6 ms·

Decriminalize Psychedelic Plants and Fungi in San Francisco

53 points by dsernst 7y ago

averros 7y ago
Why stop at plants? If someone chooses to take whatever substance it's no one else's business (unless others have to pay for the medical treatment afterwards... but that is easily solved by NOT making others pay). The actually dangerous drugs - the ones (SSRIs, notably) which have suicide as a side effect, sometimes resulting in people going on murderous rampages - are quite legal and widely prescribed. Go figure.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  How do you stop paying for medical outcomes? And why should we care? As part of insurance pools, today I pay for extreme sports injuries, alcohol and tobacco related chronic problems, outright stupidity, and obesity related issues. No one seems to balk at that; why should THC or magic mushrooms be fundamentally different? Even if they “should” be, how could they be?
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    I agree with you in the sense that refined sugar in processed foods should be highly regulated, as society pays an enormous cost for it.
undersuit 7y ago
I had to vouch averros and I can't reply to him, great. Decriminalize all drugs. Cheese + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome Grapefruit + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_interactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...
- rincebrain 7y ago
  Are you thinking of cheese+MAOIs? Because SSRIs aren't known for having that interaction with fermented products at any dose I've seen.
  - undersuit 7y ago
    I am thinking of cheese and MAOIs. SSRIs are still extensively mentioned in the wiki article on Serotonin syndrome.
Animats 7y ago
SF has enough druggies already.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
The DEA Scheduling system is not fact-based and needs to be completely redone. In fact, the categorizations are provably false e.g. PCP is schedule II, Cocaine is schedule III, Xanax is Schedule IV etc, while Marijuana and Psilocybin (mushrooms) are Schedule I. Yes that's right, according to the federal government, marijuana and mushrooms are more harmful, more addictive, and have less medical use than PCP, Cocaine, or Xanax.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  PCP was a general anesthetic, cocaine is still a local anesthetic used humorously enough for rhinoplasty [1] (and eye surgery if I’m not mistaken) and Xanax is an antidepressant so by that strict measure there’s some logic. With that in mind it’s a completely asinine system and should be thrown out. It’s such an utter waste of time when Portugal’s policy of decriminalizing everything a decade and a half ago showed massive public benefit and no increase in drug use. [2] Nothing about the war on drugs is “fact based.” This whole conversation is about re-shuffling the deck chairs when we should be getting off the Titanic. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9935273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9935273/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
  - 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
    Xanax is not an antidepressant, it is a sedative-hypnotic.
    - loeg 7y ago
      Ostensibly, it's foremost an anxiolytic.
- loeg 7y ago
  Cocaine is Schedule II, actually. While it can be used as a topical anesthetic, I don't think it is especially common anymore. Xanax has significant medical use supported by actual studies. (Yes, it's kind of a problem that the Federal government essentially blocks studies of many substances.) There's not a lot of real distinction between schedules III-V other than "less potential for abuse than the last one" (per DEA, not any science). Schedule II is nominally "high potential for abuse," like Schedule I. > The DEA Scheduling system is not fact-based and needs to be completely redone. Yes, current scheduling is absurd and not based in evidence. I don't really agree with the policy that drugs must have medical value to be legal (which is enshrined in the distinction between Schedule I and II as they are today); it's certainly hard to reconcile with the legal status of (potable) alcohol or tobacco, which have more or less negative medical value.
kisna72 7y ago
Can't help but wonder what the unintended consequences of decriminalizing psychedelic plants would be in society? I'm thinking this might create a new market for Shamans (therapists ?) that guide you through psychedelic uses! What else?
- hellofunk 7y ago
  They are decriminalized in other parts of the world, including places like the Netherlands, and you wouldn’t know it.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  More colorful homes and clothing.
journalctl 7y ago
Amazing how psychedelics might be legalized before housing in San Francisco.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  Housing is far more complicated, obviously. To claim it isn't "legalized" is using a very weird definition of the word. Luckily, the city of San Francisco can work on multiple problems at once. They don't feel the need to wait for the homeless problem to be solved before they fix a pothole on the street or apply a fresh coat of paint to a piece of playground equipment. This is a simple issue that can improve lives. Sometimes in dramatic ways, such as for the terminally ill. And it can be changed without a lot of money or effort being spent.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Maybe homelessness sucks a lot less when you can hang out with the talking flowers and trees in beautiful golden gate park all day. (I'm mostly kidding, there's no significant barrier to accessing pyschedelics in SF as-is.)
robbrown451 7y ago
There are some drugs about which good arguments can be made on both sides of the legality issue. Highly addictive ones do indeed ruin lives, and while there is an argument that that should be the person's choice, the other side can argue that the government is there to better the common good, and that can include protecting people from their own bad decisions. I have mixed feelings about the legality issue when it comes to cocaine, meth, heroin, prescription opioids, etc. With psilocybin mushrooms, though, I can't imagine any reasonable argument that people need to be protected from themselves. They aren't addictive by any definition of addiction I know of. And they can do some amazingly positive things, especially for those who are facing death due to illness or just old age. I would go so far as to say it is tragic that such people are denied relief from the horrible feeling of impending death that mushrooms can provide. Not that I am against people just doing them for kicks, either.
- pstuart 7y ago
  Please bear in mind that the origins of drug prohibition had little to do with "protecting" people, and were instead instruments of oppression. Drug abuse a health problem, not a criminal problem. We spend orders of magnitude on the criminal side and, guess what? It only makes things worse. Legalize. Regulate. Tax. It's very simple, and is the only correct answer.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    Maybe. I think it's unfortunate that people who are saying their answer is "the only correct" one are probably going to slow down progress. Laws aren't always about crimes, by the way. Not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets shouldn't be seen as a criminal problem, but we still have laws about it. Maybe you disagree with those laws, and that's fine. I think it is less fine to say that your perspective on the issue is the only one that can be reasonably seen as valid.
    - pstuart 7y ago
      Please don't confuse my adamance in defining the problem as an applied ideology in the real world. I'm pretty damn pragmatic and don't play purity politics. I'm sticking with my statement, because it's true. I welcome reasonable refutations to it. You overlooked the word "regulate". That means laws, but applied towards health and safety of products sold, rather than punishing the consumer. We still need DUI laws (and related), but otherwise it's a personal choice all the way down.

53 points by dsernst 7y ago

Why stop at plants? If someone chooses to take whatever substance it's no one else's business (unless others have to pay for the medical treatment afterwards... but that is easily solved by NOT making others pay). The actually dangerous drugs - the ones (SSRIs, notably) which have suicide as a side effect, sometimes resulting in people going on murderous rampages - are quite legal and widely prescribed. Go figure.

sokoloff 7y ago
How do you stop paying for medical outcomes? And why should we care? As part of insurance pools, today I pay for extreme sports injuries, alcohol and tobacco related chronic problems, outright stupidity, and obesity related issues. No one seems to balk at that; why should THC or magic mushrooms be fundamentally different? Even if they “should” be, how could they be?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  I agree with you in the sense that refined sugar in processed foods should be highly regulated, as society pays an enormous cost for it.

undersuit 7y ago

I had to vouch averros and I can't reply to him, great. Decriminalize all drugs. Cheese + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome Grapefruit + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_interactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...

rincebrain 7y ago
Are you thinking of cheese+MAOIs? Because SSRIs aren't known for having that interaction with fermented products at any dose I've seen.
- undersuit 7y ago
  I am thinking of cheese and MAOIs. SSRIs are still extensively mentioned in the wiki article on Serotonin syndrome.

Animats 7y ago

SF has enough druggies already.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

The DEA Scheduling system is not fact-based and needs to be completely redone. In fact, the categorizations are provably false e.g. PCP is schedule II, Cocaine is schedule III, Xanax is Schedule IV etc, while Marijuana and Psilocybin (mushrooms) are Schedule I. Yes that's right, according to the federal government, marijuana and mushrooms are more harmful, more addictive, and have less medical use than PCP, Cocaine, or Xanax.

arcticbull 7y ago
PCP was a general anesthetic, cocaine is still a local anesthetic used humorously enough for rhinoplasty [1] (and eye surgery if I’m not mistaken) and Xanax is an antidepressant so by that strict measure there’s some logic. With that in mind it’s a completely asinine system and should be thrown out. It’s such an utter waste of time when Portugal’s policy of decriminalizing everything a decade and a half ago showed massive public benefit and no increase in drug use. [2] Nothing about the war on drugs is “fact based.” This whole conversation is about re-shuffling the deck chairs when we should be getting off the Titanic. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9935273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9935273/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  Xanax is not an antidepressant, it is a sedative-hypnotic.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Ostensibly, it's foremost an anxiolytic.
loeg 7y ago
Cocaine is Schedule II, actually. While it can be used as a topical anesthetic, I don't think it is especially common anymore. Xanax has significant medical use supported by actual studies. (Yes, it's kind of a problem that the Federal government essentially blocks studies of many substances.) There's not a lot of real distinction between schedules III-V other than "less potential for abuse than the last one" (per DEA, not any science). Schedule II is nominally "high potential for abuse," like Schedule I. > The DEA Scheduling system is not fact-based and needs to be completely redone. Yes, current scheduling is absurd and not based in evidence. I don't really agree with the policy that drugs must have medical value to be legal (which is enshrined in the distinction between Schedule I and II as they are today); it's certainly hard to reconcile with the legal status of (potable) alcohol or tobacco, which have more or less negative medical value.

kisna72 7y ago

Can't help but wonder what the unintended consequences of decriminalizing psychedelic plants would be in society? I'm thinking this might create a new market for Shamans (therapists ?) that guide you through psychedelic uses! What else?

hellofunk 7y ago
They are decriminalized in other parts of the world, including places like the Netherlands, and you wouldn’t know it.
newnewpdro 7y ago
More colorful homes and clothing.

journalctl 7y ago

Amazing how psychedelics might be legalized before housing in San Francisco.

robbrown451 7y ago
Housing is far more complicated, obviously. To claim it isn't "legalized" is using a very weird definition of the word. Luckily, the city of San Francisco can work on multiple problems at once. They don't feel the need to wait for the homeless problem to be solved before they fix a pothole on the street or apply a fresh coat of paint to a piece of playground equipment. This is a simple issue that can improve lives. Sometimes in dramatic ways, such as for the terminally ill. And it can be changed without a lot of money or effort being spent.
newnewpdro 7y ago
Maybe homelessness sucks a lot less when you can hang out with the talking flowers and trees in beautiful golden gate park all day. (I'm mostly kidding, there's no significant barrier to accessing pyschedelics in SF as-is.)

robbrown451 7y ago

There are some drugs about which good arguments can be made on both sides of the legality issue. Highly addictive ones do indeed ruin lives, and while there is an argument that that should be the person's choice, the other side can argue that the government is there to better the common good, and that can include protecting people from their own bad decisions. I have mixed feelings about the legality issue when it comes to cocaine, meth, heroin, prescription opioids, etc. With psilocybin mushrooms, though, I can't imagine any reasonable argument that people need to be protected from themselves. They aren't addictive by any definition of addiction I know of. And they can do some amazingly positive things, especially for those who are facing death due to illness or just old age. I would go so far as to say it is tragic that such people are denied relief from the horrible feeling of impending death that mushrooms can provide. Not that I am against people just doing them for kicks, either.

pstuart 7y ago
Please bear in mind that the origins of drug prohibition had little to do with "protecting" people, and were instead instruments of oppression. Drug abuse a health problem, not a criminal problem. We spend orders of magnitude on the criminal side and, guess what? It only makes things worse. Legalize. Regulate. Tax. It's very simple, and is the only correct answer.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  Maybe. I think it's unfortunate that people who are saying their answer is "the only correct" one are probably going to slow down progress. Laws aren't always about crimes, by the way. Not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets shouldn't be seen as a criminal problem, but we still have laws about it. Maybe you disagree with those laws, and that's fine. I think it is less fine to say that your perspective on the issue is the only one that can be reasonably seen as valid.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    Please don't confuse my adamance in defining the problem as an applied ideology in the real world. I'm pretty damn pragmatic and don't play purity politics. I'm sticking with my statement, because it's true. I welcome reasonable refutations to it. You overlooked the word "regulate". That means laws, but applied towards health and safety of products sold, rather than punishing the consumer. We still need DUI laws (and related), but otherwise it's a personal choice all the way down.