5 ms·

Canada Is Allowing Dying People to Do Psychedelic Mushrooms

27 points by afkqs 6y ago

627467 6y ago
Not a naive question: why would Canada (state) need to authorize patients to consume anything? I get that substances are regulated but we already can get legal access to substances that we shouldn't consume too much or at all (ie. spirits, tobacco, sugar, salt, bleach...) so, why would dying patients (or anyone, really) not be allowed to consume regulated mushrooms? I get that the real problem noted in this article is not on the right of the patient to consume, but the access to it - anyone distributing mushrooms to those patients need legal coverage to do so. Still, I find it really hard to understand why (most, yet, not all) societies are so obsessed in regulating the access and consumptions of certains things while vast majority of unregulated things can and are as deadly as those regulated.
- lowdose 6y ago
  If the state has more to regulate it will create jobs and expand it's sphere of influence.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Power tries to amass more power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- afkqs 6y ago
  A quote from Terence McKenna, a renowned advocate for the responsible use of psychedelic plants: “Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong." The psychedelic experience can be much more intense to process and integrate afterward than the substances you mentioned.
- Tsarbomb 6y ago
  For the same reason why Canada regulates a whole array of things you might find mundane. To ideally benefit society. For example, in Canada it is illegal to sell unenriched flour. Flour sold in Canada has to fortified with things like folic acid, riboflavin, and thiamine. Why? Because this helps contribute to Canada having one of the lowest birth defect and infant mortality rates in the world. This kind of thinking extends to regulations around food prep in restaurants, car safety, pharmaceuticals, etc... Given the single payer health insurance that is pervasive in Canada, the government(s) are incentivized to ensure proper delivery of services and care as efficiently as possible. Canada is far from nor will it ever be some libertarian hellhole.
- lm28469 6y ago
  > Still, I find it really hard to understand why (most, yet, not all) societies are so obsessed in regulating the access and consumptions of certains things Some things are deemed net negatives for society, we already can't trust people not to drive while high or after drinking alcohol, if anyone could buy cheap meth at Walmart I can't imagine it would be a good thing. I'm all for legalising, or at least decriminalising, psychedelics but some people really can't be trusted to ensure their own safety and the safety of others. On top of that it's a bit like seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, some people think it's their own choice but when they crash they cost $$$ to the public health system and they're fucking over every single tax payer in the country. I already know the rebuttal to that point "simply do it safely", well, just as some people can't drink alcohol safely, some people can't handle drugs safely. The only sensible way to legalise it would be to allow it under full medical supervision, which brings a whole other set of problems > while vast majority of unregulated things can and are as deadly as those regulated. If you're talking about alcohol and tobacco they're legal because they're historical and heavily lobbied. If alcohol didn't exist and someone came up with it in 2020 it wouldn't be legalised. Tbh in my opinion half the food sold in supermarkets should be as illegal as coke but that's another topic. (By the way I always found the "if alcohol and tobacco are bad but legal then drugs should be legal" argument kind of moot, the logical conclusion would be to criminalise tobacco and alcohol rather than decriminalising everything else)
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >If you're talking about alcohol and tobacco they're legal because they're historical and heavily lobbied They're legal because experiments have shown making them illegal is more harmful to society. They're regulated and taxed because government naturally wants to regulate and tax things and given their controversial nature there is less push-back to taxing vices.
    - lm28469 6y ago
      You're right, but I still doubt neither cigarettes nor alcohol would be legal if they were invented in 2020
  - 6y ago
- lioeters 6y ago
  My take on why a state needs to "allow" a person to consume anything whatsoever: this attitude has roots in cultural and religious values. For centuries, the Christian religion sought to eradicate "witchcraft" and pagan practices in the Western world. The use of mind-altering substances in particular is commonly associated with taboos, in an anthropological sense. It's no secret that they can bring a person to visionary ecstasy, to experience heaven and hell, to see or even be God. (Subjectively, I might add.) The history of prohibition and the legal justifications are, in my opinion, symptoms of these unconscious, generational mindset in society, heavily shaped by religion. I'm glad to see the tides change - after decades of criminalization, we're collectively gaining more understanding of the therapeutic potential of these substances.
late2part 6y ago
"Allowing"
1MachineElf 6y ago
From day 0 we all have begun the process of dying.

27 points by afkqs 6y ago

Not a naive question: why would Canada (state) need to authorize patients to consume anything? I get that substances are regulated but we already can get legal access to substances that we shouldn't consume too much or at all (ie. spirits, tobacco, sugar, salt, bleach...) so, why would dying patients (or anyone, really) not be allowed to consume regulated mushrooms? I get that the real problem noted in this article is not on the right of the patient to consume, but the access to it - anyone distributing mushrooms to those patients need legal coverage to do so. Still, I find it really hard to understand why (most, yet, not all) societies are so obsessed in regulating the access and consumptions of certains things while vast majority of unregulated things can and are as deadly as those regulated.

lowdose 6y ago
If the state has more to regulate it will create jobs and expand it's sphere of influence.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Power tries to amass more power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
afkqs 6y ago
A quote from Terence McKenna, a renowned advocate for the responsible use of psychedelic plants: “Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong." The psychedelic experience can be much more intense to process and integrate afterward than the substances you mentioned.
Tsarbomb 6y ago
For the same reason why Canada regulates a whole array of things you might find mundane. To ideally benefit society. For example, in Canada it is illegal to sell unenriched flour. Flour sold in Canada has to fortified with things like folic acid, riboflavin, and thiamine. Why? Because this helps contribute to Canada having one of the lowest birth defect and infant mortality rates in the world. This kind of thinking extends to regulations around food prep in restaurants, car safety, pharmaceuticals, etc... Given the single payer health insurance that is pervasive in Canada, the government(s) are incentivized to ensure proper delivery of services and care as efficiently as possible. Canada is far from nor will it ever be some libertarian hellhole.
lm28469 6y ago
> Still, I find it really hard to understand why (most, yet, not all) societies are so obsessed in regulating the access and consumptions of certains things Some things are deemed net negatives for society, we already can't trust people not to drive while high or after drinking alcohol, if anyone could buy cheap meth at Walmart I can't imagine it would be a good thing. I'm all for legalising, or at least decriminalising, psychedelics but some people really can't be trusted to ensure their own safety and the safety of others. On top of that it's a bit like seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, some people think it's their own choice but when they crash they cost $$$ to the public health system and they're fucking over every single tax payer in the country. I already know the rebuttal to that point "simply do it safely", well, just as some people can't drink alcohol safely, some people can't handle drugs safely. The only sensible way to legalise it would be to allow it under full medical supervision, which brings a whole other set of problems > while vast majority of unregulated things can and are as deadly as those regulated. If you're talking about alcohol and tobacco they're legal because they're historical and heavily lobbied. If alcohol didn't exist and someone came up with it in 2020 it wouldn't be legalised. Tbh in my opinion half the food sold in supermarkets should be as illegal as coke but that's another topic. (By the way I always found the "if alcohol and tobacco are bad but legal then drugs should be legal" argument kind of moot, the logical conclusion would be to criminalise tobacco and alcohol rather than decriminalising everything else)
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >If you're talking about alcohol and tobacco they're legal because they're historical and heavily lobbied They're legal because experiments have shown making them illegal is more harmful to society. They're regulated and taxed because government naturally wants to regulate and tax things and given their controversial nature there is less push-back to taxing vices.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    You're right, but I still doubt neither cigarettes nor alcohol would be legal if they were invented in 2020
- 6y ago
lioeters 6y ago
My take on why a state needs to "allow" a person to consume anything whatsoever: this attitude has roots in cultural and religious values. For centuries, the Christian religion sought to eradicate "witchcraft" and pagan practices in the Western world. The use of mind-altering substances in particular is commonly associated with taboos, in an anthropological sense. It's no secret that they can bring a person to visionary ecstasy, to experience heaven and hell, to see or even be God. (Subjectively, I might add.) The history of prohibition and the legal justifications are, in my opinion, symptoms of these unconscious, generational mindset in society, heavily shaped by religion. I'm glad to see the tides change - after decades of criminalization, we're collectively gaining more understanding of the therapeutic potential of these substances.

late2part 6y ago

"Allowing"

1MachineElf 6y ago

From day 0 we all have begun the process of dying.