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

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#61

Post by tinix »

clubm8 wrote: post #31
andrewstuart wrote: post #19

The key question I have about decriminalisation of marijuana and things like mushrooms and hopefully MDMA soon, is "will it reduce the number of people who try meth/ice?" My theory is that people become addicted to meth/ice because they want to get high, but "good" drugs like marijuana and MDMA/mushrooms are not legal/available/cheap, so people buy/try meth/ice. Put another way, my theory is that legalisation of "goo…

I suspect it's not as linear as that. I never tried pot in my youth because it was "bad" - an illegal drug, like heroin or meth. Conversely some people may try pot or mushrooms and assume that ALL drugs are not as dangerous as they've been lead to believe.

Exactly, education is important... not misguidance, or generalization, but true education. Respect should be given to these things. If they weren't taboo, we would all be better off.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#62

Post by robdachshund »

darawk wrote: post #57
erikpukinskis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what decriminalization means: > In a federal country, acts may be decriminalized by one level of government while still subject to penalties levied by another; for example, possession of a decriminalized drug may still be subject to criminal charges by one level of government, but another may yet impose a monetary fine. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments fro…

Huh? Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law. Directing law enforcement to de-prioritize it is not the same thing.

Decriminalization means that the lowest misdemeanor is replaced by a civil citation or confiscation.

You might still have to pay a fine like a traffic ticket, but it's not a criminal charge or an arrest.

It's also still illegal to purchase but you won't be charged for doing so.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#63

Post by yellowapple »

darawk wrote: post #57
erikpukinskis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what decriminalization means: > In a federal country, acts may be decriminalized by one level of government while still subject to penalties levied by another; for example, possession of a decriminalized drug may still be subject to criminal charges by one level of government, but another may yet impose a monetary fine. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments fro…

Huh? Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law. Directing law enforcement to de-prioritize it is not the same thing.

> Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law

No, that'd be outright legalization.

"Decriminalization" would be instructing law enforcement to not ever enforce a law - stronger than deprioritizing, but weaker than legalizing.

It could also include not explicitly criminalizing or legalizing something (that is: Denver could simply not mention psychedelic mushrooms at all), but in this case there's already a higher-level jurisdiction (i.e. the United States) that does explicitly criminalize it, so a lack of specificity would in this case just mean criminalization.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#64

Post by ibeckermayer »

Lazare wrote: post #38
zanethomas wrote: post #30

I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?

In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or…

What a disgusting and disingenuous interpretation — see this for what it is, a blatant powergrab by the federal government that prevents localities (states) from governing themselves. The interstate commerce clause was a mistake and should be abolished.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#65

Post by anythingnonidin »

Alex3917 wrote: post #4

Story isn't entirely accurate, Connecticut decriminalized them a couple years ago: https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...

Sort of. "Connecticut’s drug laws will go from some of the most draconian in the country to some of the most lenient this fall when most drug possession crimes are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors" So drug possession is still a misdemeanor in CT.

When I hear decriminalized I think no criminal penalties and civil infraction only, and technically decriminalization really means no penalties. Sadly, that's not what this is.

Still, the Connecticut policy is a step the right direction.

The Denver one isn't technically decriminalization either, but it's effectively decriminalization, at least in terms of Denver city police.

Also, there are a number of other states that have reduced criminal penalties for drug possession from felony to misdemeanor, such as Oregon and California.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#66

Post by said »

caprese wrote: post #58
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC similarly deprioritized marijuana in 2014 but what happened in practice was only minorities were getting arrested during 'stop and frisk' searches in the subway. Now arrests are back up to what they were before. It's actually kind of a clusterfuck.

yeah its really awkward when surveys show one distribution of illegal drug use across all races and socioeconomic classes but then you see a completely different distribution about who gets arrested for it, and it is very disproportionate all for some edgelord to say "but they commit all the crimes its fact see" and its really like everyone commits crimes, which is a depressing standard from one lens but even more de…

“Having used drugs” is consistent across (most) races, but “usage of drugs” is not. There is a difference.

On a side note: National victim surveys routinely prove that blacks commit dramatically more violent crime per capita.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#67

Post by sprite »

robdachshund wrote: post #62
darawk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law. Directing law enforcement to de-prioritize it is not the same thing.

Decriminalization means that the lowest misdemeanor is replaced by a civil citation or confiscation. You might still have to pay a fine like a traffic ticket, but it's not a criminal charge or an arrest. It's also still illegal to purchase but you won't be charged for doing so.

How does this work if someone on for example a green card got caught and cited for possession? Since it’s still a violation of controlled substances act would it affect a citizenship application?

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#68

Post by Alex3917 »

anythingnonidin wrote: post #65
Alex3917 wrote: post #4

Story isn't entirely accurate, Connecticut decriminalized them a couple years ago: https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...

Sort of. "Connecticut’s drug laws will go from some of the most draconian in the country to some of the most lenient this fall when most drug possession crimes are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors " So drug possession is still a misdemeanor in CT. When I hear decriminalized I think no criminal penalties and civil infraction only, and technically decriminalization really means no penalties. Sadly, that's not what…

Good clarification. For all intents and purposes though getting caught with mushrooms goes from being extremely scary to not scary at all. Even though theoretically they can put you in prison for a year for the misdemeanor, in practice you're probably more likely to get a $300 fine as long as you weren't in a school zone.

Even though everyone hated Malloy for whatever reason, he actually did a lot of good stuff for the state and it seems like Lamont is going to keep expanding on the criminal justice reform stuff that he got started. And now that Toni Boucher is finally gone it will hopefully keep passing.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#69

Post by tropo »

mises wrote: post #46
tinix wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if all of Europe was supposed to fall under a common legal system. Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically. Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.

I assume this is sarcastic? I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization…

Long ago, citizens of US states saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of said states, not of the US. Famously, this influenced Lee's choice to serve in the Civil War, so the change in viewpoint is more recent than then.

The EU may go through a similar transition.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#70

Post by wallace_f »

caprese wrote: post #58
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC similarly deprioritized marijuana in 2014 but what happened in practice was only minorities were getting arrested during 'stop and frisk' searches in the subway. Now arrests are back up to what they were before. It's actually kind of a clusterfuck.

yeah its really awkward when surveys show one distribution of illegal drug use across all races and socioeconomic classes but then you see a completely different distribution about who gets arrested for it, and it is very disproportionate all for some edgelord to say "but they commit all the crimes its fact see" and its really like everyone commits crimes, which is a depressing standard from one lens but even more de…

This paper(1) is by a Black economist at Harvard. On page 5, Blacks are 25% less likely to be shot, though they are more likely to experience non-lethal force. The paper concludes there are a minority of officers who discriminate.

I was quite surprised by that.

I also was curious about that because it didn't match my preconceived notions, so did a rough check of some of the crime stats myself(2). It seems about 25% of fatal shootings are of Blacks, which is about proportionately double the rate. But if you look at something like arrest rate for violent crime as a metric for encounters with police, they're a little bit over 25%, which would be consistent with the former paper's conclusion.

I have no doubt that in the past there was terrible discrimination, and that presently a minority of officers do it, which is still unacceptable. But whenever I see people talking about this topic presently, I never see facts or statistics brought into it and it comes off as hand-wavey virtue signalling.

1- http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

2- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Post reply on HN