[HN Gopher] San Francisco decriminalizes psychedelics
___________________________________________________________________
San Francisco decriminalizes psychedelics
Author : O__________O
Score : 336 points
Date : 2022-09-08 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (doubleblindmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (doubleblindmag.com)
| bosswipe wrote:
| Already happened across the bay in Oakland. Unfortunately Oakland
| police is so dysfunctional that it's impossible to know if
| decriminalization has caused any change in problematic public
| behaviors.
| throwaway_4ever wrote:
| > Oakland police is so dysfunctional
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/guqz5t/comment/fsk...
| formvoltron wrote:
| finally 16th & Valencia can compete with 16th & Mission.
| Seriously though this is pretty cool.
| mrcheesebreeze wrote:
| As if the city wasn't bad enough, I guess they would rather let
| people get hooked on even more drugs instead of fix anything.
|
| Maybe if they are high enough they will not be able to tell how
| bad things are.
| wmichelin wrote:
| Have you ever tried psychedelics? What makes you think they're
| problematic? I'm sure opiates are the primary driver of many of
| the problems in San Francisco, combined with a failure to
| charge anyone with petty property crimes. Drug prohibition
| doesn't work and just hurts the wrong people.
| anon291 wrote:
| Psychedelics can induce schizophrenia, as most mind altering
| drugs can. The stronger the drug, the more capable.
|
| From https://www.psychedelicsdaily.com/faq/can-a-bad-trip-
| cause-s...
|
| > Research has shown that the use of LSD can trigger the
| onset of schizophrenia in people prone to schizophrenia.
| People who use LSD are more likely than anyone else with a
| psychotic disorder to consume it over a period of more than a
| few days at a time.
|
| I am an educated adult who understands my family's history of
| schizo means that these drugs are no gos for me. It's just
| not worth it.
|
| However, I worry that teenagers and such in their
| developmental years will experiment. The way these drugs are
| marketed by true believers you'd think they're a cure all.
| However, in some people they cause long-lasting, even
| permanent effects. A significant number of people taking
| psychedelics experience symptoms for years after. This is a
| very bad change to make to one's psyche that calls one
| ability to reason and decide into question.
|
| These drugs should not be encouraged.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| jlmorton wrote:
| That link makes claims not backed up by any sources it
| links to that are accessible online. If you follow the
| chain, it eventually gets to a book unavailable online, but
| I am skeptical.
|
| Other research has shown no link between psychedelics and
| psychosis. [1]
|
| This same [1] article discusses old research which may have
| shown a link, and speculates that the wide prevalence of
| various psychotic disorders may have led to spurious
| findings.
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
| adnzzzzZ wrote:
| Sorry, but I'm just going to trust my own observations of
| reality over some random paper. It's plainly obvious that
| these drugs trigger schizophrenia and other mental
| illnesses in a percentage of people who use them.
| Sometimes all it takes is a single use even. If you
| haven't met people who have had this happen to them then
| I advise you to search online for people's stories since
| it's not that hard to find them.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| However, what's unknown is whether people who develop
| schizophrenia due to psychedelic use wouldn't have
| developed it anyway for some other reason. Latent
| schizophrenia can be triggered by things such as stress.
|
| Besides, it's not like even given this there's no way to
| consume the substances safely. A simple method is to way
| until 25-30 years of age. Since schizophrenia most
| commonly develops during a person's teenage years through
| to early adulthood, a person who hasn't developed it by
| 30 probably will never develop it.
| Flankk wrote:
| babyshake wrote:
| There are some problems with psilocybin and ayahuasca but
| "getting hooked" isn't really one of them.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| -- the idea of getting "hooked" on psychedelics is - frankly -
| laughable - primarily because - well - they're not
| physiologically addictive - and additionally - because they're
| medically used to treat addiction --
|
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/classic-psychedelics...
| borski wrote:
| To be fair, while they are definitely not physiologically
| addictive, they _can_ be psychologically or emotionally
| addictive.
|
| (I agree with you, but I think all too often people talk
| about addiction as if it is solely physical; emotional
| dependence is a real thing too)
| Invictus0 wrote:
| I'm appalled by your hyphen usage
| panzagl wrote:
| Psychedelics aren't addictive- hyphens are.
| matrix12 wrote:
| Especially the joined hyphens, they represent marriage. And
| as in bash, means the end of options, and the beginning of
| arguments.
| pessimizer wrote:
| "em-dash" is the word you're looking for. I like it, it's
| like Celine or Bukowski were forum commenters.
| bloppe wrote:
| Honestly we need more people to believe this to bring this dam
| rent down
| kurthr wrote:
| Exactly! Everyone here should hate this terrible place... why
| is the rent so damn high? I love the "I just moved here"
| crowd complaining about how bad things are, and I miss the
| pre-1999 days when artists could afford to live in the city.
| Even Oakland is expensive now.
| fosk wrote:
| I am frankly tired of hearing this non-sense. NYC is more
| expensive than SF and it is very much a vibrant place.
|
| For a decade SF complained about tech and actively drove
| companies away, because they wanted "their culture" back.
|
| Fine, then tech organizations left after covid (and their
| money left too), and now SF complains that tech
| organizations are not supporting the city anymore with
| their money and their employees, and you get entire areas
| of town (ie: Fidi) which are empty and small business are
| struggling. Who exactly do you think was supporting the
| outrageous spending and programs of San Francisco? Artists
| playing the piano in a bar, or hundreds of millions of
| dollar in taxes paid by tech and its employees?
|
| You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
| Now - finally - we get to see "SF culture" in full force
| without technology organizations and their employees: meth-
| addicted zombies with violent outbursts, tents everywhere,
| human poop and needles, salmonella outbreaks, go ahead and
| complete the list.
|
| Nobody wants to live in a place like this: not the artists,
| not the families, and now not even tech workers. There are
| plenty of great cities to go to, why would anybody move to
| San Francisco and deal with these quality of life problems?
| [deleted]
| junon wrote:
| Clearly spoken by someone who has exactly zero exposure to such
| drugs.
|
| For example, they're typically not addictive.
| cowmix wrote:
| I was just there for the first time in two years. Based on all
| the comments here on HN, I expected to walk through a hell-
| scape. After spending a week, mostly on foot in the city... a
| lot of this talk seems overblown.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I visit SF occassionally from East Bay. Absolute disaster.
| Where did you go? I think situation is more dire than it
| seems in East Bay. Both are succumbing to third-world urban
| decay and infrastructure rot.
| novok wrote:
| It really is area specific, and I think that is on purpose.
| When there was the superbowl in SF, all of a sudden certain
| BART stations stopped smelling like piss and homeless
| population in those areas were not there any more. Tell me
| where the homeless camps are around the marina or other
| wealthy neighborhoods of SF with high foot traffic.
| Suspiciously missing or hard to find...
|
| Since it's done on purpose, if SF wanted to actually
| revitalize their downtown they would lay down the law on
| their mainline tunnel transit stations, caltrain stations,
| ferry stations, tourist hotel hot spots and market st like
| they lay down the law in the marina with it's crazy high
| foot traffic. Yes it is 'moving the problem around', but at
| least it makes people feel safe and not nauseated where
| they enter and exit from SF. I bet one good chunk of why
| people are not coming back to offices to SF is because the
| transit safety and cleanliness experience is not good
| there.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I've had my car broken into 3 times in different parts of
| SF. Nothing visible anywhere inside the car. They took
| things like coins and a utility knife from the center
| console, and once I made the mistake of having a dash cam
| which was promptly stolen. Never again.
|
| Criminals are not localized in SF. They roam around in
| cars smashing and grabbing.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Not sure what you define to be a hellscape, but Market St
| definitely fits the bill especially after 8pm. I've never
| before had to worry about zombies but in SF you do.
|
| If you think SF is the norm then you should visit a city with
| competent governance and see what normal should be.
| Animats wrote:
| > I've never before had to worry about zombies but in SF
| you do.
|
| Well, more drugs, more zombies.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Psychedelics are quite a bit different from
| heroin/meth/fentanyl. The problem is that SF tolerates
| the latter.
| SpaceL10n wrote:
| I view this as a pragmatic solution to a common problem amongst
| law enforcement agencies which is constrained resources.
| Focusing on the bad drugs and leaving the hippies alone seems
| like a sound step forward.
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| All our problems would be solved if we simply jailed everyone
| who put the wrong kind of mushrooms on their pizza
| Ixiaus wrote:
| > Psychedelics (serotonergic hallucinogens) are powerful
| psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and
| affect numerous cognitive processes. They are generally
| considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence
| or addiction.
|
| ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/
|
| Decriminalizing psychedelics is likely to help with the
| treatment of mental health problems that often lead people to
| substance abuse.
|
| The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated
| and harmful. Some substances are certainly dangerous.
| Psychedelics are not in most cases. Condemning people who are
| using dangerous substances perpetuates the cycle of shame which
| keeps people from being able to heal.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is
| outdated and harmful.
|
| Sure, once you're already physically addicted, taking the
| next hit isn't a character flaw. But being willing to take
| the first hit before you're addicted is absolutely a gigantic
| character flaw.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Hallucinogens have the lowest addiction potential of any
| illegal drug, by a large margin.
| tiahura wrote:
| That's great. Every time I take my family on a leisurely stroll
| down Market Street I keep thinking what SF really needs are more
| people on drugs.
| [deleted]
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Given that San Francisco has decriminalised basically any crime,
| it's curious this took them so long.
| rockbruno wrote:
| Fantastic news for the US and the scientific research of
| psychedelics as a treatment for depression and anxiety.
| Meanwhile, on the other side of the atlantic, it's a nightmare to
| get our politicians to even begin talking about cannabis
| (Sweden).
| torpid wrote:
| Decriminalization is different than legalization. It likely
| will not help any US or scientific research.
| justizin wrote:
| The FDA is in the process of certifying psilocybin for
| therapeutic purposes, research should begin within a year or
| two, but decriminalization in oakland has already led to high
| quality, precision-dosed, retail-available gelcaps and such.
| I'm hoping those products hop the bay and show up in SF head
| shops, soon.
| kirsebaer wrote:
| Reducing stigma helps research. It becomes easier to get
| institutional support, recruit study participants,
| collaborate with colleagues, obtain funding, etc.
| nzealand wrote:
| It's still illegal at a federal and state level.
| jjcon wrote:
| Just to clarify, Psychedelics yes. Marijuana though is legal
| at the state level in some form for about 75% of the USA
| photochemsyn wrote:
| This is a good move. Psychedelics (read: naturally occuring or
| semi-synthetic substances which bind to the 5-HT2A receptor) are
| generally safer than most other recreational drugs (such as
| alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, tobacco) and tend to
| have the lowest addiction potential. In addition they have some
| noted medical effects (treating alcoholism and depression in
| particular, with potential for treating opiate addiction as
| well).
|
| The best way to approach psychedelics is with the 'less is more'
| mentality, although this does fly in the face of consumer
| capitalism and the profit motive.
| worik wrote:
| "consumer capitalism and the profit motive" and recreational
| drugs are a bad mix.
| worik wrote:
| ....unless your business is dealing drugs
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Meta: The nags on this site are overwhelming.
|
| There were 4 nags, three of them pushing a guide to grow my own
| shrooms.
|
| No means no.
| jointpdf wrote:
| DC decriminalized psychedelics (well, entheogens like psilocybin)
| over a year ago: https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/03/15/magic-
| mushrooms-are...
| yboris wrote:
| Detroit and Ann Arbor in Michigan both decriminalized it:
|
| November 2021:
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detroit-just-decrimina...
|
| September 2020:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/ann-arbor-plants-featured-ca-stat...
| yboris wrote:
| December 2020: Oregon decriminalized _all_ drugs:
|
| https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-12-10/...
| torpid wrote:
| This growing fad of partial "psychedelic decriminalization"
| initiatives covers only plant-based ones, which is ridiculous.
|
| Ingesting shrooms are harder to dose than a hit or two of acid.
| Eating the weight equivalent of one cap or stem can be a
| completely different experience, from the same spores. This will
| make the gradual path to full legalization even harder because
| people aren't trying things that are more easier to dose.
|
| There is no good reason why non plant based drugs like LSD, MDMA
| and Ketamine are not included so we could really call this a true
| psychedelic decriminalization measure.
| ebb_earl_co wrote:
| I think that one at least passable reason for just the
| "natural" substances to be focused on is to bring religious
| people under the big tent of eventual psychedelic legalization.
| Leaning on arguments such as God wouldn't have made the
| substance if He didn't want us to use it resonates with a lot
| of potential allies to the overall psychedelic legalization
| cause.
|
| A second reason comes from the group Decriminalize Nature [0]
| in their resolution to the Oakland City Council when pushing
| for decriminalization there[1]: "...reestablish humans'
| inalienable and direct relationship to nature." That is, some
| have this explicit goal and might not care much for the
| synthesized psychedelics.
|
| 0: https://www.decriminalizenature.org/ 1:
| https://www.decriminalizenature.org/media/attachments/2019/0...
| oh-4-fucks-sake wrote:
| Agree with this incremental step from a political perspective
| as an easy sell / quick win. But, it's _imperative_ that this
| be understood as an incremental step. The hazard here is
| equating "natural" with "safe" and "synthetic" with
| "unsafe".
|
| Eventually, this mindset will have to be dropped because
| morphine, cocaine, and cyanide are natural (heck,
| methamphetamines is found in trace amounts in some species of
| acacia). MDMA is synthetic but can be lethal in a single
| dose. LSD is semi-synthetic and one of the safest of the
| bunch--in fact, it's safer than the "natural" chemical
| feedstocks of its synthesization routes (LSA or ergot).
|
| The shift will have to be to evaluating each molecule on its
| merits and risk profile. Sure, the whole "natural" argument
| feels warm-'n'-fuzzy for a lot of people--but sadly it's a
| poor metric for determining safety. After all, our brains'
| receptors can't tell whether a molecule originated from a
| plant or from a lab.
|
| TL;DR: LSD, Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, (maybe)
| MDMA, and their various pro-drugs/analogues should be legal
| and regulated--regardless of their source. Morphine? I mean,
| the libertarian in me says "OK", but the more practical side
| says "probably not a great idea". In the end, none of this is
| rocket science--but the DEA, the broader US Government, and
| religion have turned it into a far more complicated thing
| than it needs to be.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Maybe it has to do with the fact that a large majority of the
| LSD/MDMA sold on the streets is not at all pure, and frequently
| is not even LSD/MDMA at all!
|
| Yes, there are research chemicals that are tasteless, and feel
| sort of like LSD. They are not LSD, and they could fuck you up.
|
| You can't easily lace shrooms
| [deleted]
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Imagine thinking you have freedom when you can't decide what to
| put in your own body.
|
| Imagine being happy with your tax dollars funding the
| "investigation, detention, arrest, or prosecution" of people
| using substances rather than teacher's salaries, solving
| homelessness, public transportation, or exploration of space.
| pvg wrote:
| _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies, generic
| tangents, and internet tropes._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Yes, I am a bit embarrassed by how inflammatory that appears
| to be. I am actually a bit happy that the HN algorithm
| devalued the post fairly significantly.
| pvg wrote:
| Yeah that's exactly the effect the guideline tries to head
| off which isn't necessarily obvious from just reading the
| guideline but makes more sense when you see it happen even
| if you didn't intend it.
| nimbius wrote:
| Ah absolutionists. Either we can all drink bleach or we're
| trapped in some orwellian hellscape of ruination to succor a
| distant memory of the time we could huff the sweet ichor of
| airplane glue in peace.
|
| We as a society generally need criminal justice reform, but it
| wont come at the hands of addressing the illness of addition
| through exploring space instead. better bus schedules doesnt
| magically demilitarize the multibillion dollar industry
| predicated on a loophole in the thirteenth amendment. I can
| only hope the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs is
| predicated on sound research but alas, it feels like most SF
| legislation is brinksmanship between seattle and portland to
| see who can pedal their city into oblivion fastest with random
| virtue signalling.
| nawgz wrote:
| > Ah absolutionists. Either we can all drink bleach
|
| I'm confused if this even reaches the bar for a strawman...
| Today, I am legally allowed to drink bleach. It's not
| breaking the law, just my body.
|
| I cannot, however, take psilocybin, which breaks the law, but
| gives new insights into the body.
|
| We are indeed trapped in some orwellian hellscape.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong I don't even think ingestion, of
| psilocybin, is illegal it's just possession.
| marricks wrote:
| What are you even advocating for? Continuing to prosecute and
| lock people up when we already have millions in prison? That
| isn't helping anyone.
|
| The war on drugs is over and the drugs won.
| [deleted]
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| Purely pedantic however I just wanted to point out that
| everyone can in fact drink bleach if they wanted to.
| tsol wrote:
| Well suicide is a crime in most states, so technically
| they're not allowed to
| borski wrote:
| Careful, you're going to convince someone to stockpile it
| lest it become unavailable like toilet paper. :)
| jen20 wrote:
| It's not that long ago that the actual president of the
| US suggested injecting it during a press conference.
| yuhguhmuh wrote:
| Right because homelessness doesn't have anything to do with the
| substances you put in your body.
| noduerme wrote:
| Arresting people who are psychotic from meth and forcibly
| preventing them from accessing that and Fentanyl would pretty
| much completely solve the homeless problem where I live.
| Unfortunately, those drugs have now been decriminalized, and
| somehow the "systemic" problem of homelessness has shot through
| the roof.
|
| The freedom to kill yourself in public is no kind of freedom at
| all. I also don't see the legalizers working to "solve
| homelessness", just to enable it, while expecting the
| government or someone else to "solve" it.
| [deleted]
| altruios wrote:
| Whoa there... the right to kill yourself should be an
| inalienable right - regardless of your location.
|
| Without the option to crash - you aren't a pilot.
|
| If and when we find the secret to immortality - this right to
| end your own life how you see it will be eroded by corporate
| greed.
|
| Tangential point, back to the main one.
|
| There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize and you
| named one of them. the opioid and amphetamine are a chemical
| moth to the flame trap - And I support making that trap
| harder to find/get into...
|
| Psychs on the other hand, RC's of course are dangerous due to
| their inherent novelty, Don't do the same things as
| Meth/fentanyl/crack, and generally are less
| dangerous/abusable. Basically anything that rewires the
| dopamine reward circuit should be highly suspect at best -
| and banned at worst.
|
| Most psyches build a tolerance quickly in the brain -
| resulting in weeks/months between effective 'trips'. To abuse
| psyches is tough - and not desirable (after a trip most
| people want a rest for a long while from doing that again)
|
| Yeah - freedom of brain chemistry should also be an
| unalienable right. If the government tells you what is
| allowed brain chemistry and what is not: that's government
| mind control...
|
| If someone controls what you ingest, see and hear: they
| control (to some extent) what you think.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Low dose amphetamines are pretty safe. We've given a lot of
| them to kids with adhd over the years
| altruios wrote:
| In low does - for certain brains - for certain reasons -
| aye: there are medical uses.
|
| Above I am speaking solely of recreational use.
| [deleted]
| chasd00 wrote:
| If you want to kill yourself with drugs then have at it. I'm
| 100% for the legalization. However, I don't want to pay for
| your rehab nor your medical bills associated with your drug
| use. So no emergency services for overdose, your choice your
| consequences. Further, you can't expect a sympathetic
| disposition when it comes to prosecuting people who commit
| crimes to further their drug use either.
| altruios wrote:
| tell me you've never taken a psychedelic without having to
| say that you've never taken a psychedelic.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't think SF's enormous homelessness issue has anything to
| do with spending _too much money addressing addiction_.
| robomartin wrote:
| > you can't decide what to put in your own body
|
| I truly don't care what anyone wants to put into their bodies
| or do to themselves.
|
| My problem comes in when they affect others. That applies to a
| wide range of situations from excessive drinking to smoking
| (ever go to a concert and you have to sit in a cloud of smoke,
| breathing what came out of others' mouths?) and more.
|
| I think everyone should be free to do as they please to
| themselves. The red line is when their choices infringe on
| someone else's right to _not_ be affected in any way by their
| decision. If you choose to smoke, that does not give you the
| right to have the smoke that comes out of your mouth go into my
| lungs.
|
| Respect for freedom requires respecting everyone's freedoms and
| rights. A self-serving stance will never result in expanding
| freedom.
|
| Why is this important?
|
| To continue with the hypothetical, if the smoker does not
| respect the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air, the
| non-smoker will eventually want to (need to!) seek ways to
| restrict the smoker's freedom to smoke. Everyone loses because
| society becomes more restrictive.
|
| In a sense, not much different from the concept of freedom of
| speech. In order to preserve it you have to allow --and
| protect-- that with which you disagree to have a voice.
| [deleted]
| xwdv wrote:
| Those laws exist _because_ it leads to homelessness.
| Homelessness is a drug addiction problem. Sick and tired of
| people ignoring this correlation.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| [deleted]
| treeman79 wrote:
| Do I still need a prescription to get medication?
| [deleted]
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Yes they should try it in san francisco maybe there'd be less
| hobos and you could use the public spaces occasionally.
|
| I used to be super libertarian but Ive come to realize that
| this only works if you, the one availing yourself of liberty,
| are the one that bears the consequences of your bad decisions.
| Increasingly, it seems, you do not. The dumber and more anti-
| social you act, the more victim status you are awarded with as
| the left half of our polity trips all over themselves rushing
| to make excuses for you.
|
| And then all the people who'd just like to sit in a park while
| also not being menaced by drug addicts are told to shut up.
|
| No thanks. We, as a society, cannot handle the liberties we
| already have.
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| Thank God none of this currently happens with drugs being
| illegal.
| robomartin wrote:
| > Thank God none of this currently happens with drugs being
| illegal.
|
| This has nothing to do with the vast range of laws we have
| in the books. It's a question of complete lack of
| enforcement.
|
| When defecating in public at a park carries no consequences
| whatsoever, do you really have a law that makes that
| illegal?
|
| Some guy just shot and killed four people in Memphis.
| Google it. The man was arrested in 2020 for "attempted
| first-degree murder, aggravated assault, using a firearm to
| commit a dangerous felony and reckless endangerment with a
| deadly weapon". It took until April of 2021 to convict him
| to three years. He was released 11 months later.
|
| As the Mayor put it, four people would be alive today and,
| my addition, a number of others would not be wounded in the
| hospital, if this person --who is and was an obvious danger
| to society-- had been where he belonged, in prison.
|
| Laws mean nothing when they are not enforced.
|
| Another tragic example is what has been happening at the US
| border since the new administration took office. It's a
| mess. It's criminal, but nobody is enforcing the laws. So
| much fentanyl and other drugs is coming in that I am sure
| we have lost control. In my town alone I think we've had
| over 300 deaths so far this year due to fentanyl.
|
| We have laws. Things are illegal. And yet, you can't sit at
| the park with your kids to enjoy a nice sunny afternoon
| because the laws mean nothing when the people we elect to
| look after society choose not to enforce them.
|
| This is not a formula for a society that trends towards
| better outcomes. It's crazy. You have people who have never
| even thought about owning guns asking about gun ownership
| and buying firearms because they no longer feel safe.
|
| Not to go too far. Over a year ago, I caught and arrested a
| guy who broke into my neighbor's home across the street.
| The guy probably caused over $10K in damage to the home
| entering, destroying the security system and breaking
| through the door from the garage into the home. This guy,
| we came to find out, had a prior record in another state.
| We finally went to the hearing last week. It took almost a
| year. I don't think the guy did more than 30 days in jail.
| What did the DA's office, led by George Gascon (I can only
| describe him as demented and, yes, with history in San
| Francisco) do? They let the guy go. He is supposed to
| enroll in some kind of a counseling program. Brilliant. I
| hope he doesn't kill anyone when he returns to crime.
| slickdork wrote:
| We made being homeless be illegal too, so it's a solved
| problem.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't have a strong opinion, but there's a difference
| between "making drugs illegal solves all problems" and
| "making drugs illegal minimizes drug use".
| mdcds wrote:
| I'm not well-versed in political... philosophy!? but for the
| sake of the argument: perhaps SF didn't fully embrace
| libertarian ideals? "you can do what you want, but you must
| not impose on others" sounds fair. you can take any drugs you
| want, but if you shit in the street - you suffer
| consequences. Pose danger to others - you suffer
| consequences. etc. That's not what I'm seeing happening in
| SF.
| holyknight wrote:
| One of the few good legislations in SF in a long time
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > will be "among the lowest priorities" for law enforcement.
|
| By that standard, both San Francisco and Los Angeles have
| decriminalized all drugs, alongside open containers, prostitution
| on the street, prostitution in strip clubs, prostitution
| elsewhere indoors, and practically every other vice.
|
| And I'm _reaaallly_ not saying this from a position of envy or
| disdain, only accuracy, there is also a completely parallel
| society for people living in tents where enforcement of anything
| is a stated non-priority.
|
| Seeing an article about a board actually voting on a measure to
| "lower law enforcement priority" is kind of redundant! The Mayors
| and DA's have already dug their heels in, what does anything like
| this actually change? Does it force county/city judges to auto-
| drop cases if an officer and prosecutor fail to do so themselves?
|
| Seems redundant if it can't actually do anything differently.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > there is also a completely parallel society for people living
| in tents where enforcement of anything is a stated non-
| priority.
|
| Also where health or safety isn't anyone's responsibility. I
| guess we find it innately distasteful to make real demands of
| people that we do as little for as we possibly can. Most of us
| think that it's dangerously charitable not to imprison them and
| burn their things.
| notch656a wrote:
| Homeless have no money to extract. A middle class guy open
| carrying a protective weapon will get hit by the judicial
| system like a ton of bricks, while the homeless guy selling
| fent or acid or whatever on the corner will probably just get a
| tip on the next feeding time at the kitchen.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| One correction, the current non-enforcement of the nylon
| favelas is coming from a place of compassion, ostensibly
|
| I just wish we could use selective enforcement as a way to
| invalidate some laws and policies under the constitution
| (right its only the opposite, a law can only be questioned by
| someone it was enforced against, if they can afford doing so)
| docandrew wrote:
| Anarcho-tyranny. The only crime is self-defense.
| jakear wrote:
| Hell SF pays homeless cash, simply for being homeless. Walk
| around SF on homeless payday and you'll see a massive uptick
| in open use of crack, folks strung out motionless on the
| sidewalk with needles sticking out of them, and sidewalk
| slouchers openly sapping on liquor bottles. This is the same
| city that can't manage to secure funding to prevent human
| waste from accumulating on the sidewalks.
|
| I happen to be homeless as well, but I still can't get behind
| this concept. I volunteer my time to a national wildlife
| refuge and expect nothing in return, these folks shit on
| sidewalks and get cash in hand. If we really want to "solve"
| homelessness (I don't think it's something that needs to be
| solved, every era of humanity has had some portion of the
| population living without a solid roof over their heads), the
| answer is funding more public works programs, not funding
| delinquency.
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498607/San-
| Franci...
| moneycantbuy wrote:
| just out of curiosity, how did you become homeless?
| (judging from your profile you seem employable)
| yrgulation wrote:
| "I don't think it's something that needs to be solved"
|
| Yeah it is something that needs to be solved. I simply dont
| agree that society should sit idle while people are out
| there in the cold. Sure some do it by choice and you cant
| do much to help them. But a healthy society should have the
| mechanisms to house every person. I am not a socialist or
| whatever but i strongly believe that basics such as housing
| and health care should be taken care of on behalf of those
| who cant do it on their own. How can people call themselves
| "patriots" or say they love their country yet they dont
| help their fellow citizens. A country is not made of trees
| and rocks its made people. Loving it means loving the
| people as well.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while
| people are out there in the cold.
|
| SF and coastal west coast cities don't get cold _enough_.
|
| That's a major contributing factor to why there is a
| density of people living on the street. I would say that
| temperature argument point is invalid.
|
| > But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to
| house every person.
|
| There is plenty of land for housing nearby and elsewhere.
|
| >
|
| I'm not advocating for anything, I'm actually hoping that
| you can solidify your arguments better as you maintain
| your primary sentiment of wanting people to not be on the
| streets, that matches the sentiment of the people you
| think you're against, but you're wanting to address it
| with love and compassion.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think you're taking the grandparent's "out in the cold"
| line too literally. "Out in the elements" is probably a
| better descriptor; it's not about temperature, it's about
| all the disadvantages to health and safety that come with
| being homeless.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I don't think it makes a difference in my hope they can
| iterate towards stronger arguments that lead to consensus
| solutions, cleaning up the streets and also improving
| their physical and mental health, and ideally financial
| position too.
|
| Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It
| doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas.
| It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are
| only the visible homeless population and just the tip of
| the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same
| circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that
| visible homeless population is not interested in going to
| a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its
| just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well
| off and influential people aren't doing anything and that
| massively funded programs don't already exist. The
| statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to
| any specific place either, despite this conversation
| being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more
| important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for
| the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is
| so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.
| yrgulation wrote:
| I dont need to iterate towards stronger arguments. There
| isn't much else to debate or elaborate on the issue.
| Indeed you are taking the out in the cold statement too
| literarily, my comment is not weather related. We as a
| society, regardless of country or city, need to look
| after each other to a certain extent. Thats what makes a
| society. We are not beasts. Competing in boardrooms,
| politics, businesses, or careers is welcome and healthy,
| but simply allowing for people to struggle at that level
| is not. It's not even about wealth or class, let alone
| rudimentary compassion. It's just something i feel. An
| automated reaction to such societal issues, and a
| response i can give as a tax pair, voter and very very
| small donor. Somewhere somehow a circuit is broken and
| people end up in that situation. We need the mechanisms
| to prevent that from happening. Sure if some people see
| homelessness as a positive choice they themselves make
| then thats their choice and i totally respect that. I am
| not writing this comment to patronise people, i know
| nothing of their lives. But i do know that we must do all
| we can to develop mechanisms to prevent it from happening
| to those who dont want it. Food, shelter and health care
| are basic human needs.
| rideg wrote:
| The Netherlands backpedaled after a couple of very serious
| incidents regarding many psychedelics. Public suicide, animal
| sacrifice, crime etc. I don't see how it will be different in SF.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This is ridiculous. A single French teenager(17yo) jumped off
| the Nemo Building[1], which lead to mushrooms being banned.
| There are several problems here. This building has a low
| railing around the tall publicly accessible portion, and no
| real safety features to prevent jumping. Teens this age are
| notorious for impulsively jumping from these types of
| structures, it's why The Vessel in Hudson Yards in NYC was
| closed. There's no real reason to suspect the mushrooms caused
| the incident given the previous two factors.
|
| As for the animal sacrifices, I couldn't find a single news
| article from 2000-2007 referencing this. I also couldn't find
| any good crime numbers.
|
| The whole illegalization push in 2007 from available news
| sources was tied to this one suicide and damage to French-Dutch
| relations.
|
| [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=nemo+building+amsterdam&rlz=
| ...
| borski wrote:
| Having stayed on a crane in Amsterdam (Faralda crane hotel)
| which was absolutely thrilling and simultaneously insane, I
| can vouch for the fact that 'safety standards' in Dutch
| buildings are _far_ lower than those in the US. I actually
| found it refreshing, to be honest, from the railings and
| gates I 'm used to in the US, but there was _nothing_ that
| was going to stop me from even _accidentally_ taking a dive
| off the crane. The upshot of that is a rooftop crane hot tub,
| though, so I mean...
| ch4s3 wrote:
| It's a cool place for sure. It seems like the US at 14 per
| 100,000 and The Netherlands at 11 per 100,000 have similar
| suicide rates. Jumping makes up a far higher share in the
| Netherlands at 3rd or 4th most common depending on the year
| (per statista.com), and barely registers in the US. Gun
| availability may be the reason here, but I wouldn't count
| out the total lack of safety infrastructure around heights
| as a factor.
| borski wrote:
| For sure; I have to say, while it was expensive (to the
| tune of $800-1000 euros for a single night, hence why I
| only stayed a single night), there is very little more
| thrilling than staying on a crane that still moves in the
| wind (giving you a new view every few hours), or skinny
| dipping in a hot tub on the roof of said crane because
| you're the only ones staying there, etc.
|
| I know it sounds like I'm writing a Yelp review, but it
| was fantastic. :)
| [deleted]
| codyb wrote:
| Lol, these stories are like bringing up some horrific accident
| every time someone talks about cars.
|
| Things happen, that's life, but it's really important to put
| things into proportion at some point.
| rr888 wrote:
| > Public suicide, animal sacrifice, crime etc.
|
| That's just normal in SF streets already lol.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I'd love to read a bit more about this. Do you have any
| interesting reading on how psychedelics were legalized or
| decriminalized in the Netherlands and the resulting affects on
| society? I'll Google it, but maybe you would know better :-)
| pageandrew wrote:
| Psychedelics still can't legally be sold in SF. What good is
| criminalizing simple possession?
|
| Besides, for every animal sacrifice on LSD there are 100
| (probably more) drunk drivers crashing into trees, parked cars,
| oncoming traffic, and pedestrians, and alcohol is totally legal
| and widely used.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Besides, for every animal sacrifice on LSD there are 100
| (probably more) drunk drivers crashing into trees, parked
| cars, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians, and alcohol is
| totally legal and widely used.
|
| That seems to ignore the fact that there are far more people
| drinking than tripping. I'm not saying that with an equal
| numbers of users the math wouldn't still make drinking more
| dangerous, I really don't know, but it's an unfair
| comparison.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Unsure if by "parked cars" you've meant crashing into parked
| cars or parked cars by themselves being a bad thing
| chihuahua wrote:
| I think they meant "crashing into parked cars". Because if
| you interpret it the other way, it implies that they also
| consider the mere existence of oncoming traffic and
| pedestrians a bad thing.
| FredrikMeyer wrote:
| So silly, considering all the noise and accidents alcohol
| directly causes. But then a single bad case after someone
| taking psychedelics, and they reverse.
| subsubzero wrote:
| Its not silly, for some psychedelics are fine and they can
| handle them ok. But others have psychotic breaks that are
| irreversible. I feel like SF is already a city that is very
| dysfunctional with crazies screaming at nothing, why make a
| really bad situation worse?
| borski wrote:
| Some people who drink alcohol are fine and they can handle
| it okay. Others drink and drive and kill people, or become
| addicted and/or kill themselves. Should we go back to
| prohibition?
| subsubzero wrote:
| This is a straw man argument, having a permanent mental
| change after having a "bad trip" on psychedelics is not
| analogous to drinking a beer or too much whisky and doing
| something dumb(or worse). There is not evidence that a
| person consumes one drink and goes into psychosis or has
| permanent mental changes like with psychedelics. I am not
| against having psychedelics for certain situations(under
| controlled situations) but you are playing with fire and
| your mind and sanity are the tinder and are rolling the
| dice so to speak.
| acchow wrote:
| What are the negative permanent effects of a "bad trip"?
| borski wrote:
| Citation required. I have yet to see a single reputable
| paper or study that describes a 'permanent mental change'
| for the worse, like psychosis, after a single encounter
| with psychedelics.
| ckw wrote:
| So your solution is in principle to incarcerate the
| overwhelming majority of users who suffer no ill effects...
|
| Do you also advocate for the criminalization of alcohol?
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Textbook whataboutism--and I _hate_ that phrase.
|
| Yes, and _both_ substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled
| hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the
| ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn
| some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.
| nonasktell wrote:
| Controlled hard drugs are harmful to society, the only
| country that has decriminalized everything is doing very
| good in that regard.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| This isn't whataboutism, it's very specifically comparing
| the societal consequences of two drugs and the possible
| consequences.
|
| It's not whataboutism bring up other risks that as a
| society we tolerate, when we are thinking about restricting
| one.
| bko wrote:
| One drug is possibly more harmful but is already legal
| almost everywhere, deeply ingrained in many aspects of
| Western society and has a history of issues regarding
| criminalization
|
| The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently
| illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche
| demand.
|
| I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should
| not open up a whole new can of worms.
| gopher_space wrote:
| Another way of looking at it is that right now only the
| kids buy and consume shrooms, and they do so completely
| unsupervised.
| kortex wrote:
| How is the can of worms not already open? The War on
| Drugs has failed to put a dent in drug consumption
| habits.
|
| My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in
| NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically
| seeking those substances out, with little safety
| education or experience. If they were more widely
| available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and
| likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness
| means better overall substance education and
| understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their
| heads and acting a fool.
|
| The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against
| cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown,
| there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Yes, and both substances should be controlled.
|
| We tried that here in the US. The result was a a
| proliferation of organized crime.
| tsol wrote:
| Yes we made murder illegal and organized crime engages in
| that too. Guess laws are just pointless
| loeg wrote:
| Crying "whataboutism" isn't a rhetorical shortcut to
| dismiss a reasonable argument. It's hypocritical and silly
| to allow alcohol and not other recreational drugs with
| similar safety profiles. It's also untenable to completely
| restrict alcohol.
| dshpala wrote:
| Similar safety profiles? I'm not a drinker, but I think
| you need to drink a LOT of alcohol to state
| hallucinating? I.e. most people don't do that.
| yellowapple wrote:
| You're right that the safety profiles are dissimilar, but
| if anything it's the other way around: alcohol is
| significantly more likely to result in long-term illness
| or death than e.g. LSD.
| nonasktell wrote:
| Yes, but hallucinations aren't the main problem.
| Assaulting people and zigzaging on the road after just a
| few drinks is a bigger problem than having blurry vision
| and seeing weird colors. I took a shitton of
| psychedelics, I never saw anything that wasn't there.
|
| Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the
| floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault
| someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on
| the other hand....
| loeg wrote:
| "Similar" does not mean "identical." Yes, they affect the
| brain in different ways. The net safety profile for
| individuals and society is (arguably) similar.
| LargeWu wrote:
| To start hallucinating? Sure.
|
| To engage in dangerous behavior? Hardly.
|
| That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its
| effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a
| lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not
| as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| You might be overestimating the effects of hallucination.
| Someone who's hallucinating is not necessarily more
| impaired than someone who is drunk.
|
| Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real
| sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking
| someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this
| isn't the case.
|
| Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to
| realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the
| intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up
| a bit more. But just for a moment.
|
| In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk
| person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled.
| Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to
| notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
| 8note wrote:
| Specifically for the psychedelics, the danger is that
| people will see capitalist structures for how ridiculous
| they are
|
| They aren't dangerous to individuals, only rent seekers
| WalterBright wrote:
| That's the worst argument for socialism I've ever
| encountered.
| captainredbeard wrote:
| It's not an argument, it's a drug-induced psychotic
| musing...
| deemster wrote:
| Good time to quote the cosmic bard, Terence McKenna.
|
| "Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government
| is concerned that you may jump out of a third story
| window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve
| opinion structures and culturally laid down models of
| behavior and information processing. They open you up to
| the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
| BoorishBears wrote:
| You can already get hard drugs in the open here, the serious
| incidents would already be happening
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| No different than reefer madness. People do all that shit
| without psychedelics
| moneycantbuy wrote:
| safer than alcohol
| [deleted]
| yrgulation wrote:
| Oh boy prepare for more "AI is conscious" "whistleblowers" and
| headlines.
| cies wrote:
| > California is On the Brink of Decriminalizing Psychedelics --
| But It's Not That Simple
|
| Sure, believe your government. Much of this stuff is grows in
| nature. It is a personal choice to take it. And it is forbidden
| by laws! So it used to be legal, before the law was enacted, and
| now you are a criminal for getting high.
|
| All that is needed is to remove the law! Which is not hard for
| the right politicians, but still they dont and have not for a
| long time.
|
| It is not hard to remove the law, and what we have to accept is
| that decriminalization is what we get. Pfff...
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I think these "no enforcement" things are the worst. It always
| leaves people in a legal grey-area where they want to do
| something, and they are _allowed_ to do it, but it 's still
| technically illegal with all the baggage that goes along with
| that. In fact, it _relieves_ pressure to legalize, since most
| people are now able to do what they like.
|
| Take speeding laws (in the US): (almost) everybody breaks them
| since the limits are so low, which gives officers discretion to
| basically go out and just start ticketing anybody they like.
| Everyone is guilty, but we just don't enforce it against you, at
| least for today. Clearly (I hope), when a large number of people
| are breaking a law, and we all just accept this - then it's not a
| good law. But speed limits don't get repealed, because very few
| people are actually prosecuted, so the general public doesn't get
| mad enough about it. If speed limits were _universally_ enforced,
| the public would get mad and the limits would be removed or
| raised within a week.
| dsl wrote:
| There is no gray area here.
|
| San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people
| for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in.
|
| The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in
| California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.
| ben174 wrote:
| Surprised Ketamine isn't listed. I figured they'd lump that in.
| On the other hand, ketamine is extremely addictive, despite what
| you might read online. I know several people who have given up
| everything to sustain their Ketamine habit.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| This resolution mentions SB 519, a state bill, and looks to be
| matching it. SB 519 had ketamine but dropped it since it was
| more contentious than other drugs.
| tbalsam wrote:
| "Extremely addictive" is a bit of a misnomer I believe, in
| terms of both the scientific literature and also much consensus
| around treatment-focused communities. Please stop spreading
| this.
|
| What I can say is a similar thing, that it can cause
| _dependence_ very rapidly. It can be extraordinarily useful for
| healing certain mental health conditions, but tolerance builds
| rapidly, and people on the street are often trying to K-hole
| repeatedly, a basically pointless exercise. Sustained low-
| dosage usage seems to have fewer bladder effects, the tolerance
| combined with people using it as an escape (and preferring
| K-holes), as well as people who are already mentally broken
| having a nice lever to pull, is what can cause it to get out of
| hand.
|
| This is not everybody, however. I think it depends upon the
| circles, and I think it is hard to see people do that
| regardless of the world. But your circles around you are also
| not the world at large. Please stay factually rooted in what
| you're sharing online. To me, substances that would be
| dangerous would be directly opioidergic or dopaminergic
| substances (opioids, nicotine, opioidergic hallucinogens) as
| opposed to one that is opioid _sensitizing_, like Ketamine
| (which lets it be a kind of opioid replacement for pain relief
| clinics, for example. Even infusions are helpful.)
|
| It really is important that we all don't take our personal
| experiences to say "don't listen to what you hear online" too
| strongly, I guess even myself included here. Hope that helps
| shine an alternative perspective on the matter.
| olalonde wrote:
| What's the difference between "extremely addictive" and "can
| cause _dependence_ very rapidly"? Don't they mean the same
| thing?
| nick__m wrote:
| Ketamine, is foremost a NDMA antagonist (Ki=0.25uM ), sure it
| act on some type of opioid receptor also as an antagonist (a
| blocker) (Ki=12uM at KOR2), but this effect is 50x less
| important. Other NMDA antagonist like PCP that don't act on
| the opiate receptors are as strong if not stronger at pain
| suppression.
|
| Ketamine is also a direct dopamine agonist (Ki=0.5uM at D2).
| pengaru wrote:
| It also has bladder toxicity issues, it's not uncommon for
| ketamine addicts to piss blood AIUI. In extreme cases bladders
| have required permanent removal.
|
| Edit: VICE even named their recent Ketamine episode "Pissing
| Blood" for this reason. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99XQY7Elwhc
| jjulius wrote:
| >... it's not uncommon for ketamine addicts to piss blood
| AIUI.
|
| I had no idea this was a thing until the morning after I woke
| up from my first time partying around people who were using
| it. Someone took a leak and I hear, "Hah! Yep, there's the
| good ol' orange K piss," and I couldn't help but be surprised
| that it sounded like they were laughing at the fact they were
| pissing blood.
|
| I should clarify - nothing against ketamine in small doses
| recreationally, just take care of yourself.
| totony wrote:
| ketamine also has been shown to cause brain damage in
| addicts afaik.
| worik wrote:
| > ketamine also has been shown to cause brain damage in
| addicts afaik.
|
| I have to call you on that.
|
| Very irresponsible to say things like that with out
| context.
|
| Like: Where does that factoid come from? Compare it to
| other known neuro toxins - alcohol obviously.
| sva_ wrote:
| I don't think it makes a lot of sense calling Ketamine a
| psychedelic. It is very much unlike any known psychedelic, and
| acts in a very different way in the body as well.
| bsedlm wrote:
| Ketamine is not a psychedelic (in the hallucinogenic sense)
| acchow wrote:
| In which sense is ketamine a psychedelic?
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| "While it doesn't immediately enact changes to criminal justice
| policy in San Francisco, it urges police to deprioritize
| psychedelics as "amongst the lowest priority" for enforcement and
| requests that "City resources not be used for any investigation,
| detention, arrest, or prosecution arising out of alleged
| violations of state and federal law regarding the use of
| Entheogenic Plants listed on the Federally Controlled Substances
| Schedule 1 list."
| [deleted]
| dsl wrote:
| Heroin seems to fit their definition as well.
| darawk wrote:
| Great news. Whether or not you believe these substances have
| significant therapeutic potential (I do), it's basically
| indisputable that they are socially harmless. Nobody gets
| addicted to them, there are no known negative health effects.
| There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for their
| criminality, and there never has been.
| slibhb wrote:
| Psychedelics, especially in conjunction with SSRIs, can cause
| serotonin syndrome. They can cause visual disturbances that far
| outlast the trip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_pe
| rsisting_percep.... They can trigger psychosis in certain
| people, i.e those with bipolar disorder.
| kortex wrote:
| Alcohol, especially in conjunction with acetaminophen or
| other OTC pain meds, can cause liver damage.
|
| As long as alcohol is a legal substance to consume, it makes
| no sense to criminalize substances widely shown to have lower
| harm coefficients than it. There's tons of studies which
| mostly-objectively quantify harm/addiction caused by
| substances. The only drugs squarely as bad or worse than
| alcohol are tobacco products (also legal, contains many more
| psychoactives beyond nicotine), meth, crack cocaine (delivery
| route matters), cathinones, GHB, certain gaba-ergics, and
| most opioids.
|
| Nicotine in isolation, ketamine, classical psychedelics,
| cannabis, MDMA, most of the Shulginoids (phenethylamines and
| tryptamines), all fall short of the harm caused by alcohol.
|
| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.5921.
| ..
| acchow wrote:
| I have a friend who had HPPD for years and loved it! It's
| gone now and he misses it.
| kneel wrote:
| I wholeheartedly disagree, psychedelics can amplify mental
| illness and result in bizarre behavior. Decriminalizing
| psychedelics in a city with a large homeless drug infused
| population is asking for trouble.
| kelnos wrote:
| Not sure it matters; it's not like the police enforce _any_
| laws when it comes to the homeless population here, except
| for when it 's politically expedient to do so.
| acchow wrote:
| Society has figured out quiet quitting all on their own without
| the need of widespread psychedelics and capitalism has not
| ended because of it. There's definitely no need to hold back
| LSD now.
| [deleted]
| notch656a wrote:
| Honestly I couldn't give a shit if there were horrible effects.
| Kidnapping someone off the street and throwing them in a padded
| room with a doctor over watching to make sure they're medically
| OK is perfectly safe, but ought to be illegal. Buying rat
| poison and eating it is completely unsafe, but if that's
| someone's thing then they're free to have at it.
|
| Of course, if I buy rat poison, I have a pretty pure product
| and I can look up the ld50 and make a scientific estimate on
| how much I can take before I die. Not so with some random shit
| off the street.
| itintheory wrote:
| Most rodenticides, and a great many other hazardous household
| chemicals actually carry a warning that they are illegal to
| use in a way different than described in the instructions.
| worik wrote:
| > Of course, if I buy rat poison, I have a pretty pure
| product and I can look up the ld50 and make a scientific
| estimate on how much I can take before I die. Not so with
| some random shit off the street.
|
| True.
|
| Where I live (Aotearoa) drug testing has been made legal and
| there are many opportunities to take your stash along to the
| spectrometer (I am not a chemist, unsure about the actual
| nature of the instrument, except it is reliable) and get it
| tested.
| [deleted]
| codebolt wrote:
| > it's basically indisputable that they are socially harmless
|
| Considering that the place with the highest psychedelic drug
| use is also the place with the highest number of mentally ill
| and homeless, that seems a rather preposterous assertion.
| uoaei wrote:
| Yours is an excellent example of how correlative
| observational studies (however formal or informal) are
| practically useless. Once you have experience interacting
| with the unhoused population, you will quickly learn that
| they are largely using things like crack, meth, and opioids
| (if at all -- many are in fact sober), not psychedelics.
| darawk wrote:
| Psychedelic use in SF is not primarily among the homeless
| population. That population is using very different
| substances.
| pstuart wrote:
| I agree with you, save for the negative health effects. It's
| very rare but sometimes it breaks people (firsthand witness to
| this way back when).
|
| It still should be legal but we should be honest about risks.
| alecfreudenberg wrote:
| Many people have bad trips that end up in irreparable self harm
| or harm to others, often inducing death by police.
|
| Psychedelics radically impact cognition and consciousness, and
| not always in a safe way.
|
| It's not always just a 'woah man' giggling in a park.
|
| People climb high things and fall. They run into traffic or
| harms way. They often attack first responders that are
| attempting to deescalate.
|
| Thought loops are dangerous and psychotic breaks are an obvious
| possibility to anyone who has done these substances.
| darawk wrote:
| Yes, this can happen, but it is extremely rare. Advil
| probably has a higher death rate than psilocybin.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Tylenol is an even better choice: "Paracetamol poisoning is
| the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western
| world, and accounts for most drug overdoses in the United
| States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
| worik wrote:
| > Thought loops are dangerous and psychotic breaks are an
| obvious possibility to anyone who has done these substances.
|
| No. Not obvious at all. A psychotic break is where you cannot
| distinguish reality from thoughts.
|
| LSD et. el. does not have that effect. The person under the
| influence has a very clear idea of what is real, and what is
| not. A very different view of what is real, but no confusion.
|
| For some reason there is a lot of opposition to people taking
| these drugs (I blame Timothy Leary for trying to make them a
| font of revolution). SO a _lot_ of lies are spread.
|
| But it is an absolute fiction that LSD makes it impossible to
| distinguish reality from unreality
|
| There are drugs that do do that. They are very unpleasant,
| and are mostly not illegal as they are no fun at all.
|
| LSD is enormous fun. Find a reliable dealer. By a bunch. (Get
| it tested). Take it with your friends. It is very good for
| you.
|
| "LSD is enormous fun". Or not. If you do not enjoy it, or
| find it useful, do not do it again.
|
| Simple.
|
| Why is law even an issue?
| tsol wrote:
| Because you're incorrect. Some people face serious side
| effects. It can trigger mental illness in those that have a
| predisposition. It can cause HPPD. Here's a report I just
| dug up for an earlier comment:
|
| >These symptoms persisted for the last 13 years, with
| little change in intensity and frequency. All efforts at
| treatment, psychopharmacological as well as
| psychotherapeutic, failed to alleviate the symptoms. Often
| the patient was unable to focus properly with her eyes and
| tired rapidly while performing intense visual tasks - these
| deficiencies being detrimental to her studies and
| professional work as an architect. As a consequence, the
| patient became depressed with latent suicidal impulses. She
| also found it increasingly difficult to distinguish between
| 'normal' and ' abnormal' perceptions.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736944/
| mistermann wrote:
| In the long run, they could be dangerous to profit margins of
| defense contractors.
| [deleted]
| deepdriver wrote:
| Certainly in terms of short-term judgement impairment, this
| isn't true:
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/teendeathbridgefal...
| novok wrote:
| No, if you are susceptible to schizophrenia, it can trigger it
| and turn it into full blown schizophrenia including all the
| other comments about potential downsides.
| darawk wrote:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
| nnm wrote:
| The title of this study "No link found between psychedelics
| and psychosis" should really be that "the authors did not
| find links between psychedelics and psychosis using their
| survey method".
|
| These survey methods come with huge uncertainty and lots of
| pitfalls. I would not be surprised if the result in the
| paper is not reproducible. In fact, "over half of
| psychology studies fail reproducibility test"[1]
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
| jack_pp wrote:
| yeah, it just happens most anyone with friends who do
| psychedelics have had some of them go on psychotic breaks
| that take months or years to fix. It's not super common but
| I'm gonna trust my own observations of reality over studies
| that usually fail to replicate
| worik wrote:
| > not super common but I'm gonna trust my own
| observations of reality over studies that usually fail to
| replicate
|
| You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over
| scientific research?
|
| The "studies that usually fail to replicate" are the ones
| supporting a LSD inducing schizophrenia.
|
| Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to
| you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
| adnzzzzZ wrote:
| >You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over
| scientific research?
|
| Yes, if it has the potential to ruin my life and the life
| of people I care about, as it is plainly obvious to
| anyone who pays any attention _at all_ to the world
| around them that these drugs are extremely harmful to a
| subset of the population.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| How many well recorded and observed anecdotes are
| required before it becomes recorded data worthy of being
| considered a replication of a poorly designed and
| unreplicated academic study? Do I just gotta format it in
| two columns like it's a high school newsletter and pray
| nobody reads the dozens of references I threw in there
| but never actually used beyond roughly associating my own
| thoughts with ones someone else already had?
| akomtu wrote:
| Peanuts can cause a strong allergic reaction and death, thus
| peanuts are very dangerous.
| bil7 wrote:
| While I am also in complete favour, stating that there are no
| negative health effects is somewhat false. Abusing any kind of
| psychedelic can lead to HPPD [1], a very real long term
| disorder.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| I would classify HPPD as widely harmless. If you poll non-
| users you'll find that many people have HPPD like effects and
| can't recall ever not having them. Seeing a slight trail
| behind a bright fast moving object is inconsequential in
| life.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >If you poll non-users you'll find that many people have
| HPPD like effects and can't recall ever not having them.
|
| Yep
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/11/lots-of-people-
| going-a...
| tsol wrote:
| Many people with psychedelic-induced HPPD report them being
| a difficulty, though. Take this case study: >These symptoms
| persisted for the last 13 years, with little change in
| intensity and frequency. All efforts at treatment,
| psychopharmacological as well as psychotherapeutic, failed
| to alleviate the symptoms. Often the patient was unable to
| focus properly with her eyes and tired rapidly while
| performing intense visual tasks - these deficiencies being
| detrimental to her studies and professional work as an
| architect. As a consequence, the patient became depressed
| with latent suicidal impulses. She also found it
| increasingly difficult to distinguish between 'normal' and
| ' abnormal' perceptions.
|
| This papering over of side effects that people insist on is
| why so many are so hesitant to legalize these drugs. It's
| doing no favor to the cause when so many refuse to
| acknowledge the danger that's inherit in some kinds of
| psychoactive drugs.
| kortex wrote:
| Brains are quite nonlinear. I wonder how many people
| already had visual artifacts and assorted weirdness, but
| never paid attention to them because the brain just paves
| over it, until an experience highlights those artifacts,
| and now they can't _not_ notice them.
| worik wrote:
| It is all relative.
|
| In the case of recreational drugs it is relative to alcohol.
|
| So not "completely harmless" but "relatively harmless"
| giantg2 wrote:
| "it's basically indisputable that they are socially harmless."
|
| I wouldn't go that far. Any substance that alters perception,
| inhibition, etc has the potential for some social impact. For
| example, public drunkenness, DUI, liquor license etc were
| created because intoxicated people caused some sort of problem
| and laws were created around that. While these were created for
| alcohol, it's likely similar laws would be created for other
| substances.
| notch656a wrote:
| My state has no law against public drunkenness and there is
| no discernible difference here between other states I have
| lived in which had such a law. Honestly I think that was
| written as a religious feelzy.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I bet your state has a disorderly conduct or similar. The
| laws between states aren't vastly different on this sort of
| thing in most cases.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| And that same law would apply to tripping people as it
| does to drunk people, so I don't understand what this is
| getting at.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| A drunk (or high) person is significantly more likely to
| engage in disorderly behavior like tripping people than a
| sober person.
| notch656a wrote:
| In my state disorderly conduct requires mens rea of
| disturbing the peace. It's not something you can do
| accidentally. Compare that to public drunkenness in
| someplace like California, it's strict liability --
| doesn't matter whether you meant to act drunk or not (in
| fact you can be held accountable for being "unable" to
| exercise care). They're extremely different laws.
| dolni wrote:
| You're oversimplifying. "The law" is not the only thing
| that dictates peoples' behaviors. There are lots of other
| reasons why drinking may be more or less bothersome in some
| states versus others. Different places have different
| customs, particularly around drinking. Those customs
| combined with alcohol may create more or less of a public
| nuisance.
| [deleted]
| worik wrote:
| Did you just compare LSD intoxication with "public
| drunkenness"?
|
| Not so much "chalk and cheese" but "feather and revolver"
| MisterTea wrote:
| > socially harmless. Nobody gets addicted to them, there are no
| known negative health effects.
|
| Not true.
|
| My friend woke up handcuffed to a hospital bed after a bad trip
| on mushrooms. He saw his dead body in the street and was
| convinced he was dead and a ghost. He then went running around
| Manhattan traffic jumping on cars.
|
| An English teacher in high school witnessed her friend jump to
| her death from a balcony after taking LSD. The woman said she
| felt light as a bird, took off running, hopped up a chair and
| dove over the railing to the pavement 20 feet below. She broke
| her neck.
|
| I am not saying psychedelics should remain banned. But to
| casually call them harmless is incredibly irresponsible. They
| need to be taken under supervision by people with experience.
| This is called trip sitting. Not all trips are good as emotions
| and state of mind can effect the outcome. Things can go wrong
| fast. Be safe.
| dekhn wrote:
| From my read of the scientific literature, most situations
| like the ones you describe are at least partially caused by
| underlying disorders that pre-existed (and manifested). And
| the second one you describe is a pretty common story to be
| told (same rumor at my college).
| josephcsible wrote:
| How are these two scenarios different in practice?
|
| 1. Someone has had a latent mental disorder since birth,
| which then manifested itself permanently upon taking
| psychedelics, and would have never manifested itself
| without them
|
| 2. Someone who originally had no mental disorders developed
| a permanent one from taking psychedelics
| dekhn wrote:
| Just replace "psychedelics" with "*" because the general
| question is interesting, not psychedelics. People have
| just sort of gone along with the idea that psychedelics
| precipitate mental illness more than other drugs, or
| other life activities. There isn't really strong data for
| that with LSD.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > From my read of the scientific literature, most
| situations like the ones you describe are at least
| partially caused by underlying disorders that pre-existed
| (and manifested).
|
| Do you have a qualifying medical certificate and
| professionally diagnosed my friend? The answer is no. So
| don't try to down play a serious incident you have ZERO
| knowledge of.
|
| > And the second one you describe is a pretty common story
| to be told (same rumor at my college).
|
| When my teacher told us the story she was quite emotional
| and serious. It could be a well intentioned lie to
| discourage "drug use" but again, you have no way of knowing
| the truth so knock it off.
| dekhn wrote:
| Note that my text was written to not specifically say
| that you lied, or misinterpreted the situation. my point
| was "the average observation is not entirely consistent
| with your anecdote", and "if a person does a crazy thing
| on drugs, it may not have been the drugs that made them
| crazy"
|
| (as for credentials- no, no actual medical credentials,
| but I do have a phd in biophysics [emphasis on drug
| discovery], and have worked in the field of medical
| biology for decades). More importantly, my goal is here
| to avoid the "reefer madness" effect by countering
| establishment propaganda and college rumors with my read
| of the scientific literature, and also to raise awareness
| that mental illness is common and that psychedelic drugs
| can be a precipitating condition that turns a maintained
| disease into an emergency.
|
| Trip responsibly,
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Do you have a qualifying medical certificate and
| professionally diagnosed my friend?
|
| It's weird that you yourself don't require these kinds of
| qualifications to participate in this discussion. I guess
| you don't need them in order to disqualify people from
| disagreeing with you.
| docandrew wrote:
| Is that any less reason to think this isn't a good idea?
| How many latent, otherwise-benign disorders might become
| manifest if people experiment with these drugs?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Or with alcohol, or with religion, or with watching
| movies about time travel.
| docandrew wrote:
| Is there a Biff Tannen copycat crime spree I wasn't aware
| of?
| ruined wrote:
| if you are worried about the harmful behavioral effects of
| psychedelics, consider that a significant fraction of all
| violent crimes involve alcohol:
|
| * 15% of robberies
|
| * 37% of sexual assaults
|
| * 27% of aggravated assaults
|
| * 60% of domestic violence (victim reported)
|
| * 40% of child abusers (self reported)
|
| * 40% of convicted murderers (self reported)
|
| * 30% of traffic violence fatalities
|
| https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/
|
| psychedelics are essentially insignificant and are almost
| never involved in violence.
| worik wrote:
| Yes. And.
|
| I often hear stories about people tripping on mushrooms
| getting upto mischief. When I did I always find that, along
| with the mushrooms, there was a bottle of whiskey, or
| equivalent.
|
| My culture is _awash_ with alcohol. It is hard to
| disentangle the dreadful effects of the alcohol overdose
| experience form the psychedelic experience after consuming
| a bottle of whiskey.
| dsl wrote:
| Sounds like both should be illegal then?
| akomtu wrote:
| No, it means both should be legal and the behavior is
| what should be prosecuted, not the substance taken.
| altruios wrote:
| An English teacher you say... you have a reference for that -
| or is that just an iteration/mutation of the original story?
| (Frank Olson)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson
|
| Basically a chemist gets secretly drugged with a massive dose
| of LSD, then nine whole days later allegedly jumps out the
| window of a hotel... this was after he was declared a
| possible security risk...
|
| So more than likely he was helped out that window.
|
| If not that - it was probably the guilt: for being a part of
| MKUltra and the clandestine drugging of American citizens -
| he had a moral crisis, that much is certain.
|
| I'm not saying your story isn't true... but I've been on the
| internet long enough to see how stories morph over time.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I agree there was no justification to their criminality but
| would like to caution against portraying them too widely as
| harmless. Specifically, psychadelics should be considered very
| carefully(and potentially not partaken in at all) in context of
| those who have experienced psychosis or are relatives of people
| with psychotic disorders.
| worik wrote:
| This is a bit disingenuous.
|
| I have known too many people with "psychotic disorders". I
| have learnt the hard way to show such people enormous
| respect. A person who cannt distinguish a real thing from a
| thought is somebody that can do very surprising things.
|
| These can be wonderful things, great artists etcetera. But it
| can also mean unexpected violence.
|
| Yes "psychadelics should be considered very carefully... in
| context of those who have experienced psychosis". Everything
| should in that context.
|
| A cup of tea should be.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that is causing you
| to behave as if someone who had experienced psychosis
| cannot live a full, functioning, well-managed life. Someone
| with a well-controlled schizophrenia spectrum/psychotic
| disorder/mood disorder with psychosis does not generally
| have to be careful about "everything". Someone who
| experiences psychosis due to insomnia, dehydration, or
| drugs generally does not pose a risk to themselves or
| others once the causal factor is removed. I understand your
| reaction may be coming from a place of trauma but please
| understand it is misinformed.
| worik wrote:
| > you to behave as if someone who had experienced
| psychosis cannot live a full, functioning, well-managed
| life
|
| It is true that it is possible to manage psychosis.
|
| But it is also true that if you live with some one with
| psychosis you _must_ respect the illness.
|
| Denying that is dangerous. Unexpected violence is
| dangerous, and unexpected violence is a common symptom of
| psychosis.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| People who experience psychosis are more likely to be the
| victims of violence than the perpetrators of it, and it
| is perfectly safe to live with someone who has a well-
| managed disorder with psychosis as part of its symptom
| profile. I understand this may not be your personal
| experience.
| autoexec wrote:
| While most people harping on the "there are no known negative
| health effects." claim are talking about the drugs making
| people crazy I would point out that some psychedelics can also
| make people become sick. It passes, no long term harm, but it
| still seems like a miserable time and one I'd call a "negative
| health effect".
|
| Sure, too much alcohol can cause people to get sick too, but
| then nobody ever said alcohol had "no known negative health
| effects" either.
| worik wrote:
| Remember when you compare the health effects, public health
| or private health, of LSD and alcohol, you are making a
| strong recommendation for LSD.
| pengaru wrote:
| Years ago I interacted with hippies openly selling commercial-
| looking individually wrapped chocolates containing psilocybin in
| Golden Gate Park.
|
| This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already
| weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense.
| da39a3ee wrote:
| > This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics
| already weren't a priority for the police in any practical
| sense.
|
| Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't
| have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's
| rarely easy, and often falls through.
| sva_ wrote:
| I think if you can get some cryptocurrency and have access to
| the internet using Tor, it is incredibly easy. In fact I'd
| say, DO NOT buy acid on the street.
|
| If you live in the EU, you can even acquire a legit
| derivative legally on the 'clearnet'.
| tsol wrote:
| Sure, but darknet markets have a different sort of risk.
| From what I understand they can still intercept it and
| charge you for it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > openly selling commercial-looking individually wrapped
| chocolates containing psilocybin
|
| https://mushroomoneupbars.com/
|
| IDK, people cheaply deliver these politely, promptly and
| dependably to your door where I live, and I don't live in CA.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Whenever someone says something like that, you know they
| don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal
| drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.
|
| As this is a public record, I'm in total agreement with you.
| I have zero experience acquiring illegal drugs, _none_.
|
| To not distinguish psychedelics from "illegal drugs" however,
| especially in the context of San Francisco, suggests to me
| you don't have much experience with the city.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Same totally in agreement. I have never in my life acquired
| any illegal drugs. I have absolutely no idea if weed, molly
| and lsd are regularly advertised on WhatsApp here and
| wouldn't considered the complexity as akin to ordering on
| Uber Eats.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Two weeks ago I was picnicking with friends at Mission
| Dolores Park in San Francisco and multiple vendors came by
| with cute baskets full of weed and psychedelic mushrooms for
| sale. They even accept Venmo for payment. We weren't looking,
| these people just wander around offering them to every group
| they walk past.
| acchow wrote:
| This is San Francisco we're talking about... you just have to
| sit at Dolores Park and wait for the sellers to walk by....
|
| Also, the chocolate brownies are pretty good and even
| sometimes have drug-free versions too!
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Ahhh I was just at Dolores Park and I never thought to ask
| the vendors if they had regular brownies! Thanks for the
| tip.
| hemloc_io wrote:
| hah still a thing, and now they do delivery and have
| punchcards.
|
| Supposedly one of them works with a prof at Berkeley to make
| their product
| lalos wrote:
| That's the premise of Breaking Bad, but with a twist.
| [deleted]
| YesWeWill wrote:
| [deleted]
| briffle wrote:
| A line that is repeated by any LSD dealer in any college
| town...
| pessimizer wrote:
| Because it's often true, and was universally true for late-
| Xers, early-Millennials?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard
|
| Back then (the 90s), LSD was $2/hit.
| cammikebrown wrote:
| The wholesale price of LSD is currently under $2/hit.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That was retail in the 90s, but considering inflation
| that sounds like we're finally getting back to Pickard
| pricing. My local sources run an order of magnitude
| higher.
|
| _edit, for anyone curious about 90s wholesale:_
| "Government informant Skinner testified that Petaluma Al
| and the largest wholesale customers of Pickard paid 29
| cents per 100 ug dose, which would put the cost at around
| $2.97 million for a kilogram of LSD."
|
| _edit:_ I 'm annoyed by the math used in this quote.
| They couldn't say $2.9 million or "around" $3 million?
| chasd00 wrote:
| A kg of pure lsd would be a site to behold. I don't know
| how you could even handle it in any semi-safe way.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| somehow I can't reply to djhn's comment, but what makes
| large amounts of LSD unsafe is how readily it gets
| absorbed into the blood stream through the skin in
| amounts that are metabolically massive. Look up
| "thumbprinting"
| loves_mangoes wrote:
| That's mostly a myth, it's not very well absorbed through
| the skin at all.
|
| For a thumbprint, you still put your thumb on your tongue
| and lick it. But it's important to keep in mind that only
| very rarely have people actually done thumbprints. Those
| are mostly stories, legends, and artistic works of
| fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take them as
| fact.
| pengaru wrote:
| Albert Hoffman _discovered_ LSD by accidentally absorbing
| it through his fingertips. [0]
|
| > While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally absorbed a
| small amount of the drug through his fingertips and
| discovered its powerful effects.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD#Discovery
| cwkoss wrote:
| idk, the rainbow family (lsd distribution network)
| requiring inductees to take a thumbprint to test that
| they aren't cops and see if they can handle the
| inevitable accidental dosing that can occur when laying
| blotter makes a lot of sense to me.
|
| I wouldn't assert that it's 'fact' but seems very
| plausible. (A full 'thumbprint' is probably uncommon, but
| ingesting a visible amount of crystal from a fingertip
| seems believable)
| effingwewt wrote:
| Oh it's very well absorbed through the skin, and not a
| myth at all, and can be easily searched many places
| online.
|
| We would routinely put this to the test.
|
| Not only is it absorbed through the skin, but it takes
| longer to start and end the trip. We would do it on
| purpose for a longer/more intense trip if we were say
| camping for the weekend.
| djhn wrote:
| Chemistry and LSD newbie question: what would make it
| unsafe?
| paulmd wrote:
| it'll go through skin, and if you spilled a bunch on an
| ungloved hand you're going to be going for a ride, which
| is of course the origin of the 'bicycle day' itself and
| the discovery of LSD.
|
| of course, many things are not safe on the skin and
| that's not uniquely dangerous, really
| xvedejas wrote:
| LSD is extremely potent at small quantities (dozens of
| micrograms); exposure to even a small fraction of this (a
| few grams, say) could be enough to put someone into a
| non-responsive state for a few days. I don't think it'd
| cause permanent damage, but still not something to
| underestimate.
| kirsebaer wrote:
| There are reports in medical journals of people
| accidentally taking hundreds of doses of LSD, and they
| all were sober within 24 hours.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Three case reports for LSD overdoses: https://www.researc
| hgate.net/publication/339234169_LSD_Overd...
| nattmat wrote:
| In my experience, double the dose lasts the same amount
| of time, but the peak is more intense. It seems the brain
| just gets used to the sensation after a while.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think 24 hours may be an underestimate for 'sober' -
| LSD's half life is 3.6 hours, so after 24 hours blood
| concentration should be reduced to ~1/64th. Sober within
| 2-3 days is probably accurate, but I bet anyone who took
| a 100x dose doesn't feel "normal" for at least a couple
| weeks, perhaps months - more from PTSD-like effects from
| the intensity of the experience rather than acute LSD
| intoxication.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Nobody in this world, is taking "hundreds of doses" of
| LSD and sober within 24 hours.
| BTCOG wrote:
| That case report notes a 10x dose, a 5x dose (these are
| pretty standard), and a very loose description of
| snorting 55mg of powdered LSD, which I don't buy. I've
| seen enough folks eat a sheet or down a 10k mic vial and
| trip for a week+ to know better. Possibly the dose report
| was well off, or snorting it and fortunately they didn't
| get much of it or it wasn't pure LSD-25.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I also have a lot of doubt about the last one. The first
| two are light users having strong emotional reactions to
| amounts that would be an un-notable recreational amount
| for others. 55mg is nuts. Five hits won't really even
| make you hallucinate.
|
| As old hippies used to tell me in the 90s, pot is 100x
| stronger than it was in the 60s, and LSD is 100x weaker.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Maybe lsd has changed since the 90s but 2 or 3 hits lasts
| longer than 24hrs. I don't see how "hundreds" would be
| survivable. You would probably just die of exhaustion,
| there's no sleeping on lsd and the harder you try fight
| it the worse it gets.
| loves_mangoes wrote:
| A kilogram is a lot, considering LSD is active at
| microgram doses, although in practice there _are_ labs
| producing and handling kilograms of it.
|
| LSD in powder form is readily available on the black
| market. Expensive (because you don't just go and ask to
| buy only 1mg of LSD powder), but not exceptionally unsafe
| or rare.
|
| Now the people who handle Fentanyl and Fentanyl
| analogues, those probably want to triple check their
| gloves and mask before putting them on.
| throwaway292939 wrote:
| True, but to many, the destigmatization and the recognition of
| practical uses is still important.
| colordrops wrote:
| Psilocybin chocolates are a great way to consume the substance,
| but they are a bad f'n idea in my opinion. A lot of the people
| that get a hold of them are not always in a vigilant state, and
| one of these could easily get into the hands of a child. They
| just look like a normal chocolate.
| g42gregory wrote:
| How are people supposed to drive (or walk on the street for that
| matter), with large number of street population under the
| influence of various drugs?
| hadlock wrote:
| Tell me you've never walked through a non-touristy neighborhood
| in SF without telling me you've never walked through a non-
| touristy neighborhood in SF
| borski wrote:
| This made me lol. Thanks
| 10x_contrarian wrote:
| Psychedelics are not a street drug. The majority of people
| struggling with addiction use crack cocaine, crystal meth, and
| opioids. Those are not decriminalized (technically).
| green-salt wrote:
| they already do with all the people consuming alcohol,
| nicotine, etc.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Carefully and with respect for others' lives.
| g42gregory wrote:
| How about walking? Is your advice to people of San Francisco
| and visitors to walk "carefully" on the streets?
| tikkun wrote:
| [deleted]
| bloppe wrote:
| A more accurate title: SF supervisors would like to decriminalize
| psychedelics
| pvarangot wrote:
| Considering how things went with the fence in 24th St. when
| Ronen actually tried to "criminalize" something
| (https://twitter.com/HillaryRonen/status/1537599919090847745) I
| would say psychedelics are already decriminalized in the city
| wether the board instructs SFPD about making them "the lowest
| possible priority" or not.
|
| This is probably a "propaganda law" to appear progressive while
| actually not doing anything at all except wasting ink and
| breath.
| justizin wrote:
| lowest priority of law enforcement is a meaningful law, sure
| the police do not typically target individual users, but
| producers and distributors are at risk - and nobody can get
| individual amounts without producers and distributors doing
| their thing. this also allows people to come out of the
| shadows which tends to ensure the product _and_ the
| purchasing experience are safer.
|
| Prior to Prop 64, we had a lowest priority ordinance for
| cannabis and it was a useful tool in defending our medical
| dispensaries.
|
| People also have a tendency to get charged with possession
| when arrested for other things, even a traffic warrant or
| case of mistaken identity.
| erdos4d wrote:
| I'm not a SF resident and don't understand this at all, can
| someone explain what happened here?
| kelnos wrote:
| There's a BART station at 24th and Mission streets where
| the aboveground plaza (where the escalator is to get down
| to the station) is just covered with un-permitted street
| vendors. Many of the vendors are selling stolen goods.
| Ronen pledged to clean that up.
|
| Of course, it was all just staged; they swept away the
| vendors, finished their photo op, and after they left, the
| vendors all came back.
|
| I think the grandparent's point is that if they can't/won't
| even enforce laws that they actually claim to enforce, LSD
| use -- something the local government explicitly has not
| cared about for quite some time -- has _already_ been
| unofficially decriminalized. I don 't really agree with the
| overall premise there, though; without getting into whether
| this particular decriminalization is a good idea, leaving
| intentionally-unenforced laws on the books just leads to
| abuse. If particular laws shouldn't be enforced, then they
| should be repealed entirely.
| bombcar wrote:
| I think they're saying that pshychedelics laws are already
| entirely not enforced so this does nothing.
| hemloc_io wrote:
| That whole station is such a cluster. Someone got murdered
| there a week ago or so.
|
| There was some quote with her that her district "went to shit
| during her term" and she seemed confused as to who was
| responsible...
| vhold wrote:
| Here is the resolution they adopted:
| https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5742708...
|
| https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11095427&GUID=46...
|
| I think it is useful because it provides a fairly compelling
| and surprisingly specific list of justifications.
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| itake wrote:
| You think the homeless people were choosing not to do
| psychedelics because its illegal?
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| regret
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-08 23:01 UTC)