"Newsom, a Democrat who championed legalizing cannabis in 2016, said in a statement Saturday that more needs to be done before California decriminalizes the hallucinogens.
“California should immediately begin work to set up regulated treatment guidelines - replete with dosing information, therapeutic guidelines, rules to prevent against exploitation during guided treatments, and medical clearance of no underlying psychoses,” Newsom’s statement said. “Unfortunately, this bill would decriminalize possession prior to these guidelines going into place, and I cannot sign it.”"
At least there's an attempt to have a reasonable explanation.
The whole premise of this veto is that the infrastructure isn't set up for mushrooms to be used as a safe medicine. Which completely ignores the fact that most people who use mushrooms do so recreationally; who gives a shit if it can or can't be used by the medical system? That would be great, but it has no bearing on whether mushrooms should be legalized.
If CA decriminalizes it, everyone would be looking toward the state to see its success or failure. Opponents would try to find any excuse to shut it down whether in CA or other states. So if we can set up guidelines and necessary infrastructure for safe use, both medically and recreationally, it would be better for long term success of psylocybin legalization.
Oregon started issuing licenses to treatment facilities this year. It took a few years to get the infrastructure in place and to get professional therapists trained, but facilities are now opening up for treatment.
And in California, just parts of it. Oakland has outright decriminalization and you can go to smoke shops and buy chocolates. It's still technically illegal in San Francisco, but every large event, or even day in the park, there's some guy walking around openly selling mushrooms and joints.
The reason it is even considered to be legalized is the medical use in the first place, not people partying on shrooms. So I donno what youre on about.
Yea like why would guns get banned even though its fun to shoot around recreationally. See how fucking stupid that sounds? Things need to be regulated. While mushrooms are obviously way less dangerous than guns, they can still pose risks for mental and physical health if not handled correctly, and minimizing that risk is very important. Im not saying delaying legalization is justified in this case, but it is definitely a valid approach,as long as measures are taken to improve the situation.
I dont know how that has to do with anything at all. What kind of stupid logic is that? If guns would grow on trees they should still be banned exactly the same way.
Now that sounds like stupid logic. Guns don't grow on trees. And no, you couldn't regulate them properly if anyone could go into a forest virtually anywhere in the U.S. and pick a basket of guns. That's why making a fungus illegal is stupid. You can go to almost anywhere in the U.S. that ruminants have been defecating and find them. This makes less sense than making cannabis illegal because it's a fungus native to North America and cannabis is from Asia.
Sassafras has effects similar to MDMA. It literally grows on trees. It's legal because it's stupid to make native species illegal.
You have never tried mushrooms or you wouldn't be saying this you don't have any experience or idea what you are talking about. Also don't have experience owning guns we have no respect for your false argument.
I have experience with mushrooms, Im just not stupid enough to pretend they have no risks based only on my personal experience. I thought we had some sane people on here but even reddits drug community was 100 times more progressive. Looks like only the stupid junkies made it to Lemmy, sad as it is. I dont even know why I kept the discussion going, its like talking to a toddler about responsibilities.
I asked Bing's chatbot who was against the bill (who funded "The California Coalition for Psychedelic Safety and Education"), and this is what it told me.
The California Coalition for Psychedelic Safety and Education does not disclose its sources of funding on its website1. However, some of its members have been involved in other anti-drug campaigns, such as the Drug Free America Foundation and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids2. These groups have received funding from various sources, including pharmaceutical companies, private foundations, and government agencies2. It is possible that the coalition receives some of its funding from similar sources, but this is not confirmed. The coalition claims to be a grassroots organization of concerned citizens who want to protect public health and safety1.
"Newsom, a Democrat who championed legalizing cannabis in 2016, said in a statement Saturday that more needs to be done before California decriminalizes the hallucinogens.
“California should immediately begin work to set up regulated treatment guidelines - replete with dosing information, therapeutic guidelines, rules to prevent against exploitation during guided treatments, and medical clearance of no underlying psychoses,” Newsom’s statement said. “Unfortunately, this bill would decriminalize possession prior to these guidelines going into place, and I cannot sign it.”"
At least there's an attempt to have a reasonable explanation.
The whole premise of this veto is that the infrastructure isn't set up for mushrooms to be used as a safe medicine. Which completely ignores the fact that most people who use mushrooms do so recreationally; who gives a shit if it can or can't be used by the medical system? That would be great, but it has no bearing on whether mushrooms should be legalized.
If CA decriminalizes it, everyone would be looking toward the state to see its success or failure. Opponents would try to find any excuse to shut it down whether in CA or other states. So if we can set up guidelines and necessary infrastructure for safe use, both medically and recreationally, it would be better for long term success of psylocybin legalization.
Already legal in Colorado.
Oregon too, as I understand it.
I believe you are correct that they are similarly decriminalized in Oregon although the particulars do differ a bit as I understand it.
Oregon started issuing licenses to treatment facilities this year. It took a few years to get the infrastructure in place and to get professional therapists trained, but facilities are now opening up for treatment.
And in California, just parts of it. Oakland has outright decriminalization and you can go to smoke shops and buy chocolates. It's still technically illegal in San Francisco, but every large event, or even day in the park, there's some guy walking around openly selling mushrooms and joints.
Success or failure? It is already been and has been consumed by millions of people for thousands of years. Seems like it is a success to me.
The reason it is even considered to be legalized is the medical use in the first place, not people partying on shrooms. So I donno what youre on about.
It should be legalized because making a fungus illegal is fucking stupid.
Yea like why would guns get banned even though its fun to shoot around recreationally. See how fucking stupid that sounds? Things need to be regulated. While mushrooms are obviously way less dangerous than guns, they can still pose risks for mental and physical health if not handled correctly, and minimizing that risk is very important. Im not saying delaying legalization is justified in this case, but it is definitely a valid approach,as long as measures are taken to improve the situation.
Risks of mushrooms: you might feel like you're gonna die
Risks of guns: you and other people around you might actually die.
Wake the fuck up.
Im so happy decisions like this are not left to 'bro science' morons like you. Took a drug once, suddenly becomes an expert on the matter.
It doesn't even require firsthand experience to understand the point I made, bot
Guns don't grow naturally without any human even being around. You can forage for psilocybin mushrooms.
I dont know how that has to do with anything at all. What kind of stupid logic is that? If guns would grow on trees they should still be banned exactly the same way.
Now that sounds like stupid logic. Guns don't grow on trees. And no, you couldn't regulate them properly if anyone could go into a forest virtually anywhere in the U.S. and pick a basket of guns. That's why making a fungus illegal is stupid. You can go to almost anywhere in the U.S. that ruminants have been defecating and find them. This makes less sense than making cannabis illegal because it's a fungus native to North America and cannabis is from Asia.
Sassafras has effects similar to MDMA. It literally grows on trees. It's legal because it's stupid to make native species illegal.
Why you throwing out a false dichotomy? The reckless use of shrooms isn't killing people.
Unless you feel that all regulations (no matter what they regulate) are equal…?
You have never tried mushrooms or you wouldn't be saying this you don't have any experience or idea what you are talking about. Also don't have experience owning guns we have no respect for your false argument.
I have experience with mushrooms, Im just not stupid enough to pretend they have no risks based only on my personal experience. I thought we had some sane people on here but even reddits drug community was 100 times more progressive. Looks like only the stupid junkies made it to Lemmy, sad as it is. I dont even know why I kept the discussion going, its like talking to a toddler about responsibilities.
It was fine before people made it illegal.
Was used for centuries.
I asked Bing's chatbot who was against the bill (who funded "The California Coalition for Psychedelic Safety and Education"), and this is what it told me.
Did you then go and check all of those facts to make sure the AI wasn't
lying"hallucinating" to you?That'd be a better answer if you couldn't go buy a gallon of cough syrup with dextromethorphan in it without a prescription.