6 ms·

I challenge anybody to prove how this makes us safer.

by pstuart 9y ago

corndoge 9y ago
it's about the safety of the mushrooms
- fgGAMI 9y ago
  Did you know humans are 70% mushroom?
a-the-ist 9y ago
But think of the drug companies and drug-dealers who's living depend on the military-prison-industrial complex keeping up this phony prohibition. And the park rangers whom get to draw their guns and rough people up. Also, the for-profit prisons, they need to eat. Let's not forget the job security of the court clerks.
eesmith 9y ago
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.
- pstuart 9y ago
  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.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15052587 .
- lsiebert 9y ago
  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..."
  - eesmith 9y ago
    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.
robertpelloni 9y ago
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.
- robertpelloni 9y ago
  It will be good for society when there is more automation.
bobjordan 9y ago
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.
- pstuart 9y ago
  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.
  - bobjordan 9y ago
    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.
    - pstuart 9y ago
      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?

I challenge anybody to prove how this makes us safer.

corndoge 9y ago

it's about the safety of the mushrooms

fgGAMI 9y ago
Did you know humans are 70% mushroom?

a-the-ist 9y ago

But think of the drug companies and drug-dealers who's living depend on the military-prison-industrial complex keeping up this phony prohibition. And the park rangers whom get to draw their guns and rough people up. Also, the for-profit prisons, they need to eat. Let's not forget the job security of the court clerks.

eesmith 9y ago

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.

pstuart 9y ago
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.
- eesmith 9y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15052587 .
lsiebert 9y ago
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..."
- eesmith 9y ago
  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.

robertpelloni 9y ago

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.

robertpelloni 9y ago
It will be good for society when there is more automation.

bobjordan 9y ago

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.

pstuart 9y ago
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.
- bobjordan 9y ago
  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.
  - pstuart 9y ago
    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?