In a Nail Biter, Denver Voters Say Yes to Psilocybin Magic Mushrooms: Psychedelic Decriminalized by 2,000 Votes | The shrooms won. City cops are supposed to ignore mushrooms if they find them, and the DA isn't supposed to spend money to prosecute. In other words: no one will go to jail for fungus.

submitted by Orangutan from (therooster.com)

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]fred_red_beans 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO GROWING PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS

List of descriptions of species and strains of Psilocybe mushrooms and others

[–]dcjogger 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Now that the US is bankrupt warmongering police state, are you more disgusted at the elites for paying off the politicians to approve laws that enslave Americans or the pussy Americans who accept it?

[–]Zombi 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's ironic that you posted this in a thread providing an example of the exact opposite of what you're saying. Decriminalizing a harmless psychoactive substance is actually a step in the opposite direction of "enslaving americans". It's actually a very pro-citizen thing to do and gives the people of Denver more freedom. Yes, it's only a single city right now, but weed was the same and now it's snowballing into something much greater.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Half the time these laws are passed there is always a catch. For example, legalization of marijuana just centralized control. It never decriminalized the plant and thusly, the state creates the laws surrounding, many times corporate lobbyists that look to profit off of it. In the future marijuana will just be another fast food item controlled and monopolized by corporate entities such as monsanto.

I have a friend in the marijuana bussiness who says legalization just means state control with more rules, regulations and a bump in prices. He does tests on pesticide residue and toxicities, etc., in buds even organic ones and he says you'd be surprised at the toxic crap they spray on them.

I'm under the suspicion that legalizing weed is just another form of control, it is counter to decriminalization. Meaning follow our rules, pay the numerous, ever expanding and increasing fees, and fuck off.

Also, they continue to militarize the police and are trying very hard to pass strict gun control legislation that merely hurts responsible gun owners.

They hate liberty and freedom, hence why they legalize everything. Plus, in my honest opinion, marijuana is the subtle form of opiate for the masses.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This is the most backwards, hypocritical, and fascist thing I've read in a very long time. More laws = more freedom? More opportunities to arrest someone for harming absolutely nobody = more freedom? Please don't vote.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

More laws = Less freedom

Decriminalization = I won't be murdered for smoking the kush or growing it how I please

Legalization with cronyist ideologues = It's not decriminalized stupid, we just legalized it under our rules, regulations, and ever-increasing fees. Don't pay them, then we will extort or arresst you.

Now decriminalization is great, but legalization needs to be adequately moderated and written into law by the locals and community, not by corporate lobbyists and thr state in order to centralize more control over marijuana.

Yes, more laws that inhibit an individual's god given rights to self-determination. Laws that merely bear the fruits of a rotted fig tree, these laws, are counter to liberty and self-determination, they, instead centralize state control, expand tax codes, and add on more fees for every little thing you do.

Obviously, you didn't understsamd my post. DECRIMINALIZATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LEGALIZATION. I'm for out right decriminalizing marijuana for a competitive market to spring up locally, everywhere. Decriminalization means, you will not be arrested, unlike legalization, where if you don't pay you monstrous fees for growing a few plants, "say hello to the SWAT Team."

I think, ZOMBI, you have it backwards. Please, explain my fascist thinking? Is it facsist to NOT what centralization of power through legalization with obvious cathes, but I instead want OUTRIGHT decriminalization of marijuana. Not sure what you're not getting?

And to top it off, the reductio ab absurdum statement at the end. As if my rational disallows me to vote. Well guess what, the voting system is rigged nationally. I'll vote locally, in my community, but screw the people at the top.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Decriminalization = I won't be murdered for smoking the kush or growing it how I please

Decriminalization means you cannot produce or sell the item. So, no you cannot grow your own weed, you can just own it. This still gives the government power to arrest you for growing a plant in your back yard and also gives the cartels (who rape, murder, and torture thousands) power.

Legalization with cronyist ideologues = It's not decriminalized stupid, ....

That's true of literally anything legalized, it's unavoidable if you live within the USA. I'm sorry bud, but if you don't like it then leave. Also, how horrible to have standards and practices! I can't just sell you bunk weed and I have to adhere to regulations?! Oh the humanity! I'm guessing we should go back to the days when the meat industry literally cost you an arm and a leg to work within as well.

Now decriminalization is great, but legalization needs to be adequately moderated and written into law by the locals and community, not by corporate lobbyists

Then fight against lobbying laws, don't spread this bullshit about legalization. Your problem is with lobbying, which I wholeheartedly agree with, yet your misconstruing it with legalization when they're two completely separate issues.

DECRIMINALIZATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LEGALIZATION. I'm for out right decriminalizing marijuana for a competitive market to spring up locally, everywhere. Decriminalization means, you will not be arrested, unlike legalization, where if you don't pay you monstrous fees for growing a few plants, "say hello to the SWAT Team."

Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. Decriminalization means you CANNOT FORM A MARKET AROUND IT because you can't sell it or buy it! You can only own it, which again, provides criminals, cartel members, gangsters, and every other scumbag a market to profit off of.

Please, explain my fascist thinking? Is it facsist to NOT what centralization of power through legalization with obvious cathes, but I instead want OUTRIGHT decriminalization of marijuana. Not sure what you're not getting?

Because you misunderstand your own argument and you don't understand what decriminalization actually means. It changes NOTHING about the current system and only benefits those who already own weed. You can still get sent to prison for selling large quantities, you can still go to prison for buying weed. You're still giving the police and in turn the government the vast majority of power over the situation.

My statement at the end, while slightly immature, is implying that you are uninformed about how this works and you should not vote because of that. I'm saying you are holding back progress and keeping things largely the same by voting the way I predict you'll vote.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting. I admit I was uninformed regarding decriminalization. Of course my argument still stands that legalization still sets in stone laws on licensure, taxation.l, fee measures, etc., for centralized control. There's no doubting that.

Decriminalization should properly include the selling of a plant, like any other plant, as it was hundreds of years ago. But their junk legal definitions for terms has changed their meanings to their opposite.

Yes, so we are in agreement, thanks for correcting me. I still think marijuana should be outright decriminalized through legislation from ALL activities. Legalization is great, if the locals and community can play their game. Meaning decentralization; the power into the hands of the community, rather than legalization that merely centralized something.

My state legalized marijuana recently, and although, like you've said, it is a step forward, it also could be the final step. That step simply increased prices, implented harsaher regulations, ever expanded fees and rules, centralized control, gave some monopoly power to corporatists, making it hard to start up a smaller bussiness. Basically, legalization in many states l, if, the legislation isn't looked through with a fine toothed comb could be detrimental to liberty annd decentralization

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I'm glad you can see my point now. I'm all for decriminalization of all drugs tbh, for reasons I've already listed. I don't think it's a bad thing at all, but I think legalization is the ultimate goal.

I don't want monopolization over the marijuana industry either and I'll fight right alongside you for laws that allow us regular Joe's to open up small businesses in that market. I can understand your worries on that front, but that's why we need to focus on the actual issue: lobbying (something I'm vehemently against. It's basically a legal bribe and it's corrupt as hell).

I completely understand your worries about over-regulation within the industry as well. I agree; we should be cautious of the laws introduced and "go over them with a fine toothed comb" because as you've stated: huge companies will be looking to stomp out any and all competition through standards that smaller companies just cannot compete with (such as high fees for licensing or expensive materials required to be up to standard as an example). I'm not completely against regulation, though. I feel it's necessary to protect the consumer and the workers within any industry (see the 1920's meat industry for an example of how no regulations can harm and even kill people). I understand your fears of over-regulation and how harmful that can be for small business, but the solution isn't to keep it decriminalized, it's to fight to create a system that benefits small business and the consumer equally, while reigning in the larger corporations to avoid monopolies.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

huge companies will be looking to stomp out any and all competition through standards that smaller companies just cannot compete with...

That's a cronyists idea of a faux-free market. Now when libertairans or classical liberals even mention free market capitalism people think they are referring to the neoliberal idea of free markets. Regulation is needed to curtail over-regulation of small businesses as well as making it virtuously impossible to create a monopoly that actively infringes on an individuals right to the liberties he is endowed with upon birth. God's law and common law, something the state despises for its people to understand and utilize to their benefit will be suppressed by them till death. Hence, why they have ridded the teachings of these fundamental laws.

EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID I AGREE WITH. When I refer to a free market, I'm referring to the classical liberal stance, not the neoliberal one. However, does it really matter when the regulators ARE bought off by the cronyists? It is a revolving door. People claim Trump deregulated certain sectors of the markets and the economy but in reality they regulated it for themselves. As the regulators have obvious conflicts of interests. They simply just change words to lawfully mean something else, and this is what confuses almost everyone who does not have an iota of knowledge concerning law.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"if you can't beat em, join em" - if you cant stop people from accessing mushrooms, legalize it and tax them for it. You are not wrong per se.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everything will be legalized, thus it is in the states and their cronyists hands. People fail to realize legalization is just state control with the added bonus of higher, ever expanding fees, rules and regulations. Do not mix legalization and decriminalization up!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

jesus = a mushroom

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

No.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

anddd blocked.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

But yes. In fact, the original Christians celebrated the Lord's Supper with a fly agaric. The fly agaric was later replaced with the wafer by the Catholics. Get your facts together, Jesus. Your "meat" at the Last Supper was originally the dried pulp of a magic mushroom.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Proof?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Former Jesuit John Allegro, who appeared to have access to some ancient writings that are kept from the public in Vatican, theorized in his book "The Secret Cult of the Sacred Mushroom" that Jesus was actually a toadstool and that so-called "primitive Christianity" was nothing other than a secret toadstool cult. The fly agaric was the flesh of Christ, which was consumed at the Last Supper, a nocturnal cult circle, along with the blood of Christ, red wine. If that's true, "early Christianity" would be a direct continuation of the cult of Dionysus, in which apparently wine infused with mushrooms was drunk.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ahh yes Jesuits. Not killing the messenger but Jesuits like to invert many teachings of Christianity. It's secret though, so they couldnjust be making it up. Do you have sources?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't I put the source in the comment? oO

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Did they? Proof... does the greek, Aramaic texts indicate mushrooms?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My source is a natural history compendium that a fellow writer, Eckard Freuwört, has released as free pdf version in German language. The comprehensive work includes the categorical registration of all known and now unknown medicinal herbs and magic mushrooms. I am sure there will be some insightful information about this topic on the internet as well.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A mushroom once told me that this planet is the mushroom-planet, because there would be no life and no death without mushrooms. He said that mushrooms are neither animals nor plants, but that they connect both realms withanother when plants rot and flesh decays. He said that nothing of all on this planet would exist if it weren't for the mushrooms. You live so that you have to shit and to die. It is all for the mushrooms, because they grow on shit and corpses, he said. The meaning of life is to be livestock for the mushrooms, he said. Reality is but a big shroom-trip floating around somewhere in the universe, he said.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have a friend who decided to test his mental stamina by taking 1/4 oz of shrooms in one sitting. This was kind of an unusual situation, because no one else was tripping.

About an hour and a half into his trip, it became a bit overwhelming for him.
Pretty soon he was lying under the bathroom sink in mental misery. He kept telling us we needed to takes him to the hospital. Probably for an hour, or two.

We reminded him that a trip to the hospital meant having his stomach pumped at a minimum (it's difficult to imagine that while tripping), and a high probability of additional legal issues. He didn't care.

But we did. We weren't going to take his ass to the hospital, so he could finish his miserable trip strapped to a hospital bed (which is the worst possible situation if your tripping (excluding actual injury)).
Also, who knows what he'd say to the police/hospital staff, we weren't worried any being incriminated, but we were far from interested in that sort of hassle.

He was fine after the trip ended, but he was clearly worn out.
Deep bags under his eyes, coupled with a disinterested gaze for the next few days.
I can only speculate about what he went through, and he had difficulty putting words to it.
He didn't really want to discuss it either.
It was definitely mind bending.

Don't take your freinds to the hospital if they're nominally coherent if they're tripping; unless they're injured.
They'll be fine, but temporarily a bit worse for wear.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

In historic indigenous cultures the use of psychedelics is considered a spiritual type of experience guided by a shaman. A problem with having psychedelics illegal is that young people will experiment anyways without guidance, respect, and knowledge. Comparatively to other drugs, mushrooms are fairly harmless, although I think they can bring forth tendencies or issues within the person ingesting them. Some individuals are just not well suited for their use. I've seen some individuals who just were never quite the same after the use of psychedelics. For those who's temperament is suited for it, I think mushrooms can be a good tool for self reflection, exploration, and contemplation.

You were right not to take your friend to the hospital.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some individuals are just not well suited for their use.

I agree that it's not for everyone.

I've seen some individuals who just were never quite the same after the use of psychedelics.

It can take you out of your comfort zone. Although that is kind of the point.

Tripping is like increasing the intensity settings on various background perception features. Perception features of everyday consciousness that you can't image are present, until they change slightly.

They aren't generally noticed otherwise, because the baseline is your unaltered normal perspective.

I suppose that I've heard that meditation can produce this level of perception understanding, but that degree of disciplined mediation is exceptionally rare in teenagers.
Cause, we were partying! ;-)