"A sign posted nearby [in Cape Disappointment Park] read: NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION. Corbett ignored it....Close by, in the grass, he spotted true [Psilocybe azurescens]. More of the mystery mushrooms grew by the spot where Corbett had parked his truck.
"...He picked 10 specimens from the woodchip pile, and put them in a plastic bag along with 10 of the classic azurescens. “I put them together because they were clearly different, with no mistake whatsoever. They don’t look anything alike.”"
Sounds like he was picking the unidentified Psilocybe along with Psilocybe azurescens.
You never, ever, mix unidentified mushroms in the same bag. They are spongy criatures that disintegrate easily or adsorb liquids. Spores or tiny fragments of the unknown mushrom will contaminate the edible mushroms, poisoning the food and leading typically to serious consequences.
There was a sign that said "NO MUSHROOM PICKING: VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CITATION", and the rules for the park say "Wildlife, plants and all park buildings, signs and tables and other structures are protected; removal or damage of any kind is prohibited." - http://parks.state.wa.us/179/Rules-Regulations
Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
Taking petrified wood from the Petrified National Forest, taking trinitite from the site of the first nuclear bomb test, knocking over stone formations in Goblin Valley State Park, graffiti and littering, and many more.
He also picked 10 Psilocybe azurescens, in addition to the 10 odd mushrooms mushrooms which he thought might be a subspecies, or perhaps new Psilocybe species. It's not like he had no idea he was collecting something which contained psilocybin.
Also, importantly, he's facing a felony narcotics charge because the mushrooms contain psilocyben, not because he illegally gathered some park fauna (almost certainly a misdemeanor charge).
Admittedly, the article muddies this water, but it's our crazy drug laws that are to blame for his predicament, otherwise he'd just be facing a fine or perhaps a few days in jail.
>Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person.
I disagree with you there. His argument was that it shouldn't be illegal because nobody was hurt, not that it isn't illegal. I'd agree with him, victimless crimes are bullshit
There is no bright line which makes a crime "victimless".
If I catch a fish on public waters but without a fishing license, is that victimless?
Yes, if you regard the fish as owned by "the public", in which case "the public" is the victim.
Fishing laws exist because there is a tiny damage which is normally below the threshold of general damage, but when magnified by a lot of people becomes meaningful. But I can't point to a specific case and point out the victim.
Doom, as you may recall, originally used the Red Cross symbol on medikits. This is illegal in many countries, due to the Geneva Convention. id software changed the symbol. Who was the victim of their use of the Red Cross symbol?
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits collecting feathers from migratory birds, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act extends that to eagles. Every once in a while someone is prosecuted for using those feathers. For example, Peg Bargon incorporated those feathers in her dreamcatchers, which she then sold.
Who is the victim in this case? (This law exists to prevent a reversion to historical circumstances which, like fishing license laws, were destroying bird populations.)
There are laws against animal cruelty. Who is the victim if I vivisect my dog on my property, away from public eyes?
So, don't try to make this a general thing. Your argument should be that some personal uses of psilocybin should not be illegal. Not the broad (and in my opinion untenable) view that "victimless crimes are bullshit."
Definitely relevant but it seems like this would probably be argued as a case of probable cause. If the local police are aware that people have been picking mushrooms in the region because some of them contain psilocybin then it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider foraging for mushrooms probable cause in their jurisdiction.
I didn't go to law school either. I definitely don't want cops patting me down because someone does something illegal sometimes in an area that I also happen to be in sometimes.
I may have phrased that poorly, I didn't mean that you would be searchable for being in the area. I meant that you would be searchable for being witnessed picking or carrying mushrooms in the area which is very different from your example of simply walking through a high crime area.
Looking at your original comment I see that message clearly now. I still wouldn't want that to constitute PC. What if I had a brown bag full of non-psychedelic mushrooms? The cops would roll up on me and search me? Worse yet, what if I inadvertently picked a psychedelic mushroom, not knowing what is is and telling myself I would ID it with a spore print at home later. Now I'm looking at prison time? I don't want my taxes to go to keeping those cases in prison.
We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from https://clusterbusters.org/ the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
To summarize:
1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign.
2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC
3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.
30% feels like a decent bargain if you finally get to take the other 70% out of the duffel bags/safety deposit boxes. Especially if that enables you to spend it on things that mitigate risky behavior, such as lawyers.
Consider most people legitimately needing to launder money likely already have a lot of it and aren't necessarily looking for a bargain.
Check out something the historians call "presentism". It's really enlightening in regards to helping think about why past breakthroughs were not fully realized.
Etsy anecdote from someone generally outside of their main market:
I have ordered something off of Etsy 3 times. 2 of those times, there was a minor "customer service" level issue. Once, I accidentally put in the wrong zip code and, after the package was returned to the seller, I was refused any refund (it was "my fault" -- too bad). Another time, I was shipped the wrong item and the back-and-forth between the seller to replace the item ended up taking more time than I was willing to spend on said $15 item and I gave up.
In the first case, I did reach out to Etsy, and was told to resolve the issue with the seller. After much back-and-forth, with the seller insisting it was my fault for typoing the zip code and there was nothing they could do short of re-ordering (and re-paying) entirely, I ended up convincing them to let me directly Paypal them shipping costs for the second attempt at shipping, which went fine.
This process took entirely too much time (especially when one thinks of experiences with Amazon -- where they resend stuff in orders-gone-awry right away, without any question, or significant delay).
My main impression of Etsy is: there are some cool items in its unique/niche marketplace and I would like to buy stuff off of Etsy more often in general, but the site is largely irrelevant to me as a "place to shop" because of the lack of an empowered Etsy customer service level between the buyer and seller -- protecting and advocating for both parties. Of course, not all sellers are at fault here, and I'm sure many Etsy sellers (probably the majority?) facilitate minor order issues brilliantly. This is just my personal experience.
I would feel a lot better about Etsy if I knew I had someone with the power (at Etsy) to help when something unexpectedly went wrong with an order, regardless of where the fault lies. I kind of felt like it was a cop-out by Etsy to place all customer service expectations on the buyer and seller directly.
Anyway, I like the concept of Etsy a lot (I helped my 67 year old mother open an account to sell her embroidery!), but I can't spend 10+ emails worth of time over 2 weeks trying to fix minor order issues, which, in my personal anecdotal experience, has been the case exactly 66.6% of the time.
If Etsy promoted a strong customer-positive service vibe -- as the empowered middle-person between the seller/maker and buyer -- I'd feel a lot better about trying again to buy stuff via it.
And this isn't an entirely buyer-sided argument. I would hope that Etsy sees customer service as a boon to both seller and buyer, and would make life easy on the seller as well as the buyer when these small "consumer snafus" show up. For example, not wasting the sellers time, or charging them fees, or being stingy about refunding fees, when minor things like this happen. It seems self-evident that a protected seller -- one who doesn't have to worry about Etsy putting them through the ringer over a minor order mistake -- would make a happier seller. Which seems like it would naturally trickle down to happier buyers as well.
For some commutes, particularly to Capitol Hill and the University District, or into South Seattle or the airport, Link Light Rail is much better than the buses, largely due to it being entirely separated from street traffic for its entire line.
I think the bigger problem with naming is simply being consistent. Ask 5 developers what the variable name for an important filehandle should be and you'll probably get at least 3 answers. As long as everyone is consistent, even if the names get a little sketchy here and there, that consistency goes a long way for code with a long lifetime.
signed, this totally not still upset Seahawks fan.
(re: 2015 Superbowl)