Gothamist77%

All tokes aside: Prank post in Park Slope reveals real interest in parenting and pot 0%

By Jessica Gould0%

4/16/2026, 3:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 237 hits. Analysis detected 1,410 faulty-reasoning hits from 864 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

An April Fool’s post inviting Park Slope parents to a get-together about parenting and pot has generated such high interest that organizers are now considering it for real. 
The idea emerged from a prank post on April 1 on the popular Park Slope Parents website. 
The message advertised “Moms & Marijuana” and “Papas & Pot” gatherings. 
But in a follow-up email, Park Slope Parents founder Susan Fox wrote that many members responded and were eager to participate. 
Some suggested whimsical names for meetups like “Bong Buddies” and "Tupper-weed Parties,” which could take place at the “Old Stoned House.” 
“It was meant to be an April Fool’s joke,” Fox said. 
“And then from the comments I realized that this really hit a nerve with people. 
And it hit a nerve in both directions. 
It hit a nerve with [people who] would love to have a meetup around this, who said, ‘It's the only thing that gets me through parenting.’ 
And then other people who were like, ‘This could be potentially dangerous… You have to tread carefully.’” 
Parents said the episode captures new challenges that have arisen now that marijuana is legal and squarely in the mainstream. 
Many said weed helps them be better parents, allowing them to be more present and playful with their kids. 
But at the same time, pot’s ubiquity has added urgency to how and when parents talk to their kids about cannabis. 
Parents said they wrestle with when and how to reveal that they smoke weed to their kids. 
And they wonder whether their own kids are getting pot from a reputable source. 
Leeann Mata, who owns Matawana dispensary in Park Slope, is a parent of twin 7-year-olds and a grown son. 
She said fellow parents are a major part of her clientele. 
“We have a lot of parents that come and say when the kids go to bed tonight  we can't wait. 
We’re going to share this joint. 
 Now is mommy and daddy time,” she said. 
She said business is strong at her Fifth Avenue store, where hundreds of customers buy buds, edibles, tinctures and merch daily. 
Mata said she doesn’t use much weed when she’s with her twins, but a small amount can help her stay calm during stressful moments. 
“It helps me not lose my patience when I'm overwhelmed,” she said. 
She said she doesn’t consume her products in front of them, though they do know what cannabis is. 
 I'm preparing them to understand that this is a healing plant and it's also age regulated and [safety] also has to do with how it's tested, how it's grown, and where you get it from," she said. 
After the kids go to bed, Mata said weed keeps her from racing through her daily checklist of tasks to complete as a working mom. 
“It helps me sleep because as a parent my brain is forever going,” she said. 
Then-Mayor Eric Adams attended the opening Matawana Dispensary in 2024. 
Owner Leeann Mata spoke at the event. 
Mata said some parents come to the store to buy cannabis for their teens. 
“They said they'd rather… give it to them in a controlled environment than them going to the bodega or going to the local drug dealer and they don't know what their kids are consuming,” Mata said. 
Dr. 
Ryan Sultan, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University who studies cannabis, said he empathizes with parents who use weed to relax, but said they should avoid exposing their kids. 
“Being a parent is very stressful, and it’s exhausting. 
And marijuana can reduce anxiety and improve mood,” he said. 
“But I think that that is a very slippery slope… So I would be very cautious about that.” 
If a parent wants to smoke or take gummies, Sultan suggested they do it outside the home or at least out of sight. 
He said many studies show marijuana has negative impacts on developing brains, including lower IQ and higher chances of addiction and mental illness. 
“Your brain is not done cooking, it's not done developing, for many people until 30. 
And certainly in your teens, there's a lot of development that's still going on,” he said. 
After marijuana's legalization in 2021, educators told Chalkbeat that more teens were coming to school high. 
Sultan said the proliferation of weed shops in the post-legalization era and the advent of vaping have created new risks for kids. 
Fox, whose Park Slope Parents online group has some 8,000 members, said she is looking into marijuana-themed meetups. 
“We have decided to investigate this idea; not as a prank, but as a thoughtfully curated event,” she wrote in a follow-up message, adding that “health and safety is paramount.” 
“If we do it, we need to do it in a very respectful way, a very scientifically driven way so it's not, 'Hey, let's go into the woods in Prospect Park and all get high,'” Fox said in an interview. 
She promised next year’s April Fools joke would be a lot more “obvious.” 
This story has been updated to correct the location of Matawana. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Jessica Gould: 3.8%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Jessica Gould: 5.0%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Jessica Gould: 7.9%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 2.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Jessica Gould: 3.4%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Jessica Gould: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 2.1%Jessica Gould: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 9.6%Jessica Gould: 7.9%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias9.6%This article: 8.8%Jessica Gould: 3.6%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Jessica Gould: 1.8%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Jessica Gould: 1.9%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 2.2%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.6%Jessica Gould: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man4.6%This article: 7.5%Jessica Gould: 4.8%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 4.2%Jessica Gould: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 4.6%Jessica Gould: 1.7%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.5%Jessica Gould: 6.4%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization11.5%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 1.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 2.3%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.2%Jessica Gould: 8.5%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 3.5%Jessica Gould: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 12.4%Jessica Gould: 3.3%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.4%Jessica Gould: 1.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.4%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 27.4%Jessica Gould: 7.8%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal27.4%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Jessica Gould: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.2%Jessica Gould: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 7.9%Jessica Gould: 2.3%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice7.9%This article: 2.7%Jessica Gould: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jessica Gould: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Jessica Gould: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

864 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers71%attributed speech247writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 11 words • 100.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 21 words • 100.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 38 words • 100.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 14 words • 0.0% coverageLeeann Mata • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 10 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Sultan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 30 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Fox • 40 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Fox • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Leeann Mata

100%flagged-word coverage
250 attributed words41% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice+15.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Leeann Mata: 15.2%15.2%Attempt to Sell a Product +12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Leeann Mata: 12.8%12.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.