29 replies to this topic

[ilikethings]

 It seems like Jamaica is the top spot since it has no federal laws criminalizing psilocybin.  See https://moj.gov.jm/laws  mycomeditations-style places have been allowed to operate.  And from what I recall a university is partnering with some venture capital suits/ medical groups to establish a psilocybin research lab.

 

Not to mention this (psilocybin nasal spray): https://news.yahoo.c...7KPKke4dflmv7Ec

 

They developed it in Jamaica.  I read it's legal like radishes in Jamaica bc they didn't join/sigh the UN Convention on Drugs back in the early 1970s. 

Edited by ilikethings, 25 November 2020 - 07:02 PM.

[Myc]

The State of New Mexico also has legal precedent for tolerating the cultivation and consumption of "magic" mushrooms for personal use. I imagine that distribution or commercial production would get one into some trouble. For personal use, so long as you're not passing them out in public - they're not going to kick your door in or make a fuss. Of course, this is in regards to State traditions and is not really "law". The Feds can still take action if you're really attracting attention to yourself.

I have heard rumors of psychotherapists employing them in therapeutic sessions for the treatment of PTSD. But I have no evidence - just rumor.

 

What raises the question?

[ilikethings]

@Myc, Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the NM situation.  I think it was this case: State of New Mexico vs David Ray Pratt that concluded in 2005 where the court found that the growing of psilocybin mushrooms is "manufacturing of a controlled substance."  see: https://www.abqjourn...ush06-15-05.htm

 

I raised the question because I have been following the developments in Jamaica but also hear stories of people stating that they are "legal" in costa rica and brazil (I think Dennis McKenna is starting a facility in Brazil) but I have not been able to verify this because I am not fluent in Spanish (Costa Rican laws are in Spanish I think) or Portuguese (Brazil).

 

I got on this kick by first trying to locate the evidence used by the DEA to classify psilocybin as schedule 1 material, i.e. if schedule 1 materials are (1) have no medical benefit, and (2) have a high risk of abuse, then what evidence did the DEA rely on to arrive at this conclusion.  I have yet to find anything.  In other similar situations like MSDS sheets in manufacturing facilities rate chemicals according to dangerousness...but there are studies that support the classifications, e.g. this chemical was found to cause cancer in x% of mice, et al. 

[Myc]

When researching the "justification" behind drug laws you'll find that much of the information was made-up off of the cuff. There is no (real, scientific) research supporting that psilocybin fits into the schedule 1 category.

Same happened with cannabis.

 

It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask for permission. I just do what I feel is right for me and disregard any rules which don't apply to my situation. If magic mushrooms could kill a man - I would have been dead loooooooong ago.

As for them being schedule 1 - having high abuse potential and no medical value..........Pah!!!

I was a hopeless case who could not be helped by the "rehabilitation" or "psychiatric" industry. After taking high-doses of mushrooms and trying DMT........I am a highly functional member of my community who now brings value to the table. I no longer use hard drugs like meth or cocaine, I no longer drink hard alcohol in destructive quantities, I no longer struggle with feelings of inadequacy or being left-out.

Top that off with the fact that (with exception of a recent small recreational dose of mushrooms) I haven't used mushrooms since 2012 or so. The effects and changes to the psyche are lasting and do not require repeated dosing as in the case of dangerous pharmaceutical prescription medications which include suicidal thoughts as one of the side-effects. Nor do I have to sub-contract to a paid psychologist to validate my success. I just live the dream now.

 

I won't argue with medicine or medical science. I did what I did and it worked. Enough said. I stand as living evidence of the healing potential represented by natural resources and my experience cannot be denied - altered - or taken from me.

[ilikethings]

@Myc, Yes I agree with you re the evidence used to schedule plisocybin as schedule 1....that the DEA simply stated such with no evidence.  I have been approaching this issue from a legal perspective.  It is a lot of work, e.g. needing to go beyond the statutes and into the administrative regulations....basically looking for a process to challenge the scheduling decision/looking for legal "presumptions" et al.  Basically working on a legal memo regarding this issue...a lot or work for no money.  :(  but just trying to do my part toward reform.

 

My rambling point being, when a fed agency like EPA classifies/bans a chemical for use in industry/commerce, they actually have to show studies that support their decision...but apparently the DEA does not.

Edited by ilikethings, 06 December 2020 - 05:33 PM.

[rockyfungus]

Another political device to control the masses. They scheduled drugs to discriminant against certain races.

 

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Right around the time of my psychedelic use did my world view/consumerism change. Psychedelics are for the most part bad for capitalism.

Edited by rockyfungus, 06 December 2020 - 11:58 PM.

[ilikethings]

rockyfungus, preaching to the choir brother.  To add to what you stated--and something later in time:

 

Richard Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer as the head of a commission to determine how marijuana should be regulated pursuant to the passage of the CSA of 1970.  
 
On March 22, 1972, Mr. Shafer presented a report to Congress and the public entitled "Marijuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding”. The Commission concluded that marijuana users "are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marijuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marijuana use." They found that, "Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety." The Commission recommended "Decriminalization of possession of marijuana for personal use on both the state and federal levels." 
 
Raymond Shafer was a decorated WWII veteran and the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania from 1967-1971.

[rockyfungus]

I bet Pennslytucky will be one of the last NE states to decriminalize.

They have so much land and old factories to use.

[ilikethings]

I bet Pennslytucky will be one of the last NE states to decriminalize.

They have so much land and old factories to use.

Never been there...as far as I can recall.  But I agree. I think (but may be wrong) that they have a medical cannabis law but it's pretty restrictive relative to other States.  Considering most of that state seems to be very christian (in the classic American sense) and perceive the use of "mind altering" substances other than alcohol and tobacco to be a sin (but I am not aware of the bible citation that those people who oppose legalization on religious grounds would reference), I also doubt psilo will be legalized there any time soon. 

 

I'm fairly knowledgeable about the bible and an analogous issue would be gay relations--to which there is a law in Leviticus (and/or Deuteronomy) that states that a man shall not lay with another man.  But, from what I understand, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are law books that are in the Bible but technically only apply to members of the Jewish faith/tribe--and do not apply to Christians, e.g. most Christians violate many laws in those books such as eating pork, shellfish, and wearing clothing made from more than one type of material--not to mention the debt and usury laws, e.g. no jew shall lend money to a fellow member of the tribe at interest (which is why many Noble rulers in Europe had a "Court Jew" in their entourage--for conducting money lending in accordance with Biblical law).  To explain further, many Christian Noble rulers interpreted the anti-usury law not only to apply to jews but to anyone of a uniform tribe, i.e. so Christians were also prohibited from lending money at interest to other Christians.  So to get around the rule, a Christian Nobleman would use a Jewish person as an intermediary...and technically, a Jewish person would need to use a non-jew as an intermediary.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not pro or anti religion; nor is what I stated above "anti-semetic."  It's just history.  see: https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Court_Jew

Edited by ilikethings, 13 December 2020 - 05:09 PM.

[Myc]

And after Sodom and Gomorrah the daughters of Lot seduced him - which is perfectly cool (I guess).

 

There is no arguing with entrenched systems like politics and religion. They make the rules.

 

I totally admire your intent. But no power on earth has ever listened to the voice of reason. Moses plead over and over for Pharaoh to "let my people go".

Even that story is f-cked up in and of itself. Read the conversations between God and Moses. When the people were doing "good" - they were My (God's) people. When they were doing wrong - the were your (Moses's) people. It seems even God, Himself likes to play both sides. Or maybe I missed something fundamental. Prolly requires some 'splaining from religion to straighten it all out. LOL

Edited by Myc, 13 December 2020 - 05:14 PM.

[ilikethings]

@Myc, Yea I hear you.  I was just trying to give some context for why I think the US State of PN would be unlikely to legalize psilo anytime soon.  I get the "because it's a sin" comment often from people but they never have a Biblical citation to support their claim.

[Myc]

I didn't think to address that statement.

In the book of Genesis we (mankind) were only forbidden the fruit of one, single tree.

In accordance with the story we are being punished or cursed as a result of that fruit having been eaten. Adam, Eve, and all of their offspring are being punished for that transgression.

 

I've always been one who believes:

"If I have do do the time (punishment) then I'm also going to commit the crime."  So, basically, fuck 'em. Anything goes. Just don't attract attention.  -- Follow that -- Just do as you do and don't attract attention. It is the colorful bird which gets caged or eaten. Attract no attention to yourself - unless you've had some sort of "burning bush" moment. And even then I would caution you that the bush is a fickle character and just as likely to hang you out to dry as any perceived enemy.

Thinking of Moses again. He was denied access to the promised land after all of his hard work and loyalty. He struck the rock as opposed to speaking to the rock to bring forth water.

Lots of weird shit in that old book of stories.

[Arathu]

The funniest thing happens each year down in the Ohio River valley (literally and metaphorically)..........

 

Mushrooms grow regardless of man's books and laws......all kinds in fact...

 

I'm glad...

 

A

[ilikethings]

So I take it that noone is aware of a story where a person was arrested for picking wild psilocybe mushrooms?  Those are the stories I'm looking for since they are the most absurd--that a person is arrested for picking mushrooms that grow naturally on their's or public property.  I know I've seen videos in the past of cops sitting in the bushes waiting to arrest mushroom pickers but I can't find them now.

Edited by ilikethings, 01 January 2021 - 07:00 PM.

[bezevo]

in the bush hummmm

[Sidestreet]

I think that with time we'll see more jurisdictions legalizing or decriminalizing mushrooms for personal use.  Some of the best opportunities to do it are in places where citizens can enact a ballot initiative.  While I like Myc's ideas and I want to subscribe to his pamphlet, I would also like to see psychedelics brought out into the light.  I don't want to be a criminal and have to risk my freedom and many other things in my life just to be able to explore my own consciousness. 

 

 

 

There is no (real, scientific) research supporting that psilocybin fits into the schedule 1 category.

 

Ignoring the political forces that put psilocybin into Schedule I and focusing on the text of the Controlled Substances Act, it's a lack of scientific research that the gubmint used to rationalize sticking drugs into that category:

 

 

1) Schedule I.—

 

A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

21 U.S. Code § 812(b)(1) - Schedules of controlled substances

 

It's the lack of evidence for "accepted medical use" "under medical supervision" that checks two out of three boxes.  And for decades, the government did its best to obstruct research into Cannabis and psychedelics, thereby keeping them from being moved out of Schedule I.

 

As an example of how this obstruction works, you can read the complaint in a lawsuit filed against the DeEeAy this month here.  It's nineteen double-spaced pages and a bit dense, so a good place to start is the heading "Factual Background" on Page 5.

 

The good news is that there has been more and more evidence for medical uses for things like Cannabis, MDMA, and psilocybin in recent years, so the justification for Schedule I is getting thinner and thinner.

 

---

 

On a separate topic, I wanted to say something about the case in New Mexico regarding manufacturing.  While the case cited above does seem to exclude magic mushrooms grows from the definition of "manufacturing", I would NOT go so far as to say someone can avoid criminal liability for growing mushrooms there on that basis alone.  The state of the law is not determined by a single case, nor is any individual's potential criminal liability.  One could probably get into just as much trouble there as anywhere else.  For starters, just glancing at New Mexico's state controlled substances statute, I note that psilocybin is still a Schedule I substance there.  If you really want to know what's up there, though, you should talk to a New Mexico defense attorney.

Edited by Sidestreet, 03 January 2021 - 03:50 PM.

[ilikethings]

Thanks for the thorough analysis Sidestreet!  Very informative.  With regard to the definition of "accepted medical use," would you happen to know if that is defined by administrative regulation or if it is simply defined by whoever the acting administrator/bureaucrat in that position is?

 

I concur re your comments on New Mexico.  I'd be curious if they have enacted a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."  The template for the act that has been shoped around to several states relies on citations to the Native American drug cases from the early/mid-1990s.  Although that "act" is generally introduced by Republicans, I wonder why Dems don't "bite the bullet" and go along with it since it would provide a defense to criminal use and possession charges of, at the very least, so called natural psychedelics.

 

I'm not familiar with NM's drug laws, but I do know that some states that classify psilo as schedule 1 also have statutes that define specific penalties for different schedule 1 materials/substances.  Some states treat the so called "classic psychedelics" with less harsh penalties than other schedule 1 substances--even where psilo is also a schedule 1 substance.

Edited by ilikethings, 13 January 2021 - 04:40 AM.

[Sidestreet]

 

With regard to the definition of "accepted medical use," would you happen to know if that is defined by administrative regulation or if it is simply defined by whoever the acting administrator/bureaucrat in that position is?

 

It looks to be a combination of boring bureaucratic mechanics combined with political will.  I suspect the political will is the one and only key, in the end.

 

Here's a description of the process from a 2013 article by Brookings, which is a "nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC."

 

 

So, how does administrative rescheduling work? It is not as easy as some in the marijuana advocacy community—and critics of the Obama administration’s position on this issue—would have you think. It is a complex process in which scientific, medical, policy and political forces have influence. In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.

 

If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

 

The politics of rescheduling

 

While in an ideal world the FDA, DEA, and Attorney General would make their determinations about marijuana scheduling solely based on scientific, medical, and policy considerations, the reality is quite different. These choices are ultimately made by presidential appointees and others sensitive to political considerations.

https://www.brooking...y-anytime-soon/

 

 

If you're interested, there's a lot of other good law and policy in the article regarding cannabis legalization and how cannabis has been treated by the federal government as states have been legalizing.  There's also a handy flow chart that shows how the legislature can simply re-schedule drugs as they see fit, while the administrative/agency rulemaking route seems much more complex (not that the path for legislation isn't complex, but it can happen pretty fucking fast when Congress wants it to.)

 

Then there's Americans for Safe Access vs. DEA, a case from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit involving a lawsuit against the DEA.  I haven't read it but it's apparently about a group who sued the DEA to reschedule cannabis (spoiler: the DEA won.)  The case might be relevant now because one of the Circuit Judges ruling on it was Hon. Merrick Garland, who will soon be the new U.S. Attorney General, and therefore could play some role in the rescheduling of cannabis if the legislature doesn't do it.  He'll definitely have a role to play in the way the federal government enforces the federal laws surrounding cannabis.  Careful: his actions as a judge don't necessarily translate to his future actions as Attorney General.  Still, if you're interested in the scheduling process, it looks like the case will illuminate it for you.

 

Here's an article that discusses Merrick Garland's position on pot directly: https://thefreshtoas...nd-on-cannabis/

Edited by Sidestreet, 13 January 2021 - 06:03 AM.

[ilikethings]

 

 

With regard to the definition of "accepted medical use," would you happen to know if that is defined by administrative regulation or if it is simply defined by whoever the acting administrator/bureaucrat in that position is?

 

It looks to be a combination of boring bureaucratic mechanics combined with political will.  Agree.  I suspect the political will is the one and only key, in the end. 

 

Here's a description of the process from a 2013 article by Brookings, which is a "nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC."

 

 

So, how does administrative rescheduling work? It is not as easy as some in the marijuana advocacy community—and critics of the Obama administration’s position on this issue—would have you think. It is a complex process in which scientific, medical, policy and political forces have influence. In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.

 

If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

 

Uhg.  I was under the impression that the agency (DEA) could re-schedule substances without conducting the entire admin rule change procedures, e.g. allowing the "public" comment period, et al.  But this also suggests that there should be evidence in the Federal Register from when psilo was first scheduled, i.e. perhaps shortly after the passage of the Nixon Narcotics Act.  My main point is that there should be some evidence, accurate or not, that was entered into the record upon the initial scheduling of a substance--including psilo.  

 

If you're interested, there's a lot of other good law and policy in the article regarding cannabis legalization and how cannabis has been treated by the federal government as states have been legalizing.  There's also a handy flow chart that shows how the legislature can simply re-schedule drugs as they see fit, while the administrative/agency rulemaking route seems much more complex (not that the path for legislation isn't complex, but it can happen pretty fucking fast when Congress wants it to.)

 

Then there's Americans for Safe Access vs. DEA, a case from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit involving a lawsuit against the DEA.  I haven't read it but it's apparently about a group who sued the DEA to reschedule cannabis (spoiler: the DEA won.)  The case might be relevant now because one of the Circuit Judges ruling on it was Hon. Merrick Garland, who will soon be the new U.S. Attorney General, and therefore could play some role in the rescheduling of cannabis if the legislature doesn't do it.  He'll definitely have a role to play in the way the federal government enforces the federal laws surrounding cannabis.  Careful: his actions as a judge don't necessarily translate to his future actions as Attorney General.  Still, if you're interested in the scheduling process, it looks like the case will illuminate it for you.

 

Thanks.  I'll def check it out.

 

Here's an article that discusses Merrick Garland's position on pot directly: https://thefreshtoas...nd-on-cannabis/

 

Overall, I think it would be simpler (perhaps not the right word) to do it through the legislature.  Or as noted in the the article, the rule making process is largely dictated by an EO.  The President could easily change that order to create legal evidentiary presumptions (certain burdens of proof or even explicit presumption of "not likely to be abused" and "unlikely to cause physical harm" that apply to certain substances) in favor of rescheduling/de-scheduling certain substances once "the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself." 

Edited by ilikethings, 16 January 2021 - 04:39 AM.

[ilikethings]

P.S. I think, were there a wealthy benefactor(s) willing to put in $2-$5million in lobbying/marketing/politician "education"/emotional shaming (and I was in charge), a federal legislative reform program might work to at least remove psilo from Schedule 1.  Ideally it would de-schedule it and treat it like potatoes or may apples (i.e. there are many unregulated plants that contain toxins capable of killing humans (anyone with a basic ability can extract the nicotine from a single pack of cigarettes to create a quantity capable of killing a person)--presumably because they do not also induce altered mental states.  Having a bit of experience in such efforts, I'd make the focus of the campaign videos to be of sad dying people (e.g. stage 4 cancer patients in hospice beds begging their elected representatives and senators to change the law) who just want a chance to relieve their anxiety of death with a natural substance with no known physiological side-effects.  e.g "right to try" laws.

 

This formula seemed to have been effective in Canada in 2020.  I saw (but don't have the link handy) many of the terminal patients' videos they sent to parliament (truly heart wrenching--I started to cry).  here is a thank you video from one of them:

[Direct Link]

 

It's the idea that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  i.e, ads creating shame about smoking tobacco seemed to be more effective than any laws.

 

The idea is to make the "activists" as sympathetic as possible.  e.g. the D.C. gun case (D.C. v. Heller) where the attorneys waited/sought to find for the most sympathetic plaintiff they could find--a former cop with no baggage and no criminal history who simply wanted a handgun for home protection.

Edited by ilikethings, 17 January 2021 - 07:35 PM.