Controversies… psychedelic
The concept of social sharing or decriminalized shared use is essential in psychedelic policy reform for several reasons. First, simple decriminalization for personal possession is insufficient to protect the most common dynamic of psychedelic use: a small group of people sharing psychedelics, often with a guide or group leader facilitating the experience…
…the bill now says that adults are not prohibited from “giving away without financial gain” an “allowable amount” of the covered psychedelic substances (LSD, ibogaine, DMT, psilocybin/psilocyn, mescaline, and MDMA). The definition of financial gain has been removed, which previously suggested that payment for related services associated with sharing psychedelics was ok… what worries activists is that, if private personal possession limits are set, by implication, if an access model is ever created, one may then need a license to produce, possess, or share any amounts above the default personal possession amounts. This is what happened with cannabis in many states. First, caregivers and home growers were allowed to cultivate limited amounts. Eventually, regulatory models were hoisted on top of those personal possession amounts and required state licensing for larger operations.
Original Article (Chacruna):
Controversies around California’s psychedelic decriminalization law senate bill 519
Artwork Fair Use: Public Domain
Recent Comments