Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Legal Use of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms Begins in Oregon (nytimes.com) 142

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
On Jan. 1, Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalize the adult use of psilocybin, a naturally occurring psychedelic that has shown significant promise for treating severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and end-of-life anxiety among the terminally ill, among other mental health conditions. From a report: Although scientists are still working to understand their therapeutic dynamics, psilocybin and other psychedelics are thought to promote neuroplasticity, a rewiring of the brain that gives patients fresh perspectives on longstanding psychiatric problems. One recent study on alcohol-use disorder, for example, found that two doses of psilocybin paired with talk therapy led to an 83 percent decline in heavy drinking among participants, and that nearly half of them had stopped drinking entirely by the end of the eight-month trial. The long-term benefits, however, remain unclear. Measure 109, as it's called, authorized the creation of psilocybin service centers where anyone over 21 can consume the mushrooms in a supervised setting. One key requirement is that a state-certified facilitator must be present during drug-induced journeys, which can last five or six hours.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legal Use of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms Begins in Oregon More

Legal Use of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms Begins in Oregon

Comments Filter:

  • I'm all for the research (Score:3, Informative)

    by MrChilly ( 7650916 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @02:49PM (#63177064)
    My uncle with ALS requested a mushroom trip after he became wheelchair bound. YMMV, but he was actually smiling and in a better mood for a few weeks after. As for myself, it has helped with my seasonal depression on the occasions I was able to get a few grams. Like a lot of other things in this beautiful world, as long as you take them in a safe environment in a safe amount, I'm all for it, esp if there are mental benefits. Quite a few results look promising for PTSD's, and I'm hopeful they find more uses.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Legalize CP ( 10273510 )
      Legalize everything. The world will be in much better shape when we let people take personal responsibility for their actions.
      • But they won't, that's the problem. People won't even return shopping carts to the cart corral.

        • Re:I'm all for the research (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @05:48PM (#63177768) Homepage Journal

          I think it depends. Details matter. The problem with psychoactive drugs is that they affect your brain, which is kind of essential to have if you want to take responsibility for your actions.

          This is a complicated issue, and there's no answer we'll ever get people to agree upon. But I think we should be able to agree that if X is worse than Y, it makes no sense to say we can live with X but not Y. In this case, X is alcohol -- a drug with immense abuse potential, health impact, and societal costs that we nonetheless have decided we can live with if it's regulated in various way. It makes little sense to completely ban marijuana when alcohol is something we can live with.

          Psychadelics generally have low dependency potential, but you sure don't want someone driving an 18 wheeler to be tripping balls. So it probably belongs in the allow-but-regulate category. Since you want to limit what someone tripping is doing, and negative psychological effects seem to be environment-driven, it mnight make sense to allow them to be administered in facilities that are licensed and inspected ... like hair salons are.

          • I think we can just make it illegal to drive within 6 hours of taking mushrooms. I personally went through a phase of experimentation with mushrooms. I never once confused the drug for reality, though it did help change my understanding of reality. Oftentimes, after the 'trip' during the contemplative phase. As the peak of the trip itself was mostly randomness, visual processing artifacts, and generally not all that pleasant. But even during the peak, including "breakthroughs", I was always fully aware of m

            • On the "Legalize everything and Let Darwin sort it out", don't even regulate production.

              I'm no longer a malthusian, but when I was, I would have said that it is better to eliminate those tempted to take drugs to deal with mental issues from the gene pool, as it strengthens the species to do so.

              • I get it, you don't like drugs. Fine, you're a teetotaller. Now get off your moralistic hobby horse. And if you drink, you're a hypocrite. Specifically psilocybin is nearly impossible to overdose on, has no known harmful side effects on almost everyone except schizophrenic people in certain unsafe settings, and it's generally less harmful than coffee. But let's kill people who use this, and keep approving people who drink and then shoot up a few others, kill their spouse, or cause an accident. Much better

                • I'm a teetotaller as well, and I found the "don't even regulate production" to be going too far.

                  Sure, I'd legalize everything from Marijuana to Mushrooms to Cocaine. But I'd very much slap FDA level regulations on it all, as well as a moderate amount of taxation. Hell, in order to kill the illegal industry, I'd set the tax rate at zero for the moment, or maybe something very low like 1% or "just sales tax", just so that the people in the industry are used to filing said taxes.

                  Cocaine, surprisingly enough,

                • The urge to self medicate is a negative human trait- even for alcoholics- that if we were going to be ruthlessly Darwinian we would seek to eliminate from the species. Malthusian Eugenics isn't just about reducing the number of people living on the planet to 1/16th its current level, it's also about seeking the best possible genetic breeding for the one out of 16 people you leave left alive.

                  If you are pro-abortion and pro-sterilization, then killing off people with a tendency towards addiction shouldn't bo

      • It seems the mods are ignoring your username.

      • What specifically would "let people take personal responsibility" mean for the hordes of fentanyl zombies in the streets?

        • 1. What hordes of fentanyl zombies? Aren't they more heroin zombies, where they die randomly when they get a hit with a touch too much fentanyl, used as a boosting agent, in it?
          2. Heroin is about as expensive to make as aspirin, in industrial medical quantities, at medical quality.

          First: I view the problem as you have people with opioid addictions. They'll use pills if they can get them, heroin and other less safe stuff if they can't.
          Two: The way I summarize the addiction is that it shoves itself into

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        Legalize and regulate drugs.

        We don't want to legalize the specific thing you're advocating we legalize. You need help.

      • When mushrooms go wrong a bad trip can lead to someone getting killed. Google automutilation and mushrooms for starters.

        While I don't gb ink people having or owning mushrooms deserves jail time I think that socially were better off making mushrooms hard to obtain and directing users into counseling. Im not merely concerned for others in the abstract puritan way: as a parent I have a legal and ethical interest in making it hard for my children to obtain. As an employer I need to maintain safe working env

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          I lived with a bunch of hippies for quite a while, and never ever once heard any such thing as "automutilation and mushrooms". I did see them help a lot of people, including myself, work through issues like PTSD caused by childhood abuse and the like.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        Yeah, not ready to head back to the bad old days of Snake Oil Salesmen.

        Sure, the FDA isn't much better.

        But they ARE a safeguard.

      • Personal whatnow?

        Where have you been the past couple decades? NOBODY wants to take personal responsibility. Everyone wants every freedom, yay, but responsible? Nooooo, I won't be responsible, I will sue the pants off you if you let me act like the idiot I am!

        And if everything fails, blame the government for not doing anything to protect me. You know, the government. The same that I just told to stay the fuck out of my fucking business.

      • The whole point of legalization is to AVOID personal responsibility.

  • the giant caterpillars agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @03:01PM (#63177102) Journal

    All the giant caterpillars in front of me are voicing their agreement with this plan.

    Seriously though, sounds like a good idea. The criminalization of somewhat harmless drugs, especially given alcohol and nicotine are legal is stupid on many levels. It creates a black market (I.e. Crime), then wastes police time on those crimes, and huge amounts of money on the justice system and "rehabilitation". And once the perps get their Monday night rehabilitation, there's then a lifetime of follow up crime, policing and justice because they're now an underclass.

    And on top of that, three's a whole load of taxable revenue left on the table because it's illegal not a taxable drug like booze and cigs.

    • Is there a violent cartel controlling magic mushrooms?

      • Yeah, there's these Siberian shamen that'll come down your chimney & give you a piece of coal if you've been rude or disrespectful to your parents. Seriously, it's the reindeer-piss-laced-with-fly-agaric drinking Siberian shamen who are originally responsible for the Santa folklore. The reindeer got high too, hence the sleighs flying in the sky bit.

        If we allow this menace back into society it'll be the beginning of the end. The end of what, I'm not quite sure.

        • Santa < > Satan. They're not anagrams for nothing.

          Favourite colour: red

          Favourite thing: children

          Favourite substance: coke

          BOTH keep a list of who's naughty

          I'll let you Google the other parallels.

          This fiend has been in our midst on an annual cycle for over a century. Also, this Christmas just gone, I didn't see one mention of Jesus in any mainstream media.

          • Also, this Christmas just gone, I didn't see one mention of Jesus in any mainstream media.

            Oh, no worries. I've got him. That's because Alexa misheard me when I ordered some baby cheeses. Just got to print out the form to send him back.

        • The more you know.

      • No, there is a pharmacy cartel trying to sell you their psycho pills that don't work as well but are at least patentable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      I do disagree that users should be confined to the treatment center, on my best mushroom trip I was walking on a trail in the woods.

  • Legalize it all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @03:11PM (#63177142)
    Surely we can agree, regardless of politics, that the war on drugs has been a complete, utter, massive steaming-pile-of-horse-manure failure. It didn’t make our streets safer. It didn’t cut down on drug use. It didn’t reduce drug deaths. It filled up our prisons, costing us a TON of tax dollars. It encouraged organized crime. A total failure, from every angle.

    I used to be in favor of decriminalizaion or legalization for every class of drug except the opiates, but I’ve gotten more extreme as I’ve gotten older. Is fentanyl dangerous in the hands of a street drug user? Sure. But you know what else is dangerous and freely available? Assault rifles. Our society pretty much hands out an assault rifle (and plenty of armo) to every pissed off, mentally ill, halucinating 19 year old guy with daddy issues, and then gives them a “man card” and encourages them to exercise their god-given constitutional rights on the nearest grade school.

    If those are our values, Our society can tolerate heroin and fentanyl on the streets. At least the fentanyl only kills people one at a time, as opposed to the guns.

    I’m for 100% drug legalization and decriminalization.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

      We as in you and I, sure.

      We as in the general we? No, not even slightly.

      The war on drugs has been a huge benefit to some people. It has allowed creation of a criminal underclass who can't vote in some states, which is great for removing people who won't vote the right way. It's seen a burgeoning prison population and a system designed for recidivism which keeps the money rolling in. And of course it's seem lots of sales of "cool", i.e.military kit to police forces, and the general militarization which has

      • The vast majority of fentanyl deaths are due to it being stuffed into many many other drugs because it’s cheap, has a very strong high, and is easy to smuggle. Fentanyl patches are a mature technology and quite safe in and of themselves when used as directed. Legalizing drugs would stop most all of those deaths.

        • Yes: if safer alternatives are available to people who would instead use sketchy fentanyl grasp that would be much better. Having a toxicity best measured in micrograms per kilo (20-200, no one knows) makes it incredibly easy to OD.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sheph ( 955019 )
      I'm for decriminalization. Locking people up for using drugs makes no sense. But that being said I feel that drugs have detrimental effects. Especially when talking about hard drugs. The downside is very obvious and that still doesn't stop a lot of people. Previously good people find themselves stealing, living in squalor, selfishly pursuing their addiction pretty quickly. With hallucinogens the downside is more subtle. I believe there's a spiritual component that can be somewhat deceptive. Not ever
      • +1 for the above. The lack of nuance is what got us here (war on drugs). We should be wary of over-correction.

        • Over-correction wouldn't be an issue if we valued mental acuity and health over shiny objects and quick diversions from the reality we're all stuck in. That's the root of every silly argument we have about legalization. If people were qualified to self-diagnose, or, heaven forbid, allowed safe access to someone who is qualified without paying a fortune for it? Maybe.

          But the world we live in looks like nothing but shades of harder and harder black at every possible course correction simply because most of us

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eriks ( 31863 )

          Agree about the lack of nuance in public policy. However, I agree with the original poster. Ending the "Schedule 1" classification for all substances needs to happen. It should be up to pharmaceutical researchers and (ultimately) doctors to determine what drugs are useful for what patients, not law makers. Of course there are downsides to drugs. There are big downsides to most existing "Schedule 2" drugs, but doctors are allowed to prescribe them. There are potential downsides to ALMOST EVERYTHING, b

      • Yeah, you're buying a dose of temporary insanity, so I don't have a problem with the state forcing you to pick your own nanny.

        It seems like a great business opportunity: "Insanity Daytripping: Take a trip . . . to the symphony, to search for bigfoot, to the Goonies beach. All under trained supervision with likeminded weirdos.

      • Lack of motivation, unrealized potential, psychosis, selfish behavior, anti social tendencies, and spiritual darkness are all potential long term consequences.

        One could reach the same outcome just by taking a critical look at modern life, no drugs needed.

        Or maybe I'm just grumpy about being back at work after the holidays

      • Just out of curiosity, do you know of anyone who thinks cigarettes are safe because they're legal? Personally, I think that there should absolutely be big warning labels on physically addictive legal drugs like nicotine. But, I also think that, considering the finite nature of the human brain, if the concept of taking non physically addictive or harmful-in-moderation drugs was made legal, pharmaceutical companies would have legal recreational drugs that don't do those things on the market in very short or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Assault rifles are rare. You need a $200 ATF tax stamp to possess one. It must have been manufactured before 1986 or it's prohibited from civilian ownership, stamp or not. As a result, the demand and supply curve has driven the price of such weapons into the $20,000, $30,000 or more range.

      Our society can tolerate heroin and fentanyl on the streets.

      I'm OK with this. Actually, we should give users safe and clean places to shoot up and die. It beats having them run down the street screaming with a weapon and then plead with the police to "just kill me" when they show u

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        Assault rifles are rare.

        While you're factually accurate, I think you're in a losing argument on this one. You and I know that the AR15 I have in my basement isn't a an "Assault Rifle", but if you ask people on the street 99% wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. It's like the term "Hacking" it's been watered down to the point of meaning "using a computer/account without the owners permission" We both know its wrong, but at some point you just get tired of arguing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          but if you ask people on the street 99% wouldn't be able to tell you the difference

          Thank goodness we employ experts to assist in crafting our legislation. Instead of rules against "the shoulder thing that goes up". Or the California rifle rules which have essentially made many weapons there bump-fire capable.

          Perhaps the left wing politicians need to be tested for those hallucinogenic mushrooms before we give them their crayons and coloring books back with which they write bills.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Pascoea ( 968200 )

            Perhaps the left wing politicians need to be tested for those hallucinogenic mushrooms before we give them their crayons and coloring books back with which they write bills.

            You know, you can argue the point without bringing bullshit political jabs in. But since you brought it up, you fully understand that the right has just as many fucking idiots on it, right? What's worse? A politician that doesn't understand the "AR" in semi-automatic AR15 style rifles doesn't mean "Assault Rifle", or one that has gross misunderstandings of female anatomy and reproductive cycles? I personally don't want either of those group writing laws, but here we are.

    • On the contrary. Laws against the sale and use of controlled substances have absolutely reduced usage, especially when combined with drug testing at places of employment.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        You know, just making an empty claim with not even a supporting argument does not cut it. Got any proof or are you just full of it after swallowing the propaganda fully?

    • Meth is so dangerous it's considered a hazard warranting cleansuits above a given concentration that has appeared in multiple public places in virtually ever country and state. Given that legalization can increase (adult) usage of a substance, legalizing meth isn't a good idea.

      Maybe instead of blanket decisions, like banning every drug people liked to do imaginable and ginning up an arbitrary "war" against all of them, we can go through each drug sensibly one by one and decide the best policy for each ba

      • Isn't that fentanyl? You can OD on Fentanyl by touching it with a finger.

        Anyways, I agree with you on principle. Because I've seen a fair bit of substitution, an acceptable intermediate step, I think, to full legalization would be to go through the categories of drugs - stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, opioids, etc... Then legalize the "safest" of each that is considered mostly effective by the addict crowd.

        So, for example, you might legalize oxycontin for "recreational" use, rather than heroin or

    • Surely we can agree, regardless of politics, that the war on drugs has been a complete, utter, massive steaming-pile-of-horse-manure failure. It didn’t make our streets safer. It didn’t cut down on drug use. It didn’t reduce drug deaths. It filled up our prisons, costing us a TON of tax dollars. It encouraged organized crime. A total failure, from every angle.

      Absolutely, but your mistake is to assume that the act of war itself was the failure rather than the method of conducting it. You can say that about real wars too, and the fact that this comparison with "war" was made in the first place is what set the policy up for failure.

      You can have successful policies against drug use as well without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and legalising it. E.g. some countries which are far *FAR* more effective than the USA don't legalise, but don't criminalise takin

      • Testing is expensive compared to having a known good distribution scheme.

        Besides, if you're not prosecuting somebody for it, if you're offering services for it, it's effectively legal.

        The problem with the "hardline" on the sale of drugs with the USA is that you'd still be feeding a significant portion of the problem - the gangs, cartels, and other such stuff which is feeding violence and corruption. That's what I want to kill.

  • Mushrooms simply aren't policed in most jurisdictions. In Vancouver, for instance, the police have outright publicly stated that mushrooms are simply not on their list to investigate under any circumstances. In fact, there are some brick and mortar stores where you can buy them during normal business hours. Lots of companies advertise online openly and ship across the country, with good quality and professional packaging. I have four 7g packages of different varieties in my safe right now.

    https://www.cbc.ca [www.cbc.ca]

    • Interestingly, there were a few people that tried to jump the gun on the new laws and opened a brick-and-mortar "Shroom House" on West Burnside in downtown Portland ahead of the new law. They opened their doors and had a line on the sidewalk outside, and even had a billboard. Unfortunately for them, the Portland Police Bureau took exception to not waiting for the new law to take effect, and ignoring the licensure requirements and the fact that retail sale is still prohibited, so they're sitting in jail ri [oregonlive.com]

  • Wow, man... look at all the pretty colors!
  • real doctors are prescribing it for medical use, not these self help treatment centers. All they try to do is make money and give it to everyone.

  • One key requirement is that a state-certified facilitator must be present during drug-induced journeys, which can last five or six hours

    Captain buzzkill along for the ride.

  • Good thing the government is in charge of the most psychologically upsetting substance on the planet. I bet they will only ever use it to help people.

  • authorised psilocybin service centers, that could be a total freakout

  • One pill makes you larger
    And one pill makes you small
    And the ones that mother gives you
    Don't do anything at all

    But at least mother's pill is patented, marketable and thus commercially viable.

Slashdot Top Deals

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Close