301
This Is Awkward: Mushrooms That Cause 'Tiny Human' Hallucinations Don't Contain Psychedelics
(www.sciencealert.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
301 points (93.1% liked)
science
27791 readers
574 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If you don't like my opinion why should I like yours? Let me do my thing to break through the opinion bubbles you are living in.
Your flame war game is fucking weak... peasant
It's not an opinion, your assertion that "junkie" refers to anyone who has used drugs is just objectively WRONG.
And thinking you are somehow educating the rest of us is STUPID, since you were flatly wrong from your initial assertion.
You are too dumb to understand any of this, but the rest of us do.
And we're laughing AT you, MAGA.
Wow you got heated. Calm down man. You don't know me. I'm not even in the US. But I'm starting to understand why you hate this opinion that much. It's because your enemy tribe used to say this probably. Luckily, I don't get US propaganda so I don't need that much drugs.
"Bacon is tasty" and "everyone different from me should be executed" are technically both just opinions so that means they're the same, right?
it's not an opinion. cannabis doesn't kill. it's outlawed to target the black and leftist population mostly.
Why do you think cannabis was outlawed to target the black and the leftists? I'm missing a point in your reasoning
because cannabis was mostly consumed by groups that the political mainstream didn't like. for example, it is still the case today that cannabis is mostly being consumed by people who lean left politically.
e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/405086/marijuana-views-linked-ideology-religiosity-age.aspx
also, around 1969 when a lot of people took drugs (LSD etc) on hippie festivals (woodstock), these people overwhelmingly had anti-war, anti-capitalist, hippie views etc. so there's a clear link between drug usage and political views.
Today cannabis is mostly consumed by people who voted left, thus 90 years ago it was made illegal to damage people who vote left; the prohibition was passed by the left.
Sorry, I'll try to follow you, but this makes no sense. The fact that people vote left smoke marijuana is not influential in explaining why it was banned. There may be a relationship there but just this fact proves nothing.
I might as well say that marijuana was banned to harm the farmers population since farmers are the ones who mostly grow marijuana.
Could be, but I don't think marijuana back then was so widespread as it became with the Hippie movement.
my understanding is that cannabis is far less damaging to the health than nicotine cigarettes. yet nicotine cigarettes stayed legal while cannabis was declared illegal. the logical conclusion is that the health concerns were not the determining factor. therefore, it was obviously about other things, such as cultural perception, commercial lobbying, political ideology.
by the way, tobacco (nicotine) was one of the first cash crops that were exported from the US to europe when america was first settled by european settlers, which gave money to america and made the migration much more attractive to many people. that's why there is a cultural fond memory of tobacco, because it funded settling america back then (among other factors) (source: read it a while ago on wikipedia).
then there's the strong tobacco lobbying group. turns out that there's a lot of money to be earned with cigarettes and the lobbying group for tobacco is strong. that's another reason why it wasn't banned.
then there is this whole issue that a whole lot of drugs are primarily taken by marginalized groups. why? these groups already have a difficult life, drugs often help with pain relief -> higher drug usage in the black population. combine this with the "forced labor is illegal except as a punishment for crime" thing and suddenly you get a rural south that wants to find any pretense to criminalize black people. and guess what, drugs are a convenient way to do that.
Sorry to hear that. There isn't a singular point, because it's a complex subject. Wish I had the time or patience to explain, but I would implore you to just try learning more. You won't have your hand held through everything, but you now have an idea of where to start, if you truly give a shit. Best of luck friend, I'm excited for you
I'm afraid you misunderstand. I really don't see why you'd sustain such an idea. I'm not saying this is necessarily false, but to say something like that it helps to explain why you feel that way. You are treating this as common knowledge, this makes me think you do not thoroughly know about this subject and are just expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as a fact.
I guess you're talking about the US. Marijuana was made illegal in 1937. Roosevelt was president, I doubt the democrats prohibited it to harm the leftists.
Regarding the black, I really don't see the connection.
Idk why you're bringing up US politics, as if that somehow exists outside of the rest of the world. I specifically didn't treat anything as common knowledge, and instead tried to encourage learning (any at all)
Ironic
Wow. Again, best of luck friend
“Junkie” is pretty much understood to be a narcotic/heroin user, not hallucinogenics. Regardless, decades of prohibition policies have proven your opinion isn’t a valid both-sides argument, but patently incorrect. This is supported by many professional opinions from medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists, economists, etc. looking at the impacts of strict criminal penalties for drug use to both the individual and their communities.
Okey dokey