"A sign posted nearby [in Cape Disappointment Park] read: NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION. Corbett ignored it....Close by, in the grass, he spotted true [Psilocybe azurescens]. More of the mystery mushrooms grew by the spot where Corbett had parked his truck.
"...He picked 10 specimens from the woodchip pile, and put them in a plastic bag along with 10 of the classic azurescens. “I put them together because they were clearly different, with no mistake whatsoever. They don’t look anything alike.”"
Sounds like he was picking the unidentified Psilocybe along with Psilocybe azurescens.
You never, ever, mix unidentified mushroms in the same bag. They are spongy criatures that disintegrate easily or adsorb liquids. Spores or tiny fragments of the unknown mushrom will contaminate the edible mushroms, poisoning the food and leading typically to serious consequences.
There was a sign that said "NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION", and the rules for the park say "Wildlife, plants and all park buildings, signs and tables and other structures are protected; removal or damage of any kind is prohibited." - http://parks.state.wa.us/179/Rules-Regulations
Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
Taking petrified wood from the Petrified National Forest, taking trinitite from the site of the first nuclear bomb test, knocking over stone formations in Goblin Valley State Park, graffiti and littering, and many more.
He also picked 10 Psilocybe azurescens, in addition to the 10 odd mushrooms mushrooms which he thought might be a subspecies, or perhaps new Psilocybe species. It's not like he had no idea he was collecting something which contained psilocybin.
Also, importantly, he's facing a felony narcotics charge because the mushrooms contain psilocyben, not because he illegally gathered some park fauna (almost certainly a misdemeanor charge).
Admittedly, the article muddies this water, but it's our crazy drug laws that are to blame for his predicament, otherwise he'd just be facing a fine or perhaps a few days in jail.
>Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
I disagree with you there. His argument was that it shouldn't be illegal because nobody was hurt, not that it isn't illegal. I'd agree with him, victimless crimes are bullshit
There is no bright line which makes a crime "victimless".
If I catch a fish on public waters but without a fishing license, is that victimless?
Yes, if you regard the fish as owned by "the public", in which case "the public" is the victim.
Fishing laws exist because there is a tiny damage which is normally below the threshold of general damage, but when magnified by a lot of people becomes meaningful. But I can't point to a specific case and point out the victim.
Doom, as you may recall, originally used the Red Cross symbol on medikits. This is illegal in many countries, due to the Geneva Convention. id software changed the symbol. Who was the victim of their use of the Red Cross symbol?
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits collecting feathers from migratory birds, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act extends that to eagles. Every once in a while someone is prosecuted for using those feathers. For example, Peg Bargon incorporated those feathers in her dreamcatchers, which she then sold.
Who is the victim in this case? (This law exists to prevent a reversion to historical circumstances which, like fishing license laws, were destroying bird populations.)
There are laws against animal cruelty. Who is the victim if I vivisect my dog on my property, away from public eyes?
So, don't try to make this a general thing. Your argument should be that some personal uses of psilocybin should not be illegal. Not the broad (and in my opinion untenable) view that "victimless crimes are bullshit."
Definitely relevant but it seems like this would probably be argued as a case of probable cause. If the local police are aware that people have been picking mushrooms in the region because some of them contain psilocybin then it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider foraging for mushrooms probable cause in their jurisdiction.
I didn't go to law school either. I definitely don't want cops patting me down because someone does something illegal sometimes in an area that I also happen to be in sometimes.
I may have phrased that poorly, I didn't mean that you would be searchable for being in the area. I meant that you would be searchable for being witnessed picking or carrying mushrooms in the area which is very different from your example of simply walking through a high crime area.
Looking at your original comment I see that message clearly now. I still wouldn't want that to constitute PC. What if I had a brown bag full of non-psychedelic mushrooms? The cops would roll up on me and search me? Worse yet, what if I inadvertently picked a psychedelic mushroom, not knowing what is is and telling myself I would ID it with a spore print at home later. Now I'm looking at prison time? I don't want my taxes to go to keeping those cases in prison.
We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from https://clusterbusters.org/ the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
To summarize:
1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign.
2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC
3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.
"...He picked 10 specimens from the woodchip pile, and put them in a plastic bag along with 10 of the classic azurescens. “I put them together because they were clearly different, with no mistake whatsoever. They don’t look anything alike.”"
Sounds like he was picking the unidentified Psilocybe along with Psilocybe azurescens.