6 ms·

Super excited to see this. If you live in California please head on over to http://www.decrimca.org/ http://www.decrimca.org/ We're working to get state wide de

Super excited to see this. If you live in California please head on over to http://www.decrimca.org/ http://www.decrimca.org/ We're working to get state wide decriminalization on the ballot in November and we need signatures! If you buy a button ($5) they'll send you a petition sheet. There are also signature locations and volunteers in every county in the state.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Sorry for the cynicism. I'd love to donate to the cause, and want to make sure I'm not giving money to a scam or (less cynically) an inefficient effort. Anywhere I can see something to convince me this page and this group is legit and making real progress?
- krohling 7y ago
  I can say it's definitely not a scam. I have personally been to multiple meetings with organizers in Oakland and San Francisco and witnessed that it is both well organized and well staffed. To my knowledge there are over 700 volunteers across the state in every county working on this initiative. Obviously, that doesn't mean it's going to be successful. I hope you're willing to risk $5 and purchase a button or sticker so you can send in your signed petition form :)
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    Thanks! I just donated and I'll sign the petition. I also found some news about it for anybody else interested/wary: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22decriminalize+california%22&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=%22decriminalize+california%...
pmoriarty 7y ago
This strategy is taking a page out of the very successful cannabis legalization movement. First there are decriminalizations at the local level. This makes decriminalization at the state level much more palatable for politicians, who see there's political will at the local level to make it happen. Once the first state decriminalizes it, others states will find it easier to follow suit. Apart from voting, you can also donate and volunteer, but some of the best things you can do is educate yourself and others on the responsible use of psychedelics. If taking mushrooms or other psychedelics has helped you in some way, tell others about it. Seeing people who have their act together, who admit that mushrooms have helped them will open people's eyes to their benefits and make it less likely that they'll react with dismay or disgust at the suggestion that "drugs" be legalized because they equate use with abuse. Stepping out of the psychedelic closet is not always easy, but it has to happen (as it did with admitting cannabis use) before there's widespread acceptance of psychedelics.
- mirimir 7y ago
  PACs have been a key part of the cannabis legalization movement. So it's not just that you make decriminalization more palatable for politicians, you aim for politicians who find decriminalization more palatable. However, contributions to PACs are public.
- samvher 7y ago
  I am all for decriminalization, but both with cannabis and mushrooms I feel worried about the amount of "it's actually good for you!" that comes with it. I have used both (legally, in the Netherlands). As a student I enjoyed cannabis quite a bit but when I used a lot less later I did come to feel like (looking back) the usage came with some depression symptoms. With mushrooms I feel in general that they were good experiences but I've heard enough stories (first and second hand) of people experiencing long-term effects from psychedelics that I don't think it should be encouraged (at most for specific people with a therapist or so). Personal responsibility and liberty are great but these products should come with warnings and guidance.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Mirrors my first and second-hand experience (also in NL) with said substances. Their strength should be standardized (not happening in The Netherlands right now). This can be controlled in law, or via regulations.
  - spurdoman77 7y ago
    I think legalisation and regulation is a cure for the "its good for you" bullshit. As it becomes legal, it is easier to argue about it objectively, and there wille be also more data since people and institutions can study and research it easier.
tayo42 7y ago
> SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT. > > The purpose of this article is to decriminalize the personal possession, storage, use, cultivation, manufacturing, distribution in personal possession amounts without profit, transport, and consumption of psilocybin mushrooms and the chemical compounds contained in them for any person over the age of 18, or for any person younger than 18 with parental or guardian consent by amending California Health and Safety Codes HSC § 11 390 & 11391. I'm confused, whats the difference between legalization and decriminalization then. This sounds like legalization to me? Decriminalizaton i thought was making it a low priority to law enforcement which some places already did?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  From an article I found[0]: > As such, Topley, explained then, it is “very close to legalization, however, without psilocybin being rescheduled or descheduled at the federal level, it seems more appropriate to refer to it as decriminalization.” [0] https://filtermag.org/decriminalize-california-signature-drive/ https://filtermag.org/decriminalize-california-signature-dri...
- awb 7y ago
  Correct, decriminalizing doesn't mean that it's legal, just that the police won't use resources trying to stop it. Legalizing at the city or county level would run into conflict with state & federal laws that prohibit it. This is a way of getting around that conflict.
- ac29 7y ago
  This allows "distribution in personal possession amounts without profit". Legalization would imply that some entity or entities were legally allowed to sell at commercial scale to the general public at a profit.
  - awb 7y ago
    Alcohol is legal, but you can't sell it legally without a liquor license and those can be restricted in number and limited in scope (in MA you can't sell liquor on Sundays).
tempsy 7y ago
personally I'm not that excited by exerting a lot of effort in decriminalization vs legalization. realistically how many people who are most susceptible to prison time for illegal drug possession in California are being jailed for...shrooms? at this point saying it is decriminalized state wide is not much more impactful than just a symbolic move.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Why would they ask for my employer information in order to make a donation? My employment has nothing to do with this. Are we now owned by our employer who needs to know everything we do?
- pixl97 7y ago
  I'm thinking the opposite, making sure an employer is not demanding the employees donate, or giving money to the employees to donate by proxy.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    It’s not my employer’s business what I donate to and nobody else’s business who my employer is. This question is highly inappropriate in my view.
    - shanhaiguan 7y ago
      Indeed, it isn't your employer's business what or whom you donate to. But the more straightforward answer is that they are likely required to ask by law (possibly subject to other criteria).
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      It's a standard question on political donation forms, required by campaign finance law. Read more here: https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Campaign-Donations-why-must-we-include-employer-and-occupation-information https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Campaign-Donations-wh... The above is relation to presidential campaigns specifically but the logic applies equally to other electoral contests.
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      Until Citizens United blew the door open, if you were a corporation you had to find ways to get money to candidates. Telling your employees to donate to $CAUSE was one of them, and offering them bonuses or matching or other "incentives" -- aka "sign here to get your X-Mas bonus" on donation form -- was a way to move money.
refurb 7y ago
And for anyone thinking “it will never happen”, let me tell you back in the 1990’s I thought the exact same thing about cannabis legalization. Ridiculous, waste of time, a pipe dream. And here we are.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Also, it's not that far from religion, which is constitutionally protected. Far more so than for cannabis, anyway. As I vaguely recall, that's already the case for peyote and ayahuasca, at least in some jurisdictions.
- whyenot 7y ago
  a pipe dream Opium poppy (Papaver somniferous) is actually kind of an interesting case. At least in the US, it's OK to grow the plants, the flowers are showy and many seed catalogs sell the seeds. It's also OK to harvest the pods and consume the seeds (poppy seeds, have them on a bagel). But, if you scrape off and collect the latex on the outside of the pods, you are committing a felony.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I thought that varieties currently sold have little morphine. Or at least, I recall that one ex wife had an heirloom variety from her mother. Which supposedly had lots of morphine. Not that I ever tested it.
    - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
      Try buying a bag of poppyseeds from the baking aisle, shake it up in a liter of room temperature water and drink a few cups of that water.
      - krispyfi 7y ago
        The resulting potency is difficult to estimate, and people have died from getting it wrong. Please don't recommend for people to do poppy seed tea without warning them of the danger.
rewritteninrust 7y ago
I'm 100% in support of legalization, but as someone who has never lived in a country with decriminalized psychedelics, I'm very interested to see how this is regulated. The potential for chaos seems much higher with mushrooms than cannabis.
- minikites 7y ago
  Alcohol is legal and causes tons of chaos. Do you really think magic mushrooms would be more harmful to society than alcohol already is?
  - csallen 7y ago
    I support decriminalization of mushrooms, but I think your question is somewhat irrelevant. When considering a new law, the thing people discuss is, "Will this have terrible side effects?" rather than, "Will this have worse side effects than alcohol?"
    - asdff 7y ago
      There are side effects from the status quo, too. Having a regulated safe source of product is better than allowing amateur mycologists to go out in the field and poison themselves as they do now. It doesn't matter what the law says, people who want to do drugs will find and do drugs, so we might as well make it a little safer.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

Sorry for the cynicism. I'd love to donate to the cause, and want to make sure I'm not giving money to a scam or (less cynically) an inefficient effort. Anywhere I can see something to convince me this page and this group is legit and making real progress?

krohling 7y ago
I can say it's definitely not a scam. I have personally been to multiple meetings with organizers in Oakland and San Francisco and witnessed that it is both well organized and well staffed. To my knowledge there are over 700 volunteers across the state in every county working on this initiative. Obviously, that doesn't mean it's going to be successful. I hope you're willing to risk $5 and purchase a button or sticker so you can send in your signed petition form :)
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Thanks! I just donated and I'll sign the petition. I also found some news about it for anybody else interested/wary: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22decriminalize+california%22&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=%22decriminalize+california%...

pmoriarty 7y ago

This strategy is taking a page out of the very successful cannabis legalization movement. First there are decriminalizations at the local level. This makes decriminalization at the state level much more palatable for politicians, who see there's political will at the local level to make it happen. Once the first state decriminalizes it, others states will find it easier to follow suit. Apart from voting, you can also donate and volunteer, but some of the best things you can do is educate yourself and others on the responsible use of psychedelics. If taking mushrooms or other psychedelics has helped you in some way, tell others about it. Seeing people who have their act together, who admit that mushrooms have helped them will open people's eyes to their benefits and make it less likely that they'll react with dismay or disgust at the suggestion that "drugs" be legalized because they equate use with abuse. Stepping out of the psychedelic closet is not always easy, but it has to happen (as it did with admitting cannabis use) before there's widespread acceptance of psychedelics.

mirimir 7y ago
PACs have been a key part of the cannabis legalization movement. So it's not just that you make decriminalization more palatable for politicians, you aim for politicians who find decriminalization more palatable. However, contributions to PACs are public.
samvher 7y ago
I am all for decriminalization, but both with cannabis and mushrooms I feel worried about the amount of "it's actually good for you!" that comes with it. I have used both (legally, in the Netherlands). As a student I enjoyed cannabis quite a bit but when I used a lot less later I did come to feel like (looking back) the usage came with some depression symptoms. With mushrooms I feel in general that they were good experiences but I've heard enough stories (first and second hand) of people experiencing long-term effects from psychedelics that I don't think it should be encouraged (at most for specific people with a therapist or so). Personal responsibility and liberty are great but these products should come with warnings and guidance.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Mirrors my first and second-hand experience (also in NL) with said substances. Their strength should be standardized (not happening in The Netherlands right now). This can be controlled in law, or via regulations.
- spurdoman77 7y ago
  I think legalisation and regulation is a cure for the "its good for you" bullshit. As it becomes legal, it is easier to argue about it objectively, and there wille be also more data since people and institutions can study and research it easier.

tayo42 7y ago

> SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT. > > The purpose of this article is to decriminalize the personal possession, storage, use, cultivation, manufacturing, distribution in personal possession amounts without profit, transport, and consumption of psilocybin mushrooms and the chemical compounds contained in them for any person over the age of 18, or for any person younger than 18 with parental or guardian consent by amending California Health and Safety Codes HSC § 11 390 & 11391. I'm confused, whats the difference between legalization and decriminalization then. This sounds like legalization to me? Decriminalizaton i thought was making it a low priority to law enforcement which some places already did?

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
From an article I found[0]: > As such, Topley, explained then, it is “very close to legalization, however, without psilocybin being rescheduled or descheduled at the federal level, it seems more appropriate to refer to it as decriminalization.” [0] https://filtermag.org/decriminalize-california-signature-drive/ https://filtermag.org/decriminalize-california-signature-dri...
awb 7y ago
Correct, decriminalizing doesn't mean that it's legal, just that the police won't use resources trying to stop it. Legalizing at the city or county level would run into conflict with state & federal laws that prohibit it. This is a way of getting around that conflict.
ac29 7y ago
This allows "distribution in personal possession amounts without profit". Legalization would imply that some entity or entities were legally allowed to sell at commercial scale to the general public at a profit.
- awb 7y ago
  Alcohol is legal, but you can't sell it legally without a liquor license and those can be restricted in number and limited in scope (in MA you can't sell liquor on Sundays).

tempsy 7y ago

personally I'm not that excited by exerting a lot of effort in decriminalization vs legalization. realistically how many people who are most susceptible to prison time for illegal drug possession in California are being jailed for...shrooms? at this point saying it is decriminalized state wide is not much more impactful than just a symbolic move.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

Why would they ask for my employer information in order to make a donation? My employment has nothing to do with this. Are we now owned by our employer who needs to know everything we do?

pixl97 7y ago
I'm thinking the opposite, making sure an employer is not demanding the employees donate, or giving money to the employees to donate by proxy.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  It’s not my employer’s business what I donate to and nobody else’s business who my employer is. This question is highly inappropriate in my view.
  - shanhaiguan 7y ago
    Indeed, it isn't your employer's business what or whom you donate to. But the more straightforward answer is that they are likely required to ask by law (possibly subject to other criteria).
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    It's a standard question on political donation forms, required by campaign finance law. Read more here: https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Campaign-Donations-why-must-we-include-employer-and-occupation-information https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Campaign-Donations-wh... The above is relation to presidential campaigns specifically but the logic applies equally to other electoral contests.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Until Citizens United blew the door open, if you were a corporation you had to find ways to get money to candidates. Telling your employees to donate to $CAUSE was one of them, and offering them bonuses or matching or other "incentives" -- aka "sign here to get your X-Mas bonus" on donation form -- was a way to move money.

refurb 7y ago

And for anyone thinking “it will never happen”, let me tell you back in the 1990’s I thought the exact same thing about cannabis legalization. Ridiculous, waste of time, a pipe dream. And here we are.

mirimir 7y ago
Also, it's not that far from religion, which is constitutionally protected. Far more so than for cannabis, anyway. As I vaguely recall, that's already the case for peyote and ayahuasca, at least in some jurisdictions.
whyenot 7y ago
a pipe dream Opium poppy (Papaver somniferous) is actually kind of an interesting case. At least in the US, it's OK to grow the plants, the flowers are showy and many seed catalogs sell the seeds. It's also OK to harvest the pods and consume the seeds (poppy seeds, have them on a bagel). But, if you scrape off and collect the latex on the outside of the pods, you are committing a felony.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I thought that varieties currently sold have little morphine. Or at least, I recall that one ex wife had an heirloom variety from her mother. Which supposedly had lots of morphine. Not that I ever tested it.
  - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
    Try buying a bag of poppyseeds from the baking aisle, shake it up in a liter of room temperature water and drink a few cups of that water.
    - krispyfi 7y ago
      The resulting potency is difficult to estimate, and people have died from getting it wrong. Please don't recommend for people to do poppy seed tea without warning them of the danger.

rewritteninrust 7y ago

I'm 100% in support of legalization, but as someone who has never lived in a country with decriminalized psychedelics, I'm very interested to see how this is regulated. The potential for chaos seems much higher with mushrooms than cannabis.

minikites 7y ago
Alcohol is legal and causes tons of chaos. Do you really think magic mushrooms would be more harmful to society than alcohol already is?
- csallen 7y ago
  I support decriminalization of mushrooms, but I think your question is somewhat irrelevant. When considering a new law, the thing people discuss is, "Will this have terrible side effects?" rather than, "Will this have worse side effects than alcohol?"
  - asdff 7y ago
    There are side effects from the status quo, too. Having a regulated safe source of product is better than allowing amateur mycologists to go out in the field and poison themselves as they do now. It doesn't matter what the law says, people who want to do drugs will find and do drugs, so we might as well make it a little safer.