Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

denverpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#21

Post by jpatokal »

crispinb wrote: post #10

Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws. Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allo…

Laws in Australia are already pretty loose: medical marijuana is permitted on a federal level (although in many places the legal hoops required to get a prescription are absurd) and in most states recreational use is more or less decriminalized. I agree that actual legalisation is a long way off, and as usual it looks like our Kiwi brothers will beat us to the punch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_refe...

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#22

Post by adventured »

crispinb wrote: post #10

Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws. Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allo…

Are territories and or cities able to independently legalize in Australia?

If the US had not been able to gradually legalize at a state level and build momentum, it seems unlikely that it would have gained such positive momentum overall nationally. Demonstrations through state experiments - showing that the world wouldn't end upon legalization - were important for swaying the fence sitters (and in helping to bury some of the more ridiculous propaganda by the anti crowd).

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#23

Post by toomanybeersies »

ketzo wrote: post #11
paulmd wrote: post #7

Do acid and molly next.

Molly’s significantly more dangerous than acid or psilocybin, no?

The danger of MDMA is overstated. From an actual chemical toxicity standpoint it's relatively safe, accidental overdose would be next to impossible. You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine.

Even the danger for dehydration/overhydration is overstated. Heatstroke is a danger when using it during the day in summer (e.g. at festivals), but that's more due to people not listening to their bodies and not knowing when to stop and take a break and get some shade/water.

Anecdotally it's a pretty safe drug. The main danger is generally "molly" (which I think is a really cringy name) that's not actually pure MDMA, but is instead laced with PMA or other more dangerous substances which are cheaper and easier to manufacture and import.

That's not to say that there isn't danger of harm and potential for abuse. Just that it's overstated by politicians and the police as a scare tactic. Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#24

Post by clubm8 »

hirundo wrote: post #5

> As written, I-301 directs police via ordinance to treat enforcement of laws against possession of psilocybin mushrooms as their lowest priority ... Psychedelic mushrooms still would remain illegal to buy, sell or possess ... Initiative 301 backers hope to lower the risk users face of getting caught with mushrooms. So "decriminalize" seems to be the wrong word since it's just as criminal as before. Better would be "…

This seems like a false sense of safety. With weed if it's the lowest priority they will ignore the smell/reports of the smell.

With mushrooms they'll find them incident to arrest and thus probably tack on a charge to whatever else they were investigating

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#25

Post by newnewpdro »

ketzo wrote: post #11
paulmd wrote: post #7

Do acid and molly next.

Molly’s significantly more dangerous than acid or psilocybin, no?

Yes.

It's trivial to overdose non-lethally on MDMA and there's a good possibility for permanent brain damage when it occurs, even just from a single overdose. It seems to mostly damage memory from what I've seen.

Years ago when I knew people attending EDM festivals and researched these drugs to understand the risks, it sounded like most of the harm was caused by oxidative stress resulting from the excess serotonin released by the drug vs. normally sufficient standard levels of antioxidants being overwhelmed by all the activity.

AFAIK the same is not true for LSD and shrooms, certainly not marijuana.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#26

Post by crispinb »

jpatokal wrote: post #21
crispinb wrote: post #10

Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws. Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allo…

Laws in Australia are already pretty loose: medical marijuana is permitted on a federal level (although in many places the legal hoops required to get a prescription are absurd) and in most states recreational use is more or less decriminalized. I agree that actual legalisation is a long way off, and as usual it looks like our Kiwi brothers will beat us to the punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_can…

Well 'loose' is a matter of judgement. But as you correctly point out, medical use is ludicrously limited. Also 'more or less decriminalised' is an exaggeration, given the number of people I know with criminal records due to mere use (I live in Northern NSW). Cops turn a blind eye when it's useful for tourism (eg. Mardi Grass), but very freely arrest at other times. Of course you're pretty much OK if you wear a suit, but that's not specific to marijuana.

But however you judge that, the fact is that the majority of the population would like the laws much looser than they are, and without something like a CI process, it's not permitted.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#27

Post by llamataboot »

voldacar wrote: post #18
llamataboot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has possibly more negative health effects when abused (or, possibly maybe, even regularly used). It also seems to have a goldmine of beneficial therapeutic effects that we haven't seen before. And as with nearly all of these things - alcohol, tobacco, and prison are all much worse for you.

Emphasis on possibly: Olney's lesions have never once been observed in a human being

yes, definitely - it probably has something more similar to the safety profile of amphetamines in terms of physical safety, which isn't perfect, but seems to not worry RXing adderall to large swaths of people.

Though it also seems there is something going on neurotransmitter wise that seems to have a more marked effect on immediate anhedonia/depression/fatigue in the aftermath and anecdotally for some people that starts looking a little cumulative.

(ie; someone that uses a lot of MDMA for a few years finds that the depressive hangovers get worse and worse and eventually get to the point where it takes a few months of non-use to even get totally 'right' again)

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#28

Post by richrichardsson »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #23
ketzo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Molly’s significantly more dangerous than acid or psilocybin, no?

The danger of MDMA is overstated. From an actual chemical toxicity standpoint it's relatively safe, accidental overdose would be next to impossible. You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine. Even the danger for dehydration/overhydration is overstated. Heatstroke is a danger when using it during the day in summer (e.g. at f…

> You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine.

This is incredibly irresponsible advice. 125mg (1/8g) of pure mdma is a good dose, more likely won't kill you, but you'll be far from fine.

> Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education.

How about starting off by not saying a gram is a sensible dose.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#29

Post by crispinb »

adventured wrote: post #22
crispinb wrote: post #10

Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws. Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allo…

Are territories and or cities able to independently legalize in Australia? If the US had not been able to gradually legalize at a state level and build momentum, it seems unlikely that it would have gained such positive momentum overall nationally. Demonstrations through state experiments - showing that the world wouldn't end upon legalization - were important for swaying the fence sitters (and in helping to bury som…

States yes, cities no (I think). South Australia was an early leader here, but that has been retrenched somewhat (again I think - it's not where I live).

Australian politics is inherently very 'centrist' for cultural and political-structural reasons. Australians culturally are comfortable and skittish, easy to scare. We have compulsory voting (so there's no skewing via getting-out-your-base), and a preferential count which tends to favour the two major parties. This has both positives and negatives, but it does make our politicians risk-averse, even when it comes to popular reforms like with marijuana laws. Not insuperably so (eg. Murdoch failed to stop equal marriage legislation), but change comes slowly.

Post reply on HN