top | item 27370984

California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

320 points| CryoLogic | 4 years ago |openstates.org

218 comments

order

beepbooptheory|4 years ago

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.

tmountain|4 years ago

I think about this a lot when I see cannabis dispensaries popping up all over the place in my hometown while I've also seen an acquaintance's life completely ruined (hard prison time and property seizure) due to growing a small number of plants on his property. There's a pretty extreme impedance mismatch regarding how these issues are handled, and it's anything but just.

bluepanda928752|4 years ago

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

giantg2|4 years ago

Don't worry, the system is so screwed up that they will continue to ruin people's lives over other infractions instead of producing true justice.

ttul|4 years ago

A very significant result for drug policy modernization efforts everywhere. California is larger than many countries. Policymakers and politicians will be looking at the results of this change with great interest as they contemplate the risks and benefits of such a move in their own jurisdictions. If things goes broadly without incident (as I bet they will), then Prohibitionists will have less ammunition against policy modernization.

tayo42|4 years ago

Pretty cool, I think they way we all talk about psychedelics and drugs in general is harmful and misleading.

I guess we need baby steps but idk if social sharing is enough. A big problem with the current drug world is not getting clean and pure substances and in predictable doses. I didn't see anything about like lsd labs and stores or mdma production being allowed in the bill. Did i miss something about making higher quality drugs more available to regular people?

vmception|4 years ago

All these drugs should just have their studied side effects listed on the back of the package like all the dangerous and deadly stuff on the shelves

Decriminalizing, to me, is just having an industry tell you they don’t want to be regulated or illegal, and that’s absurd!

A big step for research though!

qntty|4 years ago

It's not hard to get clean and pure mushrooms if you take the time to learn how to grow them, or if you have a friend that does.

CabSauce|4 years ago

Decriminalization and Legalization are two pretty different things.

fasteddie31003|4 years ago

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.

JumpCrisscross|4 years ago

> That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well

I imagine the ratios are similar for alcohol, cannabis and tobacco. Subjecting the 95% to threats of fines and jail time for the 5% is wrong. But it would make sense to use this new tax base as a platform for addressing our homeless and mental health problems.

captainclam|4 years ago

"That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well."

The way this comment is written makes it sound as if 100% of people will be using psychedelics after decriminalization goes into effect.

asdff|4 years ago

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.

staticautomatic|4 years ago

You say that as if they don’t already have easy access to drugs.

m-ee|4 years ago

You really think schizophrenics on 6th and market are holding off from drug use because it's illegal?

8note|4 years ago

What do you mean by if?

I'd assume they're already on psychedelics regardless of whether they're legal or not.

tayo42|4 years ago

because they're not doing drugs now? And putting them in jail will help how?

Maybe instead the national government can take care of veterans, and we can start having proper mental health care

LatteLazy|4 years ago

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

webinvest|4 years ago

1% of people have schizophrenia.

wk_end|4 years ago

I strongly support decriminalization, but I'm curious: are people in California getting arrested for the possession of psychedelics for personal use in any real numbers? That is, is this bill going to change anything on the ground, or is it just a step in the right direction?

shakezula|4 years ago

Any number above 0 is too high. I would bet good money they're still arresting thousands of people a year on psychedelics possession charges.

kf6nux|4 years ago

Fewer criminal statutes is almost always a good thing. Discriminatory enforcement is a huge problem. My local Police Chief told me he thinks of discriminatory enforcement as a good thing, so you can only solve it as a problem by removing the ineffective/undesirable law.

cannaceo|4 years ago

I have been. But that's not what this is about. This is a step towards legalization and social normalization of the usage of these plants.

oceanghost|4 years ago

I love mycology. I would grow mushrooms in an instant if it were legal-- so this is important to me.

failwhaleshark|4 years ago

Portugal. Oregon. Maybe California.

Ending the WoD prohibition and decriminalization is the way to go to stop incarcerating poor and minorities, ending violence in many countries, and decriminalizing personal choices.

PS: Ketamine, acid, and shrooms are on my bucket list.

mrvenkman|4 years ago

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?

Jiocus|4 years ago

> 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 ultimately a symptom of schizophrenia. There has been research into use of drugs and mental illness.

Alcohol intoxication on the other hand, doesn't share the taboo, but paranoid ideations seem plenty. Intoxicated people misread signals, pick up malicious intent wherever and the paranoia that results blows back on the people most important to the person.

vmception|4 years ago

Susceptibility fuels conspiracy theories.

These substances can make you more susceptible.

fsiefken|4 years ago

yes, i think there is a correlation, but you don't know if that is causative. i think people drawn towards psychedelics are also more inquisitive and imaginative with a fascination for grand narratives behind the scenes.

David Icke, was he writing or speaking about conspiracy before he encountered psychedelics or after? What about Terence McKenna and his intriguing Timewave Zero nonsense?

giantg2|4 years ago

This sounds like a conspiracy theory...

Edit: satirical joke

ingas|4 years ago

[deleted]

solutron|4 years ago

Sadly the specter of fentanyl, heroine and methamphetamine ODs, ruined lives and crime will over-shadow the goodness that is decriminalizing psychedelics. The drug-war states will simply say, "so what, everything's legal there and that place is a mess" and they won't be entirely wrong. If SF could shit-can Chessa Boudin and get rid of the Honduran fentanyl gangs terrorizing the City that'd be great.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/08/07/tenderloin-hero...

ravenstine|4 years ago

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.

michaelbrave|4 years ago

I've heard it has a lot of promise in treating depression, decriminalization would allow for official medical studies.

smoldesu|4 years ago

Different states are allowed to draw up different allowances, but Ketamine has shown significant promise in the realm of long-term depression treatment. I'd imagine this is mostly to allow for experimental treatments in that field to be allowed.

cmrdporcupine|4 years ago

I agree. Long term ketamine use can lead to some severe problems; addiction and physiological issues (destroying bladder, urinary incontinence, etc.) Not really in the same category as LSD. Only a very few and... brave ... people do LSD "recreationally" and in large quantity.

clipradiowallet|4 years ago

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.

renewiltord|4 years ago

Ketamine is already available therapeutically. If I weren’t currently traveling I would be on it since I’ve been prescribed it.

aaomidi|4 years ago

Ketamine is currently a schedule 3 drug, it's actively used as medication.

mmanfrin|4 years ago

Ketamine is already available in CA with prescription.

madcows|4 years ago

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.

TaylorAlexander|4 years ago

“ This bill would make lawful the possession for personal use, as described, and the social sharing, as defined, of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT) , ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) , ketamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) , by and with persons 21 years of age or older.”

Amazing! I’ve been curious about LSD but it’s kinda hard to get. Also glad to see ibogaine, ketamine, and MDMA on here in addition to psylocibin as they all have great medical potential.

Really hope this is signed in to law!

dabinat|4 years ago

A rethink of US drug policy, particularly regarding psychedelics, is long overdue. It blows my mind that LSD is in a higher category (i.e. considered more dangerous) than cocaine.

nverno|4 years ago

Yea, it's BS, but the reasoning behind it is the accepted medical uses of cocaine, and none for LSD

username90|4 years ago

> (6) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the messages and information provided by various state drug and alcohol programs promote no unlawful use of any drugs or alcohol.

> This bill would repeal those provisions.

Does this mean that the bill lets California start promoting unlawful use of drugs and alcohol? What is the purpose of this change?

SocksCanClose|4 years ago

lots of combat veterans are seeing good outcomes with this type of treatment...

fnord77|4 years ago

it is promising, but there's not enough data to say this for sure. decriminalizing it will make running studies easier.

mysterEFrank|4 years ago

This could rescue SF tech culture

madcows|4 years ago

Will it pass further voting required to enact it?

Noos|4 years ago

[deleted]

Morvan|4 years ago

[deleted]

Judgmentality|4 years ago

Are you saying taking psychadelics makes you a degenerate? If so, why do you think so?

8note|4 years ago

Psychedelics are part of traditions practiced and led by respected elders of communities. There's nothing degenerate about that

sergiotapia|4 years ago

[deleted]

masklinn|4 years ago

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 situation, why would "keep doing the same thing" yield a different result, exactly?

4. And to my knowledge, the result from Portugal's drug strategy (which essentially decriminalised all drugs back in 2001) has kept looking better and better as the years have gone by. At worst, there seem to be no ill effect compared to other more repressive countries in europe, just less money wasted on possession policing.

[0] not necessarily drug addicts, and for those which are, not necessarily the cause of their homelessness, often the consequence of it or the consequence of shared causes e.g. untreated mental disorders and trauma

dragonwriter|4 years ago

> 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 housing prices.)

> How will this help?

Decriminalization reduces cost directed (usually, ineffectively) at suppression, and straight-up legalizes (and thus brings into the formal, taxed, economy) various ancillary trade like paraphernalia, increasing resources to deal with associated social problems by means other than criminal suppression, which hasn't proven effective.

jonfw|4 years ago

How has criminalization helped?

Prohibition fundamentally doesn't work. If there are 'armies of drug addicts shitting in the streets', it seems that the drugs to sustain these armies must be readily available.

Prohibition creates a massive disincentive for users to interact or cooperate with the state. This could enable policing in communities where police usually aren't welcome, and this could enable social workers to reach communities who no longer have reason to fear a state authority.

If I'm a woman who has a stash of mushrooms and is a victim of domestic abuse- I'm significantly less likely to seek help for fear of arrest.

whateveracct|4 years ago

The drug problem isn't with psychedelics. If you think "drugs is drugs" - then reconsider.

JumpCrisscross|4 years ago

> Doesn't california have a massive drug problem

Good evidence, in Portugal and Oregon, that legalisation eases drug problems. The homeless problem is a result of Californian voters’ housing policy and policing preferences.

christopherwxyz|4 years ago

First, we stop treating victims of addiction adversarially.

stormbrew|4 years ago

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.

BatteryMountain|4 years ago

Not american, no dog in this fight, but I highly doubt the average "psychonaut" will be in the streets. Eating a few grams psilocybin would rather have the person rolling around in bed, talking to his pillow or have deep introspection, or zone out on the couch and watch cartoons, or play some musical instrument.

The image you mention are people who are legit in trouble and in need of help, they might be abusing substances, sometimes several types at once, they might be sleep deprived, dehydrated, confused and don't know what they are doing and need medical/psych help. They might be in the middle of psychosis (it's absolute hell). Taking meth then heroin then some weed then some more meth over a 3 day period will have anyone running around in the streets - people need to respect the power of these substances (or rather, the thin line between feeling normal and madness).

There is a massive difference between 5 friends in the woods consuming psilocybin, playing drums and staring at the clouds for 5 hours in peace, than people running around naked and losing their minds.

The real bad stuff: heroin, meth, other opiates, mixing drugs.

The semi safe: cannabis, mescaline, psilocybin (lsd, dmt, salvia = risk for average folk).

And then I'd totally recommend a calm, safe environment, preferably out in nature. Simple musical instruments to play with. People who you trust an can hold your hand if you get stuck. It's that simple. Don't do it in public, crowds, noisy places with too much lights (well maybe a music festival, but still avoid them) or do it with intentions of getting high or for fun - rather try to use them as tool to commune with your deeper consciousness and get aligned to it. It can also be worthwhile to consume them in a ceremonial/ritualistic setting with a shaman person that can help you navigate certain aspects of it. For your first few times don't do it alone.

e40|4 years ago

No way to know, really, but I'd wager the number of alcohol vs LSD users among the homeless on the streets is 99:1. Also, I've read a lot about homelessness and talked to a few of them, and I've never heard once that LSD, et al are even on the radar.

heavyset_go|4 years ago

You do realize that drug convictions and felonies for victimless drug charges like psychedelic possession, manufacturing or distribution ensures that landlords won't rent to the convicted, employers will discriminate against them and that they're ineligible for government benefits, up to and including student loans to better their lives?

If you actually cared about homelessness, you wouldn't advocate for policy that creates more homeless people.

vmception|4 years ago

There is no coordination amongst addicts that harass people.

If someone is experiencing psychosis they should be guided.

bigbillheck|4 years ago

You should not, as a rule, believe the hype.

bananabreakfast|4 years ago

No not really. This sounds a lot like a Fox News sound bite to rile people up who don't live in CA to get out and vote republican.

Besides, decriminalization has been proven everywhere it has been implemented to decrease addiction and crime rates while helping to prevent the total dehumanization of members of society who happen to be addicts.

namesbc|4 years ago

No, it does not. Stop reading reactionary right wing propaganda if you care about reality.

Fauntleroy|4 years ago

You're referring to a completely different class of drug.

renewiltord|4 years ago

This is what anti-drug people don’t get. These things happen. But I’ll take the trade off. Don’t tread on me.

Get the government out of this business. If I want to take shrooms, I will.

bjt2n3904|4 years ago

All you gotta do is change the metrics, and the study shows a success.

Incarceration rates are easy to tally. "We made something legal, and -- who would have thought -- now we aren't arresting them! What a great success this law is!" Second order effects are more difficult to assess.

That's why my objection to legalizing drugs -- especially psychedelics -- is not based on "evidence".

takeda|4 years ago

I hope this won't be similar to decriminalizing weed where people assumed it's also fine to drive while high :/

whateveracct|4 years ago

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 difficulty at all, though I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights. I find that after the drive I’m not high at all. There are no flashes on the insides of my eyelids. If you’re high and your child is calling, you can respond about as capably as you usually do. I don’t advocate driving when high on cannabis, but I can tell you from personal experience that it certainly can be done.

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/mr_x.html

8note|4 years ago

The problem you're highlighting is that driving is dangerous, more than anything else.

Limiting the speed cars can drive is a much better mitigation, along with better city design to avoid car use, and minizmize fast car use.

The approach of "what if the driver's attention is impaired by <thing>"

Has to be rehashed for every instance of <thing> and is never going to fix the root of the problem - that cars are dangerous