Serrato 1

Miguel Serrato

Storer

November 25, 2019

English 3 H, Block 1

Legalization of a Dystopian Producer

As English novelist George Eliot once pondered, “What do we live for, if not to make life

less difficult for each other?” As humans, it is our duty to live and make decisions in a way that

benefits others. This is an important concept to consider when debating whether psychedelic

mushrooms be legalized in California. When one considers Eliot’s statement that people are

responsible for helping each other, the answer seems apparent: no, they should remain illegal.

Legalizing psychedelic mushrooms would only lead to greater problems in other people’s lives,

such as severe psychological damage and a more dangerous living environment. Psychedelic

mushrooms should remain completely illegal in California because psychedelic mushrooms are

classified as a Schedule I drug, can affect the environment around the user, and can potentially

lead to drug tourism in California.

As a Schedule I drug, psychedelic mushrooms should remain completely illegal in

California. As established by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedule I drugs,

substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high

potential for abuse” (DEA); psychedelic mushrooms have both qualities. Supporters of

mushroom legalization may claim that the drugs do not possess any addictive qualities, a claim

that is clearly dubious in light of evidence from the American Psychiatric Association. This

statement may be true in the sense that consumption of psychedelic mushrooms does not create

an undesirable craving for the mushrooms among users, but “tolerance to hallucinogens develops
 Serrato 2

with repeated use and has been reported to have both autonomic and psychological effects,”

(American Psychiatric Association). Users of hallucinogens become tolerant to their effects over

time and thus must consistently consume more to receive the desired effects. As a result, the risk

of potential abuse of the hallucinogen increases; clearly, then, mushrooms can be habit-forming,

making them a threat to the health of users. Consistent, repeated use can lead to severe brain

damage, as can abuse of any drug. In addition to having a potential for abuse, classification as a

Schedule I drug means that psychedelic mushrooms also have no accepted medical practice.

Supporters may argue that mushrooms are used to alleviate the symptoms of mental disorders,

particularly depression and anxiety, but any benefits mushrooms may give to people with these

conditions are short-term. They can help users escape from reality, which seemingly lessens the

effects anxiety and depression, but their time in this alternate reality is short, and once it is over,

nothing will have been accomplished. Instead, they may even be more depressed, finding

themselves back in the reality they hoped to escape. It may even prove to have been counter-

productive: the user will most likely become even more anxious and paranoid after mushroom

use than they were before, as explained by the DSM-5 when it states that hallucinogens can

create “significant problematic behavioral or psychological changes (e.g. marked by signs of

depression and anxiety, fear of ‘losing one’s mind,’ [and] impaired judgment)” (APA 529). For

these reasons, psychedelic mushrooms are classified as Schedule I drugs. If other drugs that

share that Schedule I classification, including Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD),

methamphetamines, and cocaine, are illegal, then why should the legal status of psychedelic

drugs be any different? The Schedule I classification of psychedelic mushrooms shows that

mushrooms are dangerous and there is no real reason for legalizing them.
 Serrato 3

Psychedelic mushrooms should also remain illegal because their legality could lead to an

uptick in criminal activity. Supporters of the legalization of psychedelic mushrooms may claim

that, even if there are negative side effects, it is the individual’s choice regarding what they put

into their body, and therefore, the government has no right to interfere with that. This, however,

is entirely inaccurate. When ingested, psychedelic mushrooms can have socially-dangerous

symptoms such as paranoia and impaired judgement. As explained by Harvard Health Publishing

(HHP), “patients with paranoid delusions, command hallucinations, and florid psychotic

thoughts may be more likely to become violent than other patients” (HHP), meaning people

suffering from paranoia are known to become more hostile and commit violent crimes as a result.

Additionally, the impaired judgement associated with psychedelic mushroom intoxication “can

result in injuries or fatalities from automobile crashes, physical fights, or unintentional self-

injury” (APA). This research demonstrates that mushroom intoxication can not only affect the

user, but also the people in the user’s environment. When other people are affected by an

individual’s choice, in this case hallucinogen intoxication, is it really a choice that they should be

allowed to make? Does the government still have no right to intervene when people could be hurt

or killed as a result of someone else’s choice, one that they had no control over? It is clear that,

for the safety of the public, mushrooms must remain illegal.

Finally, psychedelic mushrooms should remain illegal because legalization could

potentially lead to drug tourism in California. Drug tourism is travel undertaken explicitly for the

purpose of obtaining and/or using drugs. Studies have shown that the legalization of cannabis has

led to increases in population in several states: in the Netherlands, where marijuana is legal,

“thousands of ‘drug tourists’ sweep into [Maastricht] the Netherlands every day — as many as

two million a year, city officials say. Their sole purpose is to visit the city’s 13 ‘coffee shops,’
 Serrato 4

where they can buy varieties of marijuana with names like Big Bud, Amnesia and Gold Palm

without fear of prosecution” (Daley). Clearly, people will flock from around the globe for a

chance to use drugs that aren’t available in their states or countries of origin if they are legalized

elsewhere. If psychedelic mushrooms are legalized in California, it’s possible that they could

attract the kind of tourism that the legalization of marijuana has caused in the Netherlands. If that

happens, there will be an increase in the number of hallucinogen users with severe anxiety and

paranoia walking the streets. This helps no one; it serves only to make the state more dangerous

and increasing criminal activity.

Overall, the downsides of legalizing psychedelic mushrooms outweigh the benefits. Their

classification as a schedule I drug, the same schedule for LSD and ecstasy, shows that there is no

legitimate, non-recreational cause for their legalization, and that they have potential to be abused.

They also affect the surrounding society by increasing paranoia and impairing judgment in their

users, which in turn results in increased crime. Lastly, their legalization could potentially lead to

drug tourism in California, bringing up even greater public safety concerns. If humans are

supposed to make life easier for others, as Eliot stated, would legalizing psychedelic mushrooms

really be fulfilling that duty? Is there any benefit to the legalization of mushrooms that makes the

risk of increased crime and brain damage to users worth taking? In light of the evidence

presented, it becomes clear that there is not.

 Serrato 5

Works Cited

Daley, Suzanne. “A Dutch City Seeks to End Drug Tourism.” The New York Times, The New

York Times, 18 Aug. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/world/europe/18dutch.html.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric

Association, 2013.

“Drug Scheduling.” DEA, www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling.

Harvard Health Publishing. “Mental Illness and Violence.” Harvard Health,

www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illness-and-violence