[eesmith]

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.

[jnbiche]

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.

[hnaccy]

The injured party in your examples is the public because it involves damaging a national park or similar space.

Unless these mushrooms are going extinct or something he's not hurting the environment.

[eesmith]

Yet if he had followed those laws he wouldn't have ended up in this situation.

[PrimHelios]

>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

[eesmith]

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."