Colorado and Oregon possibly will decriminalize magic mushrooms

[Saltwater60]

In my opinion this is why legalizing weed is a bad idea. Something always comes next. Between this and the heroin injection sites I think we are headed in the wrong direction. Seattle and Portland have basically already decriminalize the use and minor possession of heroin by not taking criminal action against those using it.

Campaign to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms in Denver says it has enough signatures to make the ballot

 

[Darth]

No reason for it to be illegal.

 

[C3D]

As long as people don’t trip and drive, who cares?

 

[Bigfoot]

far out man,,, groovy,,, can ya dig it?

 

[av8r]

We've known for 80 years or more that the psychoactive chems in Mushrooms, Iowaska, DMT, LSD, etc. can be extremely beneficial to humans. There are many studies showing these chems can and do cure things like depression, often in a single dose. There's a lot more to it, but we can all see why this isn't something certain corporations would want to be public knowledge or easy to acquire.

Why would drugs that are highly addictive and proven to be deadly be OK (Alcohol, Opioids, Tobacco) and those like LSD or DMT, neither of which can be taken to overdose and are not addictive, be marked as verboten?

 

[Shadow2]

LMFAO, So just about everyone i know should be happy and free from depression ... but they aren't, so much for the one dose theory.

We've known for 80 years or more that the psychoactive chems in Mushrooms, Iowaska, DMT, LSD, etc. can be extremely beneficial to humans. There are many studies showing these chems can and do cure things like depression, often in a single dose. There's a lot more to it, but we can all see why this isn't something certain corporations would want to be public knowledge or easy to acquire.

Why would drugs that are highly addictive and proven to be deadly be OK (Alcohol, Opioids, Tobacco) and those like LSD or DMT, neither of which can be taken to overdose and are not addictive, be marked as verboten?

 

[Curmudgeon]

There's a difference between legalization and decriminalization. While I appreciate the fact that they are starting to realize the Nixon ban was wrong, I see a desperate government running out of money looking for new "revenue streams" to fund their pension systems.

 

[ProgSpear]

There's a difference between legalization and decriminalization. While I appreciate the fact that they are starting to realize the Nixon ban was wrong, I see a desperate government running out of money looking for new "revenue streams" to fund their pension systems.

I agree the financial desperation is a major factor, however it fits with the Progressive quest to destroy any vestiges of traditional stability or morality. Seriously, any group that can openly advocate and applaud infanticide have no concept of morality at all.

 

[Darth]

LMFAO, So just about everyone i know should be happy and free from depression ... but they aren't, so much for the one dose theory.

That's not how it works.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

I don't get why some people get upset over this type of thing. If you don't want to use drugs then don't use drugs. The people that do drugs are going to do them regardless. So why not get rid of all the negative things that come with the procurement of what are now illegal drugs? Do you not realize that this is exactly the type of thing that we bitch about on this forum 25/366? The bad guys who use guns are gonna use guns regardless of the laws that are made. So why make legislation to ban them? It's really the same exact thing.

 

[kev74]

I think it should all be legal, regardless of taxes. Let Con-Agra, Phillip Morris and whoever else wants to play sell products with consistent potency and known quality for whatever price the market will bare and eliminate the whole war on drugs at once. We would save billions.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I agree the financial desperation is a major factor, however it fits with the Progressive quest to destroy any vestiges of traditional stability or morality. Seriously, any group that can openly advocate and applaud infanticide have no concept of morality at all.

What's immoral about psychoactive mushrooms? What do the recent abortion laws have to do with this?

 

[ProgSpear]

Hand in hand with these drug legalization schemes will be prohibitions on any ownership of any guns, whether long or short. Guaranteed. Yadda yadda public safety yadda yadda children yadda schools yadda mental health....

 

[Curmudgeon]

Hand in hand with these drug legalization schemes will be prohibitions on any ownership of any guns, whether long or short. Guaranteed. Yadda yadda public safety yadda yadda children yadda schools yadda mental health....

You didn't answer the question.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I think I'd be OK with legalizing everything- if the penalties for harming others while under the influence (DUI, etc) were quadrupled.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I think I'd be OK with legalizing everything- if the penalties for harming others while under the influence (DUI, etc) were quadrupled.

I think the penalties for assault. Murder, burglary, rape, etc are already severe enough. I've always viewed these "extra penalties" for certain circumstances as simple job justification for politicians.

If they really wanted to, they could just create a double secret probation category and just add crimes to the list. Then they're done with it.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Generally I might agree with you @Curmudgeon but I would add that here we're talking about making the conscious choice to impair judgment and inhibitions so I somewhat draw a distinction. That may or may not be right on my part since "wrong is wrong" in a binary moral sense.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Yep, everybody has different morals. However, the word binary triggers me these days.

 

[av8r]

Hand in hand with these drug legalization schemes will be prohibitions on any ownership of any guns, whether long or short. Guaranteed. Yadda yadda public safety yadda yadda children yadda schools yadda mental health....

and most will ignore them like they're already doing now.

 

[kev74]

I think I'd be OK with legalizing everything- if the penalties for harming others while under the influence (DUI, etc) were quadrupled.

That's the same thing the left tries to do with guns. There's one sentence for murder with a knife, bat or hands. But you get extra if you use a gun.

They do it to demonize what they don't like - not to make anyone safer.

 

[BDinPutnam]

That's the same thing the left tries to do with guns. There's one sentence for murder with a knife, bat or hands. But you get extra if you use a gun.

They do it to demonize what they don't like - not to make anyone safer.

I don't know if I agree with this (your parallel, not the concept).

Violent crime is violent crime.

Drugs impair your judgment, your inhibitions, and your reflexes, which compounds the possibility you will do something stupid and hurt someone else.

The same can't be said for a gun vice a baseball bat.

 

[kev74]

I don't know if I agree with this (your parallel, not the concept).

Violent crime is violent crime.

Drugs impair your judgment, your inhibitions, and your reflexes, which compounds the possibility you will do something stupid and hurt someone else.

The same can't be said for a gun vice a baseball bat.

There are already laws and penalties for driving with ability impaired, public intoxication and the rest. They cover alcohol, marijuana, heroine, lsd, pcp, Ambien, Nyquil and anything else people take to alter reality. We could legalize possession, sale and manufacture of every drug and it will still be illegal to do stupid stuff while taking it. We don't need more laws.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I take your point. (ETA and I think it is a good one).

I guess what I'm getting at is that legalizing hard drugs would tend to encourage their use which would seem to encourage an increase in "accidents" and anti-social behavior.

 

[Jmac00]

I don't give a crap one way or the other. But the problem is, *They* will tax all these drugs, but NOT reduce my property tax, fuck'em I simply don't care anymore

 

[Curmudgeon]

I don't know if I agree with this (your parallel, not the concept).

Violent crime is violent crime.

Drugs impair your judgment, your inhibitions, and your reflexes, which compounds the possibility you will do something stupid and hurt someone else.

The same can't be said for a gun vice a baseball bat.

So if "violent crime is violent crime" why should there be different penalties?

 

[ProgSpear]

You didn't answer the question.

Actually I did in post #8 if you actually read what I said. Personally I don't care how anyone wants to mess with their own brain as long as they don't hurt anyone else, but I do have an issue with people that are deliberately fostering this as a means to destroy any sense of responsibility, whether personal or societal, and that is a goal of the progressives. It's not about "psychoactive mushrooms" per se, it's the hypocritical approach that is taken whenever the proggies think they are falling behind. They could give a shit less about criminal justice reform, other than as a cudgel to use against the GOPe, and they sat on their hands when Trump actually achieved a tangible success on that front. So now that he "stole" that issue, they need to pivot to something else, strictly as a political tool.

I have a far bigger issue with people that think killing children in the womb or shortly thereafter is a virtue of some kind, yet bash guns or any other lifestyle choice that they disagree with because it's "for the children". Again, it is the rank hipocricy of these people that is the common denominator.

 

[BDinPutnam]

So if "violent crime is violent crime" why should there be different penalties?

I think you missed the distinction I was drawing. Assault is assault, homicide is homicide whether it be a bat, knife, fists, or gun.

If the state is going to allow / encourage behavior that will likely increase vehicular manslaughter, e.g., that's a different story. The weapon in a violent crime is irrelevant. The reason the violent crime occurs (or is more likely to occur) is highly relevant.

PS I didn't get to read your post immediately above before I posted this; I think we're largely on the same page even if we differ in a few (admittedly meaningful) ways.

 

[Criticalt]

I don't know if I agree with this (your parallel, not the concept).

Violent crime is violent crime.

Drugs impair your judgment, your inhibitions, and your reflexes, which compounds the possibility you will do something stupid and hurt someone else.

The same can't be said for a gun vice a baseball bat.

In countries that have either decriminalized or "do not enforce" drugs for personal use have acctually seen less crime involving drugs, including vehicle accidents, far less overdosing, less infectious diseases like AIDS and many more addicts getting help for their addiction.
Portugal for instance has seen their overdoses be cut in more than half sinse their "non-enforcement" of personal use drugs began.
Other countries are seeing the same results.

 

[kev74]

And similarly, states that go to constitutional carry don't see the big rise in wild west type shootouts and crime in general decreases.

Its almost like most people when left to their own devices are usually pretty responsible.

 

[Curmudgeon]

If the state is going to allow / encourage behavior that will likely increase vehicular manslaughter.

This might be the dividing point. If the state stays out, they are neutral. The likelihood of increased vehicular manslaughter is dubious at best. IMO