California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018 • Hacker News Board

Re: California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018

#141

Post by mikestew » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

elliottkember wrote: post #139

mikestew wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then, here’s some more: if you have some free time, you can make that truck pay for itself plowing parking lots. Lots of friends of mine with 4x4s did that when we lived in Indiana. Might not pay for the truck, but it was reported that it easily paid for the plow and hydraulics in one winter.

I bet it’s really satisfying too, like those videos of people power-washing dirty sidewalks.

I've never owned a truck with a plow, but I've driven those owned by others. It is power-washing your sidewalk x10. To watch a giant pile of stuff that's in the way just disappear, and all at your hand: magical. Icing on the cake is when it's -20F outside and you're sitting in a warm truck cab with a cup of coffee, bending matter to your will. And there's a little something about knowing that the parking lot will be usable, and businesses can do business, because you showed up at 5:00 a. m. this morning.

I've also driven a tow truck in those conditions. Leaving your warm truck cab and cup of coffee to go hook up a car when it's -20F outside: not magical whatsoever.

Re: California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018

#142

Post by ravenstine » Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #136

ravenstine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, because fires? But people who are interested in home distilling are already doing it. I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. Admittedly, I don't know the numbers on how many fires are started by distilling every year. Regardless, you can legally distill for fuel purposes, which tells me that the government…

> I don't believe significantly more people would start distilling at home because it's pretty costly what is costly here - water, sugar or yeast? or 4 typical cooking pots needed to perform actual distillation? (an old USSR way where non-government distillation was illegal, and thus you couldn't have at home any special hardware for distillation :) >and it's much easier just to buy hard liquor. completely agree. Bac…

Once you've bought all those things – including the sugar, the water, the yeast, sanitation, the parts of the still – you already have spent enough money to buy several bottles of fine liquor from people who know what they're doing. It's not an economical solution if someone really just wants liquor. The same principle applies to beer making, which wasn't always legal without licensing, and most brewers are doing it for the art & science aspects of it. Since legalization of unlicensed brewing, we haven't seen everyone run out to buy tools to make their own beer.

Also, I'd never heard of that prohibition. It's pretty crazy how often history repeats itself in various ways.

Re: California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018

#143

Post by uoaei » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 10:31 AM UTC

scruple wrote: post #94

Footkerchief wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to complete this line of reasoning -- the grandparent comment does not distinguish between good and bad effects of psychedelic mushrooms. It's easy (even reasonable) to skip over that distinction with mushrooms, because their bad effects are few and minor. Mushrooms and leaded wine both have effects that their users long considered good. The difference between them, for purposes of this argument, is that for lea…

> because their bad effects are few and minor. I have issues with this. I've personally had very bad mushroom trips that have had effects that lingered for a year or longer. I'm not saying keep them illegal, but I don't for one second believe it's a black and white issue, either.

Not necessarily black and white, sure, but there is a threshold defined as the net personal/social benefit of the thing. If this is net positive, there's not enough reason to ban it. If there is net negative, there are reasons to ban it.

Further, the ban/not ban dichotomy is also fuzzier in practice. We can restrict access according to attributes of people, or restrict consumption to private settings, or otherwise. These decisions must be informed by the net benefit.

Re: California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018

#144

Post by trowaybloway » Sun, Nov 26, 2017, 1:27 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #103

trowaybloway wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you wouldn't allow drugs in traffic and you wouldn't want them in public. Alcohol use shows that not always is drug use constrained to private settings, so there is the argument against it, because what starts in private might under the influence end up in an inappropriate place.

Alcohol is allowed so what exactly are you saying? When it was banned under prohibition in the US, it didnt change much either. There will always be irresponsible people, however we shouldn't intrude on the freedoms of everyone for the faults of a few.

I was not strictly promoting prohibitive penalization, for one. My comment tried to clarify whether intoxication was res publique or purely private.

The fallacies in your conclusion are:

> freedoms of everyone

> faults of a few

Whether intoxication leads to freedom is debatable.

Secondly, casualties from alcohol abuse are hardly "a few".

You say people susceptible to the detrimental effects, perhaps from a preexisting tendency for lack of inhibition and aptitude are responsible. Whereas they are literally irresponsible. Further, your comment in response to my question could be understood to uphold the right to a buzz over thousands of deaths a year.

Re: California Could Legalize Magic Mushrooms in 2018

#145

Post by trowaybloway » Sun, Nov 26, 2017, 1:28 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #80

trowaybloway wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you wouldn't allow drugs in traffic and you wouldn't want them in public. Alcohol use shows that not always is drug use constrained to private settings, so there is the argument against it, because what starts in private might under the influence end up in an inappropriate place.

Following that logic we must also ban sex, because some people don't constrain it to private settings and sometimes take it into public places that are inappropriate.

One thing after another, in order of death toll.