK the same is not true for LSD and shrooms, certainly not marijuana.
Further damage is done from the brain overheating - which is likely when one is energetically dancing for hours in an enclosed nightclub.
Yes, but the danger is much closer to caffeine than alcohol or tobacco.
The danger of MDMA is overstated. From an actual chemical toxicity standpoint it's relatively safe, accidental overdose would be next to impossible. You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine.
Even the danger for dehydration/overhydration is overstated. Heatstroke is a danger when using it during the day in summer (e.g. at festivals), but that's more due to people not listening to their bodies and not knowing when to stop and take a break and get some shade/water.
Anecdotally it's a pretty safe drug. The main danger is generally "molly" (which I think is a really cringy name) that's not actually pure MDMA, but is instead laced with PMA or other more dangerous substances which are cheaper and easier to manufacture and import.
That's not to say that there isn't danger of harm and potential for abuse. Just that it's overstated by politicians and the police as a scare tactic. Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.
Even the danger for dehydration/overhydration is overstated. Heatstroke is a danger when using it during the day in summer (e.g. at festivals), but that's more due to people not listening to their bodies and not knowing when to stop and take a break and get some shade/water.
Anecdotally it's a pretty safe drug. The main danger is generally "molly" (which I think is a really cringy name) that's not actually pure MDMA, but is instead laced with PMA or other more dangerous substances which are cheaper and easier to manufacture and import.
That's not to say that there isn't danger of harm and potential for abuse. Just that it's overstated by politicians and the police as a scare tactic. Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.
> You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine.
This is incredibly irresponsible advice. 125mg (1/8g) of pure mdma is a good dose, more likely won't kill you, but you'll be far from fine.
> Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.
How about starting off by not saying a gram is a sensible dose.
This is incredibly irresponsible advice. 125mg (1/8g) of pure mdma is a good dose, more likely won't kill you, but you'll be far from fine.
> Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.
How about starting off by not saying a gram is a sensible dose.
I'm not suggesting that people do it, which is why I said you'd probably feel pretty sick. Nowhere did I suggest that a gram was a sensible dose, or even a dose that anybody should be taking.
You're spreading dangerous nonsense here.
E-Tards are commonplace in the EDM scene. Participants were so aware of the negative effects they preloaded with multivitamins and antioxidant cocktails to try mitigate them when I last attended raves years ago.
I'm not generally one to tell people to avoid recreational drugs, but MDMA overdoses are no joke, especially if you're exceptionally smart. The greater your mental capacity, the more you'll notice the damage when it's taken away.
E-Tards are commonplace in the EDM scene. Participants were so aware of the negative effects they preloaded with multivitamins and antioxidant cocktails to try mitigate them when I last attended raves years ago.
I'm not generally one to tell people to avoid recreational drugs, but MDMA overdoses are no joke, especially if you're exceptionally smart. The greater your mental capacity, the more you'll notice the damage when it's taken away.
I suffer from Tinnitus Distress and Ménière's.
From my limited experience with Psilocybin mushrooms, I believe that occasional low dosages might provide me with weeks or even months of symptom suppression and relief.
Any steps towards making possession less risky would be extremely welcome.
From my limited experience with Psilocybin mushrooms, I believe that occasional low dosages might provide me with weeks or even months of symptom suppression and relief.
Any steps towards making possession less risky would be extremely welcome.
The key question I have about decriminalisation of marijuana and things like mushrooms and hopefully MDMA soon, is "will it reduce the number of people who try meth/ice?"
My theory is that people become addicted to meth/ice because they want to get high, but "good" drugs like marijuana and MDMA/mushrooms are not legal/available/cheap, so people buy/try meth/ice.
Put another way, my theory is that legalisation of "good" drugs like marijuana will lead to fewer people trying/becoming addicted to meth/ice. I wonder if its working out that way in places where marijuana is legalised.
My theory is that people become addicted to meth/ice because they want to get high, but "good" drugs like marijuana and MDMA/mushrooms are not legal/available/cheap, so people buy/try meth/ice.
Put another way, my theory is that legalisation of "good" drugs like marijuana will lead to fewer people trying/becoming addicted to meth/ice. I wonder if its working out that way in places where marijuana is legalised.
I suspect it's not as linear as that.
I never tried pot in my youth because it was "bad" - an illegal drug, like heroin or meth.
Conversely some people may try pot or mushrooms and assume that ALL drugs are not as dangerous as they've been lead to believe.
I never tried pot in my youth because it was "bad" - an illegal drug, like heroin or meth.
Conversely some people may try pot or mushrooms and assume that ALL drugs are not as dangerous as they've been lead to believe.
Exactly, education is important... not misguidance, or generalization, but true education. Respect should be given to these things. If they weren't taboo, we would all be better off.
I doubt there will ever be a clear answer on this. More likely, there will be a variety of factors.
That said, the "gateway drug" effect is real. It's been shown in many studies (although I'm not sure how many looked at shrooms as the gateway- usually it's weed). Likewise, we've probably all seen people drink ever-stronger drinks to get drunk/buzzed once their body because resistant to alcohol. Other drugs are no different, although I wager there are different types of people seeking different types of buzzes so I'm sure the distribution is not uniform.
That said, the "gateway drug" effect is real. It's been shown in many studies (although I'm not sure how many looked at shrooms as the gateway- usually it's weed). Likewise, we've probably all seen people drink ever-stronger drinks to get drunk/buzzed once their body because resistant to alcohol. Other drugs are no different, although I wager there are different types of people seeking different types of buzzes so I'm sure the distribution is not uniform.
The gateway drug effect is only real in a black market where an actor will likely be pushing many different drugs. If they are all available legally, and the populace is educated about them, the outcome is likely to be better than the contrary, where it's illegal, and taboo.
Exactly, places like Amsterdam where you can buy both marijuana and shrooms legally are not destroyed pits of hell either.
In fact I enjoy Amsterdam a lot and it does many things much better than comparable cities in Germany. Especially catastrophically bad places like Berlin.
In fact I enjoy Amsterdam a lot and it does many things much better than comparable cities in Germany. Especially catastrophically bad places like Berlin.
There are many cultural differences at play though. The only difference between Denver and Amsterdam is not height. The point I was trying to make in my post was there are many factors at play, but I believe gateway drug effect will be one of them.
>people become addicted to meth/ice because they want to get high
s/want to get high/are unhappy
and... not because they want to get high, but, because meth is addictive, by it's very nature. cannabis and psilocybin are not addictive. to further your point...
s/want to get high/are unhappy
and... not because they want to get high, but, because meth is addictive, by it's very nature. cannabis and psilocybin are not addictive. to further your point...
> cannabis and psilocybin are not addictive.
Not physically addictive. It's important to realise the difference because you can become mentally/psychological dependent on almost anything, including drugs.
As some anecdotal evidence I have a friend who was addicted to cannabis. It stemmed from his cigarette addiction, which he essentially replaced when he started smoking weed. He smoked weed every day for 4-5 years. Obviously that is not healthy. He's off it now, around a year. Needless to say, getting over a psychological addiction is much easier than a physical one.
Not physically addictive. It's important to realise the difference because you can become mentally/psychological dependent on almost anything, including drugs.
As some anecdotal evidence I have a friend who was addicted to cannabis. It stemmed from his cigarette addiction, which he essentially replaced when he started smoking weed. He smoked weed every day for 4-5 years. Obviously that is not healthy. He's off it now, around a year. Needless to say, getting over a psychological addiction is much easier than a physical one.
marijuana is psychologically addictive
This turned into a semantics conversation pretty quickly!
I'd argue that "de-prioritization" is worse than the status quo because it allows more people to feel secure using the drug but lets the state retain power of arbitrary enforcement.
Baby steps.
I remember smoking cannabis openly in front of police officers in British Columbia 20 years ago because they had a similar de prioritization policy in the city I lived in.
And now cannabis is legal federally.
It takes a long time for enforcers of unjust laws (which have persisted for decades) to learn and admit that they were wrong.
I remember smoking cannabis openly in front of police officers in British Columbia 20 years ago because they had a similar de prioritization policy in the city I lived in.
And now cannabis is legal federally.
It takes a long time for enforcers of unjust laws (which have persisted for decades) to learn and admit that they were wrong.
[deleted]
I quit visiting Colorado. Every resort I went to everyone was high and the service was lousy. People who are high all the time don't even understand how stupid they look and how poor of a job they're doing. Legal or not, there is a huge problem with druggies in Colorado.
Notably, we visited a chain restaurant and all the stone employees weren't clearing the tables. It was disgusting and we left. Places like that won't stay in business.
Ski rental places? Fuggetaboutit--it was like talking to Cheech & Chong. Do I trust these people are doing a good job? No.
I was no fan of the drug war, either, mind you. People need self-control.
Notably, we visited a chain restaurant and all the stone employees weren't clearing the tables. It was disgusting and we left. Places like that won't stay in business.
Ski rental places? Fuggetaboutit--it was like talking to Cheech & Chong. Do I trust these people are doing a good job? No.
I was no fan of the drug war, either, mind you. People need self-control.
Well, I've lived in Colorado my whole life and I didn't notice any change at all in the average person's behavior after pot was legalized. And I'm not really biased either. I voted against the marijuana legalization measure (something I now regret doing).
I've been there the last 3 years in a row and had the exact opposite experience as you.
My wife and I moved to Colorado shortly after legalization. We hardly consume marijuana, but don't have a problem at all with people who use regularly.
Our experience has been markedly different from OP; zero downsides to legalization.
Colorado is a delightful place, though the Denver housing market is going the way of California.
Our experience has been markedly different from OP; zero downsides to legalization.
Colorado is a delightful place, though the Denver housing market is going the way of California.
This could be a short-term symptom of something being re-introduced. Even though it has been legal in Colorado for 5 years now, the relatively slower process in neighbouring states would delay the normalising process.
Take alcohol as an example: do you think it would be acceptable for restaurant employees to be drunk in work? It seems likely this is only being momentarily tolerated in cannabis' case due to novelty.
Take alcohol as an example: do you think it would be acceptable for restaurant employees to be drunk in work? It seems likely this is only being momentarily tolerated in cannabis' case due to novelty.
Totally get it. I think we are going through the initial phase of the weed policy implementation. Next phase will be brought about by social shaming (via yelp, facebook, in person, here, etc) and the desire for businesses to give good service (and receive $$). Then we could see some moderation and improved behavior
So "decriminalize" seems to be the wrong word since it's just as criminal as before. Better would be "deprioritize".
> The past marijuana efforts are instructive, though. Denver voters signed off on decriminalization measures in 2005 and 2007, but that didn’t stop police from enforcing the law
So even deprioritization is more hope than accomplishment.