A legal psychedelic market

[burnt]

If psychedelics were legal what would you imagine (or want) a legal market to look like?

I would imagine it would be somewhat similar to how legal cannabis markets are looking like. There would be specialized stores that dispense them. The production would be controlled and regulation to varying degrees. There might be some kind of educational or licensing requirement to use them. There would be probably be religious rights or organizations around them.

I would hope they wouldn't be as heavily taxed as cannabis because the consumption patterns are so different.

 

[blig-blug]

I'm personally not too sure. I would prefer them to be sold in small specialty stores rather than some kind of chain store, that's for sure. Preferably by knowledgeable individuals. I would hope advertising wouldn't be allowed, and instead of brands and named products, it would be a market of regulated and tested "generics". At least for pure chemicals, maybe for plant material it could make sense to have brands be more relevant, as plants are more complex and origin and growing conditions would influence. Those stores would be required to offer harm reduction materials and advice. I personally wouldn't like some kind of licensing be required to use psychedelics, as I don't believe it would be effective at preventing misuse, and would infringe upon the privacy of those that decide to use psychedelics by registering the fact that they do. For selling them it would definitely make sense, maybe even to require sellers to be pharmacists.

The point of no advertising is the one I feel the most strongly about.

 

[fink]

I think it would be enough to simply not criminalise personal use or production of sensible quantities.

Any kind of capitalist system would be sacrilegious. No profit associated with these molecules whatsoever.

If you want to play, learn to forage, harvest and produce for yourself. That is the only qualification that means anything.

Sale of active products should remain illegal.

Minimum age probably needs to be at least 25. Same for cannabis.

Most people would still probably opt out.

But all this is fantasy. The reality is most likely to be taxed, controlled, monopolized and at vast profit.

 

[burnt]

I'm personally not too sure. I would prefer them to be sold in small specialty stores rather than some kind of chain store, that's for sure. Preferably by knowledgeable individuals. I would hope advertising wouldn't be allowed, and instead of brands and named products, it would be a market of regulated and tested "generics". At least for pure chemicals, maybe for plant material it could make sense to have brands be more relevant, as plants are more complex and origin and growing conditions would influence. Those stores would be required to offer harm reduction materials and advice. I personally wouldn't like some kind of licensing be required to use psychedelics, as I don't believe it would be effective at preventing misuse, and would infringe upon the privacy of those that decide to use psychedelics by registering the fact that they do. For selling them it would definitely make sense, maybe even to require sellers to be pharmacists.

The point of no advertising is the one I feel the most strongly about.

Agree about no advertising. Also agree that branding should be avoided. Yea good point about the licensing. Maybe some kind of educational material be made available? Not sure I like the idea of people being on a list of "approved user" or something like that. Also agree that to sell material would require some level of specialized education. Maybe not pharmacist because this could exclude people who are well educated about for example natural substances who wouldn't normally go to like pharmacy school.

I think it would be enough to simply not criminalise personal use or production of sensible quantities.

Any kind of capitalist system would be sacrilegious. No profit associated with these molecules whatsoever.

If you want to play, learn to forage, harvest and produce for yourself. That is the only qualification that means anything.

Sale of active products should remain illegal.

Minimum age probably needs to be at least 25. Same for cannabis.

Most people would still probably opt out.

But all this is fantasy. The reality is most likely to be taxed, controlled, monopolized and at vast profit.

I can understand the sentiment about selling natural substances with a history of traditional use being problematic. But I think there are a couple key points that don't get taken into consideration when people bring this up. I think the points I want to make apply to debates and arguments I've seen around the 'Decriminilize Nature' movement as well.

One major one being over harvesting. How to prevent plants like ayahuasca ingredients, peyote, and iboga from being over-harvested? People will sell them regardless of whether that part is illegal. So I think allowing legal cultivation is very important to avoid environmental damage. Also to allow room and space for religious groups and indigenous groups to maintain their sacred relationships to these plants (and lands!) without a bunch of other people coming in and taking it all.

When it comes to production of natural substances there are also some important issues too. One being it can be dangerous for people to manufacture drugs at home. For personal use its probably fine if done in small quantities. But when people try to make larger quantities they can burn down houses and kill people. This used to happen a lot with cannabis extraction (mainly due to butane extractions) and the problem largely went away when manufacturing was regulated. Also the hazardous waste that gets generated can be a problem.

When it comes to synthetic substances I tend to disagree with notions that its better to just leave it up to some grey market or unregulated market. It only leaves room for problems of purity, hazardous waste, and dangerous manufacturing conditions.

LSD was invented by a major pharmaceutical company. So I don't see any issues with substances like that being made within any normal market based system. Same goes for MDMA and ketamine etc. Ketamine is a pharmaceutical.

 

[CosmicRiver]

Any law regulating plants is unjust in my opinion.
This being said, i think that it's wrong to profit off psychedelic plants. Really, it's wrong to profit off all living beings. But we live in a capitalistic society where every plant gets sold, and no plant is above others, plants that provide food aren't less important than psychedelic plants.
In my opinion the best solution would be allowing people to grow them and gift them / exchange them with something else or for a small fee just to pay back the effort.
I don't think some people are more entitled than others to use some plants, as long as there is respect, and if there is no respect plants know how to get it anyway.

Still, when i think about how some people built a relationship with these plants and fungi, and the traditional knowledge was shared or stolen, i find any solution that involves shops, and even some retreates and similar activities, wrong and disrespectful. Not to mention psychedelic companies and market stocks.

 

[Varallo]

Where I live, many psychedelics are already freely available online and in shops that specialize in mind-expanding substances. And that actually works quite well.

What works less well is that in recent years, some substances (like pyrovalerones or synthetic opioids) have entered the market that are seriously addictive and have harmful health effects. As a result, groups of new and heavily addicted users have formed. I think that part needs some regulation, or better health care options.

But beyond that, I believe everything could and should be completely legal in the future. Whether a substance is natural or synthetic doesn’t really matter. And whether people make a profit from it doesn’t matter much either. As long as there’s enough competition, prices stay low and access remains open to everyone.

 

[fink]

This may shift the direction. I believe it important to ask anyway.

What evidence do we have that, if legal, eight billion people will suddenly want to take part?

Everything is readily available to most societies already, legal or not. Perhaps it is that simple, nothing much would change except wasted police time and often unfairly treated humans.

If we respected the rain forests then the habitat for sacred plants would not need much protecting. The leeches and mosquitoes will keep them safe.

 

[Varallo]

This may shift the direction. I believe it important to ask anyway.

What evidence do we have that, if legal, eight billion people will suddenly want to take part?

Everything is readily available to most societies already, legal or not. Perhaps it is that simple, nothing much would change except wasted police time and often unfairly treated humans.

If we respected the rain forests then the habitat for sacred plants would not need much protecting. The leeches and mosquitoes will keep them safe.

I don’t think things would be that different from how they are now. The main difference, at least where I live, is that roughly 80% of all crime, depending on which estimates you read, is related to the illegal status of drugs. Changing that would open an entirely new path. The billions currently spent on enforcement could instead go toward healthcare, and more specifically, addiction treatment.

If drugs become more accessible, I expect that some people who currently have little contact with such substances will start experimenting, so the number of addicted individuals might increase at first. But at the same time, we’d be better able to care for them and provide good information, simply because there would be far more funding available. In that sense, it’s a straightforward win-win situation.

However, we also come from a long period in which thinking about drugs has been heavily shaped by geopolitical forces. That makes it difficult for individual countries to move independently. And if some countries do move toward legalization while others maintain strict repression, that imbalance could create various negative political side effects.

We’ve already seen this before, when people from neighboring countries came here to buy drugs. That situation, especially in border regions, was far from ideal. Such consequences need to be considered carefully. The solution, I think, is not purely political but lies in greater acceptance, and also clarity about who the market is open to. For example, it might make sense to allow access for residents but not for tourists.

 

[blig-blug]

The solution, I think, is not purely political but lies in greater acceptance

I agree, actually for most social issues (if not all), potential solutions lie much more in social changes than political changes. In this case I'm not too optimistic at a short-medium term, as acceptance, understanding, and tolerance aren't exactly on the rise. Having an outgroup to attack is pleasurable for most people; it's not rare to hear users of psychedelics refer to casual users of alcohol in the same terms usually reserved for "illicit drugs" users in society.

 

[CosmicRiver]

From a website selling psychedelics (won't say the name obviously)

We have always viewed Cannabis, Psilocybin, and Psychedelics as Sacred Medicines

but

You will achieve the best results if you inhale slowly and consistently to create a dense vapour and hold it in your lungs for 20 seconds. It may take up to 3 attempts to achieve a “breakthrough.” [...] These are the best DMT Vape Carts [...], give them a try and you’ll love them.
[...] It is creamy cinnamon shortcake-flavoured.

We should also consider where and how do these companies source their DMT-containing material. If there is overharvesting or human exploitation involved upstream of the supply chain, what's the difference between a company such as this and and an illegal vendor?
I'm still for legalization obviously, but this isn't really how a legal market should be imo.

 

[Jamie01]

Most likely there is human exploitation when it comes to things like Mimosa…because farming is involved. Farming is built around exploitation of workers, especially in this economy. It’s close to slavery. Don’t believe me spend a season or two in agriculture. This is where your plants come from.

 

[Varallo]

I agree, actually for most social issues (if not all), potential solutions lie much more in social changes than political changes. In this case I'm not too optimistic at a short-medium term, as acceptance, understanding, and tolerance aren't exactly on the rise. Having an outgroup to attack is pleasurable for most people; it's not rare to hear users of psychedelics refer to casual users of alcohol in the same terms usually reserved for "illicit drugs" users in society.

I think legalization could ultimately lead to greater acceptance. In my social circle, no one raises an eyebrow anymore if you say you use psychedelics; most people just say “be careful,” especially the older generation. While we see the rise of polarization and social inequality as a problem (and it is), these are often the very moments in history when fundamental changes become possible. The old system is unsustainable. In other words, times of change may also offer the opportunity to legalize many substances.

From a website selling psychedelics (won't say the name obviously)

but

We should also consider where and how do these companies source their DMT-containing material. If there is overharvesting or human exploitation involved upstream of the supply chain, what's the difference between a company such as this and and an illegal vendor?
I'm still for legalization obviously, but this isn't really how a legal market should be imo.

I think it’s highly unlikely that natural resources are going to be used in the production of benign molecules like DMT that can be produced in bulk at an fraction of the price.

 

[Voidmatrix]

When you have the magic of creating and extracting your own, this becomes less of a concern.

One love

 

[Jamie01]

Personally I would like to see a legal market for anyone of age. I grew up in a city with psychedelic shops constantly being raided but never really shutting down. It’s always been there and trying to criminalize these stores has been a huge waste of tax money. After years of this with cannabis until finally just legalizing it now we are at that stage with psilocybin. It’s just fighting the inevitable and wasting money. A legal recreational market is the only thing that makes sense to me..and they need to stop this stuff about not allowing non indigenous people to grow peyote etc and find better ways to protect it around wild harvesting etc.

 

[northape]

I’m all for decriminalization, but I have my doubts about complete legalization. We need a different cultural relationship with these tools to use them beneficially.
When you can buy a DMT vape and do whatever you want with it, without any real planning or education about it, something feels very wrong.

I’m more for affordable psychedelic centers with experienced guides and well-tested protocols. That’s how it was done in antiquity, and it worked well for thousands of years.
Read Aldous Huxley’s Island to get an idea of what it could look like and what place it should play in society. These medicines were never used individually, beyond shamanic work. They could be used to build communities, but alienation from society is a strong possibility, too. It’s just that in our modern individualistic culture, we’re quite disconnected already. There are no easy answers, but making it an openly accessible commodity is not the way, in my opinion.

 

[Jamie01]

Personally I don’t want to trip with guides or at censers. Why would I? I got here by doing my own thing so I’d be a hypocrite to want others like me to remain criminals.

I personally care more about respecting the rights of grown adults than how I feel about how those adults use them.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Personally I don’t want to trip with guides or at censers. Why would I? I got here by doing my own thing so I’d be a hypocrite to want others like me to remain criminals.

I personally care more about respecting the rights of grown adults than how I feel about how those adults use them.

Everyone's different with different needs. You'd be surprised what having a guide can do.

One love

 

[Jamie01]

That’s fine. I don’t want to ban guides or psychedelic clinics, I just feel very strongly that they should not be the only avenues to legal psychedelic use.

 

[blig-blug]

I agree with @Jamie01 , requiring a guide/facilitator/therapist is not something I can advocate for. Making guides available to people yes. Same for fully allowing religious use without interference or them having to prove to be a "genuine" religion.

I also agree with @Voidmatrix about the importance of encouraging self-reliance, even in a situation of full legalization. It increases safety, awareness, independence, all of those good qualities.

In a situation of full legality, I imagine there could be workshops where chemists can teach procedures for extraction and synthesis. Adjusted to the knowledge and skill level of the student, of course. I can also imagine community labs where chemists direct synthesis and/or extraction for a group of people. Same for community gardens to sustainably and locally grow the plants and mushrooms we want and love.

 

[Voidmatrix]

That’s fine. I don’t want to ban guides or psychedelic clinics, I just feel very strongly that they should not be the only avenues to legal psychedelic use.

It's not like that in Colorado that has a personal use aspect to the law as well, effectively decriminalizing recreational use.