"But Rachel also has another hobby, one that makes her a bit different from the other moms in her Texas suburb—not that she talks about it with them. Once a month or so, after she and her husband put the kids to bed, Rachel texts her in-laws—who live just down the street—to make sure they’re home and available in the event of an emergency.
“And then, Rachel takes a generous dose of magic mushrooms, or sometimes MDMA, and—there’s really no other way to say this— spends the next several hours tripping balls.”
Why are people applauding this? Is this a good trend? Is everyone saying “Yes, it’s great that Americans are taking more drugs”.
I feel like the reaction should be neutral at best, and more likely strongly negative (because there is a child in the house).
(And yes, getting drunk on alcohol with a child in the house is just as bad.)
How is this a positive thing? I’m honestly struggling to understand. Is the assumption that increased psychedelic drug use will be more than offset by a decrease in alcohol use? Are people interpreting this article as a sign of less stigma around drug use, and they believe a lessened stigma will have social benefits?
Are people applauding this because they see it as the individual standing against society, and they applaud individualism? Are they applauding it because they see it as a form of greater consumer choice? Do they believe recreational drug use is beneficial to the individual?
I know this will attract a deluge of downvotes, but I’m also hoping someone answers.
If only people spent any time actually investigating what was said and not defaulting to pearl clutching because of the propaganda they’ve been fed, we could live in a much better world.
We know people can use alcohol responsibly. And alcohol is the most debilitating, aggression causing and all around harmful substance. In some data, it loses out to hard core opiates, but in most aspects, alcohol is genuinely more risky.
Serotonergic substances, such as MDMA and mushrooms are less harmful than cannabis.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug
Serotonergic substances have been shown to have extremely positive effect for mental health when used in a responsible and reasonable way, such as doing them once a month with good preparation. Usually most people trip perhaps once or a couple of times a year, but once a month isn’t “too much”. If it was weekly, then that would be a bit excessive. But remember that with drug abuse issues in terms of other substances, like alcohol, tobacco, meth, opiates, your would have to do them daily.
It’s rather impossible to binge shrooms, lsd or ecstasy. They just stop working so fast. If alcohol built tolerance at the same speed, after a few drinks, you’d need double to feel the same, and after a sixpack, you’d hardly feel anything unless you started drinking straight up booze and even that wouldn’t get you drunk.
As in, you could want to binge shrooms or lsd or mdma once you start, but even if you shove your face into it, 24 hours later you’re just not going to be high. You might be rather confused if you’ve just stayed up binging, as it will have an effect, but it’ll be more sleep deprivation at that point.
I wish I could relay all my experience and knowledge on the subject. I’m absolutely convinced you would agree. But I know how much of the drug war propaganda stands between that understanding and arguing against it. Took me years to accept we need to legalise all drugs after realising we have to legalise cannabis. And that was like 20 years ago. It’s not to increase use. It’s to prevent abuse and take the trade away from criminals. (Taxing the global drug trade would easily cover ending world hunger, for one.)
Here’s a great organisation to have a peek at.
https://maps.org/
Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies.
Hope that answers some of your questions, although, I expect a lot of the viewpoints I have are straight up unacceptable to you for some reason or another.
I said nothing about legality or illegality.
I think I made a lot of other points besides the remark that we need to reform most drug laws.
The other point you made was “psychedelics aren’t necessarily worse than alcohol or cannabis”, and I feel like I already responded to a similar point elsewhere.
Getting drunk (or high) with children in the house is also not good. I would not expect that to be applauded either.
You mentioned “responsible” alcohol use. Getting drunk around your children is not responsible alcohol use.
People who drink responsibly either have a single drink or two and stop before they get intoxicated, or they go out and hire a babysitter, or they send the kids to the grandparents for the night.
(If you are “tripping balls” and unable to drive, you are intoxicated.)
I didn’t say “get drunk” around children. I said use alcohol responsibly. Do you believe one can do that around alcohol, or is everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner an irresponsible parent?
Just like with alcohol, the dosage matters. The mother isn’t “tripping balls” by doing a bit of MDMA or shrooms. That’s just exaggeration by the article. There’s no mention of a dosage, but to “trip balls” on MDMA, you’d need to do quite a bit. Same with shrooms. Several times the normal recreational dose, just like with alcohol.
But one or two drinks is still intoxication. It might be very mild intoxication, but it is intoxication. You might not believe it, but actually, similarly responsible low dosage recreational use exists with other substances as well. Just because your chosen drug is illegal doesn’t mean you shoot it up into your eyeballs and don’t stop until your whole stash is gone and then go out to prostitute yourself to get some more.
Have you ever had any serotonergic substances, like shrooms, LSD, ecstasy? No? You have no idea how they influence you and how they might or might not impair you? But… I do? And other people do? And science seems to support the things we say about them; people who haven’t used them always fearmonger over them, they’re less harmful and less impairing than alcohol, and still more pleasant. It’s a wholly different effect.
Do you think people who have a prescription for sedatives or antianxiety medications are irresponsible parents? Should they take their children to stay somewhere every time they take an Ambien before they go to bed? Oh wait… then, they’d never sleep in the same place, unless there were other people there as well? Don’t you think it extremely irresponsible to have a sleeping aid before bed… you know, in case of an emergency. Better — just to be safe — take your kids to your in-laws every single night that you might be inclined to think you need a sleeping aid.
I don’t believe you could stand behind something like that in good faith.
And I know that an Ambien impairs a person more than a light recreational dose of LSD or ecstasy or shrooms.
You said in another comment:
You’re the one who said you wouldn’t be fit to drive a car.
And I’m not trying to defend alcohol use, but after one or two drinks (depending on your body size), you can still legally drive a car.
(And this isn’t some bizarre hypothetical. There are plenty of people who have a glass of wine with dinner, and that’s it. They’re not drinking for any of the intoxicating effects of alcohol.)
In any case, I still don’t see how “it’s less harmful than alcohol” means we should be applauding its use, unless you think that its use would result in less alcohol use.
And I doubt anyone would be cheering about increased Ambien use among Texas housewives.
After one or two drinks, you are intoxicated, and by so little, that most think “oh, I’m not affected”. Which is why driving after the first one or two is actually more risky than the people who drive when they think they’re just on the edge of the limit. This is countries with a limit of 0.5‰, meaning 0.05%. Above that it’s really irresponsible to be driving, and in the US, you’d legally be allowed to drive with a 0.8‰ BAC. It’s insane, honestly, and the drinking and driving culture in the States is something pretty abhorrent to me. In the sense that a lot of people think that it’s “okay to have a couple”.
It’s not.
Because during the first drinks, your “bias” is the highest. You’ll feel as if you’d be able to drive really well. Confidence is up. You don’t think you’re gonna make mistakes. Which is why so many mistakes happen.
You don’t understand what being on LSD/MDMA feels like, but as I said, it’s less impairing than alcohol. The point is that it would not be responsible to drive a car. I bet that I’d still outdrive you and many others with a recreational dose under my belt. But I wouldn’t be fit in the sense that it wouldn’t be responsible to drive under the effect of any potentially intoxicating substance.
I don’t know, I’m a third generation taxi driver and maybe I’m imposing too strict morals here, but it really seems like you have a really strong double-standard going on here. Driving drunk is fine, but being at home on MDMA isn’t if the kids are there?
But would you go far as to say it’s irresponsible for a parent to take an Ambien if there’s children in the house?
You keep doing this. You keep saying “cheering” and “applauding” and whatever synonyms one might come up with for the act of encouraging something. No-one has encouraged anything.
What you remind me is a pearl clutching aunt/uncle in the 90’s who’s getting upset over a gay character in a movie. “No but think of how this will encourage children to be gay, this shouldn’t be in movies!”
No, it won’t. Just like writing an article about MDMA use doesn’t mean that people are advocating for everyone to be high 247. Or even try out MDMA or something. Which, I could actually advocate for anyone to do if they’re in a position to and never have. It certainly would help you a lot with your psychological hangups. I thought you genuinely wanted to know why people do it. But no, you’re just another willfully ignorant person who’s spreading the propaganda they so easily bought into.
That’s why people do it.
When I said applauding, I was refering to people in this thread, not the writer of the article.
And I didn’t say driving drunk was okay.
Also, I feel like you’re being unnecessarily hostile by repeatedly calling me ignorant and accusing me of pearl-clutching, and if you keep if up, I’m just gonna block you.
I have a bit of knowledge about this topic too, you know.
Wait, who is cannabis killing and how is it doing it?
Edit: Also, crack cocaine being worse than powder cocaine is racist bullshit, so I don’t trust this chart.
https://oxfordtreatment.com/substance-abuse/cocaine/crack-vs-cocaine/
It’s quantifying harm, among other things. The difference between free base cocaine (aka crack) and cocaine is nothing, you’re right. But unfortunately the method of using it usually smoking with crack, and that leads to more harm. If you’re a very casual user, you’re more likely to snort cocaine than smoke crack. Which is why there’s a seeming disparity.
The difference in userbase isn’t as big in the UK as it is in the US, afaik.
I still don’t know who cannabis is killing and how it is doing it.
Bruh.
Read the chart.
Who’s said anything about killing?
It’s quantifying harm. A lot of people smoke cannabis. Smoking is not healthy. One might even be inclined to say harmful. (Edit just adding this here, it’s not saying cannabis in itself is harmful directly [edit2 although obviously it’s not completely risk free, just practically], it’s quantifying the harms that come from use. So that graph would be different if everyone vaped or only took edibles, for instance.)
That’s why crack is so much higher as well. Smoking tends to be more addictive as well, no matter the substance. (“Addiction” being different from “dependence”.)
I read the chart.
Specifically this part.
You do know what “mortality” means, I assume.
You know that smoking causes lung cancer, right?
Please present evidence for that many lung cancer cases caused by cannabis.
Not going to wax poetic at you about drug use. Just going to say that the podcast Science Vs. did two great podcasts on this subject that are absolutely worth the listen. One was on mushrooms and one was on MDMA. They go into the science behind what these drugs are actually doing to the brain. Go have a listen, and maybe it will help you to better understand this article.
Why the pearl clutching over a child in the house? The person even goes as far as arranging possible cover from the in-laws. Even if they didn’t, it is a child and not a ticking time bomb. Obvious idiots getting blind drunk or tripping balls into the next dimension aside, an experienced tripper in a safe environment (ie their home) would be able to handle themselves fine.
Why don’t they take the child to the in-laws? Waiting for an emergency is too late.
Children require and deserve a safe and predictable environment populated by responsible adults who can attend to their needs and adequately respond in an emergency.
And being an experienced tripper myself, I’m sure they’re still capable of adequately responding to their children’s needs. A basic recreational dose of MDMA or LSD would enhance my evening and I wouldn’t be fit to drive a car, but compared to having several drinks, not really impaired. If there was a genuine emergency emergency, I’d still be able to function. Like I could drive a car, but like with when being drunk, I wouldn’t unless it was the only option. Which in this case, it wouldn’t be, seeing as if they needed to drive, the in-laws are there ready for that.
What sort of an emergency do you expect they would be too impaired to handle?
Eh, I’ve done enough of both of them to say that it’s sometimes hard to look at your phone screen. I have two kids. I still get together with friends one time every year to “trip balls,” it’s become a bit of a ritual weekend for six adults with children of various ages. Step one is we all get rid of the kids. That is probably the only gripe I have here with Rachel, but she also does have a sober adult in the house.
I just couldn’t and wouldn’t do any of it with my kids anywhere around me. Imagine you’re peaking and little Susie fucking vomits all over her bed and needs mommy, because kids fet that way. Do you want to be on mushrooms/MDMA?
I generally agree with you though. I doubt Rachel is taking three or four tabs of acid and disappearing, or a .3 of MDMA. There are most definitely doses that are manageable yet mind-altering. I guess the kid thing comes down to risk tolerance and personal preference. I don’t think the kid is somehow unsafe.
Well, yeah. Depends on the dosage, obviously.
If you’re at home, just chilling, you’re probably doing a rather mild dose.
I know I definitely have a “watching Harry Potter and chilling” dose of LSD and a “we’re tripping with friends on a night out” dose, and whilst I have no children, I suspect I would gravitate more towards the former dosage than the latter.
Well, a lot of the events I’ve been at where I took MDMA, it has actually felt like that, as I’ve once or twice had to shepherd a friend or two, some of whom may have been in a very childlike state and vomiting. (I know it’s very different with children, this is just a joke.) It does take the trip down a notch, but it’s really nothing that affects me too much. So Rachel could probably handle it. Hopefully at least. It’d be irresponsible otherwise. And she doesn’t seem irresponsible, going by the article.
Why keep the child out of eyesight at all in that case? Why stay in a house and not just camp in front of emergency department if one is so afraid of life happening?
Quote from the Article:
Theres still a sober person in the house.
It’s still not a great situation. The sober person ends up looking after the intoxicated person. In an emergency, the sober person has to end up trying to deal with both the intoxicated person and the kids.
And it’s not good for kids to see their parents being intoxicated (which can happen if the kids wake up). Kids need to feel that their caretakers are capable of looking after them.
I really don’t see why she couldn’t send her kids to the in-laws once a month.
(I also don’t see why she couldn’t just decide to stay sober. I guess her life is just so miserable?)
First of all, there are still the in laws if something really bad happens. Second, someone experienced with shrooms knows how to handle most stuff.
Ask yourself, do you like doing stuff you enjoy? You like to read a good book? Watch a film or play some video games. Or go out and party. Its literally the same. If done responsibly there isn’t really that much that can go wrong. Why not let people to things they enjoy.
Okay… I’ll give it a go.
As we age, it’s easy to lose touch with something sacred. Certains drugs, in certain settings can remind some people of that. For those people, it can be a way to fend off the embittering nature of the rest of the world. It can put them in touch with that sacredness, reawaken some sense of reverence and awe, and some are able to carry a bit of this back into that into the world.
I don’t partake in drugs or even much alcohol. And I wouldn’t let loose without some sort of backup plan for the safety of my child. But I’m all for people doing what it is that lets reconnect to the sacred.
Personally, I hope it softens our hyper individualism and capitalist values. Hope that gives you an alternative perspective.
This was at the top when I opened the thread and I’m glad I read it. Anyone who downvotes you is doing it because you are contradicting their biases. Your comment gave me something to think about.
I think the reason everyone is applauding this is because liberals/left-leaning have read enough literature to confirm the dangers of alcohol and other strongly addictive substances. Newer research shows the positive effects of psychedelics but they’re yet unproven as categorically better than other prescription medications.
When lemmings (who are mostly very left leaning and decently educated) see people doing things that can show the positive effects of psychedelics, they applaud it without much critical thought.
Comments like yours not being downvoted to oblivion and then hidden are the reason that Lemmy is still decent. For now
Do you have personal experiences with these substances, or are you just taking potshots at the internet based on decades of indoctrination?
I’m not saying you’re wrong to have opinions, just that opinions without a grounding in experience aren’t worth much, in my book.
Firstly, it sounds like you’re the one taking potshots.
Secondly, that’s a false dichotomy. You’re saying people must either be drug users themselves, or else they must be “indoctrinated”.
Thirdly, if you’re going to dismiss people’s points of view as being due to “indoctrination”, I doubt I’m going to be able to change your mind. So have fun with that. I’m sure you’re going to make a lot of great decisions in your life.
I don’t think I actually expressed much of an opinion in that post.
But for what it’s worth, my attitudes towards drugs are based on my own life’s experiences. Why would you assume otherwise?
Sure, dissemble all you like. But you didn’t answer my questions, and you seem laughably defensive.
Why don’t you just go outside and take a walk? I’d bet $100 some cardio will do you good.
That is a completely uncalled-for insult, and I am not going to bother conversing with someone who resorts to insults. Insulting me is not an argument.
Blocking you. Bye!
lol. Pathetic
Why are “some” people applauding this?
Lots of reasons. First and foremost mushrooms are pretty damn safe compared to doing cocaine, heroin, etc. Let’s face it, people are going to do something. Don’t play it is unnatural either when even animals in nature seek mind altering substances
They are not without risk though as some people with latent schizophrenia can be triggered. I would never suggest doing psychedelics unless you have done them before. Yes, I realize that is a paradox.
How can it be a positive thing?
It is a positive thing if they think it is. That is the whole point and if you don’t think it is positive then don’t do it. If you read the article it has candid statements from people who do it. That is the answer you are not looking for.
I am not sure I get what you are saying about getting drunk around children. I guess you have to be clearer. Is it okay to have just one drink with a child. What about two or three over the course of hours. What about getting blackout drunk. There is obviously a line somewhere there.
Also it is important to note that many of the mushroom infused products being sold are not even illegal. You can buy them at the store. Your whole point about stigma kind of goes out the window considering this.
Frankly, if you want to be critical this feels of marketing under the guise of a human interest story. If I sold mushroom infused products articles like this would definitely help my bottom line
Claiming you will be downvoted is really cringe btw. I don’t typically down vote much but saying garbage like that sure does tempt me.
Are you saying you think increased mushroom use will lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use?
Or is “better than heroin” the standard by which we decide substances should be applauded and encouraged?
Nice strawmann Argument you got there
Heroin is literally as bad as Alcohol(in terms of damage). Shrooms are so goddamn safe, that it is literally impossible to overdose in them. You might have a real fucking bad time but you won’t Die from them. Aside from psychological risks shrooms don’t really do any damage to your body. When you’re ranking them with other drugs they are the safest out of all of them.
Source:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug
That’s not what a strawman argument is.
He said that shrooms are safer. You thought the argument he made was that shrooms use would lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use. They aren’t the same argument.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
And I did not do that.
I asked him if that’s what he was saying (and I honestly thought it might have been). I was asking for a clarification.
I didn’t misframe what he was saying and then refute it.
Ehh that’s fair. I guess I’m so used to the use of clarification questions(often ones that are asked in the most infuriating way possible) as a lead up to and reframing of a conversation into an area that it didn’t originally start as, that I thought such actions that you took as equivalent to strawmanning.
I looked into those legal mushroom products, and I wouldn’t touch them.
They’re not psilocybin, but rather muscimol from Amanita Muscaria mushrooms. Muscimol isn’t banned in the US, but it’s more toxic than psilocybin. Death from it is rare–it’s not one of those mushrooms that melts your liver if you breathe too heavily around it–but it’s much more toxic than psilocybin.
The ibotenic acid needs to be converted properly, as well. Gas station mushroom gummies may not be doing that.
As is often the case, US drug policy has made things worse than doing nothing.