Washington man facing prison after foraging for wild psilocybin mushrooms(psymposia.com)
psymposia.com
Washington man facing prison after foraging for wild psilocybin mushrooms
https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/washington-man-facing-prison-foraging-wild-mushrooms/
54 comments
I gave him some money because I do think the law is silly. He's out picking wild mushrooms. If some turn out to be psychedelics then so be it. It was in nature. Maybe if we were selling them I'd have a confern, but if the man wants to pick mushrooms, let him pick mushrooms.
Washington wildlife and forest protection is dead serious. I mean they invested a ton to enforce the rules and make sure people doing wrong things got punished. I, one time, got a $150 ticket just because I was a bit curious and dug into the sand for some geoduck.
That's what should've happened ; a fine.
I agree, a fine would be perfectly acceptable. Jail, however, is ridiculous.
I tried telling the police that, they didn't go for it at all. Instead, they seized my entire blotter plantation.
As someone who can't stand the taste of them I'm still enthralled by the prospect of collecting mushrooms for fun and their culinary value. The trouble I run into is how I have no idea what's good to eat, what'll make you sick, what'll get you high, and what'll just simply kill you.
Guidebooks are worse than useless, because you can never be sure that the slight differences between the mushroom you're looking at and your best guess in the guidebook are unimportant or a distinction that means the one you picked is fatal instead of edible.
There's no app for this. [EDIT: Ok, there are apps for this, but there's always room for improvement]
There should be. And this guy could earn a modest income helping some semi-talented ML and mobile engineers in Washington build one with his wealth of knowledge.
Take a picture of a mushroom with your phone, and it'll help you tell what you can expect from it.
Nothing helps with legal or medical problems like not having to worry about relatively tiny amounts of money.
Guidebooks are worse than useless, because you can never be sure that the slight differences between the mushroom you're looking at and your best guess in the guidebook are unimportant or a distinction that means the one you picked is fatal instead of edible.
There's no app for this. [EDIT: Ok, there are apps for this, but there's always room for improvement]
There should be. And this guy could earn a modest income helping some semi-talented ML and mobile engineers in Washington build one with his wealth of knowledge.
Take a picture of a mushroom with your phone, and it'll help you tell what you can expect from it.
Nothing helps with legal or medical problems like not having to worry about relatively tiny amounts of money.
Imagine the liability concerns. Only takes a few false positives...
Probably much smarter is a general ML based app that allows user-defined, crowdsourced datasets. So for example, you download the app, and you pay to train a model using datasets that other people gathered. This could be used for things such as middle school science experiments (what is ML? what are the differences between cloud and rock types?) to things like magic mushroom identification. Since the models and datasets are user-curated, you're less exposed to liability, since you merely provide the platform
Probably much smarter is a general ML based app that allows user-defined, crowdsourced datasets. So for example, you download the app, and you pay to train a model using datasets that other people gathered. This could be used for things such as middle school science experiments (what is ML? what are the differences between cloud and rock types?) to things like magic mushroom identification. Since the models and datasets are user-curated, you're less exposed to liability, since you merely provide the platform
There was a recent post: "Show HN: Identify mushrooms from pictures (champignouf.com)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14840678 (37 points, 25 days ago, 50 comments)
>Guidebooks are worse than useless
You need a better guidebook, and spend time with it. As with plants or any taxonomy there are rules and things to do that can classify things. It's more than just a photo of the thing that its about.
You need to spend time to learn, as you would learn a programming language, the rules for classification. It takes time and some effort to learn how to know whats good to eat, what makes you sick and what'll get you high. Essentially it's a form of biological inquiry so treat it like a science. Almost every mycologist uses a few books and tools to identify their haul.
edits: rule of thumb for eating: The range of edible but not eatable / awful mushrooms is huge. The range of deadly mushrooms is small. The range of edible and delicious mushrooms is small too. The bad and good ranges don't overlap on the whole. Thus, like with identifying garden plants you only need to learn a few kinds to be able to hunt the lovely edible mushrooms. But you do still need to learn and spend time in the learning.
You need a better guidebook, and spend time with it. As with plants or any taxonomy there are rules and things to do that can classify things. It's more than just a photo of the thing that its about.
You need to spend time to learn, as you would learn a programming language, the rules for classification. It takes time and some effort to learn how to know whats good to eat, what makes you sick and what'll get you high. Essentially it's a form of biological inquiry so treat it like a science. Almost every mycologist uses a few books and tools to identify their haul.
edits: rule of thumb for eating: The range of edible but not eatable / awful mushrooms is huge. The range of deadly mushrooms is small. The range of edible and delicious mushrooms is small too. The bad and good ranges don't overlap on the whole. Thus, like with identifying garden plants you only need to learn a few kinds to be able to hunt the lovely edible mushrooms. But you do still need to learn and spend time in the learning.
There are many mimic species which can only be distinguished with a spore print -- cubensis has one that's highly toxic. Presumably this confers an evolutionary advantage (spore spreading by critters going for the fun ones), making ML based on visual identification a very bad idea.
The legal risks of an app like that would be huge. Identify mushroms for a picture can be really tricky and I wouldn't advise it.
No possible way a smartphone camera and a classifier could identify two extremely similar mushrooms better than a human expert
You don't need to identify them, you need to rule out the unsafe possibility's and can reject anything that's at all risky without significant downside. However, these kind of vary narrow tests are actually fairly easy for ML.
no but it can help. generally yellow cap psilocybes have one lookalike you will run into and the way you dofferentiate the two is the color of spores so a picture wouldn't quite cut it. But the app could still offer that information even if it couldnt accurately decipher the two. The lookalike isn't poisonous anyway.
There are apps - e.g., "Mushrooms app" for Android. It is probably targeted mainly on (central/eastern) Europe, it is the region where mushrooms picking is pretty common. There are a few others, too.
Less clickbaity title: "Washington man facing prison for drug possession".
Whether someone should be jailed for picking psilocybin mushrooms is up for discussion (hint: they shouldn't), but he wasn't arrested for picking Portobellos.
Whether someone should be jailed for picking psilocybin mushrooms is up for discussion (hint: they shouldn't), but he wasn't arrested for picking Portobellos.
Actually, after reading the whole article, he was picking an unidentified mushroom that later proved to contain psilocybin. This point seems relevant.
"A sign posted nearby [in Cape Disappointment Park] read: NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION. Corbett ignored it....Close by, in the grass, he spotted true [Psilocybe azurescens]. More of the mystery mushrooms grew by the spot where Corbett had parked his truck.
"...He picked 10 specimens from the woodchip pile, and put them in a plastic bag along with 10 of the classic azurescens. “I put them together because they were clearly different, with no mistake whatsoever. They don’t look anything alike.”"
Sounds like he was picking the unidentified Psilocybe along with Psilocybe azurescens.
"...He picked 10 specimens from the woodchip pile, and put them in a plastic bag along with 10 of the classic azurescens. “I put them together because they were clearly different, with no mistake whatsoever. They don’t look anything alike.”"
Sounds like he was picking the unidentified Psilocybe along with Psilocybe azurescens.
Then they saved the man from his own stupidity.
You never, ever, mix unidentified mushroms in the same bag. They are spongy criatures that disintegrate easily or adsorb liquids. Spores or tiny fragments of the unknown mushrom will contaminate the edible mushroms, poisoning the food and leading typically to serious consequences.
You never, ever, mix unidentified mushroms in the same bag. They are spongy criatures that disintegrate easily or adsorb liquids. Spores or tiny fragments of the unknown mushrom will contaminate the edible mushroms, poisoning the food and leading typically to serious consequences.
There was a sign that said "NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION", and the rules for the park say "Wildlife, plants and all park buildings, signs and tables and other structures are protected; removal or damage of any kind is prohibited." - http://parks.state.wa.us/179/Rules-Regulations
Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
Taking petrified wood from the Petrified National Forest, taking trinitite from the site of the first nuclear bomb test, knocking over stone formations in Goblin Valley State Park, graffiti and littering, and many more.
He also picked 10 Psilocybe azurescens, in addition to the 10 odd mushrooms mushrooms which he thought might be a subspecies, or perhaps new Psilocybe species. It's not like he had no idea he was collecting something which contained psilocybin.
Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
Taking petrified wood from the Petrified National Forest, taking trinitite from the site of the first nuclear bomb test, knocking over stone formations in Goblin Valley State Park, graffiti and littering, and many more.
He also picked 10 Psilocybe azurescens, in addition to the 10 odd mushrooms mushrooms which he thought might be a subspecies, or perhaps new Psilocybe species. It's not like he had no idea he was collecting something which contained psilocybin.
Also, importantly, he's facing a felony narcotics charge because the mushrooms contain psilocyben, not because he illegally gathered some park fauna (almost certainly a misdemeanor charge).
Admittedly, the article muddies this water, but it's our crazy drug laws that are to blame for his predicament, otherwise he'd just be facing a fine or perhaps a few days in jail.
Admittedly, the article muddies this water, but it's our crazy drug laws that are to blame for his predicament, otherwise he'd just be facing a fine or perhaps a few days in jail.
>Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
I disagree with you there. His argument was that it shouldn't be illegal because nobody was hurt, not that it isn't illegal. I'd agree with him, victimless crimes are bullshit
I disagree with you there. His argument was that it shouldn't be illegal because nobody was hurt, not that it isn't illegal. I'd agree with him, victimless crimes are bullshit
There is no bright line which makes a crime "victimless".
If I catch a fish on public waters but without a fishing license, is that victimless?
Yes, if you regard the fish as owned by "the public", in which case "the public" is the victim.
Fishing laws exist because there is a tiny damage which is normally below the threshold of general damage, but when magnified by a lot of people becomes meaningful. But I can't point to a specific case and point out the victim.
Doom, as you may recall, originally used the Red Cross symbol on medikits. This is illegal in many countries, due to the Geneva Convention. id software changed the symbol. Who was the victim of their use of the Red Cross symbol?
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits collecting feathers from migratory birds, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act extends that to eagles. Every once in a while someone is prosecuted for using those feathers. For example, Peg Bargon incorporated those feathers in her dreamcatchers, which she then sold.
Who is the victim in this case? (This law exists to prevent a reversion to historical circumstances which, like fishing license laws, were destroying bird populations.)
There are laws against animal cruelty. Who is the victim if I vivisect my dog on my property, away from public eyes?
So, don't try to make this a general thing. Your argument should be that some personal uses of psilocybin should not be illegal. Not the broad (and in my opinion untenable) view that "victimless crimes are bullshit."
If I catch a fish on public waters but without a fishing license, is that victimless?
Yes, if you regard the fish as owned by "the public", in which case "the public" is the victim.
Fishing laws exist because there is a tiny damage which is normally below the threshold of general damage, but when magnified by a lot of people becomes meaningful. But I can't point to a specific case and point out the victim.
Doom, as you may recall, originally used the Red Cross symbol on medikits. This is illegal in many countries, due to the Geneva Convention. id software changed the symbol. Who was the victim of their use of the Red Cross symbol?
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits collecting feathers from migratory birds, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act extends that to eagles. Every once in a while someone is prosecuted for using those feathers. For example, Peg Bargon incorporated those feathers in her dreamcatchers, which she then sold.
Who is the victim in this case? (This law exists to prevent a reversion to historical circumstances which, like fishing license laws, were destroying bird populations.)
There are laws against animal cruelty. Who is the victim if I vivisect my dog on my property, away from public eyes?
So, don't try to make this a general thing. Your argument should be that some personal uses of psilocybin should not be illegal. Not the broad (and in my opinion untenable) view that "victimless crimes are bullshit."
Definitely relevant but it seems like this would probably be argued as a case of probable cause. If the local police are aware that people have been picking mushrooms in the region because some of them contain psilocybin then it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider foraging for mushrooms probable cause in their jurisdiction.
I didn't go to law school either. I definitely don't want cops patting me down because someone does something illegal sometimes in an area that I also happen to be in sometimes.
It does not build PC anymore than walking in a "high crime area". It wouldn't stand in appellate courts. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/119/case.htm...
It does not build PC anymore than walking in a "high crime area". It wouldn't stand in appellate courts. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/119/case.htm...
I may have phrased that poorly, I didn't mean that you would be searchable for being in the area. I meant that you would be searchable for being witnessed picking or carrying mushrooms in the area which is very different from your example of simply walking through a high crime area.
Looking at your original comment I see that message clearly now. I still wouldn't want that to constitute PC. What if I had a brown bag full of non-psychedelic mushrooms? The cops would roll up on me and search me? Worse yet, what if I inadvertently picked a psychedelic mushroom, not knowing what is is and telling myself I would ID it with a spore print at home later. Now I'm looking at prison time? I don't want my taxes to go to keeping those cases in prison.
We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from https://clusterbusters.org/ the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
To summarize:
1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign.
2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC
3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.
We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from https://clusterbusters.org/ the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
To summarize:
1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign.
2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC
3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.
On top of that, it was next to a sign that said "NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION." Is that really "foraging"?
Thanks, we've updated the headline to clarify.
Which makes me wonder: do mycologists (mushroom scientists) get a legal license to pick mushrooms wherever the heck they want? Let's say this really is a completely new, unidentified species that only grows in this national park. Then what?
Good point, you normally will need a license to pick anything autochthonous in a national park, even for scientific purposes.
I challenge anybody to prove how this makes us safer.
This man has spent his 10,000 hours to know what he's doing. I have full empathy for his plight and view. However, when anyone ignorant of the true physical risk of eating the wrong mushroom, actually eats the wrong mushroom trying to get high, they will be permanently damaged. With the wrong mushroom, vital kidney function is quickly destroyed forever. If we take a hardcore Darwinist view, well OK, they did it to themselves. But I view it as more likely a lack of wisdom. When I was a teenager and young adult, I did stupid and risky things. When you are young, you don't have proper wisdom and it is only developed over time. In my view, one thing that these laws do is to serve as a guidepost. At least as a society, we tried to protect the unwise from eating the wrong mushroom, just by having laws against it.
I was waiting for this one.
If you're going to play the safety card you should charge every single person caught foraging for edible wild mushrooms. Every year I hear reports of people dying from eating the wrong mushroom.
You should be aware that these laws do not serve as guideposts but as tools of oppression. I mean that literally and not as libertarian hyperbole. If you want citations I can do the needful for the same.
If you're going to play the safety card you should charge every single person caught foraging for edible wild mushrooms. Every year I hear reports of people dying from eating the wrong mushroom.
You should be aware that these laws do not serve as guideposts but as tools of oppression. I mean that literally and not as libertarian hyperbole. If you want citations I can do the needful for the same.
Well, I can't say I really disagree with you. I own copies of Tihkal and Pihkal. It's a fascinating, underexplored, and underfunded area. It seemed like our society was moving further left on these issues, with marijuana opening up. But, with the opioid and heroin epidemic (and it is an epidemic where I am from in WV) I expect we'll soon see a hard move back to the right on all these issues.
Having lost a sibling to heroin, I'm very much emotionally invested in this topic.
The opioid epidemic has been well documented as being created by Purdue Pharma, et al. It's also clear by now that treating a medical issue as a crime only makes things tragically worse.
But this all goes back to a central question: should the state have authority over your mind? If not, why are these laws on the books?
The opioid epidemic has been well documented as being created by Purdue Pharma, et al. It's also clear by now that treating a medical issue as a crime only makes things tragically worse.
But this all goes back to a central question: should the state have authority over your mind? If not, why are these laws on the books?
Also lost a sibling at least in relation to opioid addiction. My 19-year old brother, he died in the street from a gunshot to the back from an 18-year old drug dealer, while trying to buy a bottle of Oxycontin on a weekday morning. I don't know how to solve these issues, but from my view, one thing that has most bothered me is, why weren't both of these able bodied young men at work? On a weekday morning? Well, there were no jobs, it was 2009 and the economy was in shock. This epidemic is a side effect of the banking catastrophe and its leaders, none of whom have beeen held accountable themselves for their own crimes, and are all multiples richer than they were at that time.
Having delusional cult leaders talking about the fractal universe and how we are all the same and how everything would be fixed if we just gave up our ego is bad for society.
It will be good for society when there is more automation.
So what?
Preventing graffiti at a state or national park doesn't make us safe either. We still prosecute those who graffiti.
Poaching rabbits doesn't make us safer. It's also illegal.
Preventing graffiti at a state or national park doesn't make us safe either. We still prosecute those who graffiti.
Poaching rabbits doesn't make us safer. It's also illegal.
Graffiti is vandalism, i.e., a property crime. Poaching, by definition, is hunting an animal that is restricted for varying reasons, from being a protected species to herd management, etc. It's effectively taking something that doesn't belong to you.
In this case, he did break the law by picking mushrooms where it was specifically prohibited, and it would be reasonable to cite him for that fact.
But it wasn't about theft, it was about the fact that he wanted to ingest a compound which would alter his state of consciousness. That should not be a crime.
In this case, he did break the law by picking mushrooms where it was specifically prohibited, and it would be reasonable to cite him for that fact.
But it wasn't about theft, it was about the fact that he wanted to ingest a compound which would alter his state of consciousness. That should not be a crime.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that there are more ways to judge the validity of a law than its ability to protect us.
I list more examples at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15052587 .
I list more examples at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15052587 .
Yeah. Laws don't have to make us safer, they can have other benefits.
The U.S. Constitution might be a good place to start talking about what laws should do. It says, "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
The U.S. Constitution might be a good place to start talking about what laws should do. It says, "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
No, it isn't. The U.S. Constitution as originally written specifically to limit federal power.
The 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It wasn't not written to be a general-purpose commentary about what laws should be.
Remember, it was also written to allow people to be property. It also says that there is freedom of religion, but that was at the federal level. Some states had official state churches for a few decades more.
The 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It wasn't not written to be a general-purpose commentary about what laws should be.
Remember, it was also written to allow people to be property. It also says that there is freedom of religion, but that was at the federal level. Some states had official state churches for a few decades more.
>Corbett has been frustrated by what he considers insufficient or even counterproductive advice by his lawyers, who have urged him to plead guilty. They have refused to discuss anything relating to mushrooms or entheogens, and hope Corbett will settle for the plea deal and probation. But Corbett is determined to challenge the law and prove his innocence. He has since fired his attorneys and he hopes to hire one who will best represent him and his unique situation.
Not a very smart move. The lawyers he fired are right.
Not a very smart move. The lawyers he fired are right.
They are right if the goal is to get the least amount of punishment.
It sounds like he wants to protect his rights. In the US system yhe prosecutors throw the book at you and offer plea deals that are a small fraction of the original charge. They then then use their resources to go heavily after anyone who doesn't take a plea deal.
That means you get to pick defending your rights or avoiding punishment, not both
It sounds like he wants to protect his rights. In the US system yhe prosecutors throw the book at you and offer plea deals that are a small fraction of the original charge. They then then use their resources to go heavily after anyone who doesn't take a plea deal.
That means you get to pick defending your rights or avoiding punishment, not both
There's really nothing to defend when you're that guilty. There is no "right" to pick or possess magic mushrooms, which he is admitting he did.
His crime was admitting to the charge the state is levying against him.
Oops.
Oops.