Denver May Get To Vote On Whether To Make Magic Mushrooms Legal

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is the problem. Hallucinogens are not a "party drug" unlike most of the other readily available street drugs. Here in the Netherlands cannabis, coc aine and ecstasy are the most popular but all of those will trigger a psychotic episode in people that are sensitive.

They call cannabis a "soft drug" here. It is far from soft if you get the good stuff and one joint is enough to make some people flip. Is that the fault of cannabis? I know the answer.

ETA I know people that "change" after 4 or 5 beers. They become aggressive, argumentative or just downright impossible. They still get the chance to take the drug alcohol the next day and everyone says "ok". The law is an ass and there will never be the discussion to ban alcohol because it earns the government too much in revenue.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is the problem. Hallucinogens are not a "party drug" unlike most of the other readily available street drugs. Here in the Netherlands cannabis, coc aine and ecstasy are the most popular but all of those will trigger a psychotic episode in people that are sensitive.

They call cannabis a "soft drug" here. It is far from soft if you get the good stuff and one joint is enough to make some people flip. Is that the fault of cannabis? I know the answer.

ETA I know people that "change" after 4 or 5 beers. They become aggressive, argumentative or just downright impossible. They still get the chance to take the drug alcohol the next day and everyone says "ok". The law is an ass and there will never be the discussion to ban alcohol because it earns the government too much in revenue.

I literally said the same thing, that they aren't party drugs. And yes, people get into bad situations with alcohol or hard drugs, mainly in the form of overdoses or let's say crashing a car.

No, marijuana has virtually no evidence as far as risks. You can't overdose. You don't lose motor abilities, and unlike psychedelics or other hard drugs, there is no risk of long term physical or mental damage. Medical science agrees. You appear to have limited factual or scientific knowledge on these topics. Most people having a psychotic episode from a stimulant usually have been using it for a long time. Ecstasy is a hard drug, but usually it's not triggering psychosis. You can OD, however, or be too intoxicated.

Psychedelics are a totally different class. You can't die from them, i.e. OD, but they produce a state of delusion or psychosis at strong doses. You know, like serious hallucinations? You know, "hallucinogens?" For some people, they can get HPPD permanently. Please just read the links I already provided earlier in this thread.

Some person getting too high on marijuana will be perfectly fine the next day. I'm from California, which has some of the best marijuana in the world.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
Is a rainbow coloured mankini, cowboy boots and a Stetson acceptable? Asking for a friend...

Tell DB the answer is 'yes'.

Now I like supplements, such as curcumin, niagen, resveratrol, and natural things. However, all of the seeds of earth and its resources already belong to me and to everyone and any controlling, dictatorial slave law to the contrary is a null and void utterance, it does not exist. They are committing crimes enforcing these things. And I follow no dictator ever.

This thread made me crave mushrooms. I had the wife pick me up an eight ounce pack of button mushrooms when she went to the store. I really like Morels but it is the wrong time of the year to pick them. I'm not spending four hundred bucks a pound for Morels at Walmart.

California and Oregon talked about legalizing this last year as well. Time to decriminalize too as people are being sentenced for cultivation, more. These are being shown to help medically-such as with depression(brain reboot for severe depression) and headaches.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are misinformed. Or wrong. Cannabis can trigger psychotic episodes, along with lysergic acid and ecstasy. They all possess the same qualities in more or less amounts. I do not need peer reviewed studies to know this. The Netherlands had a very liberal cannabis policy for decades. Then an American or Australian tourist who was here on holiday (vacation) smoked one joint and afterwards jumped out of his 3rd floor hotel room. On the way down he landed on top of a person and gave that person a paralysis due to the damage. Immediately the Dutch government imposed nationwide restrictions on the sale of cannabis.

Check my profile for a story called "A descent into insanity" about a very young Dutch man who took too much ecstasy. I lived in the same building as said individual. It left him in a psychosis from which he will never recover and no amount of anti-psychotic medication will help him. He is 21 years old and it is a horrible waste of a life because he will never be the same again even with medication. Drugs (including alcohol) can be fun but when you take too much some people will go over the edge and never come back.

Cannabis is the least problem drug but it is not without its dangers when certain people take it. Just like alcohol. Or ecstasy.

False, all three have different chemicals. For example, l-s-d is literally the ergamine l-s-d 25. Ecstasy is the chemical mdma. Marijuana is the chemical THC. Psychedelics work on different areas of the brain than marijuana. The qualities of shrooms are NOT the same as marijuana, alcohol, coc aine, etc.

Secondly, deny ignorance, there is a huge body of medical and scientific literature by experts showing that beyond potential psychological addiction and demotivation, marijuana is a fairly harmless drug. It doesn't matter if you "feel" or believe otherwise. If I wasn't on my phone I'd cite all that research. You can't base policies of any kind on outliers or exceptional cases. That's not how science, data, or policy work.

As I said elsewhere, yes ecstasy is a hard drug, Overuse has harmed people and some have died of literal ecstasy overdoses.

None of that undermines my point that psychedelics are very powerful substances that can trigger either HPPD permanently or for those with latent mental disorders, trigger them. Literally this is what the medical and addiction science describe. However, those individuals for both circumstances are in the minority of users. Therefore, people should know the risks like any substance. I am not anti psychedelics.

To wit, for ALL of these substances people with either existing mental disorders or latent, substance use can exacerbate them.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are misinformed. Or wrong. Cannabis can trigger psychotic episodes, along with lysergic acid and ecstasy. They all possess the same qualities in more or less amounts. I do not need peer reviewed studies to know this. The Netherlands had a very liberal cannabis policy for decades. Then an American or Australian tourist who was here on holiday (vacation) smoked one joint and afterwards jumped out of his 3rd floor hotel room. On the way down he landed on top of a person and gave that person a paralysis due to the damage. Immediately the Dutch government imposed nationwide restrictions on the sale of cannabis.

Just going from memory here, but I think the same thing happened with mushrooms in the Netherlands a few years back... Although they were technically illegal, the law was never really enforced and the sale of mushrooms was tolerated in head shops, or whatever, since they were generally considered a "soft drug"... But then a teenage girl committed suicide while under the influence and as a result the police cracked down big time on shops that were selling them and started enforcing the law.

Kind of a stupid knee jerk reaction really... Education and harm minimisation policies are whats needed when it comes to the personal use of any substance... Simply criminalizing it doesn't solve anything and actually just creates more long term issues for the users and society as a whole.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are misinformed. Or wrong. Cannabis can trigger psychotic episodes, along with lysergic acid and ecstasy. They all possess the same qualities in more or less amounts. I do not need peer reviewed studies to know this. The Netherlands had a very liberal cannabis policy for decades. Then an American or Australian tourist who was here on holiday (vacation) smoked one joint and afterwards jumped out of his 3rd floor hotel room. On the way down he landed on top of a person and gave that person a paralysis due to the damage. Immediately the Dutch government imposed nationwide restrictions on the sale of cannabis.

Just going from memory here, but I think the same thing happened with mushrooms in the Netherlands a few years back... Although they were technically illegal, the law was never really enforced and the sale of mushrooms was tolerated in head shops, or whatever, since they were generally considered a "soft drug"... But then a teenage girl committed suicide while under the influence and as a result the police cracked down big time on shops that were selling them and started enforcing the law.

Kind of a stupid knee jerk reaction really... Education and harm minimisation policies are whats needed when it comes to the personal use of any substance... Simply criminalizing it doesn't solve anything and actually just creates more long term issues for the users and society as a whole.

Without a doubt, you are more likely to flip out and get into a bad situation on psychedelics than marijuana. Far stronger drugs. This is why they had medical clinics both on Haight Ashbury in SF and at Woodstck in the 60's, specifically to handle people who were flipping out on psychedelics.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I posted exactly the same info on another thread regarding shrooms. Perhaps you saw it. I live in the Netherlands and remember the incident and subsequent law change.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think the question on this, and many other topics, is: Does making it illegal actually prevent, preclude, or change the situation for the "better" in regards to both individual scenarios and the big picture?

I think it can be strongly argued that it does not improve a given situation, and in many respects, can make things significantly worse.

Personally, I'm not a fan of legislating morality, for a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the main one being that in doing so, all we are establishing is what type of group will be profiting from a given market. It certainly does little to nothing in regards to accessibility. The method of accessibility may differ, but the ease of it is arguably decreased when an age-regulated good is firmly a legal market.

I feel that any argument that bases itself on "public safety" is a bit erroneous from the start. For many, they project their own inability to access a good to society as a whole, which is mistaken on various levels.

I actually think its an interesting topic, but feel that these things will be consumed in roughly equal quantities regardless of legality. So, the discussion should really revolve around different aspects.

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: ElOmen
time for bye bye for this thread. ats dont like it when we discuss psychadelics.

Agreed....

What in the world could possibly go wrong with this...? Mr. enlightened guy you really think we need people hallucinating while driving ? It will/has/is happening you know. Now it would be Pell Mell...

by your own admission it happens now, so what would really change? Those who want to drive and partake will do that as they do now, People who don't want to wont. Nothing changes but for the fact that the person/people who aren't trying to hurt anyone by joy riding no longer have to worry about the cops or some nosy neighbour reporting them. I agree that there should be a zero tolerance toward driving under the influence of hallucinogenics, just to much distraction in general not even thinking of a "bad trip" and the kind of mayhem it could cause.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think the question on this, and many other topics, is: Does making it illegal actually prevent, preclude, or change the situation for the "better" in regards to both individual scenarios and the big picture?

I think it can be strongly argued that it does not improve a given situation, and in many respects, can make things significantly worse.

Personally, I'm not a fan of legislating morality, for a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the main one being that in doing so, all we are establishing is what type of group will be profiting from a given market. It certainly does little to nothing in regards to accessibility. The method of accessibility may differ, but the ease of it is arguably decreased when an age-regulated good is firmly a legal market.

I feel that any argument that bases itself on "public safety" is a bit erroneous from the start. For many, they project their own inability to access a good to society as a whole, which is mistaken on various levels.

I actually think its an interesting topic, but feel that these things will be consumed in roughly equal quantities regardless of legality. So, the discussion should really revolve around different aspects.

Of course, don't take my comments for being anti legalization. I'm just saying that the info I'm posting is necessary to the same debate. I'll be honest, I'm the person I referenced besides my brother. Here's the danger. If you legalize certain psychedelics you run the risk of people taking it like its alcohol or marijuana, and then a certain percentage having long term effects. Both my brother and I have HPPD, which means basically permanent visual changes due to psychedelic use. And here's what's crazy, he did 1/5 the amount and has it much worse. They are utterly unpredictable. A person can do them 1000 times and be fine. I did them 50 times and have very mild HPPD and once in a blue moon, a flashback. My brother did them 10 times and has WORSE HPPD than I do. His vision as he tells me is permanently screwed. Then, you have some who have latent mental disorders and do it once and it screws them up.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And, please don't take my comments as singling you out I have a rough idea on what your stance on such a topic might be.

Its more than a little frustrating, the rampant dishonesty on nearly all sides in these equations. I fully agree that there are risks, and that it might be approached as the same as alcohol and cannabis.

I think that very conflation should be the target of many of these discussions. Legality shouldn't imply similarity or safety, even though many base their stance on those very things.

Even with the relatively benign substance cannabis, it was (and is) frequently touted as something like a panacea. "It makes standard pain meds obsolete altogether!" "It completely cures all cancer!"

The little kernels of truth in these statements are twisted to such an extreme as to drive people on the fence well into the "opponent" category. Its a very real problem, and like so many things from the modern left, undermines the movement from its very foundation.

In that, I think the most effective thing we could do is alter the current form of the spurious, damaging link between morality and legislation. The righteous indignation it inspires from all sides drives the conversation into areas that arent particularly relevant and ends up obfuscating the dangers (or lack thereof) of a particular good or service.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And, please don't take my comments as singling you out

I have a rough idea on what your stance on such a topic might be.

Its more than a little frustrating, the rampant dishonesty on nearly all sides in these equations. I fully agree that there are risks, and that it might be approached as the same as alcohol and cannabis.

I think that very conflation should be the target of many of these discussions. Legality shouldn't imply similarity or safety, even though many base their stance on those very things.

Even with the relatively benign substance cannabis, it was (and is) frequently touted as something like a panacea. "It makes standard pain meds obsolete altogether!" "It completely cures all cancer!"

The little kernels of truth in these statements are twisted to such an extreme as to drive people on the fence well into the "opponent" category. Its a very real problem, and like so many things from the modern left, undermines the movement from its very foundation.

In that, I think the most effective thing we could do is alter the current form of the spurious, damaging link between morality and legislation. The righteous indignation it inspires from all sides drives the conversation into areas that arent particularly relevant and ends up obfuscating the dangers (or lack thereof) of a particular good or service.

Fair. Yes, I agree that we should separate moralization from at times, effective policy. Sometimes even with questionable things proscribing them legally can create more issues than it solves, as you know.

And, for all of these substances even if we are to legalize them people should be informed as to their characteristics and risks. There's been dangerous naivety even on this thread.

One of the bad effects of the war on drugs is that many dissimilar substances have been all grouped together, and many people don't know the various risks, benefits, uses, etc. Its absurd because no one with legal drugs would say that antibiotics are the same as pain killers.

I don't know why any drugs are illegal.

People should be responsible for anything they use, be it alcohol or 'shrooms.

Laws are already in place for when people commit crimes.

But just taking drugs is not an infringement on the rights of any other individual.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't know why any drugs are illegal.

People should be responsible for anything they use, be it alcohol or 'shrooms.

Laws are already in place for when people commit crimes.

But just taking drugs is not an infringement on the rights of any other individual.

I agree generally. I guess let me ask what you think though of substances like heroin or meth which are both incredibly addictive and physically destructive?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That "dangerous naivete," as you call it, has impacted me directly on the cannabis issue. I'm still a strong advocate of legalization, but the dishonesty and naivete is a very real, very serious problem.

I'm also a strong advocate for the legislative measures in the OP, but see it as an opportunity to 1) determine who profits from the market and 2) build a platform for honest, accurate information to gain traction.

One issue I see with my stance is that the whole "morality vs. legislation" discussion is deeply nuanced. It could be argued that something like murder is illegal because its "wrong," but I do think its possible to frame it in a way that makes illegality a foregone conclusion without any strictly moral arguments.

Is the current political climate conducive to such discussion? I really don't think it is.. which is why, perhaps, we have bigger fish to fry than whether or not a specific good/service is legal.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't know why any drugs are illegal.

People should be responsible for anything they use, be it alcohol or 'shrooms.

Laws are already in place for when people commit crimes.

But just taking drugs is not an infringement on the rights of any other individual.

I agree generally. I guess let me ask what you think though of substances like heroin or meth which are both incredible addictive and physically destructive?

Alcohol and nicotine are addictive also.

Should we legislate on the degrees of addictiveness?