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.

> 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

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-...

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's actually kind of a clusterfuck.

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

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.-...

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

With mushrooms they'll find them incident to arrest and thus probably tack on a charge to whatever else they were investigating

I'm glad that Denver isn't giving into fear mongering regarding the chemistry of our own bodies.

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).

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.

Who knew!

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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875725

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...

Definitely worth a read.

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.

https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...

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.

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 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_refe...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

> 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 ;)

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).

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.

In fact any unchecked source of power is a potential source of mass misery.

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 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'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 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.

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. :)

As the law nerd cliche goes, they aren't final because they're right, they're right because they're final.

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

> 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.)

> 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.

checkmate.

...

> (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.

The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The EU may go through a similar transition.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

And as with nearly all of these things - alcohol, tobacco, and prison are all much worse for you.

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)

  Taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse, according to the head of the Government's drug advisory body.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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...

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.