Consumption happens at centers, supervised by a licensed trip sitter ("facilitator", sure, whatever). The "streets" of Portland aren't affected. You won't be able to (legally) buy shrooms the way you can buy pot.

Not sure what exactly is going on, but there is a shroom store operating quite publicly on the east side.

Regardless, this will have no impact on "the streets of Portland". The real problem are much harder, "less fun" drugs, namely fentanyl and meth that are destroying people's mental health and lifes all over the US. Also, 50% of homeless in Portland arrived there homeless.

This looks like it might be a different place (or at least a different location), but here's an OPB/AP article about a place that was operating quite openly, illegally, and got raided[0].

[0]: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/09/oregon-store-allegedl...

Sweet, rather than doing it at home exclusively with people you trust, some fucking stranger in a facility can watch you at your vulnerable moments and you get to pray they don't take advantage of it.

I mean, I think psilocybes (and LSD!) should be fully deregulated, sure :)

However:

(1) If you trust your illicit psilocybin sources, OR already decriminalizes personal use drugs (Measure 110), so, if this isn't your cup of (psilocybin) tea, there's nothing stopping you from doing precisely what you propose.

(2) If you have a trip sitter you trust and is willing to sit with you, there's nothing stopping you from bringing them to said center. Ostensibly having someone experienced around can't hurt, and is pretty likely better than what most people are getting most of the time. Surely we can agree that it's reasonable that some people would get more out of a trip if they have professional guidance, and it's not just a safety ("is this person going to rob me/assault me") issue? Perhaps a problem is one of assumptions: I think this is set up to allow recreational use but encourage therapeutic use, coupled with the idea that therapeutic use is aided (made possible?) by the presence of trained staff.

Do you feel this way about bartenders?

At sober to moderately buzzed no, anything more yes.

are they serving hallucinogenics? Do you trip on bud light?

No, but the problem was praying state-licensed practitioners don't take advantage of you in an incapacitated state. You might not be hallucinating, but surely there's an amount of alcohol where you're just as helpless if not more than a shroom dose.

The hallucinogenic (not psychedelic) effects of bud light shouldn’t be minimized. It takes a lot more work to achieve and is pretty miserable, like 30 a night for a year, but for sure booze can make you hallucinate. It’s generally considered to be whatever the opposite of therapeutic would be.

My personal experience is heightened awareness and even increased physical strength on mushrooms. Alcohol gets me dizzy, confused, and dumb. So comparatively, I'd be more concerned about someone taking advantage of me drunk than tripping.

Like how Dr. Hannibal Lecter convinced Mason Verger to cut off his own face while on hallucinogens? Yes, there is nothing stopping a psychopath, cannibal therapist from setting up shop and doing this with a deeply troubled patient. It will be a short-lived career, though.

You...understand that was a fictional event, right? In fact it was specifically conceived by its author to be shocking, horrifying and extraordinary.

It never occurred to me that this was fiction, so thank you for helping me finally realize that.

To me, that's actually a really cool part of this. I bet a lot of people who've done shrooms at parties and casually don't really understand it or what it can do for you. But the experience really can be enhanced and useful with some sober guidance, setting, intentions and so on. Very cool experiment. I'm glad Oregon is doing it.

I'm sure there are plenty (like me) who haven't tried it at all who also don't particularly want to try it in a party setting at all but might be inclined to experience it with some sober guidance. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

Well, lets remember how we got there with fentanyl:

"fentanyl was prescribed by doctors to treat severe pain, especially after surgery and for advanced-stage cancer. However, most recent cases of fentanyl-related overdose are linked to illicitly manufactured fentanyl, which is distributed through illegal drug markets for its heroin-like effect."

What is harder to be illicitly manufactured? fentanyl or "shrooms"

One of the key problems with the progressive mindset is the assumption that laws will be followed and enforce effectively regardless of the policy.

That's very much not true. The main progressive argument against strict prohibitions is that people are going to use drugs/alcohol regardless of the law, and so a prohibition will create a black market with organized crime and dangerous conditions for users.

So-called conservative drug policy has been an abject failure. It walked us into an opioid addiction crisis that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Those laws are neither followed or enforced effectively.

I'd rather have liberty than a failing drug policy.

Arguing that the enforcement is not effective is not the same thing as arguing it's bad policy. In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol. There is no evidence to substantiate the belief that legalizing drugs will lead to lower rates of addiction. In particular, the so-called Portuguese model advocates in Oregon ignore the fact that Portugal has way more drug enforcement with its system than Oregon has.

> the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol.

This is interesting. I've only seen data that says the exact opposite of this. Can you cite anything?

Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption.

EDIT: Source (and good reading): https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

> Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded. > > This is not controversial among experts. When I asked Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.”

Did prohibition have problems? yes. But the problem was not that people consumed more. That is a common misconception.

Got it. We just have different metrics for what makes a successful prohibition.

What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws is to reduce consumption-related harms

That is the metric I use, but is not the one you said above, leaving me a little confused.

I said:

> Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption.

Reduced cirrhosis, alcohol deaths, and domestic violence don't count as consumption-related harms? Very confused right now.

I'm not a fan of alcohol prohibition, but rationality requires us to consider the data, especially the data we don't like.

Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.

Some may well believe prohibition increased use, but personally I can't recall ever having seen that argument.

With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result.

It would take a massive increase in harm from the drugs themselves to outweigh that harm.

That's before considering what investing the same resources in other mitigation might achieve.

> With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result.

After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's always going to be illegal producers.

As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for simple possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of people released by President Biden's pardon.

> Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.

Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition was repealed? Because it didn't

> After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's always going to be illegal producers.

And? Any reduction reduces harm. It's also interesting to focus on one of the lowest harm drugs (far less harmful than alcohol), instead of the war on drugs as a whole.

> As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for simple possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of people released by President Biden's pardon.

Not the relevant number. The relevant number for those who committed crimes to further production, distribution or to finance their habit including other than possession and distribution itself.

E.g. handing out heroin to UK addicts in a pilot scheme showed a significant reduction crime other than that, often related to financing their habits, alongside a long range of other benefits (e.g. more stable living situations - unlike the public image, a large proportion of even heroin addicts can function just fine if they have a steady, clean supply at predictable strength; still a dangerous drug but relying on an unpredictable street supply makes it far worse)

> Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition was repealed? Because it didn't

Are you suggesting the mob made up the total harm? Because it didn't. It's also peanuts compared to the current war on drugs which is vastly more violent, with demand fuelling outright military operations in a number of countries on a regular basis.

Supporting the war on drugs is morally no better than outright supporting mass murder.

Even the article you linked suggests prohibition isn't the solution. It suggests a more balanced approach, i.e. regulation.

That is what Oregon is trying with psilocybin.

edit:

This also misses an important part of this whole conversation, personal liberty. I don't want to have my government determining what I can and cannot consume, as long as I can do so without causing others harm.

>In particular, the data show that prohibition works in general, whether it be drugs or alcohol.

Opioid overdoses are at an all time high, despite prohibition.

Even US alcohol Prohibition wasn't an effective solution to America's drinking problem. A much more effective solution was what followed Prohibition; *regulation*.

OK, so the law won't be followed. Are we under the impression there weren't any shrooms available in Portland illicitly?

Sure there are. The last thing we need is more demands for substances that inhibit rational thinking.

Are you advocating for alcohol prohibition also, or is that different? If so, why?

Really hard not to gloss this as “heal people’s trauma, and why would they keep voting conservative?”

I know lots of conservative druggies too.

I read the above as pointing out you won't be able to legally buy it the same way you can legally buy pot in Oregon to consume at home.

I don't think anyone has suggested you won't (continue to) be able to buy it illegally.

>The "streets" of Portland aren't affected. You won't be able to buy shrooms the way you can buy pot.

Lol ok.

Shrooms are highly unlikely to be sought after by people living on the streets. They are orders of magnitude easier to manufacture than more common street drugs, yet are rare to find people in possession of. They are often not fun, especially if you are at a point where you are already suffering, not to mention how quickly the brain develops a tolerance (often after a single dose). They are nearly impossible to abuse.

People on the streets are after opioids, meth, and alcohol, all of which have presently-legal analogs already.

Normally I'd say you'd be right, but I was homeless on the Seattle-Norcal circuit area, with Oregon pretty squarely in the heart of that. They're a different breed.

Could you please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments? You've been doing this repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Mushrooms are already decriminalized in Portland. I've not seen any public incidents of folks on Mushrooms. Most people just stay home.

China liked it!