I have a deep love and appreciation for the scant writings and letters and lectures of Nick Sand - and, of course, his work as a rebel chemist. But, I disagree with him on this point, and think that Rick Doblin from MAPS has the right idea. These things should be legally available, but people should pass a licensing test for no other reason than that it forces the person to sit down and learn some basic trivia - such as, for example, how extremely safe these things are physically, so they are less likely to panic if they think they are dying - and also, to learn about the real risks they carry - I have met two individuals with full blown PTSD from high dose psychedelic experiences (falling on the ground, flailing, PTSD flashbacks), and the issues that they can encounter if they have or might have certain genetic illnesses, like epilepsy or psychotic/manic disorders. And also things like dosing, how tolerance works, and so on.

Licensing is not an unreasonable barrier to driving a vehicle, and I think that it is not an unreasonable barrier to psychedelic use. Sit down and recite the basic info, and you’re free to proceed. Take them however you want to - just sit down and prove you know the basic information you need to have to make an informed decision about taking them. After that? Go raving, or go to a church, or go hiking. Just do it knowing what the thing you’re eating or smoking is, in these sorts of basic medical terms.

To Void: the studies Sand was critiquing were the Strassman studies, which were *intentionally* not well designed setting wise, because they only were able to do the study by saying they just wanted to see how DMT impacted people’s vitals, like heartbeat and blood pressure and what not, hahaha. I’m confident the sorts of things you’re involved with have come much farther since then, and am happy to hear that you are part of this new wave of higher intention work. Thank-you.

I like this idea of licensing. It can be added after decriminalization, no need to wait.

What makes zero sense is to veto decriminalization and allow a random zelous prosecutor/judge to COMPLETLY RUIN someone's life over some mushrooms. Decriminalization should proceed, and improvements/education pursued without demanding that one wait for the other. Anything else is allowing an unjust situation to endure (in my opinion).

Agreed; when it comes to decriminalization, that should imo be blanket universal decriminalization - for all drugs; not just psychedelics.
But in terms of finding bipartisan support, I think it’d be fruitful if we also took measures to redeem enforcement - ie, do two things at once. Because here’s what it looks like, to me:
We have a super liberal state like California, where there’s very little public support for authoritarian enforcement things. Well; okay. But - people are also nervous about how blatantly obvious the social issues with drugs are in a de facto drug anarchy environment (regardless of what the actual laws may be, it’s basically a meth zombie apocalypse in some places - I was shocked when I lived there).

So you have politicians going, “Yeah, great, decriminalize! …. Only, we have some enforcement issues that should probably be prioritized first, or people may be justifiably upset with me for ignoring that part of the issue…. But if I do that first, that’s not politically safe either, because then I’m a tough on crime dickhead….. So, let’s continue doing nothing in either direction and leave it at de facto anarchy!” 🤡

I think the legislation we want can and should be more radical, but it’s not likely that’ll happen until the authoritarians are brought in and acknowledged as valid and good, when reoriented in a new paradigm of what drug enforcement means in a post-decriminalized world. And then after that, we can start looking at regulated psychedelic/entactogenic licensing on one hand, and safer supply hard drug distribution and injection sites on the other.

Basically I think we need to call the cops to the table, and tell them that they have a vital role to play, but it’s a new role, based on a better understanding of drug issues than we once had. I suspect politicians would feel safer proceeding if they were addressing both of these things simultaneously. One to the exclusion of the other just doesn’t seem like a safe move to them. That doesn’t mean these things can’t be done sequentially, it just means it’s harder to find political courage when done sequentially rather than simultaneously.

We also need to figure out what to do with people when they are arrested for public intoxication related issues: this includes massively expanding the shelter system for the homeless and mandating that those shelters be used - no camping, and also creating forced treatment/detox centers as separate from jails and prisons. There are legal issues that come with intoxication, and it needs enforcement - but it needs a different kind of enforcement, and that’s a conversation that nobody’s having. It’s either continuing tough on crime bullshit policies on one hand, or liberalize everything without addressing what enforcement looks like in a post drug war society on the other - and nothing gets done ever. Unlike in Europe, where some places actually do see progress, because these things are legislated integratively.

Being African American, I share your concerns, Loveall. To be candid, it's a fear I live with daily
Prop 122 lightened that load slightly.

And OneIsEros, unfortunately, and Staussman is very candid about this point, that was the only way he could get his foot in the door to begin that genesis of research. I think he would've done things differently if he could have at the time.

Also, thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that and will continue to do my best with this good work.

One love

My country is so far from this type of legal viewpoint (we only just getting over personal cannabis use laws) but I agree - this is at the heart of the matter and an injustice far in excess of a few 'bad trips' from local, indigenous fungi/plants in the meantime.

My perspective on this, from someone who's not from california, is that when you legalize a substance, you'll have to make it a great success. You're morally obliged to make it a success even.

If you legalize a substance and you start getting all sorts of "collatteral damage" like some people say has been the case with decriminalization in california, then the rest of the world will see that and use it as an argument against legalization.

To be clear, it’s been *de facto* decriminalization. As in, the system just gave up. Some individual cities changed some of the laws to reflect this, but those cities’ updated laws were just reflecting an already existent reality - on the ground, they just gave up, because it was hopeless. On the books statewide, the drug law is still in force.

Michael Schellenberger articulates all of this pretty well. He travelled to Europe and visited places like Portugal to figure out what the disconnect was. There were definitely some parts about how to decriminalize that were not communicated to North Americans when the message reached us that decriminalization helped the problems there.

The problem I’m seeing is just that politicians feel paralyzed. On the one hand, decriminalization wouldn’t change anything, because de facto, that’s already the situation. But, it would be politically dangerous, because it would be seen as neglecting the problem of dealing with the anarchy in front of everyone every day. On the other hand, it’s an extremely liberal place - so, being a hard ass would also be unpopular. So, nothing gets done at all, at least at the state level - individual cities will do things, but the higher ups at the state level are paralyzed.

The only way through that paralysis, as far as I can see, is comprehensive legislation that integrates all concerns. Blanket decriminalization, massive expansion of shelter system, major crackdowns on homeless encampments and sidewalk camping (ie: go into the shelters and out of the tents, or go into the detox/forced treatment centers, mental hospitals, or perhaps jails), and safer supply hard drug distribution and designated/supervised iniection sites - in order to give people a place to do drugs where it won’t bother the public, and, so that people are not constantly stealing to get their fix. And cracking down on public intoxication - give people places to be fucked up, and arrest them if they make themselves a problem for the public.

And, for us, legal licensed access to psychedelics and entactogens.

All of that needs to be done all at once, and that’s hard to do politically, but it’s even harder to do it in sequential pieces, because without comprehensive reform, those individual pieces of reform taken in isolation are either a) politically risky, or b) in some cases, genuinely capable of making things worse.

It’s like making a cake. You really need to put it together at once and prepare it properly. Otherwise…. Well, you don’t have a cake, you just have a mess.

Mark Twain (I believe) said The Law is an Ass. You Sir Gavin Newsom are also, rear owned by Big Pharma.

While this is possible, it would not explain his earlier veto of safe injection sites. I suspect the reasons that led him to do that, led him to do this.

Election cycle coming up.

You know what to do California.

If only California had non rigged voting. Most of us who live here know our votes do not count.

Has there been a lot of gerrymandering going on in california?