"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.
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
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.
mushrooms are pretty damn safe compared to doing cocaine, heroin,
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?
Are you saying you think increased mushroom use will lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use?
Nice strawmann Argument you got there
Or is “better than heroin” the standard by which we decide substances should be applauded and encouraged?
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
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.
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.
Even if they didn’t, it is a child and not a ticking time bomb.
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 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?
Quote from the Article:
“After she and her Husband put the kids to bed[…]”
Theres still a sober person in the house.
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 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.
Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies.
Founded in 1986, MAPS is a 501©(3) nonprofit research and educational organization that develops medical, legal, and cultural contexts for people to benefit from the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana. MAPS previously sponsored the most advanced psychedelic-assisted therapy research in the world and continues to support psychedelic and marijuana research with a focus on the people and places most impacted by trauma.
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.
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 think I made a lot of other points besides the remark that we need to reform most drug laws.
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.
Do you have personal experiences with these substances, or are you just taking potshots at the internet based on decades of indoctrination?
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’m not saying you’re wrong to have opinions, just that opinions without a grounding in experience aren’t worth much, in my book.
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.
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.
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.
It still seems pretty negligent even if the inlaws are down the street, should a vagina scented candle get knocked over… And the kid who comes downstairs for a drink of water will not know how to deal with mom “tripping balls”.
We trip regularly and I use to work in childcare. This does not sound negligent to me at all.
Mushrooms just aren’t very disabling once you’re familiar with them and measure doses. I’ve ran into and chatted with professional acquaintances while on mushrooms. It’s fine.
It’s done wonders for our relationship and mental health. I don’t think it’s for everyone, but it’s been a huge boon to us.
We trip regularly and I use to work in childcare.
Did you do it at the same time as watching the kids?
Of course not but at work as a primary carer for other people’s kids is a very different scenario that at home with your own kids who are asleep while you have trusted sober adults on standby.
The article says nothing about her husband partaking, so presumably there’s another sober adult present and no risk.
People get drunk with their kids at home all the time, not ideal but super common. Hallucinogens don’t make people catatonic or unable to interact. It’s just not that serious. I’m assuming the kids aren’t infants though. Infants need so much care so frequently that you have to be 100% on as much as possible. But I seriously doubt a nursing mother would do this (or at least trip and tell people about it)
Overall people need to lay off of parents unless they’re really harming their kids. I know people afraid to make their kids walk to school because the neighbors will call protective services. It’s ridiculous.
Assuming she doesn’t take such a large dose that she can’t deal with a knocked over candle.
Also, one partner can stay relatively sober to manage reality.
Assuming she doesn’t take such a large dose that she can’t deal with a knocked over candle.
I guess there’s a lot of flexibility in the phrase “tripping balls for several hours”.
My question is: why?
I’ve tried shrooms but not LSD. It was a weird experience but not unpleasant. I don’t feel any desire to repeat it though.
To me it just seems like something people try once or twice and then move on from.
I’ve done shrooms on many occasions, the experiences can be different based on setting. The most memorable was lying on my back in the mountains overnight with no light pollution watching as I seemed to move through stars/meteor shower while reflecting on my life, where I’ve been, where I’m going. I would do them again, to take a moment of deep introspection, though I think monthly is a bit much.
Legitimately I question that this is even newsworthy.
It appears that these women are harming nobody and are partaking of the drug(s) safely and sensibly in a manner that ensures that no one is being significantly endangered. Yes the residual dangers exist and bad trips can happen to pretty much anyone. I don’t feel as if they’re even posing a danger to their children; if this is in fact being done in such a way that the kids are never being exposed to their parents while they’re in an altered mental state due to hallucinogenic intoxication. If it isn’t; yeah; I could see why a local branch of child services might pay them a visit. However, I’m not going to make that negative assumption.
I don’t particularly commend the women, nor the news outlet, for coming out about this though; it is still very much technically illegal by current law. But, I also do agree that the stigma attached to drug use, even when done so responsibly, is in fact ridiculous and stupid in general. However, I don’t see a better way of achieving what that does…so I couldn’t suggest any better alternatives and I don’t support going back to a previous era in Law where drugs that factually are provably dangerous, for some reason, are not regulated. Reasonable and Sensible Regulations on dangerous Drugs are REQUIRED; it’s just that some people have a different definition of ‘Reasonable and Sensible’ which has to be ironed into a proper consensus for society.
The newsworthiness of it is really just the education of the common public that have nothing but bad brainwashing when it comes to drug knowledge. People that follow school drug programs like DARE and believe they’ll turn into crack fiends if they smell tylenol from 50 ft away. It also educates the open minded but less knowledgeable to their potential avenues. It’s a net good even if to those more knowledgeable it’s just a passing affirmation of what’s already known.
Unfortunately some people have no idea women like this actually exist and need to be told that drug use is a part of normal suburban life. Though to be honest I am kind of against the idolisation of suburbs, they are really inefficient, but I digress. Articles like this help break down the stigma around this kind of drug. A stigma that makes little sense as well given their safety profile and effectiveness in treating some illnesses like treatment resistant depression, anxiety, and PTSD.
I don’t particularly commend the women, nor the news outlet, for coming out about this though; it is still very much technically illegal by current law. But, I also do agree that the stigma attached to drug use, even when done so responsibly, is in fact ridiculous and stupid in general. However, I don’t see a better way of achieving what that does…so I couldn’t suggest any better alternatives and I don’t support going back to a previous era in Law where drugs that factually are provably dangerous, for some reason, are not regulated. Reasonable and Sensible Regulations on dangerous Drugs are REQUIRED; it’s just that some people have a different definition of ‘Reasonable and Sensible’ which has to be ironed into a proper consensus for society.
We should start with the most dangerous drug in our society: alcohol.
Oh wait the Americans tried that and it actually made things worse. Shocking.
Drug prohibition doesn’t and has never worked. We also know neither voters nor politicians understand nor follow scientific consensus on drugs. Not popular consensus. Scientific consensus. Very different things unfortunately.
Look up any ranking of drug harms published by scientists. You might honestly be shocked. Things that people consider safe like alcohol normally end up being ranked much higher than other things commonly thought of as dangerous like nicotine or amphetamines. As much as smoking is bad there is way too much focus on it compared to alcohol and some other stuff. I know there are even some people that think of cocaine as being relatively normal and safe because of its overall popularity, yet if you actually look into it it’s not healthy at all.
The reason things like Alcohol are “considered and generally recognized as safe” has a lot to do with their effect length on the body. It’s possible to isolate someone intoxicated this way for up to 24 hours and see them recover all of their facilities in the short term.
Granted; it still has long-term effects that are bad, just not show-stoppingly so, and it only affects people who actually abuse the stuff long-term for many years.
I do agree we should be a lot tougher on Alcohol use in general. Maybe not Prohibition levels; but some framework to cut off people from acquiring quantities that can intoxicate them so badly that they pose a danger to themselves and others.
You really have no idea.
Drinking enough will make you overdose, it’s called alcohol poisoning and can be fatal. This isn’t really any different to other substances you can overdose on. There are some substances where a fatal overdose has never happened in fact, THC and LSD being notable examples. I don’t know about you but I consider death to be pretty show stopping for me. Obviously if your some supernatural entity or something it might not be a huge deal for you.
As for effect length: how many drugs do you think take longer than 24 hours to stop being high? There are some that have long legs don’t get me wrong, but they are the minority. Some substances such as DMT and Ketamine actually last a shorter time than alcohol, and have less after effects like a hangover. In fact a bad alcohol hangover can easily last longer than 24 hours after imbibing. Alcohol withdrawal for serious addicts lasts quite a while too, up to a couple weeks I think, and can also be fatal if not treated correctly.
All you are doing here is proving you don’t understand how drugs work nor do you have practical experience by the sounds of it. I would argue if you don’t understand how drugs work you shouldn’t be allowed to set policy on them. Uninformed opinions are dangerous.
Rachel should give me a call.
