The Middle-Class Women Who Are Tripping Balls
The Middle-Class Women Who Are Tripping Balls
Across America, women are using hallucinogens to improve their marriages and mental health. Meet the ‘mushroom mommies.’
"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're viewing part of a thread.
In other words, you have absolutely no evidence to support this mortality claim.
I literally just linked two studies showing that smoking cannabis is independently linked to cancer even when smoking cigarettes, socioeconomic factors, etc are taken into account. One of them is a 40-year cohort.
Science really doesn't get more valid than that in our current age, so I don't really know what you mean. Also, does this mean you don't believe that SMOKING cannabis causes cancer? Lighting it on fire, it burning and you inhaling the smoke?
You don't think breathing in heavy smoke from this everyday is causing me to have an increased risk of mortality from an increased risk of cancer vis-a-vis breathing in tar? And I clean this daily, often twice or more a day.
No evidence of mortality though.
So where did they get their mortality figures?
Maybe ask yourself that.
What you're doing is colloquially known as "sealioning".
Science literally does not get much better than that. Plus the decades and decades of studies there are showing that smoke — in general — causes cancer.
Do you think it's the nicotine in cigarettes which is causing people to die? That that's why the mortality figures from cigarettes is so high? Or could it be that inhaling smoke is unhealthy?
You're demanding that I present to you where the chart I linked got their figures from, saying you absolutely refuse to believe there's any connection to increased mortality in any method of using cannabis — even the one where you INHALE SMOKE. How am I supposed to do that? I don't have access to their data. I have access to the same data that I presented to you. But if we want to pursue your query as to where these mortality figures might come from, well, obviously they're at least from the increased risk of cancer from smoking. I've said this several times but I suspect that if every single person that was involved in that study had actually used edibles instead of smoking, there would be much less mortality, if any.
So I don't understand what exactly you're protesting here. Because the most popular method (well, it might actually be edibles or vaping already in some places where it's legal) is smoking and smoking causes cancer. It feels like you're adamant that smoking cannabis magically makes smoking healthy. Which feels subpar compared to your normal rhetoric.
No. No I am not.
I am asking for where they got their mortality numbers.
It's clear you don't know and you're just guessing. I can only surmise because you want cannabis to be that deadly.
Hey man, I like cannabis too, but it is true that ignition based delivery systems(smoking) I think just generally cause cancer.
That's not the issue. The issue is that their mortality numbers are suspect. How could they possibly know that all of those people died of lung cancer because they smoked cannabis? Especially when Cannabis is illegal in the UK where that chart is supposed to be from? I would like some actual evidence. So far, all the evidence I can find goes back to a pyschopharmacologist called David Nutt who seems to think cannabis is dangerous but won't show his sources either.
I'm guessing it's all estimated numbers from statistics. Personally, I'll always recommend dry herb vapes or just getting regular THC vapes from more reputable brands, or shit make your own vape liquid if you think you can do it on your own(although I hear this way can be risky).
What statistics? Because I've looked and I can't find any.
I don't know why either your or the other person are just assuming this is true based on nothing at all.
I'm guessing the claims of cannabis potentially giving some people cancer, come from the estimated population of cannabis smokers, which is probably going to be lower than the current population of tobacco smokers, and then finding out how many people died from smoking(ignition based delivery systems that are basically what's to blame for cancer), and then just extrapolating from those two points that there's probably gonna be some extremely regular smokers of cannabis who've gotten cancer. Of course cannabis being WAY less addictive than nicotine means that the average cannabis smoker in general is still unlikely to develop cancer when compared to the average tobacco smoker, but the very exposure to smoke just increases your chance of developinng cancer anyways when compared to somebody who doesn't smoke anything.
Like I think it's just common sense. The other guy may have made a more specific point that is wrong though, idk, I just skimmed the convo
That the thing. You're guessing.
This is not supposed to be about guessing.
They do not reveal the source of their numbers and any searching I do goes back to David Nutt, who does not explain where he got the data.
You both need to be more skeptical about this sort of thing. Even if cannabis can lead to lung cancer that doesn't mean this data is anywhere near accurate.
You are denying that there's any evidence for mortality being increased from any way of using cannabis. That's the very strong implication you're giving off here.
You definitely didn't even browse the studies I linked.
I'm very disappointed. This is really hurting the respect I have for you.
A popular method of using cannabis is smoking. Do you disagree?
A very obvious consequence of smoking is an increased risk of mortality from an increased risk of cancer and cardiopulmonary disease. Do you disagree with this?
If you don't disagree with either, then you know where the figures came from, at least partly. I'm sure you can try to look them up for yourself if you have such a burning need to browse them in detail.
I am doing no such thing.
I am asking where they got their figures from. You have no idea. Telling me "do your own research" will not tell me where they got their figures from.
No matter how much you object to it, I'm not going to take a chart with no sources at face value.
No one should.
Fine, be childish. I'll do the work for you, so you can't even use your asinine sealioning to get out of this one.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug
So that's the article I linked. It says:
That question is the subject of a report published today by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, an independent group of 26 former presidents and other bigwigs.
The study in question:
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019Report_EN_web.pdf
Which says:
Mortality is defined as risk of lethal overdose (drug-specific), OR BY life shortened by factors other than overdose (drug-related)
This graph is based on the scientific modelling made by David Nutt et al. (Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis, The Lancet, https://doi.org/10.1016/S6-61462(10)6736-0140), and their assessment of the various harms of drugs used for recreational purposes in the UK, using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
Huh. Other factors? No way we could know what mortality related factors there could be in using cannabis, seeing as the most popular method is burning it and inhaling the smoke? Geez. I wonder what we'll find, right?
Let's see. You just copy the link from there. Select it, and then you can use a handy keyboard shortcut, just press "CTRL+C" while you have something selected, and the computer copies it to memory! Oh, the URL seems corrupted because of the formatting of the PDF. Just select the title mentioned there and paste it (CTRL+V), and you'll find this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21036393/ which has a functioning link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract
All the data is there. Satisfied, or still gonna just stomp your foot and yell "no no no no smoking cannabis magically makes it healthy and thus there's zero increased mortality rate from anything related to cannabis, not even smoking and inhaling it"?
Cool. But I asked you the source of the mortality numbers. You still haven't given them to me.
This was literally in that PDF:
The UK government treats these as much more dangerous or desirable (from the consumer perspective) than those others already mentioned despite overwhelming evidence that psychedelics are very safe (almost no deaths) and are rarely abused. cannabis is also relatively safe having been a medicine in the UK until 1971
From what I can tell just searching for the word 'cannabis,' something you did not do, this information all comes from a psychopharmacologist called David Nutt who seems to have a particular hard-on for talking about the dangers of cannabis.
Without ever showing his sources on mortality.
I know you didn't read the entire report in the time it took you to reply, and neither did I. But it didn't take me long to find that, which puts the whole mortality number thing under suspicion.
"whole mortality number thing under suspicion"
You're acting as if you're arguing this in good faith. That's not the case anymore, since you've ignored half a dozen replies in I point out that there are two facts which I'm sure you can not disagree with. 1. Smoking is one of — if not the — most popular ways of consuming cannabis. 2. Smoking anything is unhealthy and causes an increased risk of cancer.
There is a third fact as well. Namely that they clearly say "Mortality is defined as risk of lethal overdose (drug-specific), OR BY life shortened by factors other than overdose (drug-related)"
If I were to ask you to name anything risky in relation to the usage of cannabis (not the substance itself), would you be able to name anything, or would you just stand there like a teenager who discovered pot, claiming nothing related to cannabis can ever be harmful?
Just like with the crack v cocaine harm part of it, it's not due to the pharmacological properties of the substance that the chart is like that. Smoking is more addictive than other methods of use (sometimes in some studies even more so than shooting up, depending on the substance). It's also unhealthy.
You're treating this as some DARE propaganda. It's well researched data, and I'm pro drug legalisation, and I'm sure you won't argue the facts over smoke in your lungs being bad for you. So I genuinely don't understand what you think you're protesting here.
I don't think I've ever used this saying in such a suitable moment; you're barking up the wrong tree.