Psilocybin ("magic") mushrooms should be legal in the United States.

I'm glad I straightened that out. Perhaps if I hadn't mentioned this crucial point you would have been arguing for Macrolepiota in round 2, supposing that you had responded. Good to be of service. No, it's not because of the social taboo. I'm pretty certain it's because of it's halucinogenic effects. I'll explain more on how your Thomas Jefferson quote still doesn't apply in point 2. Also, your flip to the author of Spartina hardly has an wieght in comparrison to the many annoymous qoutes by families broken up by drug addiction, overdose, and relapse. Ask any child living in a home with drug addicted parents, I'm sure they'll have something to say. 1)Well, I see you had to make up your own religion to make this point count at all. We can determine then that you had no backing for this from the beginning and would so be void. But I'll work with it. Lwerdism isn't a religion. Unless it has 500000+ members it isn't an official religion but a small group of followers following a leader, not any kind of deity, aka a cult. It should be noted that because your not trying to connect with anything, except themselves, they are probably only trying to get high without fear of any legal consequences. So that's debunked. And Cï¿½te d'Ivoire isn't a religion, it's a country, and as your keen to point out, you don't have any evidence to back this statement up. So, until there is a recognized religion that uses shrooms, they can't be considered an entheogen (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which is a phycadelic drug used for ritual and traditional purposes. Because theLwerd hasn't given any real religion, besides the fake one that she hasn't proven to exist besides her word, this argument is not a factor. 2)Well, this is all well and good. I really didn't realize thinks like turkey intentionally caused you to go into hallucinogenic states and totally alter your mind 9therefore yourself) as a whole. Hold on, wait a minute. They don't. Shrooms do though. When you eat things like chocolate, turkey and grains you are still in your right state of mind, but with shrooms you aren't. I drink a lot of milk, and haven't once had a trip. Rather, I'm still me. If I ate a shroom though, I'd be high, gazing at wood grains, and totally out of my right state of mind. So there is a distinct difference between hallucinogens (which include shrooms) and food, so your Jefferson quote is wrong. Next you bring up robotusin. Its effects where made to be taken in proportion, which would not make someone high, but people overdose. So by this example, isn't it also possible that even though, as you say, it would be told to be taken in doses that people may overdose on this as well? Hmmmm. I'll also get on alcohol later. 3)Like I said above, milks effects and shrooms are completely different. Milk still lets you keep your right state of mind, shrooms don't. That's why they are illegal, just like cocaine, marijuana, meth, etc. It may not be addictive, but it's effects are what is of concern. If people are able to openly get shrooms, they will over do it (especially in times of depression, we see this with alcohol) and keep coming back for more because they like the feel so much (like alcoholics) keeping them in an unstable mind set. That's why they are bad. See my robotusin argument above about having it in the home. 4)(http://en.wikipedia.org...) all my info is from here, so if you see something that you don't think is sourced, you'll find it here. If you look at history, it says that the Government (the white one) wasn't aware of shrooms existence until experiments were performed showing the effects in 1968. Close to two years later it was made illegal. SO when they did know about it they made it illegal, it wasn't just a mainstream everyday thing like you make it out to have been. Its not that the US as a whole was fine, because they didn't know about it at all, it was just in small Indian communities. 5)But you failed to observe the second half of my argument, being that even if they aren't directly poisonous, they still are dangerous. I won't try to lie and say they are when they aren't. Shrooms, like alcohol, cause mind alteration. One that may not only deter proper judgment, but coordination as well. Like I said, you could easily wig out, or get distracted, much easier than if you were in your right state of mind, and get into a wreck, killing you and probably others so you can be high. 6)Your link is about prescription medications, not over the counter free-for-alls as you want shrooms to be. These drugs are strictly given out by doctors, and only to people who need the medical benefits. SO unless your arguing they should be prescribed (which to my knowledge your not) we'll drop this, leaving regular side effects. Still, all the side effects I've seen on non-persciption drugs don't cause one to hallucinate, or go into states of fear. They are bad, but at least your mind is intact. 7)Well you didn't really try to debunk this, but anyway. We can already see this effect. You live in New York, and you've probably seen bums. Most of them likly ran out of money from either drug or alcohol abuse. Also, if we look at cigarettes, (at $40 a carton now, and that's if its cheap) that takes a huge chunk of money out of ones pocket. So, along with the amount of people not working because they are high, along with the cost of the shrooms, its only logical to assume its legalization would have an effect on the economy. You also ignored the part about the relation between alchohol legalization and drunk driving, which can be compared to shrooms, so we'll assume you agree here. 8)I agreed with shrooms, not other drugs, but I'll assume you agree that they can be compared to alcoholics, seeing as how you didn't respond to this part at all. Good to know. 9)No, you have your facts wrong. It wasn't legalized because it is a right, but because it was too hard to control the massive amount of crime surrounding it. And we can see that when they did, drunk driving increased. So since you agree they can be equally compared, we'll also agree on the assumption that shroom legalization will up accidental deaths as well. 10) But like I said with robotusin, people will abuse. SO what make you think they won't if they have easy access? If the individual will abuse on legal non-intentional high inducing drugs, do you really expect them to act moderately with ones that do? That's absurd. Also, since you agree drunk driving happens all the time, and also agree that shrooms and alcohol can be compared, we can see that you think shroom-driving will be a problem. So because they can be harmful (compare to alcohol), alter the mind in ways the user can't control, are not food but hallucinogenic's, will cause an economic fallout, and can and probably will be abused like any other drug, it needs to maintain its illegality. TheLwerd said all I had to do was prove her points wrong and I did, with facts and statistic (most of which are common knowlegde, but you can easily find them on google if you look). Remember, the votes are not on whether you personally think they should be legalized or not, but which of us argued on that stance better. Bye! :)