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

California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

openstates.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#161

Post by astrange »

dragonwriter wrote: post #100
sergiotapia wrote: post #27

Doesn't california have a massive drug problem and literal armies of drug addicts shitting in the streets and harassing families and tax-payers? How will this help?

> literal armies of drug addicts Literal armies of drug addicts? “Quick, deploy the Third Meth-anized Division!” California has a homelessness problem (largely a side effect of economic success without sufficient redistribution driving housing costs out of reach of the poor, like most states with above average homelessness — Vermont is the most noteworthy exception, with above-median homelessness without elevated hou…

> California has a homelessness problem (largely a side effect of economic success without sufficient redistribution driving housing costs out of reach of the poor, like most states with above average homelessness — Vermont is the most noteworthy exception, with above-median homelessness without elevated housing prices.)

It's simply that California's strategy for economic success was that everyone bought homes in the 70s, then banned any new homes so their property values would go up forever. This makes the supply low enough that their own children will end up homeless even if there wasn't immigration from other states.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#162

Post by kstrauser »

CheezeIt wrote: post #71
whateveracct wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legalizing weed didn't do that. There's always been an opinion (argument?) that driving high is fine. Carl Sagan even discusses it in Mr. X (1969): > I have mentioned that in the cannabis experience there is a part of your mind that remains a dispassionate observer, who is able to take you down in a hurry if need be. I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I’ve negotiated it with no…

Yes it did. Traffic deaths in Colorado have grown much faster than the population and much more than the national rate, since legalization.

Traffic deaths in CO were up 3% last year: https://kdvr.com/news/local/colorado-traffic-related-deaths-...

CO population increased by 15% in the last decade: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-news/color...

It seems like it'd be really hard to defend the claim that the death rate (which isn't per-mile-driven, so lacks the context to actually evaluate it meaningfully) is growing "much faster" than the population.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#163

Post by astrange »

bdamm wrote: post #56
stormbrew wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems much more likely that the people shitting in the streets are actually people who have nowhere else to shit. That's what happens when you have a lot of homeless people in a very urbanized area and don't do anything to help them except 'kindly' pretend they don't exist.

Is there any evidence that "helping" people by handing out free money actually results in good outcomes? Seems that it usually results in a bigger population of homeless, as they flock in from other parts of the country. Seriously, data-based evidence of how to help homeless populations that has actual real-world testing would be really useful. Vague "provide them help" seems to usually just translate into "spend non…

Yes, giving people money makes them richer. (that's how rich people exist, in fact, someone gave them a lot of money)

Most homeless people in California were not bussed in, they're locals who lost their houses and now can't get them back. Some of them lost it due to drugs or mental illness, and some just developed a drug habit or a mental illness because being homeless is stressful.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#164

Post by FateOfNations »

giantg2 wrote: post #68
telotortium wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modeling themselves after the US Congress, itself modeled after the British Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords). I personally believe bicameral legislatures - allowing houses to deadlock on a bill - are a terrible idea. Either unicameral (used by one US State, Nebraska) or tricameral legislatures, with 2 out of 3 houses needing to approve a bill for it to pass, make much more sense.

I think some state legislatures actually predated to federal one. I know some states had constitutions before the US did, but I don't know if they included the legislature structure. Why only one house or three? What exactly would that fix? Sure you eliminate most deadlock, but how does that representation? Also, is deadlock really a bad thing in all scenarios?

It all goes back to the English parliament with it's two houses, either directly modeled after that, or via the Federal government congress.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#165

Post by dr_dshiv »

Jiocus wrote: post #144
mrvenkman wrote: post #46

Whenever I have taken psychedelic drugs (mushrooms), or taken cannabis, it has often made me more paranoid. Has there been any research into how psychedelic drugs may fuel conspiracy theories?

> Whenever I have taken psychedelic drugs (mushrooms), or taken cannabis, it has often made me more paranoid. Suspending one's mind into an altered state while being aware of the grave consequences that would result if getting caught –effectively defenseless while high– makes me think hypervigilance is almost a rational response to that situation. I've seen heavy users succumb to conspiracies but such cases were ulti…

Yes! I'm surprised this isn't more studied. I used to have fairly strong paranoia with pot— but that was reasonable given the consequences of getting caught. Post legalization, I just don't get paranoid anymore.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#166

Post by paxys »

bluepanda928752 wrote: post #119
beepbooptheory wrote: post #38

As someone whose life was very much thrown into turmoil and difficulty for getting caught with a relatively small amount of mushrooms in Texas, to the point that it will soon be a decade and I have not really completely recovered financially or emotionally, and also still blocked from a lot of jobs, news like this is so good but hard to hear on a personal level.

I hope one day we will have a Nuremberg-style trial for all those friendly chaps who orchestrated (and profited from) this pointless life-destruction machine called war on drugs

We just had one for Purdue Pharma. Spoiler alert: absolutely nothing happened to these friendly chaps.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#167

Post by cwkoss »

clipradiowallet wrote: post #70
ravenstine wrote: post #6

I get LSD and psilocybin, but why ketamine? In either case, I feel like this shouldn't have tried to include ketamine since the perception of it might jeopardize the bill.

Ketamine may (or may not, I have no idea) have legitimate medical and recreational uses...but those aren't what worry me. Ketamine has a long history of being a popular choice to subdue a kidnapping victim.

I've heard about police using ketamine on arrestees to subdue them (often leading to serious health complications or death), but never non-LEO criminals. Found one news story where victim claims drug was ketamine, but seems there was just one big story, not many.

What is the scenario that concerns you?

I think ketamine's dosage (100s of mgs) and oral activity (low) is not conducive towards secretly drugging someone. To drug someone with ketamine without their consent, you'd likely have to inject them. If someone is injecting a victim with a drug to knock them out, ketamine seems like it'd be a lot safer than heroin and somewhat safer than benzos - both of which would have a higher chance of respiratory depression.

I suspect this "long history" is drug war propaganda - ketamine would be more expensive and less convenient than other similar options for incapacitating someone via injection.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#168

Post by olivermarks »

SmooL wrote: post #123
olivermarks wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have time I suggest watching the videos in this thread shot yesterday by Dr Shellenberger of Tom Wolf, a recovered SF addict, walking around in Venice beach Los Angeles and talking with Garry Featherstone, owner of Homeless Enterprise, who feeds the homeless in Venice Beach and works on the streets there. It is very revealing. https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/13998897983204433...

Wow, that was excellent, thank you for linking this

There are only 6000 pysch beds in all of California. Psychedelic drugs can induce serious mental illness. If California wants to decriminalize this is a good opportunity to greatly increase psychological services to help drug casualties and provide long term care.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#169

Post by asdff »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #23

Probably 95% of people can handle psychedelics. That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well. I'm talking about the people on Market and 6th with schizophrenia. If you give someone with schizophrenia mushrooms they will have a total break with reality and might not come back easily. This is going to make the street people of CA even that more crazy.

The street people of CA are already breaking drug laws. Smoking crack on the sidewalk is illegal, but they do it right next to transit security the metro station in my old neighborhood no less. This doesn't realistically change much, since this sort of thing hasn't been enforced for these people in parts of CA.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#170

Post by Jiocus »

madcows wrote: post #12
ravenstine wrote: post #6

I get LSD and psilocybin, but why ketamine? In either case, I feel like this shouldn't have tried to include ketamine since the perception of it might jeopardize the bill.

Some people have very positive experiences with it, however I believe it's also dangerously addictive, which does make it stand out compared to the others. Though, I'm sure the risk of ketamine is still better controlled in a legalized environment, hence it's inclusion.

Ketamine addiction liability is low–moderate[1], not dangerously addictive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine

Post reply on HN