In this paper I will attempt to lay down reasoning for the legalization of psilocybin, which is found in varying species of mushrooms and is currently prohibited in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. My argument is based upon two major premises, that psilocybin is, in and of itself, not a harmful substance if used responsibly, and that to imprison an otherwise law-abiding citizen for possession or ingestion of psilocybin is not only harmful to our society but inherently immoral. The second of these premises is applicable to any controlled substance. I have chosen psilocybin to illustrate my point due mostly to the fact that it has no documented lasting adverse side-effects.

That there are no lasting adverse side-effects of psilocybin is a medically documented fact. In checking various medical texts on pharmacology, toxicology, poisonous plants and psychotropic drugs the only `adverse' effect listed is hallucinations when ingested in large doses. "Hallucinations lasting 6-8 hours," (1). "Accidental poisoning in adults resembles alcoholic inebriation, and treatment is not required," "Effects lasting longer than 24 hours are not due to a natural toxin but should be ascribed to the consumption of a mushroom `doctored' with a hallucinogen, usually phencyclidine(PCP),"(2). More on that last statement later. "Psilocybin has been shown experimentally to produce optically-induced distortions," (3). "...No deaths resulting from psilocybin intoxication have been reported," "Psilocybin overdose has not been associated with any deaths, and usually a calm environment is all that is needed to assist withdrawal," (4). "Low doses of psilocybin (up to 4 or 5 mg) induce a pleasant experience with mental relaxation. Higher doses induce perceptual alterations, with occasional hallucinations," (5). Due to the fact that most people who knowingly ingest psilocybe mushrooms are looking forward to those hallucinations, calling this an `adverse' effect is entirely dependent upon ones' perspective. After seeing all the evidence of the essential harmlessness of psilocybin you should be asking yourself, "Why is a species of mushroom which grows naturally in various parts of the United States and Central America completely banned?"

I stated that to imprison an otherwise law-abiding citizen for possession or ingestion of psilocybin is not only harmful to our society but inherently immoral. This is, admittedly, a difficult statement to defend, but before you disregard it ask yourself this question, `Under what circumstances is a government justified in enacting violence against its' citizens?' (i.e. arrest, seizure of assets, and imprisonment). According to what I believe our founding fathers intended to create with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution the only circumstances in which the government is justified in enacting violence against its' citizens are in cases of armed revolt, treason and the direct harm of anothers' person or property. Ingestion of a mushroom, even if it were a highly toxic one, does not result in any of the above. I believe it was James Madison who once said something to the effect that a man who is willing to give up his individual liberty for a little security deserves what he gets.

The ban on psilocybin also makes the government at least partially responsible for the secondary violence enacted by one citizen, namely the `dealer' upon another, the `user.' "Effects lasting longer than 24 hours are not due to a natural toxin but should be ascribed to the consumption of a mushroom `doctored' with a hallucinogen, usually phencyclidine (PCP)." PCP is an inherently harmful and dangerous substance. If psilocybin were legal it would be regulated by the FDA and the "doctoring" of garden variety mushrooms would not take place due to the regulations and quality control standards imposed by that agency. It would also not be readily available, as it is now, to minors, who are inherently unable to come to an informed decision about whether or not to ingest the substance. The way things stand now any teenager can walk down the hall of his or her high school and find, with little difficulty, not only psilocybe mushrooms but all manner of other so-called "controlled substances." Where is the control in the Controlled Substances Act? A legalized drug trade would allow for some regulation which currently is nonexistent. The average dealer does not care how old the customer is, if you have the cash he's got the stash. At least with legalization a minimum age for purchase could be established.

If there was ever a lesson to be learned from history it is the lesson we should have learned from Prohibition. Completely banning something that people want not only does not work but creates its' own problems which in some cases are worse than the use of the substance in question. For instance, in the case of prohibition, and in the WAR ON DRUGS, "It created a disrespect for the law. Never before had so many otherwise law-abiding citizens broken the law--and had so much fun doing it," (6). If there is such a thing as one drug leading to the use of another stronger, more dangerous drug it is, in my opinion, due to this unnecessarily created disrespect. If this drug is banned and I've found that it really isn't as harmful or dangerous as I was lead to believe, in fact it's lot's of fun, then they probably weren't telling me the truth about that drug either. Besides I'm already breaking the law so I might as well try it.

The other lesson we should have learned from prohibition is that the criminals are the ones who benefit. "It created organized crime. Prior to Prohibition, organized crime was nothing to speak of. Prohibition made the gangster not just well paid, but well liked," (6). The mobsters who supplied booze to the speakeasies were seen as the good guys, "who flout the law to bring us what we want," (6). If all illicit drugs were suddenly legalized it would be a tremendous blow to big money organized crime, and it would put a stop to the majority of the graft and corruption currently present in the organizations charged with enforcing the anti-drug laws, namely law-enforcement agencies and the court system.

I am not advocating the complete deregulation of currently banned drugs, on the contrary I think it is time that we started to truly regulate them. I do think that psilocybin and some other substances that are completely natural should be made freely available to legal aged consenting adults and that the control of the others should be given back to the physicians who are trained and eminently more qualified than politicians to decide if a given drug is right for a given medical situation.