1 Comment

Yah, good article, important stuff. Even with Colorado 122 I think we're still going about this all quite wrong with the frame of "let's invent whole new regulatory structures for authorized psychedelic use." I have a lot of concerns. One of them being the government regulation of religion. Catholicism, one of my home bases, has very much argued for separation of church and state, that combining them is bad democratic governing principle *and would fuck over religion*. Look at the official, state Christian churches of European countries. They're gutless, like a DMV in a cool old building. Separation of church and state protects both. I still think we probably need medical regulation via FDA (get DEA out of it). Religious legalization, with some reasonable standard of what's a religion; once that's met, government gets out of the way (except basic safety, criminal law, etc). And general decriminalization. Yeah, the FDA is flawed, but the new regulatory frameworks being implemented and proposed look worse. They're far too likely to create new, funky messes (ala Oregon 109) and seem like a possible avenue for VC, Silicon Valley types to try to "disrupt" the FDA, AMA, APA, etc and largely privitize (to their own benefit) psychedelic mental health care. I'm not clear, but it seems CO 122 has better protections on this than OR 109??

Expand full comment