"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.”

  • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        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?

        • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

          • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            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!

    • sazey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        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.

          • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            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?)

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

      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.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          I think I made a lot of other points besides the remark that we need to reform most drug laws.

          • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            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.)

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              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.

              People who drink responsibly either have a single drink or two and stop before they get intoxicated

              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.

              • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                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. […] they’re less harmful and less impairing than alcohol,

                You said in another comment:

                A basic recreational dose of MDMA or LSD would enhance my evening and I wouldn’t be fit to drive a car

                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 know that an Ambien impairs a person more than a light recreational dose of LSD or ecstasy or shrooms.

                And I doubt anyone would be cheering about increased Ambien use among Texas housewives.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  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.

                  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?

                  And I doubt anyone would be cheering about increased Ambien use among Texas housewives.

                  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.

                  “If you take MDMA with a partner, it feels almost like you can accomplish what you would in, like, five years of couples counseling, in a night.”

                  That’s why people do it.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              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”.)

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        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?

        • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          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

            • Gigasser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              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.

              • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                14 days ago

                A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion

                And I did not do that.

                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.

                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.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Cool. Good for them. They got emergency arrangements if needed. How many people who drink alcohol can say that?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Slightly different view of this-

    My brother, almost 50, went to Jamaica and tried shrooms for the first time and thought it was the most amazing thing he’d ever done in his life (he doesn’t do things by half measures, everything he likes it the best thing ever). Then he went from microdosing shrooms to taking a massive dose within a month. He said that his wife was monitoring him when he took a massive dose, but, “she fell asleep. I was okay though.” Now he calls himself a psychonaut, participates on Erowid, tries every psychoactive substance he can get ahold of, and writes bad poetry and long philosophical screeds which he posts online. He’s basically high all the time. He’s called my mom and I (he never used to contact us unless he needed us) and made big apologies for things, clearly, as this article says, tripping balls. And he also clearly doesn’t remember it later.

    This is a guy who wouldn’t so much as take a hit off a joint in high school and college, so it’s sort of like he’s making up for lost time.

    I’m not saying it’s a huge problem in terms of ruining lives or anything, he doesn’t have any kids and his wife doesn’t do any psychoactive substances at all, so their pets get taken care of. But it’s been weird as fuck dealing with him and it was already weird as fuck dealing with him before this, so it’s like ten times worse now.

    My main concern, though, is that he doesn’t get something adulterated when he’s buying this stuff since most of it isn’t legal. He’s also in Atlanta and their cops aren’t exactly friendly, so I hope he’s not getting them in some super sketchy way where he could get arrested.

    • lousyd@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Your brother may need to hear what Alan Watts had to say about this:

      If you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Well yeah it’s a thing. It was a thing with our moms too. Our grandmas often preferred the ‘ludes unless they were hippies

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    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”.

    • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      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.

    • hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      The article says nothing about her husband partaking, so presumably there’s another sober adult present and no risk.

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      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.

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            But I’m being told it’s absolutely fine to do. Why is it irresponsible with other people’s kids but not your own?

            • Hegar@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              Because you can judge the risk for yourself and decide that at home with the kids asleep and someone on standby is within your risk tolerance. But it’s not ethical to make that decision for other people.

              And it’s not just about others’ kids vs your own - there are many factors that make them different situations.

                • Hegar@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  Parents assess risks on behalf of their children all the time, that’s like the main thing about being a parent.

    • TheIvoryTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      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.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        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”.