13 ms·

I have a good bit of experience with some of these drugs. These types of drugs absolutely have therapeutic use cases and its good people who need them will have

I have a good bit of experience with some of these drugs. These types of drugs absolutely have therapeutic use cases and its good people who need them will have easier access. HOWEVER - these are powerful drugs and making them more easily available to The Common Idiot is grossly negligent.

rcoveson 3y ago
Freedom for me, but not for thee Thou art a common idiot, see? Though I've tasted the fruit And seen that it's good I fear it won't suit you like prison would.
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  That's a nice poem! Although I disagree. Therapeutic use: yes. These should be controlled substances.
  - mptest 3y ago
    Seriously, people on a technical forum arguing for prohibition with the wealth of evidence showing it's a well intended failure at best, a farcical show to placate and win votes from ignorant sanctimonious puritans at worst? Tragic. At this point It's a way to funnel money that could go to addiction treatment to the DEA, money going to an unwinnable war to control adults who are going to do what they want. 5% of the global economy in the black market we could take from criminals and turn it towards the social good. Instead of violent cartels that will serve the need no matter what we could have taxed businesses with daily limits. "But ppl will do bad things". Tell me how that's worth the cost of the war on drugs? Shocking position. Please explain it to me how what cartels do is worth your desire to be sanctimonious?? The only thing we have to do to get huge financial and social benefits is give up your frankly childish notion that we should control uncontrollable substances and police adults in something that in most cases harms no one. Police adults who commit crimes on substances extra. Let adults make their own choices otherwise. The war on drugs and anyone still supporting it as a way of doing anything but throwing money in a fire pit are a joke.
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be doing and all the medical uses but a bunch of anti-science puritans are keeping them from doing it.(sarcasm) I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?
      - superb_dev 3y ago
        That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics
        AYBABTME 3y ago
        I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
        callalex 3y ago
        Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
        AYBABTME 3y ago
        You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.
      - doktrin 3y ago
        I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    Unless “decriminalize” means something different in California, decriminalizing a drug exactly means that it’s a controlled substance, it’s still illegal to sell. It just means you are not throwing people in jail for personal possession. Whatever you think about mushrooms, jail is certainly more harmful than the mushrooms themselves.
    - _blk 3y ago
      Looking at all the tranq zombies in CA, I strongly disagree with that last statement no matter the drug. Unfortunately, I'll have to concede that jail is likely not the right place either. I think we can all agree that those people need hope and something to live for long-term. Drugs have proven not to be that solution to everyone except those in their bondage. In that sense, I fail to see how decriminalization of possession is going to send anything but wrong signals. Kids don't do drugs, just keep them in your pockets. How's that sound if it was your kid?
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        The real root problem is that we refuse to pay to treat any of the actual root causes of any of this, whether that is on the street or in a jail cell. The health system has a shortage of mental health and drug treatment spaces and practitioners, and what exists often isn't affordable to those who need it. At the same time, we don't pay for those things in prison either, and it's also expensive to have a bunch of disruptive, unhinged prisoners constantly needing to be contained after damaging stuff when they have an episode or whatever. Bail and sentencing reform was often kicked off by conservatives initially, because a low-tax state cannot afford the very expensive cost of locking up every single drug user. California has been sued multiple times over the fact that its prison system is chronically overcrowded, and lost at the Supreme Court level: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/crim/overcrowding_080511.aspx https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/crim/overcrowding_080511.asp.... But there is no appetite to pay more to open new prisons, which are nearly impossible to site even if there was funding (do you want to live next to a prison?)
anigbrowl 3y ago
What qualifying process did you go through prior to first using them?
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Several rounds of "culture fit" interviews I imagine ;)
skidd0 3y ago
So because of 'idiots', anyone looking to experience the therapeutic effects should continue to carry the risk of jail time and a permanent record?
- dhritzkiv 3y ago
  My reading of the parent comment suggests that they're in favour of decriminalizing them, but not permitting the commercial sale of them. Acquisition would then be achieved by e.g. prescriptions / medical studies, growing for personal use, or from "friends". The important thing is that no one is charged criminally for possession.
  - skidd0 3y ago
    Ah, that's not as bad. Still, I'd prefer full legalization. Commercial sale as well. The less risk, the better. Risk from still being illegal, from bad sources, from bad product.
    - distract8901 3y ago
      It's something that has both extremely positive and extremely negative effects. We should treat it like other dangerous medicines
      - JoshTriplett 3y ago
        > We should treat it like other dangerous medicines We should decriminalize those, too.
        tux3 3y ago
        The first step to protect adults from accidental poisonings with medicines is by making better safety caps, and storing them on a much higher shelf where adults cannot reach them But you cannot only rely on storing medicines up high and using adult-resistant caps to protect your adults. Also, it is just not possible to watch adults every second. So, other strategies need to be put in place to prevent your adults from gaining access to medicines.
wyldfire 3y ago
Probably couldn't go any worse than it has with firearms.
- electrondood 3y ago
  What are you on about? California's gun laws makes it the 3rd-lowest state in gun deaths per capita [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...
- edgyquant 3y ago
  If you think firearms couldn’t be a lot worse you’re out of touch with reality.
  - wyldfire 3y ago
    That's not what that says. It refers to unchecked drug use as not worse than firearms, not whether or not firearms could be worse than they are now.
leet_thow 3y ago
You should know better than to criticize "progressive" policies online.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
babyshake 3y ago
A huge amount of this IMO has to do with driving. Autonomous vehicles are a game changer in many respects, but one of them is making it safer for the "Common Idiot" to use mind altering substances more safely.
nico 3y ago
This is pretty much the same excuse used to prevent full democracy from happening Hey, voting is great, helpful and powerful, but letting The Common Idiot vote is a slippery slope For the record, yes ideally we should have better education, especially around drugs and how to use them At the same time, anyone can buy a knife or scissors or plenty of toxic chemicals, and do a ton of harm (way more than with any psychedelics), how do you propose we regulate those?
- Mizoguchi 3y ago
  Growing up in a communist regime I'm all in for democracy and freedom. Having experienced drug addiction while having a graduate degree I also believe regulation of drugs and alcohol is necessary. You think you are in control until that one day when you take it too far. If you don't have a strong support system of relatives and friends and access to good health care, there's no coming back from that hole.
  - skidd0 3y ago
    A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction. The risk of addiction shouldn't prevent anyone else from choosing what they put in their own body.
    - tux3 3y ago
      >A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction I could see this go either way. There are people who are, somehow, simply unaware of risks and not very interested in learning more. I'd expect at least some effect. Do you have any source for the claim?
      - uoaei 3y ago
        I propose a hearty ban on bad-faith "do you have a source for that" questions directed at negative statements. If this community is to be science-based, it must adopt the position that the null hypothesis is valid until proven otherwise.
01100011 3y ago
Yeah I've had a mixed history with psychedelics. Imitation LSD(probably DOx on blotter) left me with panic attacks and HPPD around 16 years old. Later on I had great experiences with LSD, psilocybin and mescaline over a couple decades. Recently, a strong mushroom trip left me with months of spasmodic torticollis(violet head jerks to the side), migraines where I would lose half my vision, and seriously diminished my cognitive abilities. I don't think psychedelics should be illegal, but I don't think we should be encouraging folks to do them until we understand them more completely.
- highstep 3y ago
  what strain of mushrooms?
  - 01100011 3y ago
    I think it was either PF Redspore or Golden Teachers. Home grown but dried and kept in an oxygen free environment until use. Probably took around 5g dried but that's over 6-8 hours as I never eat them all at once. When I was doing 5g/night, I started getting the day-after headaches. Did them at least 4 times without long-term side effects until I got them.
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      Maybe you have some neurodegenerative disease that you think is mushrooms?
laserbeam 3y ago
The article is not very clear about that. It does say that is decriminalizes posetion of limited quantities for adults, it requires that institutions research the drugs further, and does not decriminalize commercial sale. Obviously there's some amount of risk with these drugs and you don't want them to be widespread and consumed daily (like alcohol, which is also nasty). But you need such laws for medical institutions (of all sizes) to be able to touch the drugs. No one is being negligent here.

rcoveson 3y ago

Freedom for me, but not for thee Thou art a common idiot, see? Though I've tasted the fruit And seen that it's good I fear it won't suit you like prison would.

AYBABTME 3y ago
That's a nice poem! Although I disagree. Therapeutic use: yes. These should be controlled substances.
- mptest 3y ago
  Seriously, people on a technical forum arguing for prohibition with the wealth of evidence showing it's a well intended failure at best, a farcical show to placate and win votes from ignorant sanctimonious puritans at worst? Tragic. At this point It's a way to funnel money that could go to addiction treatment to the DEA, money going to an unwinnable war to control adults who are going to do what they want. 5% of the global economy in the black market we could take from criminals and turn it towards the social good. Instead of violent cartels that will serve the need no matter what we could have taxed businesses with daily limits. "But ppl will do bad things". Tell me how that's worth the cost of the war on drugs? Shocking position. Please explain it to me how what cartels do is worth your desire to be sanctimonious?? The only thing we have to do to get huge financial and social benefits is give up your frankly childish notion that we should control uncontrollable substances and police adults in something that in most cases harms no one. Police adults who commit crimes on substances extra. Let adults make their own choices otherwise. The war on drugs and anyone still supporting it as a way of doing anything but throwing money in a fire pit are a joke.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be doing and all the medical uses but a bunch of anti-science puritans are keeping them from doing it.(sarcasm) I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?
    - superb_dev 3y ago
      That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics
      - AYBABTME 3y ago
        I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
        callalex 3y ago
        Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
        AYBABTME 3y ago
        You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.
    - doktrin 3y ago
      I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  Unless “decriminalize” means something different in California, decriminalizing a drug exactly means that it’s a controlled substance, it’s still illegal to sell. It just means you are not throwing people in jail for personal possession. Whatever you think about mushrooms, jail is certainly more harmful than the mushrooms themselves.
  - _blk 3y ago
    Looking at all the tranq zombies in CA, I strongly disagree with that last statement no matter the drug. Unfortunately, I'll have to concede that jail is likely not the right place either. I think we can all agree that those people need hope and something to live for long-term. Drugs have proven not to be that solution to everyone except those in their bondage. In that sense, I fail to see how decriminalization of possession is going to send anything but wrong signals. Kids don't do drugs, just keep them in your pockets. How's that sound if it was your kid?
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      The real root problem is that we refuse to pay to treat any of the actual root causes of any of this, whether that is on the street or in a jail cell. The health system has a shortage of mental health and drug treatment spaces and practitioners, and what exists often isn't affordable to those who need it. At the same time, we don't pay for those things in prison either, and it's also expensive to have a bunch of disruptive, unhinged prisoners constantly needing to be contained after damaging stuff when they have an episode or whatever. Bail and sentencing reform was often kicked off by conservatives initially, because a low-tax state cannot afford the very expensive cost of locking up every single drug user. California has been sued multiple times over the fact that its prison system is chronically overcrowded, and lost at the Supreme Court level: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/crim/overcrowding_080511.aspx https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/crim/overcrowding_080511.asp.... But there is no appetite to pay more to open new prisons, which are nearly impossible to site even if there was funding (do you want to live next to a prison?)

anigbrowl 3y ago

What qualifying process did you go through prior to first using them?

kdmccormick 3y ago
Several rounds of "culture fit" interviews I imagine ;)

skidd0 3y ago

So because of 'idiots', anyone looking to experience the therapeutic effects should continue to carry the risk of jail time and a permanent record?

dhritzkiv 3y ago
My reading of the parent comment suggests that they're in favour of decriminalizing them, but not permitting the commercial sale of them. Acquisition would then be achieved by e.g. prescriptions / medical studies, growing for personal use, or from "friends". The important thing is that no one is charged criminally for possession.
- skidd0 3y ago
  Ah, that's not as bad. Still, I'd prefer full legalization. Commercial sale as well. The less risk, the better. Risk from still being illegal, from bad sources, from bad product.
  - distract8901 3y ago
    It's something that has both extremely positive and extremely negative effects. We should treat it like other dangerous medicines
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > We should treat it like other dangerous medicines We should decriminalize those, too.
      - tux3 3y ago
        The first step to protect adults from accidental poisonings with medicines is by making better safety caps, and storing them on a much higher shelf where adults cannot reach them But you cannot only rely on storing medicines up high and using adult-resistant caps to protect your adults. Also, it is just not possible to watch adults every second. So, other strategies need to be put in place to prevent your adults from gaining access to medicines.

wyldfire 3y ago

Probably couldn't go any worse than it has with firearms.

electrondood 3y ago
What are you on about? California's gun laws makes it the 3rd-lowest state in gun deaths per capita [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...
edgyquant 3y ago
If you think firearms couldn’t be a lot worse you’re out of touch with reality.
- wyldfire 3y ago
  That's not what that says. It refers to unchecked drug use as not worse than firearms, not whether or not firearms could be worse than they are now.

leet_thow 3y ago

You should know better than to criticize "progressive" policies online.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

babyshake 3y ago

A huge amount of this IMO has to do with driving. Autonomous vehicles are a game changer in many respects, but one of them is making it safer for the "Common Idiot" to use mind altering substances more safely.

nico 3y ago

This is pretty much the same excuse used to prevent full democracy from happening Hey, voting is great, helpful and powerful, but letting The Common Idiot vote is a slippery slope For the record, yes ideally we should have better education, especially around drugs and how to use them At the same time, anyone can buy a knife or scissors or plenty of toxic chemicals, and do a ton of harm (way more than with any psychedelics), how do you propose we regulate those?

Mizoguchi 3y ago
Growing up in a communist regime I'm all in for democracy and freedom. Having experienced drug addiction while having a graduate degree I also believe regulation of drugs and alcohol is necessary. You think you are in control until that one day when you take it too far. If you don't have a strong support system of relatives and friends and access to good health care, there's no coming back from that hole.
- skidd0 3y ago
  A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction. The risk of addiction shouldn't prevent anyone else from choosing what they put in their own body.
  - tux3 3y ago
    >A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction I could see this go either way. There are people who are, somehow, simply unaware of risks and not very interested in learning more. I'd expect at least some effect. Do you have any source for the claim?
    - uoaei 3y ago
      I propose a hearty ban on bad-faith "do you have a source for that" questions directed at negative statements. If this community is to be science-based, it must adopt the position that the null hypothesis is valid until proven otherwise.

01100011 3y ago

Yeah I've had a mixed history with psychedelics. Imitation LSD(probably DOx on blotter) left me with panic attacks and HPPD around 16 years old. Later on I had great experiences with LSD, psilocybin and mescaline over a couple decades. Recently, a strong mushroom trip left me with months of spasmodic torticollis(violet head jerks to the side), migraines where I would lose half my vision, and seriously diminished my cognitive abilities. I don't think psychedelics should be illegal, but I don't think we should be encouraging folks to do them until we understand them more completely.

highstep 3y ago
what strain of mushrooms?
- 01100011 3y ago
  I think it was either PF Redspore or Golden Teachers. Home grown but dried and kept in an oxygen free environment until use. Probably took around 5g dried but that's over 6-8 hours as I never eat them all at once. When I was doing 5g/night, I started getting the day-after headaches. Did them at least 4 times without long-term side effects until I got them.
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    Maybe you have some neurodegenerative disease that you think is mushrooms?

laserbeam 3y ago

The article is not very clear about that. It does say that is decriminalizes posetion of limited quantities for adults, it requires that institutions research the drugs further, and does not decriminalize commercial sale. Obviously there's some amount of risk with these drugs and you don't want them to be widespread and consumed daily (like alcohol, which is also nasty). But you need such laws for medical institutions (of all sizes) to be able to touch the drugs. No one is being negligent here.