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

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#81

Post by wallace_f »

caprese wrote: post #78
wallace_f wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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% o…

Today we are talking about drug use and arrest frequency And you are talking about perceived demographics of police brutality. Are you not signaling with your essay and predilection to post stats on something nobody was talking about? Sure if you had the stats folder with pdfs and links to contribute to the parent post that would be great! Its not currently practical for everyone to keep a list of every survey and st…

Last time I encountered these sorts of claims on HN I did the above research and the results surprised me. I'd like to find time to further narrow this research as you suggest above, and I suspect I'd find evidence of discrimination, as I suspected the last time. Though I will keep an open mind. In the meantime I would remind you to remember the burden of proof is traditionally on what is being claimed--not on disproving a claim.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#82

Post by maxxxxx »

freedomben wrote: post #72
maxxxxx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get a lot of history and also the experiences of a pretty normal person. A lot of information about psychedelics comes from people who take a lot of drugs. I am generally not interested in taking substances so I could relate to this book more than other material. Definitely worth a read.

I would agree with this. He does a great job at describing things more like a "normal person" than a hardcore drug user/experimenter. I actually disagree with Pollan on what he thinks drug laws should be. He generally supports decriminalization of some things like mushrooms, but then supports heavy state paternalism by keeping them restricted from any recreational use. Still, a great read and I really appreciate his…

In general with a lot of authors I prefer hearing their analysis and their experiences and tend to not care much for their solutions. Like you I tend to disagree with thoughts about restrictions but the writing about history and what he experienced is very good. Same could be said for Marx: His analysis of what capitalism is and where it leads is right on but then his solutions are a little questionable.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#83

Post by caprese »

wallace_f wrote: post #81
caprese wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today we are talking about drug use and arrest frequency And you are talking about perceived demographics of police brutality. Are you not signaling with your essay and predilection to post stats on something nobody was talking about? Sure if you had the stats folder with pdfs and links to contribute to the parent post that would be great! Its not currently practical for everyone to keep a list of every survey and st…

Last time I encountered these sorts of claims on HN I did the above research and the results surprised me. I'd like to find time to further narrow this research as you suggest above, and I suspect I'd find evidence of discrimination, as I suspected the last time. Though I will keep an open mind. In the meantime I would remind you to remember the burden of proof is traditionally on what is being claimed--not on dispro…

Traditionally, but you can contribute if you think fixing the absence will help people or further a discussion

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#84

Post by crispinb »

r00fus wrote: post #73
anigbrowl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The far right has been a real blight on humanity in recent decades.

Why just recently? Isn’t the far-right responsible for atrocities like the holocaust and the crusades? In fact any unchecked source of power is a potential source of mass misery.

Well, it's arguable that the corporatist right has (entirely knowingly in the case of oil companies & the Murdoch press) stalled dealing with climate collapse for 3 decades. If so, that act will eclipse the victim counts of the atrocities you cite.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#85

Post by Fezzik »

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.

To add a bit more - there are no city/county criminal laws in the United States, only state and federal. But we have Federal, State, City, and County law enforcement officers. So Denver is working to de-prioritize/“decriminalize” for in-city law enforcement officers. I imagine state police and federal officers would not pay too much attention to this if it goes through.

Also, a city has no ability to decriminalize something, as that would have to be done by the state legislature or a statewide vote. So this is really not “decriminalizing” at all... the initiative itself uses the word “deprioritize”: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb4f9c27046803ce123a...

Edit: word choice.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#86

Post by zensavona »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #52
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 "…

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…

Decriminalisation != legalisation

IANAL but my understanding is that there are different types of "offences", some of them are "criminal offences" (e.g. theft, assault), others are just "offences" (e.g. speeding). Conviction of the latter do not result in a criminal record, and usually attract lower pernalties.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#87

Post by mindslight »

Lazare wrote: post #43
tinix wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no comp…

> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. > i'd love to see this argued in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich > In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. (To be clear, I disagre…

> our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce

...

> (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)

A worthwhile step on the path of disagreement is to separate your perspective from the Supreme Court's. "Our understanding" has not changed - the Supreme Court has merely crafted a tenuous justification for more government power. Which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court is part of the government, thus directly benefiting from increasing that power.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#88

Post by burfog »

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…

Rupert Murdoch is somewhat a foreigner to you, having gained US citizenship in 1985, but he comes from Australia. He was born there. I don't know if you recognize dual citizenship, but if you do then it seems he is still Australian. His son James Murdoch is eligible to have Australian citizenship.

Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over here they make donations to our more-left party. James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg, who is hardly far right by American standards.

Re: Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

#90

Post by dragonwriter »

tinix wrote: post #40
Lazare wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no comp…

> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin.

The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.

Post reply on HN