258
submitted 2 years ago by lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world

"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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just like writing an article about MDMA use doesn't mean that people are advocating for everyone to be high 247.

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.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Again, you're ignoring all the points. Thus you are being willfully ignorant about the facts of the matter. I'm not calling you an ignorant person in general. I'm saying you — like at least >50% of people — are being willfully ignorant.

You're treating taking MDMA as if it was impairing, while you don't seem to have experience on what taking serotonergic substances feels like. You're dismissing the points on why people do it, despite that being your question originally, as far as I understood.

If you're perceiving this as hostile, it's probably because you're not perceiving your comments or attitude as in any way offensive. When they are. It's offensive to be generalised as a "drug user", which equates peaceful, responsible recreational users to abusers using "proper" hard drugs.

I have a bit of knowledge about this topic too, you know.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't believe you [in gif form]

Alright, I'm blocking you.

There's no point in conversing with someone calling me a liar.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Again, willfully ignorant. Literally. I make a joke about not believing you, because you display things which show your lack of knowledge. Then you ignore every other point.

I've had this conversation a thousand times.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
258 points (100.0% liked)

News

37833 readers
1809 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS