
California ballot measure to decriminalize adult use of hallucinogenic mushrooms - prostoalex
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-proposed-ballot-measure-could-1503707569-htmlstory.html
======
DaiPlusPlus
This will be a much harder sell to the public - cannabis legalisation had been
helped by decades of "Medical Marijuana" \- but there has no such inoculation
of public opinion for mushrooms yet.

Under MM a voter will likely have known a friend or a relative who tried MM
and had a positive impression - this was someone who did weed who wasn't a
pusher, lowlife or degenerate. But of all the people I know who have done
shrooms: those that aren't exactly poster-children for legalization tend to
the type that are the most vocal about effecting change. In short: we need
more white, middle-class, middle-aged married couples to openly talk
positively about doing drugs!

Until then, I think a better proposal would be a law that strikes down the
DEA's concept that drugs can "...[have] no currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States." when quite the opposite is true - it damages
the credibility of drug enforcement agencies to parrot these lines when there
is evidence of both medicinal value and the politicalisation of prohibition
(namely [http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-
richa...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-
nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html) ).

Remove the dogma - and irrational stigma - from drug laws first, then begin
more specific targeting for legalisation and regulation.

~~~
bhaumik
It's starting to happen, ecstasy was recently designated a "breakthrough
therapy" for people with PTSD in early trials.

[https://www.axios.com/ecstasy-to-treat-ptsd-fast-
trackedl-24...](https://www.axios.com/ecstasy-to-treat-ptsd-fast-
trackedl-2478801847.html)

~~~
cat199
starting?

MDMA was orignally used heavily in psychological experimentation in the 70s
and then later became popular recreationally in the 80s

------
magicbike
Fact of the day: fresh shrooms were legal in the UK up until 2005. You could
buy them easily at Camden market in London for example and while I was at
University around then some bright spark started offering and advertising
deliveries of them to the uni and surrounding area with posters all around
campus. Great fun, and no one went mad or gets violent (unlike with booze). I
don't think 'sitting on your sofa listening to reggae and thinking about the
mysteries of the universe' should be a crime...

LINK:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691899.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691899.stm)

------
Danihan
I'm all for it, and this is a great example of the benefits of direct
democracy.

I don't think it'll pass, but still, well done getting real drug law reform on
the ballot.

------
mirimir
> Psilocybin is considered a Schedule I drug by the California Controlled
> Substances Act and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

> These drugs have no accepted medical use and a high potential for dependence
> and abuse, according to the DEA. Heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in the same
> category.

Well, if you do psilocybin as recreation, I suppose that's "abuse". Because
all good Puritans know that it's sinful to have any fun ;) But seriously,
there's a risk for dependence with psilocybin? There is tolerance, in the
sense that using too frequently increases the required dose. As with LSD. But,
other than coming to like the experience, I can't imagine how there's a risk
for dependence.

------
ghostbrainalpha
I think this actually COULD pass in California...

But this just being on the ballot will really hurt Marijuana legalization in
the rest of the country. People in middle America are only afraid of pot as a
gateway drug.

This ballot will prove to conservatives that once you legalize pot the
floodgates are wide open.

~~~
ada1981
Mushrooms seem to be even safer than pot, but I agree re the general public
opinion.

Drugs aren't the problem, addiction is.

Errr..

Addiction isn't the problem, unprocessed developmental / Shock trauma is.

~~~
cat199
> Mushrooms seem to be even safer than pot

Physically perhaps.. Psychologically I'm not so sure..

They've usually been a more middle class bourgeois sort of drug - start making
them one of the choices for a 'quick high' at the corner drugstore and I could
see this not ending up so well - esp considering there are a lot of mentally
unstable people on the streets with hampered intellect/self-control issues..

~~~
Chathamization
> Physically perhaps.. Psychologically I'm not so sure..

I mean, they can both give pretty unpleasant experiences when taken in too
high a dose. Here's a journalist writing about their experience after eating a
cannabis candy bar in Colorado[1]:

> I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from
> the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the
> next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn't move to get water. Or even turn
> off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service
> waiter knocked and I didn't answer, he'd call the police and have me
> arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

> I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my
> green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed-brick wall. As my paranoia
> deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.

I don't think this justifies making psilocybin or marijuana illegal, however.
I do think it justifies regulating what products get sold to people (for
instance, we'd never allow something that is called hard cider and tastes like
hard cider but is 80% alcohol).

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-
harsh-o...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-our-
mellow-dude.html)

------
anythingnonidin
Some notes:

1\. This will have a 180 day signature gathering window, beginning soon after
the California Attorney General gives it an official title and summary. It's
my understanding that this window will begin within the next 65 days (I think
the AG has 50+15 days to get the summary + title)

2\. Signature gathering is incredibly expensive. A cost estimate for this
ballot initiative would be $1-5 million just to collect enough signatures to
get it on the ballot. And then either it needs to have really good initial
polling (perhaps 60%+ in professionally done polls), or needs to have millions
of dollars for ad spend.

3\. To make this win, two things are likely needed: Firstly, comprehensive
polling to figure out if this will even get the votes needed if it gets on the
ballot. 60% polling would be ideal. _If_ it polls well, then it'll need
massive numbers of volunteers to collect the ~365,000 signatures from
California registered voters.

If you want to help: Nothing is needed yet, unless you can directly help Kevin
Saunders - though soon, signature gathering help will be needed. Once the
signature gathering window starts they'll either need $1-5mm in donations, or
a massive number of volunteers. If you know Kevin Saunders who proposed the
initiative, perhaps encourage him to do professional polling with likely
voters, as there's a possibility that it could make things worse off if it
gets on the ballot and fails. Also please encourage him to reach out to groups
like the Drug Policy Alliance to get their expertise, if he's open to learning
from them. Contrary to how it may seem, my understanding is it's not good to
have a ballot initiative make it to the ballot and fail - it would be better
to not have it on the ballot at all.

Read about the process here [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-
measures/how-qualify-...](http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-
qualify-initiative/initiative-guide/)

Also if you're a philanthropist with interest in this space, there's serious
possibility to do good things right now, particularly given the increased
democratic turnout that the 2020 Presidential election will bring - ballot
initiatives for Drug Policy reform will have a one-time advantage in 2020. If
you're a large donor looking for something valuable and underfunded that could
make the world better, I'd suggest reaching out to Ellen from Drug Policy
Alliance. If you're a large potential donor I'm also happy to help and answer
questions over email based on what I know and share my notes, email in
profile.

Lastly, pretty exciting that drug medical research and policy news has been
all over HN recently. As a commenter in another thread noted, these (i.e.
MDMA, Psilocybin) are genuine examples of suppressed technologies - so it's
exciting to see them progress.

~~~
api_or_ipa
As a non-US citizen, can I still participate as a volunteer in gathering votes
from eligible voters?

~~~
anythingnonidin
I'm not sure: check out
[https://ballotpedia.org/Residency_requirements_for_petition_...](https://ballotpedia.org/Residency_requirements_for_petition_circulators#tab=California),
which gives some idea but not a clear answer.

~~~
api_or_ipa
Thanks for the resource, I had a brief look into the laws of California. As it
is, I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word as truth.

According to California Elections Code, Sec. 102 and 2101, those circulating
petitions are required:

\- to be a citizen of the United States \- to be at least 18 years of age or
older \- to be a resident of the state \- to not be in prison or parole for
conviction with a felony.[0]

So I think that rules out my own involvement. I'm bummed I'm excluded from
participating in an activity that I want to lean about. This, despite the fact
that I do, on virtue of paying taxes and actively participating in civic live,
support the government and country. I should have an avenue to learn about how
these institutions function in government, even if my role is strictly
participatory and non-voting.

0:
[https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...](https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California#Restrictions_on_circulators),
Section on Restrictions to circulators.

~~~
anythingnonidin
Bummer. Agreed.

------
gexla
This seems to be a strange one to be on the list of illegal substances. Of all
the drugs which were listed in my textbook in my health class in high school,
this is the only drug which I could pick in the wild. Marijuana might have
grown in those areas, but someone had to go through the effort of growing the
plants. There are places in the US where marijuana grows in the wild, but I
don't think you can get high from it (though you still might get busted for
carrying it).

~~~
wolco
Marijuana is a weed and grows easily in the wild.

------
johnwheeler
To me, it's obvious that if you give unrestrained access to something and
increase its availability, more people are going to use it. I'd be leery of
reports that say otherwise. In fact, the current opioid epidemic is a
testament to this.

Mushrooms are not for everybody. I don't want my kids using them. Should they
be illegal? I don't know. I'd take them being illegal over making them easier
to obtain.

~~~
nowarninglabel
I think you are being unfairly downvoted for your opinion. I upvoted you
though I disagree.

I'd like to know, how do you feel about the legality of cigarettes and
alcohol. Presumably, you don't want your kids smoking cigarettes. Would you
like them to be illegal to sell?

I'm also not really sure your thoughts on availability really hold in the way
you are thinking. Take for instance glue and paint. These are both widely
available for getting high currently, but are rarely used to do so because
people understand the negative tradeoff associated. Under your view though, it
would seem you prefer these be made illegal to prevent availability?

~~~
johnwheeler
Thanks

> I'd like to know, how do you feel about the legality of cigarettes and
> alcohol.

I wish they were illegal. I don't see any societal benefit with cigarettes,
and I don't drink alcohol so am only left to deal with its consequences.

> but are rarely used to do so because people understand the negative tradeoff
> associated.

I don't think the masses are good at making decisions. You have to weigh the
benefits of glue and paint against the small number of people who are going to
injure themselves with them. I think we've gotten along fine without
psilocybin, and any societal benefits are outweighed by the problems it can
cause.

I don't think mushrooms are all out bad. If they're used responsibly, they
probably help you think about things in a more intelligent way. But I don't
want my kids eating psychedelic mushrooms. They can be horrifying and
torturous for 8+ hour stretches of time.

~~~
mirimir
> I don't think the masses are good at making decisions.

What you mean, I think, is that the masses aren't good at taking the decisions
that you would take. That way lies authoritarianism.

~~~
johnwheeler
There are elements of authoritarianism that aren't categorically bad. The
example that comes to mind is Lee Kuan Yew who took the city-state of
Singapore from a swamp to having one of the highest GDPs per capita through
benevolent dictatorship.

~~~
mirimir
Authoritarian states can be successful, for sure. But they're still immoral.
Rome did really well with slaves, for centuries. Does that mean that slavery
is good?

------
crypticlizard
Well Terence would've loved this! Anyway... Besides his stoned ape theory he
might've mentioned little green elves and perhaps twenty or thirty hours of
other things, all of it erudite, fractalizing, novel, and utterly fascinating.
Be a lot more Terence in the world if this passed, leading mushie workshops,
spinning mind-blowing yarns, experimenting with consciousness...

------
stevenschmatz
> These drugs have no accepted medical use and a high potential for dependence
> and abuse, according to the DEA. Heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in the same
> category.

This is a pretty absurd comparison, grouping marijuana and heroin in the same
category.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
It was entirely political. The Nixon administration made drugs highly illegal
to badger hippies and blacks.

~~~
pharrington
Downvoters: this is _literally true._ Quote from Nixon policy chief John
Erlichman, also in the sibling comment's link:

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be
either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the
hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both
heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could
arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify
them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about
the drugs? Of course we did."

~~~
danjoc
Fact check,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman)

Was convicted of perjury. We're supposed to believe what he says?

[https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-
all/](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/)

Wait, it's not what he said. It's what Dan Baum said he said, 22 years after
he supposedly said it, 17 years after Ehrlichman died. Since John isn't around
to corroborate the story, I guess we just have to take Dan's word on it?

Not impressed.

~~~
pharrington
Yes, Erlichman is known to have lied to support his political goals. The quote
in question supports that claim.

A quick wiki search finds numerous clinical marijuana and LSD trials conducted
in the 50's and 60's suggesting therapeutic applications. The CSA of 1970
classifies these drugs, counter to the then growing body of evidence, as
_having no known medicinal use_.

We know that later, the CIA bought Nicaraguan cocaine specifically to sell in
American black inner cities.

We know the US peddles _patently absurd_ , fear and lie based anti-drug
propaganda to school children in the form of the DARE program.

We also know, well, everything we currently know about various psychoactive
substances.

The consistent thread this weaves is a bit more convincing to me than, "this
politician lied about some stuff. Maybe I can't believe anything he's said?"

------
0xbear
That shit can really screw you up. See e.g. this case right here:
[http://gawker.com/5941532/mma-fighter-who-ripped-friends-
hea...](http://gawker.com/5941532/mma-fighter-who-ripped-friends-heart-out-
and-cooked-it-pleads-guilty-to-murder)

~~~
jonknee
Sounds like we better ban alcohol, a substance much more likely to elicit
violence than psilocybin.

~~~
0xbear
There are different kinds of violence. Dude ripped out the heart from his
friends chest while he was still alive and then cooked it. When discovered by
police he didn't see anything wrong with what he did.

~~~
jonknee
Going out on a limb here, but I think there may be more to the story than they
both ate a couple of magic mushrooms.

------
Alex3917
Possession and transportation should be legalized, cultivation and sale
shouldn't be. If people aren't willing to spend the time to learn how to
identify them in the wild, they're probably not responsible enough to use them
safely.

~~~
carbocation
So the cultivation and sale should be totally unregulated? (By which I mean,
status quo - it's on a DEA "schedule" and outlawed, so growth, sale,
consumption all occur outside the bounds of regulation.)

~~~
Alex3917
I don't think psilocybin should be scheduled, and I think folks should be able
to buy pure psilocybin, psilocin, 4-ACO-DMT, etc. online under the driver's
license model. But I don't really see any reason for mushrooms themselves to
be legal to sell, given that it's just an unknown dose of psilocybin that
comes in a form that's mainly of interest for historic and spiritual reasons.
It seems to me that selling mushrooms themselves should still be at least a
misdemeanor and come with a substantial fine.

~~~
sjbase
I think your top comment is being interpreted as "not responsible enough to
use [any form of psilocybin]" \- that's how I read it until I saw this
comment, which makes me think you were actually referring to dosage safety and
presence of toxins.

I strongly disagree with the first interpretation: I can't imagine any
connection between identifying plants and having the introspection and self-
criticality to know if, when and how much of a psychoactive substance to use.
But I agree on the dosage/toxicity aspect. Way more stochastic than what your
everyday recreational alcohol or marijuana user is probably used to.

~~~
Alex3917
> I can't imagine any connection between identifying plants and having the
> introspection and self-criticality to know if, when and how much of a
> psychoactive substance to use.

So the precedent I'd cite is with Hindu ashrams, where they're not going to
impart any sort of esoteric spiritual training unless you're already brushing
your teeth every day, keeping your room tidy, can hold a job, etc. The
connection is that a lot of the higher-level practices can be profoundly
destabilizing, so ensuring that people are continually performing the baseline
tasks necessary to be a semi-functional adult is a good way to reduce the
likelihood of people completely losing their shit.

With mushroom identification you need to join a community of likeminded
people, put in the time needed to learn, scout the correct terrain, go to the
right place during the right weather conditions, etc. It's not super
complicated, but it's a good baseline to weed out the sort of people who
become statistics after eating a handful of random drugs without knowing what
they are, the dosage, the expected effects, etc.

Whether it's making people pass a driver's license type test, making them
identify the plants or fungi in the wild, making them extract or synthesize
the substances themselves, etc., I think the best drug policy is policy that
allows anyone to consume any substance but which discourages people from
impulsively swallowing handfuls of random stuff.

