Leo, do you think psychedelics should be legal/decriminalsied?

[Nemra]

@Vynce, I think for now the only way to continue using them is to be responsible adults so that the remaining psychedelics don't become newsworthy until all of them get legal in the future.

After they get legal, mandatory training for how to set up for a trip to do alone could be a good thing before you could be able to buy them.

Edited Friday at 08:05 PM by Nemra

[Vynce]

20 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Vynce, I think for now the only way to continue using them is to be responsible adults so that the remaining psychedelics don't become newsworthy until all of them get legal in the future.

After they get legal, mandatory training for how to set up for a trip to do alone could be a good thing before you could be able to buy them.

Mmh.. maybe. Maybe something like this. 

But in the end, such laws are all gonna be made by lawmakers, who in general need some cold hard evidence to change the status quo.

I think it’s this point were most ideas fail at actual reality. 
 

In the eyes of most lawmakers psychedelics is not a top priority to-do. 
 

Maybe in a couple of decades. I might be wrong, for less developed, experimental countries and states though. 

[PurpleTree]

35 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Mmh.. maybe. Maybe something like this. 

But in the end, such laws are all gonna be made by lawmakers, who in general need some cold hard evidence to change the status quo.

I think it’s this point were most ideas fail at actual reality. 
 

In the eyes of most lawmakers psychedelics is not a top priority to-do. 
 

Maybe in a couple of decades. I might be wrong, for less developed, experimental countries and states though. 

What’s a less developed  „experimental“ country?

[Vynce]

27 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

What’s a less developed  „experimental“ country?

I'm not sure how this would translate to psychedelics, but..

..El Salvador, for example made Bitcoin one of their official currencies not too long ago. Smaller and less stable countries tend to be open to new and more radical changes, since they rely on novel opportunities for growth. You can find many examples for such political dynamics.

Maybe there will be a state that is most known for its psychedelic tourism and spiritual practices. But that requires new laws in most places. Something that rich and stable countries are not focusing to do.

Another perspective is; that investors don't want to bring their resources into less developed countries, because they are afraid of the corruption and poor infrastructure. So many less developed countries look out for new kinds of attraction. Psychedelics might be one of them. - But I'm not a big fan of that scenario.

Edited Friday at 09:36 PM by Vynce

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Vynce said:

In the eyes of most lawmakers psychedelics is not a top priority to-do. 

Yeah, that's why getting them from vendors as RC or from darknet markets will be the only ways for now.

12 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Maybe there will be a state that is most known for its psychedelic tourism and spiritual practices. But that requires new laws in most places. Something that rich and stable countries are not focusing to do.

I don't think that less developed countries would do that unless it's part of their tradition. The people in those countries tend to be very dogmatic and have misconceptions about drugs.

Edited Friday at 09:46 PM by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

The devil's dilemma.

[PurpleTree]

There are already countries that have psychedelic tourism like Ayahuasca Peru, Mexico also peyote 5meo etc.

Netherlands truffles and also Ayahuasca ceremonies.

Spain also

[Nemra]

12 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Netherlands truffles

Their cute shape is very deceiving! 😅

Edited Friday at 10:09 PM by Nemra

[Jehovah increases]

 

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight.

13th May 2021

What you need to know

Drug-related deaths have remained below the EU average since 2001

The proportion of prisoners sentenced for drugs has fallen from 40% to 15%

Rates of drug use have remained consistently below the EU average

This briefing updates our 2016 report on Portugal's groundbreaking reforms, and marks the 20th anniversary of their introduction.

It is also available as a free PDF download.

Similar articles

The success of Portugal’s decriminalisation policy – in seven charts.

Decriminalisation: Parliament's health committee grasps the need for drug reform.

Scottish Affairs Committee calls for overhaul of drug policy

New drug reform Bill tabled in Parliament

Background

In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider
re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma.1 Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.

Whether such a penalty is applied is decided by district-level panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals, known as ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’. Where an individual is referred to a Commission for the first time and their drug use is assessed as non-problematic (low risk), the law requires their case to be ‘suspended’, meaning no further action is taken. Fines can be issued for subsequent referrals. Where some problematic trends are identified (moderate risk), brief interventions are proposed — including counselling — but these are non-mandatory. In ‘high risk’ cases, where more serious problematic behaviours and dependence are identified, individuals may receive non-mandatory referrals to specialised treatment services.2

In the vast majority of instances, problematic drug use is not identified, and cases are simply ‘suspended’.3 Individuals referred to the Commissions overwhelmingly view their purpose as helping to reduce use and educate on drug risks.4 They are non-judgemental in nature, and a primary focus is safeguarding the right to health of those referred.5

Importantly, the decriminalisation of personal possession is only one part of broader health-centred drug policy reforms that involve an increased focus on harm reduction and treatment provision.6 By ‘accepting the reality of drug use rather than eternally hoping that it will disappear as a result of repressive legislation’, Portuguese reform allows drugs to be treated as a health, rather than criminal justice, issue.7 The benefits of these reforms, therefore, arise from both decriminalisation itself and the establishment of a wider health-based response to drug problems.

Portugal was not the first country to decriminalise some or all drugs, and it has not been the last.8 However, it is one of the most prominent and influential. The Portuguese model directly influenced the 2020 decriminalisation measure passed in Oregon, for example, as well as proposed decriminalisation in Norway.9 Portugal is regularly held up as the leading example of drug decriminalisation, so understanding the outcomes is vital.

 

Edited Saturday at 04:24 AM by Jehovah increases

[Leo Gura]

@Jehovah increases Then how do you explain that Oregon is so screwed up?

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Jehovah increases Then how do you explain that Oregon is so screwed up?

‘muricans, it’s a different culture.

Europe also doesn’t have the school and mass shootings etc.

[PurpleTree]

Czechia, Netherlands and Switzerland also decriminalised drugs i think.

[Leo Gura]

@PurpleTree Americans do everything bigger than the piddly Europeans.

Our cars are bigger, our bombs are bigger, our tits are bigger, our heroin is bigger.

#MAHA

Make American Heroin Again

Edited Saturday at 10:50 AM by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, doesn't the development of a person tell how he/she will handle drugs?

Have you been to European countries?

Edited Saturday at 08:23 AM by Nemra

[Sophophile]

@Leo Gura 

Please consider the personal message I sent.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@PurpleTree Americans do everything bigger than the piddly Europeans.

Our cars are bigger, our bombs are bigger, our tits are bigger, our heroin is bigger.

Very true. Also the mansions, the army, the bellies, the diabetes rate, the supersize drinks, the imprisonment rate, the economy and so on.

[Jehovah increases]

On 4/12/2025 at 2:55 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Jehovah increases Then how do you explain that Oregon is so screwed up?

Oregon decriminalized, Portugal decriminalized, and then invested heavily in policy, programs, and infrastructure to support their people and prevent addiction as much as they can.

As far as I can tell, Oregon decriminalized use, made some token changes to an existing, ineffective drug dissuasion and treatment policy, and called it a day. Sure, the law includes a plan to invest more into treatment and recovery, but the thousands of addicts on our streets don’t seem to be getting access to those resources. From what I can tell, the support Oregon offers is still a loosely connected, complex network of third parties that have not been effective to date. There is even a phone number you can call for help. I wonder how often that gets used? (sarcasm)

It would seem that Oregon’s approach is nothing like Portugal’s! Both Oregon and Portugal continue to target and persecute the criminal sale and trafficking of drugs, but that is about where the similarities end. Putting words in the text of a law is different than doing what is needed.

Portugal has effectively said, “We won’t treat you like a criminal for using drugs, but we will help you to not ruin your life, not ruin the lives of those around you, and not ruin our country.” They do this with a multi-pronged approach that is aimed at non-users, casual users, frequent users, and addicts. Oregon seems to say, “We won’t treat you like a criminal. You are on your own to find the limited resources that exist to get help, if you want it.”

Portugal starts with prevention programs in schools and for the general public that use a comprehensive approach based on data and wellbeing. Unlike many programs in the United States, the program is not focused on zero-tolerance, because that is not the human reality (abstinence-based sex education, anyone?).

If you do use drugs and get caught, you are given what is essentially the equivalent of a traffic ticket. It isn’t just a ticket that you pay, instead, you are called in front of a Dissuasion Commission. This commission, which sounds a bit like a jury or a parole board, will seek to understand your situation, and then impose fines, order community service, enroll you into education programs, send you to drug treatment, put you on probation, and or even suspend professional licenses. In other words, there are still penalties, but there is also significant social and health support.

Effective and accessible drug treatment seems to be a problem in Oregon. In Portugal, they have ensured infrastructure to make sure treatment happens. Here is another critical factor: Portugal has a social healthcare system. There are no financial barriers to treatment in Portugal. If you need it, you can get it at no cost. No arguing about who pays. No questions about insurance coverage. No financial reason not to get treated. This couldn’t be more different than in America, where health insurance is typically tied to work, mental and addiction care coverage is typically different than medical care coverage, navigating programs for low-income citizens is complicated, and the entire industry is profit-seeking.

More notable than just my observations is what the data says. Since decriminalization and policies for education, support, and treatment went into effect, Portugal has improved across a number of key metrics. The rate of drug addiction went down, and is now one of the lowest in Europe. Drug-related deaths went down dramatically on a per capita basis, and are also one of the lowest in Europe. Additionally, the transmission of HIV plummeted, and is again one of the lowest in Europe. Finally, teens and adults in Portugal are some of the least likely in Europe to ever use cocaine or cannabis. It should be noted that there is evidence of some age groups having increased rates of addiction and death during different periods since decriminalization.

So was Oregon wrong to decriminalize drug use? In my opinion, Oregon was wrong to decriminalize without also investing more, and more effectively, into education, prevention, and most importantly, treatment. It is also my opinion that if you believe that Oregon, any state, or the country is doing enough to counterbalance decriminalization, or if you don’t think it is the responsibility of the government to provide these things in order to have a functioning society, you need a wake-up call. Why only fund policing without funding programs to keep people out of police trouble



It is also important to note that there is not yet comprehensive, comparable studies or reporting on effectiveness and outcomes in Oregon, as only five years have passed since decriminalization was approved by voters. Trustworthy data collection and research on a sweeping change like this often takes much longer than five years.

 I believe that all drugs should not be legalized, and the laws need to be greatly reduced, and I think the health-led approach to possessing drugs for personal use should be treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma. Drugs are, however, still confiscated, and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service. The people need to be more educated. In most cases, addictions stem from some sort of early trauma in life.

As for the commercial weed industry.  Several celebrities have given a public face to the cannabis industry with business ventures and branded cannabis products. The cannabis industry is booming across the U.S. and Canada. Recreational and medical cannabis products, from oils, edibles, and prerolls to vapes, skincare products, and more, are now part of a multi-billion dollar industry, and investors are taking notice. According to Grandview Research, the global legal cannabis market is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 25.7% from 2024 to 2030.  How much money do these donkeys want?

Monopolies and oligopolies started developing years ago in the cannabis industry — not just in terms of big businesses usurping smaller businesses but also in terms of state regulations that allow vertical integration, which leads to markets dominated by one or a few players that control the cultivation, processing, and sale of cannabis products.

Another way monopolies and oligopolies have an opportunity to develop in the cannabis industry happens when states cease awarding licenses. In California, oligopolies formed in a different way. Regulations passed leading up to opening the state’s adult-use market in 2018 allowed large businesses to exploit a loophole and obtain as many cultivator licenses as they could afford.

According to data from Cannabis Intelligence™, a handful of cannabis license holders dominate multiple markets across the United States. 10 public companies each hold more than 100 licenses – some with more than 200 licenses – and have operations in as many as 22 states. These 10 companies hold licenses across the supply chain, and some report total quarterly revenues exceeding $300 million.

This a another problem. Based on the data, it’s not surprising that smaller cannabis businesses across the country are struggling to compete with bigger cannabis companies.

Bottom line, whenever every business that wants to be in an industry cannot enter the market, competition will not flourish. The result is the same whether businesses are shut out due to state regulations or because big businesses have deeper pockets and force smaller players to leave. Either way, the result is the same. Fewer players equal less competition, which usually leads to higher prices, fewer product choices, and limited market growth.

 The cannabis industry back in 2017, “As with any industry, if big business can push the little guy out, they’ll have considerably more liberties down the road to raise their prices back up and capture a juicier margin, along with greater market share.”

Only free competition ensures fair prices and market growth over the long-term as well as ongoing innovation and product accessibility. That’s how to protect the “community” culture of the cannabis industry and prevent Big Cannabis from developing (similar to Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol), where a few companies control the market. And I bet most of these people were against cannabis, talk about "hypocrisy", greedy humans.

 

 

Edited Monday at 06:13 AM by Jehovah increases

[Scholar]

@Leo Gura

You are like a child in how you evaluate this. You move from one extreme to another. You advocate for the death penalty to bring "seriousness" back to society, as if that was not a completely and utterly bonkers and absurd position.

And now you speak about weed as if you don't understand the basic mechanics of social evolution. Yes, weed can be harmful. Alcohol can be harmful, casual sex can be harmful. Video games can be harmful.

But what is more harmful and stunts social growth entirely is irrational stigma and criminalization. That ruins lifes as well. The lack of empathy it requires makes society worse on a systemic and wholistic level. 

 

Every new freedom is abused, every new responsibility must be recognized. And this takes time. It takes education and the creation of systems which account for these new freedoms and risks. The problem is not that weed isn't stigmatized and criminalized. That ruins lives as well. Look at South Korea, a society in which celebreties commit suicide because they get collectively bullied after having been caught smoking a joint. That is barbaric and speaks of a deeply sick and dysfunctional society (which in the case of South Korea, you can see manifest in various forms).

The solution here is to not trivialize the risks and have a mature view of these sorts of things. Over time society tends to adapt to new freedoms. But yes, when you do give individuals new freedom, there will be a period of mistake-making and elevated harm. Which does not mean that in the long run, society will not adapt and grow because of this.

 

 

Remember, in the end freedom is what leads to evolution. If the government just says "You can't do this period" there is no need for growth. Growth is necessary the moment you are given a freedom that will come with consequences if you abuse it, or fail to recognize your responsibility. The suffering that will come from that will lead the growth necessary to develop a higher order of autonomous and conscious thinking.

It is the difference between a society which disciplines its citizens, and a society which grows individuals who learn to self-discipline. One is clearly more evolved than the other.

 

The question is, as is the case with a child, how mature is your society in relation to the freedoms it can be granted? Some freedom is necessary for growth, too much freedom at once, given lack of development, can lead to devastation, obviously. But in the case of weed, this is not the case. Many people will suffer, and then many people will learn, and we will have become more mature as a society as a result. No longer will rigid authority be required, and instead consciousness can make decisions autonomously.

 

Looking at the video, it should be very obvious that this is a problem of mentally ill people not being taken care of at all. The systemic problem here is far deeper than just drugs, even though drugs seem to make it obviously worse. (although that might be arguable given that these individuals might feel like their lifes would be even more unlivable without them)

You clearly have individuals whose lifes and minds are just utter misery. They have nothing to live for, nobody who cares about them. Just in the video many of them said they specifically came to Oregon because it became decriminalized there. You won't resolve the issue by criminalizing drugs, you will just make it less visible.

 

The fundamental problem is Leo, that you seem to have a difficult time engaging with these sorts of social topics in general because you basically lack empathy entirely. This is evident in almost every social issue I have seen you deal with, including conversations you had with others, interviews, your dating strategies, how you dealt with things like suicide in the community, ethics in general and various other discussions about social policies.

You have a hyperintellectual approach that is exceptionally self-centered. Disorder to you is disgusting, pathetic and a nuisance. This is even evident in the post on the blog, in which you say you personally never engage in weed recreationally, nor alcohol, and therefore nobody should and it's basically evil and probably should be criminalized. It comes at no cost to you, of course, so it's easy to simply say that individuals should be imprisoned amd stigmatized for owning something like weed.

You don't care about personal freedoms in a fundamental sense, and lack foundational empathy for humans and animals, and their individuality, because you are stuck in your identity that revolves around higher consciousness and spiral development, much of which seems to be fueled by a sort of narcissism you seem to be unaware of.

I will repeat these points because I do think you have a significantly negative impact on some individuals precisely because of your lack of awareness thereof.

Edited Saturday at 09:53 PM by Scholar

[Scholar]

I mean the silliness of showing a video of a state that decriminalized all drugs with absolutely zero social safety nets or accounting for potential problems, to then say that the libs have gone to far with weed decriminalization, it's beyond me how someone saying such things can be taken seriously.

It's just so blatantly and childlike reactionary. There is just no depth to the thinking, or even an attempt to look at the topic in a more wholistic manner. No, lets take the most extreme, worst example of a thing and base our intuitions on that.

 

 

Just look at the comments in the video, lol. It's all MAGAs relishing in the suffering to self-affirm their conservatism.

Edited Saturday at 10:07 PM by Scholar

[eggopm3]

I like the idea of a licensing system. Like in order to get a psychedelic license you have to pass an exam proving you can correctly answer questions about safety, dosage, history of the substance, best practices with the substance, ect.

of course a person would still be free to misuse the substance once they obtain it if they wanted but at least at some point they would have proven knowledge of being educated, and it would filter out those who aren't willing to learn. And there would be consequences for some improper behavior like you could lose your license if you purchased a psychedelic and provided it to an unlicensed person for example.