Bye bye purple sky

July 20, 2005 3:26 AM

UK bans 'magic mushrooms' (except the poisonous ones), rendering them class A like heroin and crack. Shroomers fight back. Mushroom have been used for a while and we have a lot of information about their effects and safety, just as we do with alcohol - but facts schmacts, right? You can't be too careful.
posted by Drexen (61 comments total)

I can’t help feeling a little sad that the traditional sight of hippies combing the hillsides at harvest-time must needs become a thing of the past, and that henceforth they will be obliged to toil more anxiously under the cloak of darkness.
posted by misteraitch at 3:35 AM on July 20, 2005

No surprise here. We can't have drugs illegal in rest of the world, legal here, without consequences, can we? People might just start questioning the rest of the drug laws.

But I hope this part in the Guardian is a tactical hypocrisy rather than a genuine one:

In fact, as Brian Iddon, an organic chemist and the only committee member qualified to give a scientific view, told Flint, mushrooms are psychedelics, not hallucinogens, and cannot be compared to LSD. And he could find no evidence that mushrooms were addictive or harmful.
posted by Gyan at 3:44 AM on July 20, 2005

I can see how uncontrollable fits of giggling are a major concern to the British government at the moment.
posted by Elmore at 3:47 AM on July 20, 2005

and yet Coldplay is still legal?

bad show.
posted by tsarfan at 3:53 AM on July 20, 2005

7 years for a mushroom?

Stupid.
posted by exlotuseater at 4:09 AM on July 20, 2005

So now all the kids who have not taken them before are shown photographs and reminded they grow wild in this country. In fact, they grow less than 5 minutes walk from where I am sat...
posted by skarmj at 4:29 AM on July 20, 2005

We can't have drugs illegal in rest of the world, legal here, without consequences, can we? People might just start questioning the rest of the drug laws.

Gyan The issue was that the law was inconsistent. In the UK, dried shrooms are and have always been class A, illegal drugs, and fresh shrooms were, until a few days ago, legal. The difference arose from the relative concentration of psilocybin and psilocin which are much greater per weight in prepared, dried shrooms than in fresh ones which are mostly water. I think you can question drugs laws while recognizing that inconsistencies in the laws are not necessarily good things.

I don't care much for the cannabis, alcohol, psychedelic equivalencies in these arguments. For someone has varied experience with all three - and who maintains a deep and abiding love and affection for alcohol - it seems to me that it is more than a bit disingenuous to argue from the point of view that these are equivalent drugs.
posted by three blind mice at 4:39 AM on July 20, 2005

Does his mean that the streets of Glastonbury are safe now? As in, will I still get infuriated by all the posturing hippies or have they fucked off?
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:44 AM on July 20, 2005

For someone has varied experience with all three - and who maintains a deep and abiding love and affection for alcohol - it seems to me that it is more than a bit disingenuous to argue from the point of view that these are equivalent drugs.

I too would agree that they are far from equivalent drugs, indeed, alcohol is by far the most dangerous.
posted by twistedonion at 4:47 AM on July 20, 2005

three blind mice : "it seems to me that it is more than a bit disingenuous to argue from the point of view that these are equivalent drugs."

The comparision didn't involve cannabis or alcohol, which are indeed different kinds of drugs (I'll leave alone the 'psychedelic' component of cannabis). But LSD, mushrooms and mescaline are ubiquitously the 'classical hallucinogens'. In fact, the drug warriors and scientific literature tend to use the term hallucinogens, whereas pro-drug and others use the term psychedelics. LSD and Psilocin belong to the same class, even if their exact psychoactive profiles aren't the same, which they aren't.
posted by Gyan at 4:51 AM on July 20, 2005

three blind mice : "I think you can question drugs laws while recognizing that inconsistencies in the laws are not necessarily good things. "

Agreed, but the experience of the past few years should entail the inconsistency being resolved in another direction.
posted by Gyan at 4:53 AM on July 20, 2005

Sounds like yet another fit of government hysteria to forbid the use of a drug which is still far less harmful than alcohol, both for those with mental problems and those without. Typical.

Is there perhaps a suggestion in there that some American arm-twisting might have been part of this?
posted by clevershark at 5:20 AM on July 20, 2005

Here's a selection of UK views on drug laws in general. [BBC again]
posted by Drexen at 5:29 AM on July 20, 2005

Sher wish peeps would stop telling me what I should or shouldn't use to alter myself. :(
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:43 AM on July 20, 2005

In retrospect, it is amazing how long this was tolerated with the policy guiding gutter press (Daily Mail, etc) often rife with ridiculous tales of cannabis inspired cannibalism (that is a partial exaggeration to illustrate the point to those unknown to the Smell of Mail). I have heard that the closing of this fun loophole had more to do with the new Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, and his team having a harder line attitude toward things than the disgraced David Blunkett, his predecessor. This was a ridiculous, illiberal waste of Parliamentary time and a bad backsliding in UK drugs policy (which remains deeply flawed but far more sensible than the US, in my opinion). When unremarkable market towns become drink-fuelled, violent bacchanaliums come Saturday and rather more explosive criminal possibilities need police time, this is madness. People not hurting anyone, even themselves=Leave them be in a free society.

Harmless, fun fungi. I remember at school teachers laughing at groups of us who had ‘lost a contact lens’, blatantly looking for Liberty Caps on the Cricket Ground (sigh). Hopefully this will be more honoured in the breach than the observance.
posted by The Salaryman at 5:50 AM on July 20, 2005

This comes as little surprise from a nation that just outlawed many vitamins. Aparently, British citizens are far too immature to be trusted with risky decisions regarding what they ingest and must rely on their Government to decide for them. Soon, British citizens will have all decisions carrying any risk pre-made for them and will not have to worry about, oh, deciding whether to go after terrorists or to simply capitulate, since either course carries risk.
posted by gregor-e at 5:52 AM on July 20, 2005

Seems to me time would be better spent cracking down on the chemically synthesized drugs like meth. Mushrooms grow in the wild and somehow I don't see them getting the message that they are now illegal. How are you going to crack down on that? Employ the army to go stomp them out of existance?
Why is it always the case that in light of much more pressing and alarming events, that governments can always find time to focus on something as irrelevant as this.
Bear in mind I am not condoning their use. I leave that up to the individuals to decide for themselves. I just think that violent crime and much more dangerous drugs could probably use the attention of the police and whomever else they have in mind to enforce such foolishness.

I can neither confirm nor deny my presence at numerous Grateful Dead shows in the 1980's, but I know the answer ;-)
posted by a3matrix at 6:02 AM on July 20, 2005

I too would agree that they are far from equivalent drugs, indeed, alcohol is by far the most dangerous.

And that is why I love it twistedonion.

And that is why I want you dopers to keep your weak and worthless (but nevertheless perceived as powerful and dangerous) drugs from being compared to blessed alcohol. Don't drag us drunks down with you.
posted by three blind mice at 6:23 AM on July 20, 2005

Damn! My vacation plans are ruined!
posted by spilon at 6:32 AM on July 20, 2005

It's the EU who are responsible for the Food Supplements Directive, not the British government. The first sentence of your linked article states this. Your depiction of the British public as supportive of the directive is wrong. We are not happy about this, and both opposition parties are putting the government under pressure to secure an opt-out.

So STFU.
posted by Boo! at 6:35 AM on July 20, 2005

Mushrooms grow in the wild and somehow I don't see them getting the message that they are now illegal. How are you going to crack down on that?

Well, the US has had quite poor results spending billions of dollars paying people to destroy crops and (previously) spraying pesticides over large portions of Mexico fighting the devil weed. Maybe you guys should try something like that - it's completely uneffective and costs large amounts of money, but on the other hand it'll make your politicians look "tough on drugs".
posted by nTeleKy at 6:39 AM on July 20, 2005

I am pretty tough on drugs. I destroy cannabis by fire all the time.
posted by wakko at 6:48 AM on July 20, 2005

ridiculous tales of cannabis inspired cannibalism

Don't laugh, I've seen it happen. Sometimes when those munchies hit real bad, and the paranoia is running high, even popping down to the shop for a value pack of Monster Munch is just too much for some cats to handle.. snackin' on a half-comatose buddy can be real tempting, man, especially when your vision gets all fuzzy and he starts to look like a giant chicken-salad wrap.
posted by Drexen at 7:09 AM on July 20, 2005

Wow, I had no idea that they were legal in the UK in the first place.

Legal in Holland, which always surprised me (seeing as they're so different in kind from marijuana -- I can see my country decriminalizing marijuana, but mushrooms? not in my lifetime).

But then you know those evil dutch with their "no-harm principle". feh!

someone has varied experience with all three - and who maintains a deep and abiding love and affection for alcohol - it seems to me that it is more than a bit disingenuous to argue from the point of view that these are equivalent drugs.

In a free and democratic society, the only characteristics that should count here for comparison are: harm to self (including addictive potential) and harm to others. The subjective states they induce have nothing to do with the legal issues involved (though sadly, perhaps with the policy).
posted by dreamsign at 7:12 AM on July 20, 2005

I too would agree that they are far from equivalent drugs, indeed, alcohol is by far the most dangerous.

No, that's where you're wrong! Just wait! Once all these mushrooms are off the streets and out of the hands of these vile criminals the world will be safe once again. You'll see! In fact, we should probably push the penalty for possession UP a few years, as a deterrant. Because we know how well that works! Let's celebrate our new laws with a drink on me!

Ugh.

(Side note, what kind of time in jail can one expect for being caught driving drunk over there?)
posted by dead_ at 7:17 AM on July 20, 2005

dead_:

For any offence of driving or attempting to drive while over the prescribed alcohol limit, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of one year's disqualification. This can only be waived in very exceptional circumstances, such as if the offence was committed in response to a medical emergency, or if the offender would be completely unable to earn a living. A first offender will also receive a fine, typically around £300 - £400, although fines can be below £100 for offenders of limited means. [80mg.org.uk]

posted by Drexen at 8:13 AM on July 20, 2005

apparently, British citizens are far too immature to be trusted with risky decisions regarding what they ingest and must rely on their Government to decide for them.

Gregor, you're mistaken. The British are not citizens, they are subjects.

I didn't know shrooms were legal in the UK, either. I never have done them. I'm shy about trying stuff in my old age. But putting them in the same class as heroin is insane. No wonder folks disrespect the law so much.
posted by Goofyy at 8:24 AM on July 20, 2005

Legal in Holland, which always surprised me

They were, until recently, legal in Japan as well.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:30 AM on July 20, 2005

you're mistaken. The British are not citizens, they are subjects

really?
posted by the cuban at 8:33 AM on July 20, 2005

And that is why I want you dopers to keep your weak and worthless (but nevertheless perceived as powerful and dangerous) drugs from being compared to blessed alcohol. Don't drag us drunks down with you.

I'd never drag a drunk down with me, he's usually in the gutter already, while I'm on cloud 9 :-p
posted by twistedonion at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2005

he's usually in the gutter already

And quite happily so, twistedonion.

Remember, Jesus didn't turn water into weed. (He didn't turn it into Scotch either, but I forgive him for that provincial oversight.)
posted by three blind mice at 9:14 AM on July 20, 2005

Wow. this sounds all too familiar.

I went to highschool in Shroom Heaven. Bellingham, Washington.

We had a few acres of wild field out back where neighbors grazed live stock. In the wet mild climate of the Pacific Northwest Liberty Caps thrive. And in our field particularly.

One foggy Sunday morning I hear my dad, looking out the back, exclaim "Hey. What are those kids doing back there!" Before I could think of a lie I told him they were picking mushrooms. He throws on his cowboy boots and goes stomping out there. I was thinking—Oh Shit.

By the time I catch up I hear him explaining the difference between the Three Step Mushrooms (Coprine - in which you take bout three steps before you collapse) and the other edible ones. He didn't know about Psilocybe as a source for getting high. But he knew they were edible. So there he was - the man who told me pot smoking would be bad for my posture (as he would break every bone in my body) happily pointing out "edible mushrooms" to all my highschool peers. He was delighted to share his knowledge of nature to the fine youth of America.

The next weekend triple the number of kids showed up.
posted by tkchrist at 9:23 AM on July 20, 2005

Banned

Why? Did it become to much competition for the opium or coke market? Was it causening a lot of teen pregnancies?
posted by borq at 9:25 AM on July 20, 2005

Yes, shrooms were legal in Japan of all places, up untill 2002. Crazy.

That said, a heavy does of shroomage can really freak people out if they're not prepaired for it, unlike weed.

I don't care much for the cannabis, alcohol, psychedelic equivalencies in these arguments. For someone has varied experience with all three - and who maintains a deep and abiding love and affection for alcohol - it seems to me that it is more than a bit disingenuous to argue from the point of view that these are equivalent drugs.

Yes, unlike alchohol, you can't overdose on either shrooms or weed. And you can't become physicaly dependant. 10,000 people don't die from mushroom of marijuana withdrawl every year. Marijuana and weed don't enduce violence.

Totaly diffrent.
posted by delmoi at 9:27 AM on July 20, 2005

Why? Did it become to much competition for the opium or coke market? Was it causening a lot of teen pregnancies?

Don't you know that the little spores can fertilize an egg all by themselves, resulting in a mutant half-man half-mushroom ofspring?

(think about that the next time you trip :P)
posted by delmoi at 9:28 AM on July 20, 2005

Seems to me time would be better spent cracking down on the chemically synthesized drugs like meth.

I really disagree with this synthesized = terrible unsynthesized = good meme which mushroomers and potheads seem to cling to. (I also notice they say the same thing about music!)

I mean so what if a drug is manufactured? It has no bearing on its harmfulness or addictiveness. Cocaine is natural, methamphetamine is manufactured. They have very similar effects. Plenty of chemicals are fun to take as long as you bear in mind the consequences.

The selective morality of the "it's natural, man" crowd is nothing but hypocrisy. Boil up some datura and see how lovely nature messes with your mind.

And say what you want about meth, but at least its users don't listen to the Grateful Dead.
posted by dydecker at 9:29 AM on July 20, 2005

Bill Hicks once said something along the lines of: isn't making nature illegal, kind of un-natural? Bored of shrooms?
posted by DrDoberman at 9:31 AM on July 20, 2005

Remember, Jesus didn't turn water into weed.

no, he spiked the water with powerful halucinogens and the followers rejoiced (after giggling and talking in tongues for a few hours first of course)

Wine, I don't think should be classed with other alcohol anyway - does anyone know the reason why wine drunk gives a more stoned kind of high over say beer which just makes me want to shout lots and argue?

One other thing while I have a booze advocate around - when i drink my first half pint of beer my joints (not the paper/tobacco kind!) hurt, after that it's all fine and dandy?
posted by twistedonion at 9:32 AM on July 20, 2005

Don't you know that the little spores can fertilize an egg all by themselves, resulting in a mutant half-man half-mushroom ofspring?
(think about that the next time you trip :P)

I will! this weekend @ voov ;)
I think I'll call m... dickheads ;)
posted by borq at 9:38 AM on July 20, 2005

I think the law's more aimed at the importers/growers of foreign shrooms sold in vacuum packs at all the markets and headshops in the UK, rather than hippies and school kids picking Liberty caps for their own consumption. Obviously, the law covers both, but I think it was the sudden appearance (I remember first seeing them about a couple of years ago?) of the former group which prompted the law.
posted by johnny novak at 9:46 AM on July 20, 2005

Remember, Jesus didn't turn water into weed.

Yes, but then again the prophets didn't go out into the desert to talk too loud, grow increasingly sentimental, weave around clumsily, pass out, and wake up several hours later feeling like walking death. Not very condusive to grand visions, that.
posted by gompa at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2005

johnny novak: Yup. (I think the debate was prompted by some Conservative pointing out how "odd" it was to see mushrooms sold openly from stalls). They've successfully eliminated the standardised, reliably-dosed and non-poisonous supply and replaced it with an unreliable, illicit source of potentially misidentified and/or infected-with-something field-shrooms.
posted by Drexen at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2005

> Remember, Jesus didn't turn water into weed.

Of course he didn't. The good Lord had already distributed weed everywhere that it could possibly grow anyway, and drunks are *so*much easier to run your religious scams on than potheads are.

Something to do with all that guilt over their drunken bad behaviour, I presume...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:12 AM on July 20, 2005

twistedonion - just a stab in the dark, but maybe it's gout.
posted by jimmy76 at 10:40 AM on July 20, 2005

I predict a rash of mushroom poisoning cases in the UK because of this publicity.
posted by fenriq at 10:41 AM on July 20, 2005

One other thing while I have a booze advocate around - when i drink my first half pint of beer my joints (not the paper/tobacco kind!) hurt, after that it's all fine and dandy?

Wait a minute there twistedonion. I'm not a booze advocate. I'm a drinker. A half pint... not sure what that is. Never heard of one.

PeterMcDermott, the ditch weed God made ain't worth smoking. It took the sustained efforts of potheads over generations to refine the species into something that could even remotely compare to distilled spirits.
posted by three blind mice at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2005

What with this and Britain's draconian porn laws, it looks like I'm going to have to extend my self-imposed exile in the Netherlands for another few years.

You'd think Tony would have more important things to spend his time on. Or has he already reached his target this year as assistant al-Qaeda recruitment officer?
posted by PurpleJack at 2:05 PM on July 20, 2005

Of course the AMA and whatever the British equivalent is always has a vested interest in banning anything people enjoy that grows out of the ground for one simple reason.These drugs can't be patented, thus no millions and billions of dollars rolling in.
posted by harry hood at 2:59 PM on July 20, 2005

Hmmm...so mushrooms are Class A now?
[Ali G]
Does Class A guarantee that they is better quality?
[/Ali G]
posted by mullingitover at 3:43 PM on July 20, 2005

Given that 'shrooms grow naturally in some places, I wonder if this'll lead to the same ridiculous situation that opium-producing poppies are in in the US. Essentially [at least according to that article] as long as you're ignorant about the fact that that plenty of commercially available poppy species can be harvested for opium, you're pretty much considered innocent if people notice that you have said poppies. On the other hand, if you know what they produce... Well, you're in less luck. It seems to me that 'shrooms might end up in a similar [Kafka-esque] place, legally.

And twistedonion's right on, regarding the relative dangers of weed, alcohol, and 'shrooms. Makes no sense that non-addictive drugs that are much less physically harmful than tobacco or alcohol are Schedule 1 [or Class A]. Things that are addictive and have potentially dangerous physical effects - sure, controlled legalization might be better, but there's at least some rationale for prohibition in their cases. Psychedelics and weed, though? [Shakes head.]

Tangentially, the natural/unnatural thing annoys me too, whether it's medicine or drugs or whatever. It's chemicals working on you either way; whether they come from a lab or a plant doesn't change that. Personally, I'd rather know exactly what I'm putting in my body, exactly how much I'm putting in, etc.
posted by ubersturm at 5:58 PM on July 20, 2005

ubersturm writes "whether they come from a lab or a plant doesn't change that."

If meth actually came from proper labs, as opposed to the kitchen of some redneck's double-wide, you'd have a stronger point. I doubt that ice is predominantly made in sterile, controlled conditions.
posted by clevershark at 6:20 PM on July 20, 2005

clevershark : "If meth actually came from proper labs, as opposed to the kitchen of some redneck's double-wide"

This totally misses the point. The dichotomy is between something "fashioned by Nature alone" and something by "Man's intervention". The quality of the production process is irrelevant. This is mostly strongly highlighted in the South American shamans believing that the B. Caapi vine contains the active component of the Ayahuasca brew, with the accompanying element, say, Psychotria Viridis, just a secondary agent. From a western rational perspective, only the chemical N,N-DMT within P. Viridis is instrumental. The Caapi is just the source of a MAOI that enables activity after oral consumption. The dichotomy between natural/artificial is holistic, not centered around effectiveness of identification, isolation and extraction. The holistic dichotomy is based on the notion that man's actions are ontologically special, which in itself is probably based on the perspective that conscious entities have a subject/object dichotomy, where changes induced objects are of one type and changes induced by subjects onto objects are another. Can the notion be supported? I don't know.
posted by Gyan at 6:57 PM on July 20, 2005

wait til they ban smoking in your bars and pubs. that's when you'll feel the overloards exacting their will.
posted by brandz at 7:54 PM on July 20, 2005

Funny, I thought the overlords were the ones trying to get people to smoke by telling them it was good for them, and then pretending it wasn't bad for them, and then pretending that it didn't matter either way. I'm not an overlord, but I sure am grateful that people no longer smoke in bars and pubs. Authoritarianism kind of sucks, but you know, the same thing should have happened voluntarily. You may certainly feel free to be a sucker, but please don't force me to be one as well.
posted by Embryo at 10:49 PM on July 20, 2005

Authoritarianism kind of sucks, but you know, the same thing should have happened voluntarily.

I think it would have happened voluntarily if Governments gave society a bit of time. If I'm in a restaurant and no-one around me smokes, or it's poorly ventilated then there's no way I'm lighting up. It all boils down to manners really.
posted by twistedonion at 1:27 AM on July 21, 2005

Wait a minute there twistedonion. I'm not a booze advocate. I'm a drinker.

I just said that in jest - I'm sure you are no more a booze advocate than I'm a doper! Advocate was probably a bad choice of words
posted by twistedonion at 1:30 AM on July 21, 2005

it reallly all comes down to choice now, doesn't it! apparently i have to make the choice you impose on me, embryo. too precious.
posted by brandz at 5:40 AM on July 21, 2005

damn brits are behind us by far, we outlawed them years ago, along with that other one lopphophora someting er other, but datura remains plentiful and abundant and legal, the lawgivers say to "help yourself to the devil's weed"and pass the mustard.outlawing a plant that that our supreme being put here and waging wars on same is outright blasphemy and akin to cursing god an spittin in his eye.(her) (it's)as our police battalions wage a deadly fight in the mountains, the plains, the verdant forests, by the way those mushrooms do have toxic alkloids and are not recommended for mentally ill or sick ones.also no drive either.or try the desighner drugs by whats his name the great chemical engineer guy who invents them molecule by molecule and is hounded by the fbi forever.. they like to keep the blinders on and the curtain of alternate reality closed shut.also anyone who eats them all the time isnt some one to ask about the more esoteric things like assembly line survival or making money as you fry.
posted by xtiml at 9:42 AM on July 21, 2005

brandz, you're right in a sense. But isn't there a difference between doing something and not doing something?
posted by Embryo at 11:23 AM on July 21, 2005

clevershark : "Is there perhaps a suggestion in there that some American arm-twisting might have been part of this?"

Would not be surprising. Shrooms were made illegal in 2002 in Japan (where, ironically, they were legal dried, but not fresh), and this was listed on the US DEA site as a "DEA accomplishment".

dydecker : "I really disagree with this synthesized = terrible unsynthesized = good meme which mushroomers and potheads seem to cling to. (I also notice they say the same thing about music!)"

Most shroomers I know of argue that synthesized music is good, not bad.
posted by bugbread at 4:10 PM on July 21, 2005

all i'm saying is some people smoke, some people don't smoke. people have a choice as whether to enter an establishment or not. the owner should set the standard and that way people have a choice to enter a smoking or non-smoking bar. remember, one size doesn't fit all. as stated, it all comes down to choice.
posted by brandz at 6:46 PM on July 21, 2005