Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms

Law changed in Thailand - requires updating and probably official references
Hello Wikipedians,

Magic mushrooms have been approved for medical use and research in Thailand. I think the table needs an edition but I don't have the competences/knowledge/references to do it by myself. Here are a few links (which are news articles, not official publications) :

https://asianews.network/thailand-allows-use-of-opium-magic-mushrooms-for-medical-purposes-research/

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/health-ministry-greenlights-medical-opium-and-magic-mushrooms

In the same time, arrests happen in Bangkok of people growing and selling magic mushrooms online, which also needs an edition of the table (because illegal (unenforced) is definitely incorrect/outdated information that could put people at risk) :

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2800859/couple-arrested-for-selling-magic-mushrooms

Situation is quite vague presently but law changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.118.139 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Netherlands: Tourist Death
There were several incidents with tourists in which magic mushrooms supposedly played a part, as far as I know, only one was confirmed. One of the two most well known incidents was of a 17 year old, French girl who jumped of a bridge/construction onto a major road in the centre of Amsterdam (She jumped into the IJ-Tunnel from the perimeter of the Nemo Museum). This can be read in Dutch (internet)media like nu.nl. The second incident concerned what I believe was a British tourist who trashed his hotel-room in Amsterdam. Later reports stated he had a (cannabis induced) psychosis and was not under the influence of magic mushrooms. Since the two stories are more or less mixed up in this article, I will change the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.128 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "BBCJapan" :

Nominate for Neutrality Check?
Right from the start of this article there are some verifiability issues that I feel go so far as to violate NPOV. The "throughout history" claim about the medicinal uses links only to another article that does not list the "dozens" of cultures promised, nor does it progress into modern history. This probably needs a proper citation if the author can find one. The linked article section also provides no evidence of medicinal use. The biggest problem I see in the first paragraph, though, is the "drastically lower potential for abuse than other Schedule I drugs" claim. "Drastic" seems to me to definitely violate NPOV, and the claim that psilocybin mushrooms have "drastically lower potential for abuse" than LSD, THC, DMT, or mescaline is at least dubious and probably unjustifiable.

If this is insufficient grounds for an NPOV check, at least there should be a verifiability template on the top of the article. --AscendingPig (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Legality in Spain
As far as I know, the cultivation, transport and sale of psilocybin mushrooms in Spain is penalized with fines and ultimately with prison if there is reoffence. Possession is somewhat in a grey area, given that up from certain quantities is automatically considered intent of sale. 2.120.128.189 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a document concerning the (il-)legality of psychedelic mushrooms in Spain: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2004/02/06/pdfs/A05061-05065.pdf Sadly my Spanish isn't good enough for me to translate and correct the wiki page. To state that they're "legal, legal, legal, legal" as the page does now (July 8 2015) is obviously wrong and potentially dangerous if someone takes it literally. I recommend that someone who speaks Spanish takes a look at the document and try to correct the page. CJTBoleyn (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That document is 11 years old. Spanish law regarding mushrooms and cannabis have changed recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.214.159 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The current norm about commercialization of mushrooms is the Real Decreto 30/2009. 

The genus Psilocybe sp appears in the list of forbidden especies for commercialization. Definetly in Spain is not legal to sell or transport them, not even the spores. Possession would be different as it doesn't depend on the especies, but the quantity of the toxin.

HyKoS (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cdi.gob.mx/derechos/vigencia/ley_general_salud.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1970-01-01_3_page002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.release.org.uk/news/MMStmt.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lifeline.org.uk/new_sitefiles/articles/20050421_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Legality in Poland
Hi

The description

"In Poland, Psilocybin in any form is illegal, possession and consumption of hallucinogenic mushrooms is illegal. The Psilocybin mushrooms are classified as narcotics."

is little bit false. Any kind of mushrooms isn't mentioned in our "Bill against drug addiction" (http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download;jsessionid=769FBE2C258E7ED610CA0EDFF917FB43?id=WDU20051791485&type=3), and in all cases prosecution related to them is an effect of treating possession (or sale/cultivation) of psilocibin mushrooms as possession (or sale/production) of psilocibin. Also, our law doesn't ban CONSUMPTION of any drugs as itself, so for exemple consumption right in the place where mushrooms grown would be legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.183.175 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bulgaria
Psilocybin mushrooms are listed as illegal in Bulgaria. But the country is coloured blue (legal) on the map. Which is correct, the map or the list? 86.167.145.188 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This either needs to be updated or put as N/A. As far as I can tell it is illegal. I am saying this only because psilocybin is illegal under EU law. With that said, Holland, Austria, and Portugal are in the EU. It is legal in Holland only in the form of truffels and decriminalized for posession of small amounts in Portugal. Austria has it's own set of rules that have some grey areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.187.37 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205125434/http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf to http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707071857/http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/?fuseaction=public.Content&nNodeID=17341&sLanguageISO=EN&LayoutFormat=print to http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/?fuseaction=public.Content&nNodeID=17341&sLanguageISO=EN&LayoutFormat=print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2017

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Clear consensus against the proposed moves en masse. bd2412 T 16:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

– Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms → Legality of psilocybin mushrooms
 * Legal status of Salvia divinorum → Legality of Salvia divinorum
 * Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States → Legality of Salvia divinorum in the United States
 * Legal status of striptease → Legality of striptease
 * Legal status of Internet pornography → Legality of Internet pornography
 * Abortion law → Legality of abortion
 * Legal status of tattooing in the United States → Legality of tattooing in the United States
 * Legal status of tattooing in the European Union → Legality of tattooing in the European Union
 * Child pornography laws in Australia → Legality of child pornography in Australia
 * Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors → Legality of drawn pornography depicting minors
 * Child pornography laws in the United States → Legality of child pornography in the United States
 * Child pornography laws in Canada → Legality of child pornography in Canada
 * Child pornography laws in Japan → Legality of child pornography in Japan
 * Child pornography laws in the United Kingdom → Legality of child pornography in the United Kingdom
 * Child pornography laws in the Netherlands → Legality of child pornography in the Netherlands
 * Child pornography laws in Portugal → Legality of child pornograpy in Portugal
 * Child pornography in the Philippines → Legality of child pornography in the Philippines
 * Laws regarding incest → Legality of incest
 * Prostitution law → Legality of prostitution
 * Oppose. For example, the wording "Legality of child pornography in Australia" may imply to some that child pornography is legal or semi-legal in Australia -- and it very definitely thankfully is NOT legal there, or in any other of the nations listed hereinabove. Remember that the English Wikipedia is read by many people whose first language is not English. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and propose the standard use of "Legal status" instead. To my ear, "Legality" suggests a binary answer: is it legal or is it illegal. "Legal status" suggests right off that the discussion is more complicated than a simple "yes/no". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with this, too. I just want consistency. The only benefit to 'legality' over 'legal status', in my view, is that 'legal status' is also used in article titles like 'Legal Status of Puerto Rico', but I'm not sure why that would matter. Michipedian (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. What about just saying "law", as in "Child pornography law in ..."? The singular law is general, and refers to case law and precedent as well as to specific statutes, while the plural "laws" refers primarily only to the latter. --В²C ☎ 23:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you oppose some of the moves and support others, please specify which. Michipedian (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a mass renaming, per Malik. "Legality" sounds like we're talking about whether something is legal or not, whereas a lot of these articles are about the regulation of something (eg, abortion, tattoos) rather than whether they're legal or not per se. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems that some of these might have support (a rough consensus rather than unanimous, but that's enough) if proposed individually, and that others might have support if the target were different. But this multiple proposal is too sweeping, covering too many topic areas, to have any hope of approval. There are two possible ways forward. One is to propose a new Wikipedia naming convention. I don't see that as hopeful for several reasons, but I could be wrong. The other is to pick the more important move or group of similar moves, and give that a go in a fresh RM. I recommend that. I suggest six pages at most, and one would do. Or just relist Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States as I have suggested there and ping all the participants above. Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename article
The article name should be Legality of psilocybin mushrooms by country, we already have Legality of cannabis by country for example. --Jilja (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319002940/http://www.maps.org/research/psilo/psilo_ib.pdf to http://www.maps.org/research/psilo/psilo_ib.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/crime/090425/crm0904251300015-n5.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002193831/http://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws-_en/@149236/paddoverbod_van/ to http://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws-_en/@149236/paddoverbod_van/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Portugal on the map
Why is Portugal gray instead of yellow on the map? I don't know how to edit the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.16.175.140 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Canada is de facto legal
While I've never taken them, I'd assume by the ability to buy them online, that the law is unenforced. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As of this writing, psyilocbyin is listed as a Schedule III drug (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/section-sched95602.html?txthl=psilocybin. Poihths (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The only case law on this is a 1982 (https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5524/index.do) case where the counsel for the accused admitted that he had mushrooms that contained psilocybin. If the accused had not admitted that fact, then Crown would have alleged factors leading to the finder of fact to conclude that the accused had "knowledge" of the "presence of psilocybin."  The basic problem with Canada's domestic legal situation is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act only schedules "psilocybin."  In the International Conventions, this is not sufficient to schedule "psilocybin mushrooms," as the lead to the article says.  This is not for some reason peculiar to international law, it is because no reasonable person can know that the scheduling of "psilocybin" extends to any mushrooms.  All that the Government leans on is a 1982 SCC case that doesn't canvas the way the International Conventions are interpretted and which does not, therefore, view the CDSA in terms of how international drug laws are normally construed.  Think of it this way: under international drug law, Canada gains obligations to report concerning psilocybin.  The act does not extend to Canada making reports concerning psilocybin mushrooms, even if legalized, because they are not subjects of international control.  Coca plants or cannabis plants, on the other hand, are subjects of international control, the "genus Cannabis" is mentioned specifically in the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs.  My view is that magic mushrooms are not scheduled in Canada, if we apply the same principles of construction to the CDSA as we apply to international drug laws---and there is very little reason to think that this should not be the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C2D:D1FA:B413:5785 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Information on Vietnam likely out of date. Requires confirming and updating.
Someone, preferably a Vietnamese speaker with local knowledge (maybe an actual Vietnamese person!) needs to assess the information on the legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. This information may be out of date. Decree 73/2018 appears to have added them to the same Category 1 list as heroin and narcotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingMoogle (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Costa Rica
The article at present doesn't have a section on Costa Rica. I have seen pages on the Web that offer either psilocybin spores/kits or retreats. I don't feel qualified to pursue this further, but I have found two sources that might be helpful:

An English translation of Law No. 8204: Complete Revision of the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use and Related Activities, is at https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/cri/law-no-8204_html/costarica-law_8204-2000.pdf.

A Spanish-language copy of Law 5395: General Health Law of Costa Rica is linked to at https://www.informea.org/en/general-health-law-costa-rica-n%C2%BA-5395 with the PDF itself at http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/download.aspx?d=UNEP-CHW-NATLEG-NOTIF-Costarica01-LAW5395.Spanish.pdf.

I hope someone with better Spanish and better knowledge of how to edit tables will take a crack at this.

Poihths (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Netherlands Tourist death revised
I am a Dutch citizen and have researched this topic extensively. It will take a bit of time but i remember the Dutch ministers report containing all sorts of errors and even iirc that there was no danger to public health. I will edit this when i can source the material and translate the important parts.

FDA Fast Tracks Psilocybin as legalized treatment for depression.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/fda-looking-at-magic-mushroom-ingredient-to-treat-depression https://psychedelicreview.com/psilocybin-receives-fda-breakthrough-treatment-designation/ https://www.deeph.io/the-fda-approves-magic-mushrooms-for-the-treatment-of-depression/ https://www.ajc.com/news/health-med-fit-science/magic-mushrooms-for-depression-fda-makes-breakthrough-designation/fyG0FzCgOlXx5i4Q4lYC6I/ https://meaww.com/magic-mushrooms-psilocybin-fast-track-treatment-depression-fda-approval-breakthrough-therapy-compass-pathways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk • contribs)
 * To be clear, psilocybin has not been legalized for treatment of depression in the United States. It is still a Schedule I controlled substance.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Formatting issue on legality chart - Nepal
The legality status for Nepal is listed as "legal" in all quadrants, but it is colored red as if it were illegal.

The word "legal" is also not capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.241.248 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Map image is perhaps incorrect
An IP editor had noted the map incorrectly portrays Canada as yellow when it should be red/illegal and I might have to agree here. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Color schemes don't work for colorblind people and are inconsistent
The article uses background colors for the table cells, which is unexplained, but seems to use green for legal, red for illegal and yellow for intermediate approaches. I'm colorblind, and find that the yellow and green are nearly indistinguishable. The has a key in this file, but uses different colors and a different number of choices. On it, the "legal" and "illegal" choices are hard to distinguish, at least at that scale. I love to edit wikipedia, but I don't understand how the colors are set up for the table. Presumably via the "yes"/"no"/"partial" values in the table template, but I've found no documentation on that. Can someone point to documentation? Given that info, I'd use the work at vischeck.com, as recommended by Cynthia Brewer at ColorBrewer updates to improve the palette. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh - I dug out some documentation and old discussion on color-blindness issues which seems to have focused on "yes" and "no", and thus not considered the "partial" case for the yellow-vs-green distinction. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reraised your issue at table cell templates, Nealmcb, following up on a overcoloured notice tagged to the Vaccination policy article. — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No source on the legality in Italy
There should be a source for what is being stated about the legal status in Italy. Moreover, everything I can find on the topic seems to disagree with what is being said on here. 37.162.15.76 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)