Oregon becomes first state to legalize psychedelic mushrooms | Hacker News Reader

Oregon becomes first state to legalize psychedelic mushrooms

oregonlive.com

410 pointstoomuchtodo164 comments

Bigger one to me is decriminalizing all personal amounts of drugs: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/11/oregon-decrimina...

It’s about time

Portugal did it. (okay they decriminalized, not legalized, sadly)

I wouldn't legalize all drugs. Meth is one hell of a drug. Same for heroin.

I like how they approach safe injection sites to make up for not legalizing everything.

Criminal prohibition of drugs just drives sales underground where there’s no regulation or testing of substances for potentially lethal contaminants. It also creates a huge economic opportunity for violent cartels/criminal organizations which can destabilize entire regions. Furthermore it does almost nothing to reduce the supply or availability of illegal drugs - we’ve been fighting a war on cocaine for 50 years and cocaine has never been more readily available or cheaper. The only thing criminal prohibition of drugs has accomplished is an explosion of the prison population making America the country with the highest level of incarceration in the world.

The war on drugs causes more death and damage than drugs. The only way out is for the government to legalize, regulate and tax drugs just like alcohol and cannabis. If heroin were sold at a pharmacy there would be laws against selling to minors... dealers today will sell to anyone.

> The only thing criminal prohibition of drugs has accomplished is an explosion of the prison population making America the country with the highest level of incarceration in the world.

Some would argue this is actually by design, and I'm inclined to believe them. The prison pipeline is horrifying

> just drives sales underground

Yes it does drive sales underground, but it does not just drive sales underground: it likely also reduces drug consumption.

When you make a resource harder to get you decrease the supply, when you decrease the supply, prices tend to go up and access goes down. Despite all the other negative externalities of the drug war (and there are many), I believe there is still a good case to be made that it also makes it harder to obtain dangerous and highly addictive drugs.

Now we may be able to partially legalize these drugs in a way that still makes them hard to get, but then you still have the black market.

"partially legalize" - I would say currently legalized drugs are "partially" legalized (aka regulated with reasonable restrictions like minimum age of purchase and not selling to intoxicated persons)

Referencing alcohol prohibition, that led to a large black market which gradually shrank until it almost completely disappeared about a decade after prohibition ended. About 10 years after prohibition was enacted, alcohol consumption was at ~70% of pre-prohibition levels. Making alcohol illegal decreased consumption by 30%. I would guess alcohol consumption levels would have continued to rise if prohibition had continued. I don't think anyone today still thinks a small reduction in consumption was worth all the violence and corruption created by prohibition. Today the "black market" for alcohol pretty much consists of asking your older sibling/friend to buy you a case of beer.

> When you make a resource harder to get you decrease the supply, when you decrease the supply, prices tend to go up and access goes down.

I argue it's extremely easy to get illegal drugs in the US. I don't currently use any but I have complete confidence I could acquire some within ~1-3 days by tapping my social network if I wanted. Another very convenient alternative for acquiring drugs for those so inclined is the dark web (assuming you know how to use cryptocurrency and tor - something I'm sure the vast majority of young people in the US can do)

We're going to eventually get to a place where drug decriminalization is widespread. If we're not going to punish people for using drugs, lets just take control of the drug market away from criminals, regulate it, tax it and use that tax revenue for something good.

"when you decrease the supply, prices tend to go up and access goes down."

Basics of economics: inelastic markets, where demand does not respond to price. Oil and food are examples: the price moves, but goods must be moved, and people need food to survive. So price could double and demand would go down like 2%

Seond issue with your post: there is no shortage of supply, all drugs i can thing of are readilly avaliable. The police / etc. Have failed to restrict supply. The only thing they can do is drive up the price as cartels / criminals have to employ more elavorate methods.

You know what else drives us the price? Taxes. You could set insane rate of tax on any substance so that it's legal version costs as much as the black market one, or even more. Legal one still nakes more senxe to buy, because you'd know its pure and does not come with baking powder, horse shit or rat poison mixed in. Its a well known fact that drugs on the street are of very low purity.

In fact it is very common for a drug user to die because they suddenly get a dose of 'clean' drug and what used to be a normal dose of 10% drug just became a 10x dose of 100% drug.

I read a HN comment here from a resident of Portugal the decriminalization has been significantly mischaracterized. The main reason it worked at all was due to a huge rise in heroin use, which the criminal system was having trouble handling. And the areas where people used drugs rapidly went downhill. I am not sure it can be declared a unilateral success.

I'm not doubting, but is there evidence for the negative effects in some regions? From what I remember years ago it seemed like a significant success based on a number of metrics

Here's one comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24704986

The writer claims the decriminalization was forced by a heroin epidemic, and it coincided with an economic downturn. So, my statement that it caused areas with drug use to decline is most likely false, as the decline is better attributed to the economic downturn.

And right on time.

I'm actually really sad this passed. This takes money that was earmarked for schools from the Marijuana tax fund and puts it in unproven addiction treatments.

It also takes away the only real leverage of consequence that legal authorities had at compelling people into a treatment programs and replaces it with a 150 dollar fine, which won't be paid anyways.

You want people to be compelled to undergo unfunded unproven addiction treatments?

why is it desirable to have leverage to compel people into treatment they wouldn't otherwise accept?

This includes heroin, does anyone know if it also covers psilocybin?

Edit:

It reduces misdemeanor drug possession to a non-criminal violation on par with a traffic offense. People with small amounts of drugs including heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, LSD, psilocybin, methadone and oxycodone will get a ticket and face a $100 fine or have the option of being screened for a substance abuse disorder.

Makes it sound like they'll send people to rehab for psychedelics, which is pretty funny.

The law states that all I, II, III, and IV class drugs will be decriminalized, however certain listed drugs will only be decriminalized when found with quantities below a threshhold.

Honestly I think it's great. If you're doing heroin or meth, you definitely don't have $100 lying around for a fine, and not paying it would just land you in jail anyway. This gives people who don't have or want to pay the fine a way to stay legal without doing so, and also gives someone a chance to talk to them and potentially help.

This seems really well thought out, however with sale still being as illegal as it was, I'm not sure crime/danger on that side of the transaction will decrease at all.

Crime and danger from the drug trade will always be lurking around. Even with legal cannabis there is a black market around, diminished but not gone.

This law seems to be more for harm reduction, for people to seek help without fear of prosecution, to enable others to call for an ambulance in case of something bad happens without fear of being arrested because they were shooting heroin.

I read that sentence as saying “If you could afford the drugs but not the $100 fine then you probably have a substance abuse disorder and we will force you to get treatment.”

It's only in a therapeutic environment. It's not legalized for recreational use. While interesting - probably not what most people would expect from the headline...

Yes, but that’s what legal weed started out as too. I think a lot of people expect it to transition from medical to recreational over the next decade or two.

But personal possession was also decriminalized so as long as you gave a way to get it then you're technically safe from there.

This won't directly provide a way to get it outside the approved environment since it must be used at the point of purchase.

I think it is closer to recreational use than medical marijuana laws (in text, if not always in practice) since it is allowed without any particular medical condition. I think it is still to be determined exactly how theraputic the environment will be.

Excellent. Let's hope that California will follow. They are one of the few states that don't even allow spores.

Agreed! It would also be great if these mushrooms were available in pill form microdoses.

I'm surprised it didn't come up through propositions

> don't even allow spores

"Isn't making a plant [fungi in this case] against the law the same as claiming that God made a mistake?" -- Bill Hicks

It’s California. Belief in God was removed here in a proposition in 2012 IIRC.

Still holds. Making a plant/seed/spore against the law is a good example of (retarded) politicians having too much power. (possibly getting voted in to offices by an equally retarded public)

invasive species?

This is a good point as well: Sometimes, it isn't even the plant one is worried about, but pests that might come from other regions as well. Sometimes there are good reason to ban things.

I'm not convinced these apply to most drug producing plants.

Opium poppies for everyone.

(I'm for recreational legalization, even of drugs I do not intend to take. Just pointing out things folks gloss over when they speak of plants).

Are opium poppies illegal where you live? I don’t believe they are illegal here.

You might want to check closely. As in, the poppies might not be illegal, but if there are any signs that you are, or intend to, harvest opium from them, then those sign become evidence of a felony. For example, having a copy of the book "opium for the masses" (Jim Hogshire)

or, what you believe to be legal (because you can buy the seeds at the grocery store) may not be legal, depending.

> Opium poppies for everyone.

Yes, anyone should be able to grow any plant they want.

My body, my choice. Don't stop anyone from making choices for themselves, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others. If I get high and go on a rampage, there are laws to deal with the results. If I get high and don't bother anyone, leave me alone.

How can you claim “my body, my choice”, make a decision along those lines, then request public help if it doesn’t pan out?

You can actually get a weed-store like experience today in California for shrooms in certain places. I've actually been and have, in my possession, shrooms from them.

Where would that be?

Maybe in Oakland? Not in Santa Cruz.

I've never heard anything about Denver either, but they have been decriminalized in all three

We also passed universal preschool, funded by taxing the rich.

> The preschool measure is a 1.5% tax on incomes of more than $125,000 per year and joint filings topping $250,000.

More like taxing the professional class

The professional class will barely even notice.

1.5% is a quite a lot for a specific state tax. oregon already levies a 9.9% tax on incomes over $125k. this is a ~15% increase to the highest bracket.

So $1,875 per annum on a $250k income.

That’s some mighty good value pre-school. Who wouldn’t take that deal?

People without kids in preschool

I wouldn't mind paying this, for the greater good of the local community.

Maybe limiting the tax to families who claim children as dependents would seem more fair.

"So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people." - John Green

This. It seems like a small price to pay not to have half an electorate believe political rivals are child-abducting lizard people.

So brainwashed into believing one side? Why can’t we just want to make kids smarter instead of brainwashing them into being liberals?

I was agreeing with you unless you believe in lizard people.

yup you’re right, my head was melted when i read the chain last time. re-reading it now i dunno what i was thinking.

Stupid people both amuse me, and give me their money, so I don't really see a downside here.

That is a fairly large amount. At least $2000 dollars for a childless single person. Or at least $4000 for a childless couple trying to in-vitro.

Is pre-school valuable or is it a babysitter?

Well, either is fine, in that it allows people with low income a childcare option at all.

Where did you get these #s from? This is a progressive tax and only affects income above the threshold. If you make 150k as a single earner, you don’t pay 1.5% on 150k, you pay 1.5% on 150k-125k, or 1.5% of 25k which is $375. And that’s if you didn’t reduce your income in other ways (401k contributions, pretax health or child care, HSA, etc.)

This is such a common misconception in the US. I'm amazed how it isn't understood by many.

I found a positive correlation between someone’s tax obligation and their understanding of tax law.

Where do you propose people leave their kids at when both parents need to work?

At a pre-school they pay for.

Preschool is extremely valuable for childhood development

I believe the cutoffs are for taxable income, not gross.

Don’t you know, we’re “the rich” and get to deflect attention from the actual capital class

Buy real estate in Vancouver, WA now. That 0% income tax is gonna look mighty nice.

You know I've lived in a place with 0% income taxes and the people it attracts are wholly worth paying to move away from.

Like the awful people of Seattle? Or Nashville? Or Miami?

Or Austin, Houston, Dallas, El Paso, etc

I mean, yes? What's your point? Vancouver, WA is a nice town, too.

My experience differs: The higher end places I've lived had 0% income tax (because the wealthy had the means to work within the system to keep it that way), while I've lived in some pretty crappy places with surprisingly high income taxes.

Isn’t this 100% opinion? It’s equivalent to saying a republican is miserable living in blue country. 0% income tax is likely a red state and you sound like a dem. Of course you wouldn’t like it.

That’s only Multnomah county, and it’s an income tax not a wealth tax. The actual rich will continue to not contribute a damn thing.

I'm also sad this passed. It's actually not universal at first. It starts in 2021 offering seats to black, brown, illegal immigrant, teen parents and other traditionally "disadvantaged" groups first when it kicks off in 2021 and doesn't ramp up to full universal service until 2030. There's an additional tax increase that will take effect in 2026, that takes the marginal tax rate from 1.5 percent to 2.3 percent for single people making over 125k and joint filers making 200k. On top of all that, the measure would over-pay teachers 77k above the market rate, which is 33K. There's also the additional rider that they will prohibit suspensions. If you ask me, this bill only passed since it pushed the responsibility for paying for it to someone other than the majority of people in Multnomah county. It would have been more fair if there was a sense of shared sacrifice and skin in the game with everyone contributing to it. I imagine there will be more tax increases to help pay for all of the increase cost of a) people moving into the county for this free perk and b) people moving out of the county to not have to deal with this additional tax.

If you want everyone to have shared sacrifice in taxes then you need to start reducing income differences first.

And you seem to think any amount of payment over 33K is overpayment? That's about half of the median wage. Teachers should get better than 33K.

A flat tax is a shared sacrifice

It's also a terrible thing to do to poor people.

I'm bit bummed by this one. It sounds nice on the surface, but it seems like it's basically re-implementing a program that the state is starting to implement, but more expensive. The $300 million could be spent on problems that are city-specific: homelessness, adorable housing, economic recovery to name a few. I think we could get a lot more value for the community out of such a large price tag, especially without duplicating state-level work.

I think spending it on adorable housing is by far the most awesome choice.

I love that the funding is statewide. Most public schools are really weird in that parents are heavily incentivized to move to expensive school districts when their kids are school age ish, pay egregious income taxes while their kids actually attend school, then downsize somewhere cheaper when their kids leave. Those public schools get all the funding, and the schools in worse districts have rich parents fleeing them, leaving the less privileged behind with lower local taxes to work with. It’s a really non equitable system.

this is a common misconception. once you consider local, state, and federal funding, almost every state in the US has at least slightly progressive school funding (ie, low-income districts get no less, and sometimes a bit more, funding than high-income districts). [0]

the incentive still exists to live in expensive districts when you have school-aged children, but the main benefit is simply that your children go to school with children from other well-off families.

[0] https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-...

I have been listening to the Michael Pollan audiobook "How to Change Your Mind" https://smile.amazon.com/How-to-Change-Your-Mind-audiobook/d... Fascinating subject and I am going through some personal issues which has put me in a funk, not that I wasn't depressed before the latest crop of issues. I am glad states have started the process of decriminalizing substances that hold therapeutic promise for mental issues. Nothing has worked on me so far so I hold out hope for psilocybin as the one that finally snaps me out of it.

This is incredibly exciting. Along with the bill I’m DC, things seem to be going in the direction I hoped.

I’ve been considering founding a startup in this space. If anyone is interested in chatting (cofounding, sharing stories, sharing ideas) my email is my last name at gmail.

https://youtu.be/V6gX9SqctHY at 40:20 this guy talks about a trial he participated in. He seems to be pretty well-connected in these circles.

Good step. Prohibition doesn't work. Evidence is in the masterful executed logistics of the drug markets, even if substances are illegal.

An addiction is a disease and should be treated as such.

This is probably significant enough to make the front page.

This is very interesting. Not being in Oregon, I hadn't seen this.

This nonsense is out of control. Oregon needs serious help

Why because people can eat mushrooms in their homes without having to worry about being thrown in jail?

Mushrooms have to administered by a therapist in a therapeutic setting

If that’s the case then it’s not as bad as I thought, definitely not worse than fentanyl

My God hacker news you are addicted to that down vote button. Let me give you all another one to click

And another because why not? What are these fake reputation points worth in the real world?

3rd sentence: "Multiple cities have decriminalized the substance, but Oregon will become the first to permit supervised use statewide ..."

4th sentence: "... will allow regulated use of psychedelic mushrooms in a therapeutic setting."

5th sentence: "It creates a two-year period during which regulatory details will be worked out, including what qualifications are required of therapists overseeing its use."

Read the article next time. This has the potential to benefit numerous people with different types of psychological conditions. It is definitely not nonsense.

Will you try to explain why this is nonsense?

While I get the arguments that prohibition doesn't work, you need some function to disincentivize people from being drawn to try drugs. Removing practically all barriers, especially to the hardest, most dangerous drugs, is a bad path for Oregon to have opened up.

And I fear that it also opens the doors to other countries / bad actors seeing that they have a new market to manufacture and sell drugs to (fentanyl, heroin, meth) without penalty.

I think there are major unintended consequences here that will materialize in years to come, and it could be possible that this hurts the people it claims to help (and more in fact). Those who voted for the symbol of decriminalizing the "harmless" drugs may get much more than they expected.

Those functions exist. They are culture and adulthood.

I'm not being glib here. I'm not a crack addict because as an adult I can recognize even trying that drug is a really bad idea, and because I exist in a culture where doing crack is not encouraged, to say the least.

I appreciate the comment. But if those were enough deterrent for everyone, why do we have any drug addicts at all?

This is an incremental lowering of the barriers to people getting involved with hard drugs, and I cannot imagine that it will not produce some incremental outcome of people getting addicted compared to before.

There is already an example of country decriminalizing all drug use. Portugal in 2001. Their experience is quite positive.

Check out the Rat Park experiment or read Chasing the Scream for one idea of how incentives work when drugs are decriminalized.

Briefly: drug addiction, which is the bad outcome of drug use, emerges from hopelessness and mental trauma. Limited data suggests linking safe drug use to mental health resources, is an effective treatment plan for reducing drug addiction.

Your concerns may sound reasonable, but they are not evidence-based. So far the evidence beginning to accumulated from states/countries that have decriminalized and/or legalized previously prohibited drugs has been mostly contrary to your concerns.

Those states/countries decriminalized hard drugs like heroin?

Yes, Portugal did, as did several other countries... here's a complete list: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-have-decr...

Don't forget Mexico back in 1940, although only for 6 months due to the US shutting off supplies of the drugs and the war preventing them from finding alternative suppliers:

https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/1940-the-year-mex...

When I tried to find the Borderland Beat article where I first heard of this I found that the site has been closed due to (as best I can find with the site's own explanation no longer up) a lawsuit by a drug lord whose California driver's license was published on the site. Huge loss and I hope they get the site back eventually.

I did find one article I was looking for on the Internet Archive if anyone is interested, although the above is a much better link on just the legalization aspect (this one is mostly about one of the illegal drug trafficers affected). I think BB had another article on the legalization but I can't find a link to that one. As one might expect, the comments on BB tend to be more extreme than many sites in various ways.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200811192412/http://www.border...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190801143825/http://www.border...

>you need some function to disincentivize people from being drawn to try drugs.

Got any suggestions? We all know DARE didn't work, so we can't work from the "drugs are bad, mmkay?" angle.

>you need some function to disincentivize people from being drawn to try drugs.

Something that Bernie Sanders talked a lot about that I found very compelling was the idea that a lot of people get into life ruining drugs (I'm talking heroin/meth, not weed/mushrooms) because they feel like they have no hope. A lot of them have little in the way of prospects. Drugs are an escape from the hopelessness in a lot of cases.

If our society had a better social safety net combined with education about drugs that is based on facts/truth (there's plenty of truth about heroin/meth that would put off most people from ever trying it - but for a long time a lot of lies were told about other recreational substances.) it's likely that usage would go down organically.

Really courteous and open-minded, to be downvoting an otherwise legitimately held opinion worth discussion, isn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com