
Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms - tosh
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/08/denver-psychedelic-magic-mushroom/
======
hirundo
> 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 "deprioritize".

> The past marijuana efforts are instructive, though. Denver voters signed off
> on decriminalization measures in 2005 and 2007, but that didn’t stop police
> from enforcing the law

So even deprioritization is more hope than accomplishment.

~~~
erikpukinskis
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
> from a previously illegal act.

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

~~~
darawk
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.

~~~
robdachshund
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.

~~~
sprite
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?

~~~
NinoScript
Yes, federal law applies for immigrants.

------
ydb
Absolutely fantastic news! I've had highly therapeutic experiences using
psychedelics even just in the company of close friends and a relaxed,
accepting atmosphere. There genuinely is medical benefit to these substances
when used in a peaceful environment and amongst those you trust, and I can
only imagine the benefit that a trained professional can provide: a
psychologist could truly be the 21st century's "shaman." The positive effects
of decriminalization/legalization on the nation could be the psychedelic
renaissance that Leary always advocated for.

I'm glad that Denver isn't giving into fear mongering regarding the chemistry
of our own bodies.

~~~
jaminal
Absolutely agree.

If you can't find a trained guide, having close trusted friends sit for you
can be of tremendous therapeutic and healing value. And, yes, working with a
trained guide can be of huge benefit -- they support you in creating a safe
and powerful set and setting. The work can definitely be shamanic - one of the
things these substances have the potential to do is to teach us how to
shamanically journey within ourselves. The safer our psyche feels, the deeper
we can go.

I want to mention that there are many professions other than psychologist that
are a natural fit for safely guiding people in states of expanded
consciousness.

Many people who provide this kind of service are trained and apprenticed
specifically in this kind of work after education and work experience in other
healing and service oriented fields like therapy, counseling, ministry,
medicine, nursing, bodywork, music therapy, etc. And they have lots of
personal experience being in expanded states themselves, working with a guide
(that's part of the apprenticeship).

~~~
hanley
How do you go about finding a trained guide? This is the part that has always
confused me. In Michael Pollan's interviews on the subject he basically says
he was lucky to have money and connections, and otherwise avoids answering
that topic.

~~~
anythingnonidin
See resources on this here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PsychedelicTherapy/comments/beou26/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/PsychedelicTherapy/comments/beou26/what_are_the_resources_youd_suggest_to_people_who/)

------
anythingnonidin
If anyone is interested in commentary on this, this video with Anderson Cooper
and Michael Pollan is great:
[https://www.facebook.com/AndersonCooperFullCircle/videos/den...](https://www.facebook.com/AndersonCooperFullCircle/videos/denver-
votes-on-legalizing-magic-mushrooms/604085593402796/). They talk about the
psilocybin vote at the start of the video and at about 3.5 mins in.

~~~
freedomben
I'm most of the way through Michael Pollan's book "How to Change Your Mind"
and it is excellent as well.

~~~
dominotw
Its on a my reading list since he talked about it on joe rogan. Is it worth
the time? what did you get out of it so far?

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

~~~
freedomben
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 work.

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

------
clubm8
Interesting, I saw an article claiming it narrowly failed a bit ago and was
saddened.

I have never tried them personally, but I suspect the threat of being arrested
makes it harder to have a good "set and setting".

I know that I never enjoyed cannabis until a trip to a place it was legal.
Knowing that I was 100% ok to imbibe took away all my worries about detection,
people knowing I was high, etc, and let me enjoy the experience.

~~~
mensetmanusman
Shrooms are very different. Brain chemistry almost impossible to predict ~ you
may think you have a good set and setting, and then get permanently damaged.

Who knew!

~~~
tinix
Permanently damaged?

Got a source that shows, empirically, you're more likely to be permanently
damaged from taking psilocybin than while commuting to work, jogging,
swimming, or doing any other normal life activity?

Sure, I'm not going to argue with you that some people shouldn't be doing
these things alone. Shit, I would even argue that someone experienced actually
_should_ probably be around to assist and guide. Shamans, witches, clergy,
magicians, psychologists, gurus, life coaches, etc.... there's no shortage of
archetypes to fit the paradigm. It's a real thing, and we should support it.

... and if someone wants to just go trip and journey on their own... they
should be allowed... and we should do all we can to help them prepare.

~~~
codebolt
> Got a source that shows, empirically, you're more likely to be permanently
> damaged from taking psilocybin than while commuting to work, jogging,
> swimming, or doing any other normal life activity?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875725](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875725)

~~~
leoh
This paper merely suggests that a drug used for treating schizophrenia can
inhibit some aspects of the experiences that individuals have on psylocibin.
The paper does not suggest long term damage and if it did, the study would
have been terminated early and psylocibin would not be acceptable for
continued research in Switzerland (where the study was conducted) or in the
US.

------
Alex3917
Story isn't entirely accurate, Connecticut decriminalized them a couple years
ago:

[https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb](https://apnews.com/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb)

[https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07104SS1-PA.pdf)

~~~
anythingnonidin
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.

~~~
Alex3917
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.

------
crispinb
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 allowing people to pick what's growing in the paddocks around
them? The suburban world might end.

~~~
burfog
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.

~~~
crispinb
> Rupert Murdoch is somewhat a foreigner to you,

He gave up his Australian citizenship to further his US business interests. He
is widely considered to be an enemy of the nation. I regret my 'foreigner'
cheap shot though. It's irrelevant, even a tad xenophobic.

> Their press may be a "far right press" by Australian standards, but over
> here they make donations to our more-left party.

Fox News!

The fact that Murdoch may attempt to smear his malign influence also over
corporate Dems (a standard balanced corruption portfolio) is little
mitigation.

> James Murdoch gave the legal maximum amount to Pete Buttigieg

Different person.

~~~
burfog
If you're going to apply the adjective "far" to Fox News, then you'll also
need to apply it to the New York Times. According to Pew Research, that is
more to the left than Fox is to the right.

I think "far" should be reserved for Slate, Breitbart, NPR, New Yorker, Glenn
Beck Program, Daily Show, Sean Hannity Show, Colbert Report, Rush Limbaugh
Show, Daily Kos, TheBlaze, Mother Jones.

ABC is near the center. Here is a chart centered on that, and you can pick
others by clicking on the dots below:

[https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-
polarization/o...](https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-
polarization/outlet/abc-news/)

BTW, now that I think of it, Americans have a stronger case that a foreigner
is running their news. By some measures, an Australian is running the largest
news source. The change of citizenship is just a business tactic to enable
that.

~~~
crispinb
> Americans have a stronger case that a foreigner is running their news

We'll accept blame for his having been spawned, but he's totally yours now!

------
zanethomas
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?

~~~
Lazare
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 buying whisky at a
local bar that was distilled in the next city over. Since it's not interstate
commerce, it's not one of the enumerated powers, so Congress can't do it
without an ammendment.

No ammendment was considered to be needed for marijuana because, by the time
the issue came up, our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today
we would say that _everything_ is interstate commerce. Even if you grow it
yourself, you _could_ choose to sell it across state lines, and your decision
to grow versus buy was probably impacted by the price of buying it, which in
turn depends on the price in other states. In Wickard v. Filburn
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)),
the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your
own chickens was interstate commerce, because his decision to do so had an
economic impact on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich))
the court made it clear this applied even if there _is_ no (legal) interstate
commerce.

Under these precedents, the 18th amendment would not be necessary. Whether
that suggests the poor benighted fools back then just didn't understand their
own constitution, or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true
meaning of the text, or whether the constitution is a living document that may
mean different things in different eras, even if the wording doesn't change is
a matter of heated debate. :)

~~~
tinix
> 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 competition for cannabis or psilocybin.

i'd love to see this argued in court.

> or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text

mhmmmmmmmmmmm

~~~
Lazare
> 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](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 disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply
misguided.)

~~~
tinix
Recent... and interesting...

> Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of
> the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within
> Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section
> of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional
> authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they
> argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and
> possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and
> possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law
> exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

Seems to me that this is actually arguing _against_ the federal government.

But then...

> the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest
> in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their
> entirety. 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.

I will have to dig into this to understand the nuance, but... it seems that it
might be _slightly_ different.

~~~
tinix
the funny thing is, technically, if they did legalize cannabis and psilicybin,
federally, THEN, it actually would fall under the commerce clause and they
could regulate it as they see fit.

checkmate.

------
soundpuppy
Psychedelics have their ups and downs, but perhaps their best quality is their
ability to enhance perspective. Being able to understand different points of
views probably will change humans.

Just recently there was an article on the front or second page of hacker news
which claimed caffeine and alcohol are responsible for civilization.
([http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/28/alcohol-
caf...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/28/alcohol-caffeine-
coffee-evolution-humans-column/98210372/))

I can't even imagine what our distant future holds as psychedelics become more
accepted, but it is extremely encouraging given the mindset of our current
leadership!

~~~
mistermann
A theory on psilocybin's role in human evolution:

[https://www.inverse.com/article/34186-stoned-ape-
hypothesis](https://www.inverse.com/article/34186-stoned-ape-hypothesis)

It's best to listen to audio of Terence himself laying out the theory, he's a
fantastic orator.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhFC-
sVa9AE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhFC-sVa9AE)

------
xutopia
I took psilocybin twice in my life. The first time was in my early twenties
and it helped me figure out what to do with my life. The second time was
following a difficult separation with the mother of my children and helped me
move on.

I don't recommend it unless you are followed by a therapist and if you do
decide to take some make sure you have integration time a day or two after and
that someone is near you while you're on it.

Also read Michael Pollan's How To Change Your Mind prior.

~~~
armitron
I took psilocybin (est) 100+ times. My recommendations are the opposite of
yours. First, I recommend everyone who is highly self-aware and extremely
curious about the nature of the mind try it, _multiple times_ . There is
literally nothing else (besides other psychedelics) that can - so easily -
blow apart the doors of the mind and give access to what lies beneath the
surface.

I don't suggest reading anything written in a commercial / contemporary
setting prior to the experience. It will "infect" you with somebody else's
ideas / models of the mind. What I do recommend, is immersing oneself in the
myths and archetypes of one's own culture.

Finally, it goes without saying that psilocybin is not really a party drug and
works best for inner exploration (psychonautics). One should minimize outside
distractions by laying down, with eyes closed and listening to white noise or
minimal ambient music whilst focusing on an "inner dive".

~~~
piffey
A lot of people use it as a party drug though. It's becoming increasingly
common to microdose because it has similar effects at small dosages as MDMA --
elation, putting a shiny glimmer on the world. I'm not recommending it, but I
see it increasingly often here where ecstasy used to be the norm.

I'm not sure we should ever be encouraging people to do a deep psychonautic
dive. We don't know what past history of mental health issues someone may have
in their family or what crucial brain development stages they may be at in
their maturing psyche. I'd hate to be the reason someone dove off the deep end
into mental illness because they were just at the precipice of brain
development. I may not have experience, but I do know that psychedelics are
not a one size fits all.

~~~
willio58
As long as the risk is stated, I think encouraging the use of psychedelics is
fine.

I don’t frown on people using them as party drugs, but I do hope they
eventually do them out of those settings in a more mindful way.

I’ve seen people transform through the use of psychedelics, not because it
impregnated them with new ideas but because it let them feel free to explore
the wide range of ideas available to them.

------
Fnoord
Psilocybin mushrooms are less legal in The Netherlands than in Denver. All
because a French student committed suicide in Amsterdam after eating
mushrooms.

~~~
willsr
Depends on where you get the Psilocybin from. Search "Magic Truffles"

~~~
Fnoord
True, although those are technically not psilocybin mushrooms. Also, AFAIK the
fly agaric (amanita muscaria) is still legal. It is also very clearly
references in all kind of folklore (including religions).

~~~
DrSiemer
Amanita Muscaria does not contain psilocybin and will make you very sick
before making you fly. Interesting side note: in eastern Siberia only the
shamans were allowed to eat these mushrooms. Other members of the tribe would
drink his urine.

~~~
Fnoord
> Amanita Muscaria does not contain psilocybin

I never said it does.

> will make you very sick before making you fly.

I've used a.muscaria twice, from a reputable source (no self plucking). It
never made me sick. It is perfectly safe to use. It did make me pee a lot, and
my pee stank. Back when I bought it, it was legal to buy the powder in The
Netherlands. I don't know about the legal state as it is.

~~~
DrSiemer
Apparently their sale was banned in the Netherlands around the same time
psilocybin mushrooms were. But they grow literally everywhere in autumn, so
yeah.

Never tried them myself, but a friend did and he did experience the fairly
common symptoms of severe nausea and falling asleep before having a very good
trip.

------
paulmd
Do acid and molly next.

~~~
ketzo
Molly’s significantly more dangerous than acid or psilocybin, no?

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
It's kind of apples to oranges. Neither have bad direct side-effects, but they
should be taken knowing what you're going into.

Acid you should know that you'll need a good two days free to really enjoy
yourself. The first 12 hours will be an intense mental journey. The next day
or so is used to recover as you'll be mentally exhausted. If it's your first
time though, you may not know how to handle it, so you'll need a guide. That's
the biggest risk when taking acid, you need the emotional intelligence or
you'll have a horrific time.

MDMA is a much shorter trip and everything will be good, no matter your state
of mind. The risk with MDMA is after the trip. You'll be drained of your
serotonin so you'll feel fatigued and depressed. It's recommended to take
5-HTP supplements to rebuild your serotonin. Also don't take anymore MDMA for
a couple months, I usually wait 3-5 months at least.

tldr: you won't want to abuse Acid because it's so exhausting, you'll want to
abuse MDMA because it's so wonderful. Like any drug, you need self control.

~~~
mirimir
That's great advice.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
Thanks, I've been contemplating writing articles for my blog about safe
tripping for various drugs. I just wasn't sure if there was interest.

------
Quequau
I suffer from Tinnitus Distress and Ménière's.

From my limited experience with Psilocybin mushrooms, I believe that
occasional low dosages might provide me with weeks or even months of symptom
suppression and relief.

Any steps towards making possession less risky would be extremely welcome.

------
andrewstuart
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 "good" drugs like marijuana
will lead to fewer people trying/becoming addicted to meth/ice. I wonder if
its working out that way in places where marijuana is legalised.

~~~
tinix
>people become addicted to meth/ice because they want to get high

s/want to get high/are unhappy

and... not because they want to get high, but, because meth is addictive, by
it's very nature. cannabis and psilocybin are not addictive. to further your
point...

~~~
0xdeadb00f
> cannabis and psilocybin are not addictive.

Not _physically_ addictive. It's important to realise the difference because
you can become mentally/psychological dependent on almost anything, including
drugs.

As some anecdotal evidence I have a friend who was addicted to cannabis. It
stemmed from his cigarette addiction, which he essentially replaced when he
started smoking weed. He smoked weed every day for 4-5 years. Obviously that
is not healthy. He's off it now, around a year. Needless to say, getting over
a psychological addiction is much easier than a physical one.

------
86carr
This turned into a semantics conversation pretty quickly!

------
dsfyu404ed
I'd argue that "de-prioritization" is worse than the status quo because it
allows more people to feel secure using the drug but lets the state retain
power of arbitrary enforcement.

~~~
flyGuyOnTheSly
Baby steps.

I remember smoking cannabis openly in front of police officers in British
Columbia 20 years ago because they had a similar de prioritization policy in
the city I lived in.

And now cannabis is legal federally.

It takes a long time for enforcers of unjust laws (which have persisted for
decades) to learn and admit that they were wrong.

------
sameoldfears
So, how does one get Mushrooms if it is illegal to purchase?

------
turk73
I quit visiting Colorado. Every resort I went to everyone was high and the
service was lousy. People who are high all the time don't even understand how
stupid they look and how poor of a job they're doing. Legal or not, there is a
huge problem with druggies in Colorado.

Notably, we visited a chain restaurant and all the stone employees weren't
clearing the tables. It was disgusting and we left. Places like that won't
stay in business.

Ski rental places? Fuggetaboutit--it was like talking to Cheech & Chong. Do I
trust these people are doing a good job? No.

I was no fan of the drug war, either, mind you. People need self-control.

~~~
davesque
Well, I've lived in Colorado my whole life and I didn't notice any change at
all in the average person's behavior after pot was legalized. And I'm not
really biased either. I voted against the marijuana legalization measure
(something I now regret doing).

