[robbrown451]

There are some drugs about which good arguments can be made on both sides of the legality issue. Highly addictive ones do indeed ruin lives, and while there is an argument that that should be the person's choice, the other side can argue that the government is there to better the common good, and that can include protecting people from their own bad decisions. I have mixed feelings about the legality issue when it comes to cocaine, meth, heroin, prescription opioids, etc.

With psilocybin mushrooms, though, I can't imagine any reasonable argument that people need to be protected from themselves. They aren't addictive by any definition of addiction I know of. And they can do some amazingly positive things, especially for those who are facing death due to illness or just old age. I would go so far as to say it is tragic that such people are denied relief from the horrible feeling of impending death that mushrooms can provide.

Not that I am against people just doing them for kicks, either.

[pstuart]

Please bear in mind that the origins of drug prohibition had little to do with "protecting" people, and were instead instruments of oppression.

Drug abuse a health problem, not a criminal problem. We spend orders of magnitude on the criminal side and, guess what? It only makes things worse.

Legalize. Regulate. Tax.

It's very simple, and is the only correct answer.

[robbrown451]

Maybe. I think it's unfortunate that people who are saying their answer is "the only correct" one are probably going to slow down progress.

Laws aren't always about crimes, by the way. Not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets shouldn't be seen as a criminal problem, but we still have laws about it. Maybe you disagree with those laws, and that's fine.

I think it is less fine to say that your perspective on the issue is the only one that can be reasonably seen as valid.

[pstuart]

Please don't confuse my adamance in defining the problem as an applied ideology in the real world. I'm pretty damn pragmatic and don't play purity politics.

I'm sticking with my statement, because it's true. I welcome reasonable refutations to it.

You overlooked the word "regulate". That means laws, but applied towards health and safety of products sold, rather than punishing the consumer.

We still need DUI laws (and related), but otherwise it's a personal choice all the way down.

[goldcd]

I'm going to quibble your 2nd sentence: "Highly addictive ones do indeed ruin lives"

Today, I'll agree with you. Question is why?

Clearly heroin ruins the lives of people who commit crimes to pay for it, as they're pulled into the criminal justice system. If you can afford to buy all the heroin you need from your checking account - well obviously it 'ruins your life less' as you're not in prison.

Maybe you decide to turn up at 9am for your job, or stay in bed - but that's an additional choice you have, as you're not locked up.

My point is, the drug's the same, you're the same, and the difference is the access to it you're afforded.

Anecdotally the highest every number of opiate addicts was post the first world war, where it was handed out as an anesthetic by the government.

To bring my meandering back in, I think we simply need to clarify what we want to achieve in society. Reduction in drug use - or a reduction in drug harm.

[robbrown451]

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that they ruin the lives of everyone who uses them.

Still, my main point is that mushrooms should NOT be controversial.