Oakland Is Second U.S. City to Legalize Magic Mushrooms(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Oakland Is Second U.S. City to Legalize Magic Mushrooms
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/06/05/oakland-legalizes-magic-mushrooms-second-us-city-to-do-so/
13 comments
Except they can't really since its federally controlled.
They can choose to not enforce the law regarding controlled substances which I suspect is going to make other prosecutions interesting in a bad way.
Denver did it. What do you mean ‘except they can’t..’? Marijuana isn’t federally legal either and they are only decriminalizing magic mushrooms, peyote, ayahuasca etc
What Denver did isn't legal either.
The DEA regulates all scheduled drugs, not states and absolutely not cities. Cities are generally prohibited from making laws contravening state and federal law (not always followed and the cities basically always lose the lawsuits).
The DEA regulates all scheduled drugs, not states and absolutely not cities. Cities are generally prohibited from making laws contravening state and federal law (not always followed and the cities basically always lose the lawsuits).
> The DEA regulates all scheduled drugs, not states and absolutely not cities
States and cities absolutely do regulate them, and can (but cannot Constitutionally be compelled to) assist in enforcing the federal law even if they don't adopt their own. Most illegal drugs are subject to state and federal prohibition, which are mostly also priorities for enforcement by most general-jurisdiction local law enforcement. But there is a recent trend for states dropping or limiting their prohibitions on certain drugs (mostly marijuana) and cities, states, and even the federal government deprioritizing enforcement of some drug laws (notably, there is an outright legal prohibition on federal expenditures on enforcement of federal marijuana laws against use conforming to state-level medical-use laws.)
And that's all completely legal (state licensing and taxation schemes for federally-prohibited activities may not be, however) though the federally prohibited acts don't become legal through any combination of state legalization/decriminalization and federal, state, or local deprioritization.
States and cities absolutely do regulate them, and can (but cannot Constitutionally be compelled to) assist in enforcing the federal law even if they don't adopt their own. Most illegal drugs are subject to state and federal prohibition, which are mostly also priorities for enforcement by most general-jurisdiction local law enforcement. But there is a recent trend for states dropping or limiting their prohibitions on certain drugs (mostly marijuana) and cities, states, and even the federal government deprioritizing enforcement of some drug laws (notably, there is an outright legal prohibition on federal expenditures on enforcement of federal marijuana laws against use conforming to state-level medical-use laws.)
And that's all completely legal (state licensing and taxation schemes for federally-prohibited activities may not be, however) though the federally prohibited acts don't become legal through any combination of state legalization/decriminalization and federal, state, or local deprioritization.
I think DEA regulations apply only when crossing state borders.
Nope!
This is also why weed in any federal building is a federal crime. Probably a bad idea to smoke weed in a national park too.
Yes. Good point. But isn’t there a difference between legalization and decriminalization? CA has already drawn a line in the sand with our state law enforcement answers sanctuary state status..especially with their cooperation..or lack there of..with the feds and federal agencies.
Ignoring federal law doesn't make anything legal, it just makes it harder to get caught. California is going to end up in an interesting battle one way or another.
Important to remember that possession of cannabis is a felony in all 50 United States.
It’s extremely concerning that a lot of people regard it as “legal”, and are one step away from saying the wrong thing and pissing off a fed and losing their entire freedom and livelihood.
(see also: Roger Ver’s pre-bitcoin story about federal charges for saying something that angered feds.)
It’s extremely concerning that a lot of people regard it as “legal”, and are one step away from saying the wrong thing and pissing off a fed and losing their entire freedom and livelihood.
(see also: Roger Ver’s pre-bitcoin story about federal charges for saying something that angered feds.)
I think there is a wee bit of sensationalism in the headlines.
Bay Area news outlets are more precise in the reporting.
1. It is still a felony. 2. It is still not legal. 3. Magic mushrooms, peyote and ayahuasca possession and usage has been decriminalized.
I assume that this means that solicitation for purposes of selling/buying is still a felony/illegal/criminal.
Bay Area news outlets are more precise in the reporting.
1. It is still a felony. 2. It is still not legal. 3. Magic mushrooms, peyote and ayahuasca possession and usage has been decriminalized.
I assume that this means that solicitation for purposes of selling/buying is still a felony/illegal/criminal.
> Magic mushrooms, peyote and ayahuasca possession and usage has been decriminalized.
No, it hasn't. Enforcement of the criminal prohibition by Oakland city authorities has been deprioritized.
No, it hasn't. Enforcement of the criminal prohibition by Oakland city authorities has been deprioritized.
This isn't even on its face legalization (which Oakland can't do not because it's federally controlled, but because it's not prohibited by Oakland city law.) What Oakland did isn't even decriminalization, which it can't do for the same reason. All it did is criminal deprioritization, which just means you are unlikely to get arrested or prosecuted formit by Oakland authorities unless they are pissed at you about something else. It does not effect any of the penalties available if you are prosecuted, so it's nothing like even decriminalization.