With psilocybin mushrooms, though, I can't imagine any reasonable argument that people need to be protected from themselves. They aren't addictive by any definition of addiction I know of. And they can do some amazingly positive things, especially for those who are facing death due to illness or just old age. I would go so far as to say it is tragic that such people are denied relief from the horrible feeling of impending death that mushrooms can provide.
Not that I am against people just doing them for kicks, either.
Drug abuse a health problem, not a criminal problem. We spend orders of magnitude on the criminal side and, guess what? It only makes things worse.
Legalize. Regulate. Tax.
It's very simple, and is the only correct answer.
Laws aren't always about crimes, by the way. Not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets shouldn't be seen as a criminal problem, but we still have laws about it. Maybe you disagree with those laws, and that's fine.
I think it is less fine to say that your perspective on the issue is the only one that can be reasonably seen as valid.
Today, I'll agree with you. Question is why?
Clearly heroin ruins the lives of people who commit crimes to pay for it, as they're pulled into the criminal justice system. If you can afford to buy all the heroin you need from your checking account - well obviously it 'ruins your life less' as you're not in prison.
Maybe you decide to turn up at 9am for your job, or stay in bed - but that's an additional choice you have, as you're not locked up.
My point is, the drug's the same, you're the same, and the difference is the access to it you're afforded.
Anecdotally the highest every number of opiate addicts was post the first world war, where it was handed out as an anesthetic by the government.
To bring my meandering back in, I think we simply need to clarify what we want to achieve in society. Reduction in drug use - or a reduction in drug harm.
Still, my main point is that mushrooms should NOT be controversial.
Yes that's right, according to the federal government, marijuana and mushrooms are more harmful, more addictive, and have less medical use than PCP, Cocaine, or Xanax.
Luckily, the city of San Francisco can work on multiple problems at once. They don't feel the need to wait for the homeless problem to be solved before they fix a pothole on the street or apply a fresh coat of paint to a piece of playground equipment.
This is a simple issue that can improve lives. Sometimes in dramatic ways, such as for the terminally ill. And it can be changed without a lot of money or effort being spent.
(I'm mostly kidding, there's no significant barrier to accessing pyschedelics in SF as-is.)
As part of insurance pools, today I pay for extreme sports injuries, alcohol and tobacco related chronic problems, outright stupidity, and obesity related issues.
No one seems to balk at that; why should THC or magic mushrooms be fundamentally different? Even if they “should” be, how could they be?
Cheese + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome
Grapefruit + SSRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...
Because SSRIs aren't known for having that interaction with fermented products at any dose I've seen.
With that in mind it’s a completely asinine system and should be thrown out. It’s such an utter waste of time when Portugal’s policy of decriminalizing everything a decade and a half ago showed massive public benefit and no increase in drug use. [2]
Nothing about the war on drugs is “fact based.” This whole conversation is about re-shuffling the deck chairs when we should be getting off the Titanic.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9935273/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
Xanax has significant medical use supported by actual studies. (Yes, it's kind of a problem that the Federal government essentially blocks studies of many substances.) There's not a lot of real distinction between schedules III-V other than "less potential for abuse than the last one" (per DEA, not any science). Schedule II is nominally "high potential for abuse," like Schedule I.
> The DEA Scheduling system is not fact-based and needs to be completely redone.
Yes, current scheduling is absurd and not based in evidence.
I don't really agree with the policy that drugs must have medical value to be legal (which is enshrined in the distinction between Schedule I and II as they are today); it's certainly hard to reconcile with the legal status of (potable) alcohol or tobacco, which have more or less negative medical value.
Case in point, the tabloid press in the UK brands anyone that uses any illicit drug a "junkie"; another, UK politicians are unlikely to legalise recreational use of anything beyond caffeine, alcohol and nicotine in our lifetimes.
Humans have used psychoactive drugs since the beginning of time, and the long, damaging and fruitless "war on drugs" demonstrates that we still and always will - surely it's time for a different stance on drugs?
I'm sticking with my statement, because it's true. I welcome reasonable refutations to it.
You overlooked the word "regulate". That means laws, but applied towards health and safety of products sold, rather than punishing the consumer.
We still need DUI laws (and related), but otherwise it's a personal choice all the way down.
There isn't much evidence for medical use of cannabis and what there is is super weak. That's not to say it won't be proven effective in time, just that the research isn't definitive.
> and further have a lower potential for abuse, at least along the addictiveness axis?
I am not super well versed on cannabis abuse/addictiveness research but anecdotally, sure; as far as I know, it's relatively nonaddictive and harm of regular high-dose use is pretty mild.