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

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#171

Post by jeffbee »

telotortium wrote: post #32
jeffbee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone know why states have bicameral legislatures?

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.

That only begins to make sense if it's actually modeled on the US Congress, with proportional representation in one chamber and specific representation of subdivisions in the other, but to have two chambers both with proportional representation, as California has, makes no sense.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#172

Post by throwamon »

whateveracct wrote: post #67
JohnWhigham wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Sigmund Freud spent a decade using cocaine daily. Doesn't mean it's OK for everyone else to.

I actually wasn't arguing from authority. I think the paragraph stands alone without the author's name attached (in fact it was originally published under a pseudonym, proving this point.)

Sure, the paragraph stands alone as a single data point. GP's point stands.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#173

Post by madcow2 »

Jiocus wrote: post #170
madcows wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, my wording could've been better. I was referring to that I've heard some horror stories of those who do get addicted. Overuse is really hard on the body. IIRC incontinence / bladder issues specifically.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#174

Post by erik_seaberg »

antognini wrote: post #89
masklinn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You seem to be confused about the significant amounts of homeless people[0] having been dumped into the state by various others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_dumping 2. Most people with addiction issues (whether cause or consequence of issues) are not users of psychedelics. 3. How about you explain how criminalizing drugs helps the situation? Because that's the regime under which you got the current situ…

> You seem to be confused about the significant amounts of homeless people[0] having been dumped into the state by various others It's true that other states have given homeless people in their state one-way bus tickets to San Francisco, but it's a relatively small fraction of the homeless population in California. Something like 92% of the homeless in San Francisco had housing in California before they ended up on t…

“30% of respondents reported living in a home owned or rented by themselves or a partner immediately prior to becoming homeless” is quite low. Maybe some people got bus tickets and crashed on a friend’s couch for a couple of weeks?

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#175

Post by whimsicalism »

astrange wrote: post #163
bdamm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is certainly true for most homeless people in California. I wonder if it is true for the most visibly mentally ill people in the Bay Area, I am somewhat skeptical that they all grew up in SF.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#176

Post by andybak »

worik wrote: post #149
lurquer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t cut someone’s hair in California without a license. You can’t sell corrective eyeglasses without a license. You can’t buy (or sell) penicillin without licenses. I could go on. California has thousands of ridiculous, out-dated, laws. Yet, I see no groundswell of support for getting rid of them. My point is, this isn’t about generic ‘decriminalization’ or libertarianism or personal liberty. Rather, it’s about…

Drugs like LSD and Mescaline are not, primarily, intoxicants. Technically they get you intoxicated, but that misses the point by a wide margin. These drugs should be important in our society, the experience is indescribable and not necessarily fun - but mostly. If it were not for the culture wars of the 1960s, and corrupt lecherous idiots like Timothy Leary and Ken Keasy scaring the bejesus out of the establishment ,…

Any sources for your comments about Kesey and Leary? I've always found them both fairly interesting (if flawed) characters but my knowledge mainly comes via Tom Wolfe, Robert Anton Wilson and some pop-history books.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#177

Post by andybak »

kstrauser wrote: post #155
lurquer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t cut someone’s hair in California without a license. You can’t sell corrective eyeglasses without a license. You can’t buy (or sell) penicillin without licenses. I could go on. California has thousands of ridiculous, out-dated, laws. Yet, I see no groundswell of support for getting rid of them. My point is, this isn’t about generic ‘decriminalization’ or libertarianism or personal liberty. Rather, it’s about…

You listed a whole bunch of healthcare laws that restrict what you can do to other people. It's perfectly reasonable to be for each of them: - I don't want an untrained barber spreading disease. - I don't want a fake optometrist selling incorrect glasses. - I don't want someone buying penicillin off Amazon to treat their flu, or taking it for 2 days and then stopping so that they incubate a PCN-resistant strain of wh…

> - I don't want an untrained barber spreading disease.

This is a fairly weird statement. For a start conflating "unlicenced" with "untrained" and then jumping to "spreading disease". I'm not sure catching a disease has ever crossed my mind while getting a haircut.

> - I don't want a fake optometrist selling incorrect glasses.

The fact that they are "fake" surely already implies fraud - so how does licencing prevent this?

> I don't want someone buying penicillin off Amazon to treat their flu, or taking it for 2 days and then stopping so that they incubate a PCN-resistant strain of whatever.

People already do this. I guess you're arguing against increased incentives but that's a bit of a leap.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#178

Post by zucker42 »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #74
zucker42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the area of the country with the biggest drug problem is Appalachia [1]. California is better than most states in terms of drug overdose deaths. And as others have pointed out, psychedelics aren't really the problematic drugs. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...

While true, I'm not certain that drug overdoses directly correlates with homelessness, which is what I think the parent was highlighting.

The parent claimed without proof that California has a huge drug problem. I interpreted this to be part of an argument that this measure would contribute to this purported drug problem. But the first question I asked was "is California's drug problem indeed worse than other states", and the first objective metric I thought of was deaths by overdose.

The context of this exchange in a larger strain of debate is there is a long running caricature of California as a failed state with rampant problems, based partially on the truth, but usually perpetuated and exaggerated by people from out of state with a political agenda. California has a huge problem with homelessness and COL, but I interpret this as mainly caused by terrible housing policies, and am skeptical of people who conclude that this means California's policies and/or culture are generally terrible. Specifically, in this case, homelessness in CA in an insufficient reason for me to conclude that CA is heading the wrong direction on drug policy.

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#179

Post by olivermarks »

LatteLazy wrote: post #132
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.

Do you have any actual basis for claiming people with schizophrenia will have a "total break"?

https://dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/psychosis/

Re: California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

#180

Post by andybak »

8note wrote: post #122
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.

What do you mean by if? I'd assume they're already on psychedelics regardless of whether they're legal or not.

Do you understand that psychedelics are not a mainstream choice even amongst habitual drug users? They are not an easy escape route from daily discomfort. People who want to escape or numb their pain have many less challenging options available.

Very few people take psychedelics for long periods of time. If anything they are "anti-addictive".

Post reply on HN