213
This Is Awkward: Mushrooms That Cause 'Tiny Human' Hallucinations Don't Contain Psychedelics
(www.sciencealert.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
213 points (92.8% liked)
science
27837 readers
547 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can't wait for it to become known so governments all across the world can throw you in a prison cell and ruin your life for it like the other known hallucinogens.
Junkies being angry about saving their life.
If you don't know what you're talking about, why comment at all? Get that shit out of here and go back to Reddit with it.
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.
“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.
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
I assumed the person I was talking with is from the US, since he writes about black and leftists.
Where I live black people do have problems, most of them are related to being migrants. I would not say that marijuana being illegal has a strong influence on their life or that it would be a big problem for them. If anything, it provides a job in the black market which may be needed if they're not allowed to work.
I realize now that you're another person rather than the one I first replied to. I don't get the point of your message now. You basically replied that he is right and that I should read but you have no time to explain anything. That is not a very useful reply.
You're a disgrace. May god have mercy on your soul
Edit: good luck!
Fuck off
K
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?
Your flame war game is fucking weak... peasant
Spoken like a 22 year old who grew up in a conservative household and never needed to think beyond what others have told them.
I’m sorry but this is such a dumb and naive take. This person could be any age and grew up in a conservative household and never needed to think
Touché.
Is that how you justify telling other people how they’re allowed to spend their time? You just have to presume that their life is (1) in danger, (2) at their own fault, (3) and it’s your responsibility to do something, (4) even against their own will—and you can just apply this rubric of thought to any particular discontent with their character? How convenient. So, if you don’t like gay people, should you also teach thy neighbor about god? Maybe force them to read the bible in a conversion camp? It sure would be better if everyone thought just like us, huh?
I think you're talking about adults, otherwise it wouldn't be a question that yes, you should save them from themselves.
Talking about adults, haven't you seen videos about countries where they allowed every drugs? Have you ever bought a product and disappointed in it despite the PR and research you put in? Have you ever bought a product without research? No, people can't decide responsibly, they learn from their fault when it's too late. The market needs to be green.
There is not a single country where every drug is "allowed," wtf are you talking about?
This is such "I'm 17 and grew up in a conservative household" energy. How did you even end up on Lemmy?
If you're interested I'm 29 and born in a hungarian village where nobody was religious. I ended up on lemmy because I am a developer and free software supporter. I want a nice place to live in, and psychedelics does not fit into that picture.
Maybe just accept that not everybody has the same opinion. Let me express that I think psychedelics should be banned.
I have to correct myself, it's not a country, it's a city Portland. https://youtu.be/2GU3TGSWPsw?is=5lJ-PJ44vzzfmCfM
Okay, I'll bite. What is it about psychedelics that makes you think they should be banned?
The fact that Hungary is a DEEPLY right wing country and unfortunately very trad in its ideology of the body and consumption.
Just an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDl6cxYzJ4
Thanks for the reply.
Let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine that you enjoy alcohol, as in you like to pair wine with cheese and you like to relax with a beer after work. Now imagine that I tell you that alcohol should be banned, and as evidence I show you a news story of some teenagers who don't know how to control their drinking and drink too much and get into a fight with police and almost die. Not only would you think that I'm hopelessly uninformed about alcohol, but you would also feel vaguely threatened by me because when I say that alcohol should be banned, I'm implying that harmless wine connoisseurs like you should be persecuted and locked in cages. You might point out that the teenagers are actually the victims, and the real perpetrators are the store that sold alcohol to minors, and the parents who failed to teach their children what responsible drinking looks like. You might also say that it's a violation of personal freedom to tell responsible adults what they can and cannot drink in the privacy of their own home.
You would be absolutely right, and all of your arguments would apply equally to psychedelics.
Sincerely, A psychedelics connoisseur
We are heading into a direction where drinking too much gets more and more accepted. My grandmother has never drunk alcohol. My grandfather has drunk only little. My father and mother had been drunk sometimes. And I was drinking almost every week during university. Please tell me why we kill ourselves, and what can we do about it if not with bans. I would support no alcohol and no cigarettes. I want to believe that we can be happy without them.
But banning a socially accepted substance, and banning a socially not accepted substance is different. It needs to be different, because black market would flourish if they are fine with it. Now imagine you allow shrooms, it gets socially accepted and now we have another problem that we cannot deal with.
It's enough to see misbehaving drunk people in subways, it's already too much.
Lol Portland is a fantastic place to live. I literally just took a vacation there last week.
Nobody is stopping you from expressing yourself.
We are just pointing out how misguided your "expressions" are.
Are they misguided though? We don't know what his personal experience with drugs and their users is.
FWIW, Fentanyl is not a psychedelic. Generally speaking, psychedelics aren’t habit forming, meaning people don’t seek for repeated use.
I have a rather interesting view on the matter. Typically even my in-group doesn’t agree with me on this. Yet I think all drugs should be legal. Access to drugs should be strictly regulated (imo), but easy. Therapists should be able to obtain license to administer psychedelics. There should be therapeutic centers specializing in use of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA. There should be other types of therapeutic centers where you can get access to methamphetamine, opioids, and other drugs—as prescribed necessary for addiction treatment. There should be places to buy recreational drugs like cannabis.
Everything has a place, in my view. Banning something outright is naive, creating more problems in the long run. If you swap from enforcement of prohibition to a more utilitarian approach, you can get a lot more done. That doesn’t mean you give drugs away and create addicts. It means you be a grown up and stop acting like everything is the boogie man, while also acting like anyone who touches it has caught cooties.
People do a pretty good job policing themselves when the system is established in a manner to empower them with good choices. It’s the same idea as the panopticon, as old as Jeremy Bentham, but in reverse. People aren’t going to go get their free meth when culturally it’s known to be for addicts who are at a bad place in life. People who do just want free meth are now surrounded by psychologists who can help.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus e.g. on a break up. I think the easy access is the problem. And to fix it with opening it up even more is not a good idea.
I would give people money if they can tell who is a dealer. So the market itself would fix the problem.
Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.
“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.
Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.