California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate | Hacker News Reader

California Bill to Decriminalize Psychedelics Is Approved by Senate

openstates.org

320 pointsCryoLogic218 comments

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.

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.

The problem is peoples’ notions of justice are capricious and savage. The draconian laws over psychedelics represents yesteryear’s popular conception of “true justice.”

The legal system will always trail behind the reality on the societal ground out there - that's almost by definition, and you actually kinda want them to be quite cautious and thorough before they make decisions.

But you also need to watch for outliers - laws that are WAY past their prime, and should have been put to pasture long ago.

Basically, the legal system needs a garbage collection mechanism.

"The Breitbart Doctrine is the idea that "politics is downstream from culture" and that to change politics one must first change culture.} [cited from Wikipedia]

Andrew was a man ahead of his time.

And now his name shall forever remain linked with one of the most vile spouts of toxic sludge in the contemporary media.

Legacies are complicated.

I mean, I don't like Huffington post but dang...

Neither do I!

(and, BTW, I agree with the general meaning of your quote from AB)

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I agree that many penalties in the system are overly harsh. Even very minor offenses can ruin people's lives. I also agree that laws tend to lag behind society's views.

I lived in a state that legalized marijuana, and police unions lost their minds over it. They lobbied for "reform" bills that would allow cops to arrest people, and specifically kids, for marijuana offenses.

Before legalization, one of the biggest reasons for arrests was marijuana offenses. Not only were police the biggest expenses on many towns' budgets, but many municipalities relied on revenue from those marijuana arrests to balance their own budgets. Now cops are scrambling to manufacture other victimless crimes in order to justify their budgets and compensation, as well as keeping their employers afloat.

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.

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

How does that address those who voted for many of those men and women, knowing their policies and completely agreeing with them?

I am acquainted with people who firmly believe the Devil's Plant is terrible and shouldn't be legal anywhere — what then?

I suppose we can extend the German analogy here as well, e.g. not trying to put half a country on trial might be the most reasonable option

Did we have one post-Prohibition?

If we don't either in this case, there's always a second option of doing the same thing Israel did to those who decided not to face a trial and ran away..

We just had one for Purdue Pharma. Spoiler alert: absolutely nothing happened to these friendly chaps.

I know of a police chief who just retired with a $250k/year pension whose primary contribution to the community was arresting high school kids for smoking joints.

Nixon, Reagan including Nancy Bush Sr. the original instigators of the federal on drugs are all dead.

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.

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?

Decriminalization and Legalization are two pretty different things.

Decriminalization being looser than legalization, where the production and use is put into a legal framework

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!

Yeah I'm pretty interested in future research. It always bugs me how most harm reduction or drug "facts" are basically pseudo science that just gets repeated over and over with slight modifications from anecdotes

I'd really like to know if this is bullshit or not lol https://www.bluelight.org/xf/threads/what-is-wrong-with-the-...

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.

Idk i found home growing mushrooms is basically another hobby to be invested. I tried it once, the final result was pretty weak, and I didn't get a lot for how much effort went into it.

The grow route, the friend route and the onion route.

Don't forget the field taxonomy guide and hiking shoes route.

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.

> 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.

Kamala Harris sent Californians away for long haul prison sentences on drug-related infractions. Anyone here who thinks mass incarceration improves society should explain their reasoning, because I really don’t understand.

Also the parent commenter on “tax base” is misguided. We’re not talking about legalizing and taxing drugs, just not locking people up for victimless crimes.

> We’re not talking about legalizing and taxing drugs, just not locking people up for victimless crimes

This bill isn’t. I am.

Fair enough. I fully support legalization and deregulation of all "controlled substances"

I mean mass incarceration for "long haul" (lets says 30+ years) prison terms absolutely could be argued to "improve" society by removing people who have broken the social contract.

The classic problem with prison is short and frequent sentences that fuck someones life up just enough to prevent them from being a "good" member of society but not long enough to really keep them away from the general population.

Who exactly considers that the "classic problem" of prison? Your reasoning strikes me as perverse. This "social contract" is the rule of a few elites with racially charged political agendas over the many, look into the history of drug laws. It's not a just contract if you are manipulated with false propaganda and coerced by force into signing.

> "social contract" is the rule of a few elites with racially charged political agendas over the many, look into the history of drug laws

There are a lot of violent crimes with shockingly short terms. Including for repeat offenders. This isn't a problem for elites, who can afford to stay away from these problems. It's a problem for common, law-abiding, unexemplary Americans.

We were talking about drugs, not violent crimes. I believe the police should focus on violence and ignore individual consumption of drugs.

What’s this here about a social contract, hmm? I never signed any contract.

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

"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.

It seems likely more people will try it, given the rosy-colored picture most sources paint of psychedelics (vs. something like meth) and the fact that it's legally available.

100%? Of course not, but some who are susceptible will likely be in that percentage of people who decide to give it a shot.

Psychodelics are not something that one will use everyday.

From the list: " psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT) , ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) , ketamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)" - I think only MDMA is abusable.

What do you mean by if?

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

Do you understand that psychedelics are not a mainstream choice even amongst habitual drug users? They are not an easy escape route from daily discomfort. People who want to escape or numb their pain have many less challenging options available.

Very few people take psychedelics for long periods of time. If anything they are "anti-addictive".

> Very few people take psychedelics for long periods of time. If anything they are "anti-addictive".

The more "mainstream" ones like LSD and Mushrooms basically don't work if you're taking them every day. You can go on a multi week long Coke binge but LSD/shrooms would have near 0 effect at that rate.

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

https://dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/psychosis/

I think I'm missing something. That article is about stimulants (not hallucinogens), and it concludes that long term use of them can cause anyone to experience psychosis. That's the opposite of showing people with schizophrenia will break down!?

Also, is it a foreign article? The language is weird and hard to follow in places, like it was written by an algo or translated automatically but chrome claims it isn't doing the translation...

There are lots of rehab and recovery links like the previous one and this one, but it is quite hard to find specific details of what triggers sever psychosis/breakdown in the context of psych drug use.

I do know an RN who nursed someone who had taken LSD in the late 60's and never recovered mentally, which had quite an impact on my perception of this class of drugs

https://blackbearrehab.com/mental-health/schizophrenia/schiz...

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

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

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.

1% of people have schizophrenia.

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?

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.

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.

You can’t cut someone’s hair in California without a license.

You can’t sell corrective eyeglasses without a license.

You can’t buy (or sell) penicillin without licenses.

I could go on.

California has thousands of ridiculous, out-dated, laws.

Yet, I see no groundswell of support for getting rid of them.

My point is, this isn’t about generic ‘decriminalization’ or libertarianism or personal liberty.

Rather, it’s about intoxicants.

It is worth stopping and wondering what is behind this trend of increasing the number of intoxicated people (whether it be through recreational drugs or prescribed drugs.)

I don’t know the answer, but you’re whistling past the graveyard by telling yourself it’s simply about cleaning up or reforming the criminal code. If it were, we would be starting with truly harmless activities such as taking money to put a weave in your girlfriends hair without a license (misdemeanor).

Drugs like LSD and Mescaline are not, primarily, intoxicants. Technically they get you intoxicated, but that misses the point by a wide margin.

These drugs should be important in our society, the experience is indescribable and not necessarily fun - but mostly.

If it were not for the culture wars of the 1960s, and corrupt lecherous idiots like Timothy Leary and Ken Keasy scaring the bejesus out of the establishment , many lives would not have been ruined by these outrageous laws.

The same cannot be said for hairdressing

Any sources for your comments about Kesey and Leary? I've always found them both fairly interesting (if flawed) characters but my knowledge mainly comes via Tom Wolfe, Robert Anton Wilson and some pop-history books.

I read their works. They were on about the ability of LSD to undermine the establishment. (They may have been right). The result of their success was a vicious clamp down.

My view was crystallised by HST in his "Looking west from Vegas with the right kind of eyes..." monologue in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (it is in the film, if reading books is not your thing. The film is, IMO, a faithful portrayal of the book)

When it comes to drugs, I am more of a follower, not a imitator, of HST than Leary. Drugs should be fun. When they stop being fun, stop doing drugs. Real simple!

Aren't they psychoactive, not intoxicating?

Alcohol is intoxicating because it damages cells but there's very little evidence that classical psychedelics are damaging in this way.

You listed a whole bunch of healthcare laws that restrict what you can do to other people. It's perfectly reasonable to be for each of them:

- I don't want an untrained barber spreading disease.

- I don't want a fake optometrist selling incorrect glasses.

- I don't want someone buying penicillin off Amazon to treat their flu, or taking it for 2 days and then stopping so that they incubate a PCN-resistant strain of whatever.

...while still thinking grown adults should be able to decide which recreational chemicals they want to use.

My drugs of choice are coffee and a monthly beer or nice whiskey. I don't have a moral high ground over someone who wants to occasionally use some weed to relax. Similarly, why do I care if someone (not me!) wants to take mushrooms? They don't get to tell me I can't sip a glass of whiskey, after all.

> - I don't want an untrained barber spreading disease.

This is a fairly weird statement. For a start conflating "unlicenced" with "untrained" and then jumping to "spreading disease". I'm not sure catching a disease has ever crossed my mind while getting a haircut.

> - I don't want a fake optometrist selling incorrect glasses.

The fact that they are "fake" surely already implies fraud - so how does licencing prevent this?

> I don't want someone buying penicillin off Amazon to treat their flu, or taking it for 2 days and then stopping so that they incubate a PCN-resistant strain of whatever.

People already do this. I guess you're arguing against increased incentives but that's a bit of a leap.

I'm not sure barber is a good example of a profession that absolutely needs to be licensed, but it's worth noting that they use implements that a) can nick you, and b) may have nicked someone else recently. there's at least the possibility of blood-borne pathogen transmission (though likely not HIV).

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

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.

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.

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?

This sounds like a conspiracy theory...

Edit: satirical joke

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?

Susceptibility fuels conspiracy theories.

These substances can make you more susceptible.

> 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.

Yes! I'm surprised this isn't more studied. I used to have fairly strong paranoia with pot— but that was reasonable given the consequences of getting caught. Post legalization, I just don't get paranoid anymore.

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...

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.

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

Ah, that would explain it.

I was recently surprised to learn about how big of an industry already exists around ketamine therapy. A search in your area (if in the US) would likely turn up several clinics nearby.

Bay Area: https://bit.ly/2S3VNjW Austin: https://bit.ly/3ccj2zk

Oh awesome. I'm in ATX and have treatment-resistant depression (tried 15 meds) likely from chronic sleep deprivation (sleep apnea).

If anyone knows a dope (no pun intended) psychiatrist for general purposes in ATX, I could use contact info.

Ketamine is schedule III in the US. That makes it less restricted than meds like adderall and most prescription opiates. Decriminalizing it wouldn't really matter for research studies.

It would really matter a lot for someone who got caught with a small amount of it, tho

Yes and that's a good thing, but I was responding to the claim that, "...decriminalization would allow for official medical studies."

again, if drugs is what you need to "treat" depression then you probably have a much bigger problem in life that needs to be addressed rather than looking for another band-aid. depression is not some random disease you catch like a bad cold, it stems from personal or systemic issues that will only continue to feed into said depression until fixed.

Perhaps you should bring it up with psychiatrists prescribing people antidepressant drugs then? They will surely benefit of your expertise.

You might not be familiar with the mechanics of depression.

Can you imagine how idiotic someone would sound if they were saying that about type 1 diabetes, or maybe schizophrenia?

Robin Williams lived a pretty pleasant life, but he died of depression. If Robin Freaking Williams couldn't beat it, what chance do the rest of us have for successful self-treatment?

It -can- be messed up brain chemistry despite what all the "only therapy helps" folks who are out to make a buck and prevent people from at least trying it.

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.

Ketamine addiction liability is low–moderate[1], not dangerously addictive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine

Yeah, my wording could've been better. I was referring to that I've heard some horror stories of those who do get addicted. Overuse is really hard on the body. IIRC incontinence / bladder issues specifically.

I think it's an interesting issue you also see with some people and weed. The drug by and large is "too safe". Since fucking yourself up with it is actually kind of hard people get too comfortable and sort of slide down the slope from every so often to daily much easier than something you know is "dangerous".

Basically you respect heroine/meth/coke/etc since you know you can OD and it's doing all sorts of damage to your body but K is "safe" up to the extreme ends so people sort of handwave the risks away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Very true.

If I recall correctly about ketamine, the mind altering effects diminish without sufficient restorative period between dosage. This could further be an issue in two ways. Individuals may associate the effects of ketamine to the mind altering effects only, not realising that it affect the body even if they're not getting the same high ("what I can't perceive can't hurt me"). It could also make individuals try higher dosage more often ("maybe it's bad product, it didn't do anything last night, let's try again").

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.

Ketamine is already legal for doctors to treat patients with and there are ketamine clinics in California.

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

Ketamine is already available in CA with prescription.

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.

If it's being used as a weapon, that sounds like it should be protected under the second amendment.

I imagine guns and knives are the most popular choices for subduing kidnapping victims, and they're explicitly legal because they can be used in that way

They meant as an ongoing way of controlling the kidnapee in a more cooperative state not the initial gun to the head "come with me, we're kidnapping you"

I've heard about police using ketamine on arrestees to subdue them (often leading to serious health complications or death), but never non-LEO criminals. Found one news story where victim claims drug was ketamine, but seems there was just one big story, not many.

What is the scenario that concerns you?

I think ketamine's dosage (100s of mgs) and oral activity (low) is not conducive towards secretly drugging someone. To drug someone with ketamine without their consent, you'd likely have to inject them. If someone is injecting a victim with a drug to knock them out, ketamine seems like it'd be a lot safer than heroin and somewhat safer than benzos - both of which would have a higher chance of respiratory depression.

I suspect this "long history" is drug war propaganda - ketamine would be more expensive and less convenient than other similar options for incapacitating someone via injection.

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

yes, i remember the tragic story of marcia moore

https://erowid.org/culture/characters/moore_marcia/moore_mar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Moore

A clear example of the dangers of astrology.

I meant her addiction and death are a clear example of the dangers of ketamine. The practice of astrology (believing in it or not) in itself doesn't necessarily lead to substance abuse. I'm personally quite interested in astrology as a framework and it's psychology.

There's nothing clear about this:

"the cause and circumstances of her death are still unknown"

"there are some conflicting accounts related to her disappearance and death"

You're making a lot of assumptions based on your own biases. I'm pointing out (tongue-in-cheek) that a different set of biases can create an entirely different narrative, equally correlated.

Ah, you're right.. I missed the tongue-in-cheek :-) ..but I remembered it from reading it in the Ketamine book by Karl Jansen long ago. At the time she was doing it daily and slept 3 hours a day.

Based on an 1998 interview with Moore's Journey's into the Bright World (1978) co-author Howard Alltounian, M.D. he wrote:

"Moore went to visit John Lilly at his ranch in Decker Canyon, Malibu. She was astonished to find that he was, at that point, describing "Vitamin K" (his preferred term) as an "extremely dangerous" substance. Lilly had just been through a massive binge ending in a near fatal accident, and out of his original ten person study group, one had "driven his car off a cliff" (Dr. Craig Enright) and another hd met an "equally lugubrious end" (Carol Carlssen).

"John Lilly's last words to me were, "You'd better be damn strong if you're going to play that game."... As this book goes to press I have once again increased the doses."

Moore disappeared from her house on January 14, 1979. Her husband spent a year searching for her, including journeys to Hong Kong and Thailand, places to which she had traveled in the past. Her skeleton was found in early spring, 1981, in the place where she had frozen to death. She had made a journey at night into the dark world of the forest, a potent Jungian symbol, curled up in a tree, and then injected herself repeatedly with all of the ketamine she had been able to find."

I am not sure if Howard or Karl are assuming things here.

That sounds very consistent with her husband's (Alltounian's) conviction that she committed suicide. I'm not sure what this says about the dangers of ketamine, especially considering that ketamine seems to mitigate suicidal ideation.

I had never heard this person's name before today, but I can easily imagine a different narrative: She was self-medicating for depression and might not have lasted as long as she did without the drug. Sounds like we'll never know.

A low dose has anti-depressive effects, but these are much larger doses. According to her husband she was addicted, and on Erowid there are reports of people getting addicted to it: https://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ketamine_Addicti...

Regarding suicide people could get strange ideas due to ketamine, perhaps it's accidental death - perhaps she wanted to try the biggest dose to get the ultimate revelation and while being in the so called K-hole, the cold got her.

Like a few unlucky souls experimenting with psychedelics, they want to fly to close to the sun and fall down. Zoe7.

Ketamine or psychedelic use can be a form of self-medication. But you'd think that if she had depression it was written about after her death or mentioned in one of her books or articles

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.

A tweet from Senator Scott Wiener confirming the bill was passed: https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1399867521612881921

Passed the CA Senate... then it goes on to the CA Assembly for vote.

Anyone know the probability that this will make it all the way to becoming law?

Anyone know why states have bicameral legislatures?

Modeling themselves after the US Congress, itself modeled after the British Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords).

I personally believe bicameral legislatures - allowing houses to deadlock on a bill - are a terrible idea. Either unicameral (used by one US State, Nebraska) or tricameral legislatures, with 2 out of 3 houses needing to approve a bill for it to pass, make much more sense.

I think some state legislatures actually predated to federal one. I know some states had constitutions before the US did, but I don't know if they included the legislature structure.

Why only one house or three? What exactly would that fix? Sure you eliminate most deadlock, but how does that representation? Also, is deadlock really a bad thing in all scenarios?

It all goes back to the English parliament with it's two houses, either directly modeled after that, or via the Federal government congress.

Canada is effectively unicameral. Random data point.

That only begins to make sense if it's actually modeled on the US Congress, with proportional representation in one chamber and specific representation of subdivisions in the other, but to have two chambers both with proportional representation, as California has, makes no sense.

I actually have no idea, can you elucidate?

I can't. It seems totally irrational to me. Makes no sense at all.

It makes plenty sense. It was meant for the Senate to tame the more erratic decisions of the House of Representatives. However, since the GOP has become what is essentially a fascist party with a Mango Messiah, no amount of balance is currently possible.

Using the USA congress it was viewed a compromise between having reps for the people aka "democracy" and the Senate preventing the tragedy of the commons with a more "stable", less influenced by the populace groups of reps who would be more intellectual and conservative. They would represent the states at large (population not being a metric) rather than districts in the states more of a "republic" idea. That's why you'll hear the USA called a Democratic Republic and why idiots who say "we're a republic and not a democracy!" are almost completely wrong.

“ 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!

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.

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

https://www.verywellmind.com/does-cocaine-have-any-legit-med...

Cocaine has very useful medical effects which is why it's a lower category.

> (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?

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

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

Will it though? The feds could still come after you if you're publishing research that admits possession, etc.

They aren't doing that with the researchers here in California openly attempting to find marketable ways to exploit legal marijuana.

It can change with administration changes because that allowance is made under executive order (which is probably an abuse, but that's another story). There is one federally approved lab down in Louisiana that has been doing this research for decades.

This could rescue SF tech culture

yay

Will it pass further voting required to enact it?

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

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

Yea, it's actually a banned substance in esports racing because of it's known performance enhancing qualities.

hah I did not know that

Does this mean all my rhythm game personal best are invalid '-'

And Sigmund Freud spent a decade using cocaine daily. Doesn't mean it's OK for everyone else to.

I actually wasn't arguing from authority. I think the paragraph stands alone without the author's name attached (in fact it was originally published under a pseudonym, proving this point.)

Sure, the paragraph stands alone as a single data point. GP's point stands.

Yes it did. Traffic deaths in Colorado have grown much faster than the population and much more than the national rate, since legalization.

That doesn't mean it made people's opinion of driving high more favorable. It could just mean more people are high period, but the rate of people who drive high remained the same.

Well, okay. I guess we’d have to read their minds to resolve this question. They might be less afraid of consequences for getting caught with weed, or caught while high, it being “just” a DUI.

Traffic deaths in CO were up 3% last year: https://kdvr.com/news/local/colorado-traffic-related-deaths-...

CO population increased by 15% in the last decade: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-news/color...

It seems like it'd be really hard to defend the claim that the death rate (which isn't per-mile-driven, so lacks the context to actually evaluate it meaningfully) is growing "much faster" than the population.

It’s actually really easy. Colorado marijuana legalization happened in 2014, not last year. So why are you looking at last year’s change?

I produced figures. Your turn.

Edit: Never mind, got 'em. Here's Colorado's own numbers: https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety/assets/fatal-cra...

Notice that fatalities are up significantly, but so are vehicle miles traveled. In fact, in 2013, Colorado had .0075 fatalities per million miles driven. In 2019, that number was... .0075. In other words, your likelihood of dying per distance driven was almost exactly equal to 2013.

This are the CO government's numbers, not mine or anyone else's.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm not from Colorado, and I don't use marijuana. But it's really hard to say that legalizing marijuana in CO had any affect on traffic safety at all, when the fatality rate is essentially identical afterward.

The chart you linked says your numbers are wrong, and between those two years there’s about a 6-7% increase in fatalities per mile, with even larger fatality numbers in the years in the middle.

If you don’t have a dog in this hunt why are you posting wrong numbers, falsely stating there was no increase, and ignoring the deaths from 2014-2018?

[1] 481/470 -> 597/545 is a 7% increase.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com