I know cases of very tragic results of psychedelic use. So if you think to enlight me on childish bullshit like "the war on drugs is a conspiracy against us, in reality, drugs are very good for people" - if I was some 25 years younger I could consider that, but not today.
If you believe there are no downsides, FYI, around a century ago heroin was marketed as a "no downsides" cough suppressant. With time (very soon) the downsides became apparent. This may happen to the psychedelic you now consider safe.
The idea to alter one's mind with substances to have more pleasant / interesting / euphoric / hallucinogenic experience is vicious in principle, even if there were no other downsides.
There have been tragic results of using automobiles, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't all continue to use them. There have been tragic results of using Tesla automobiles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all eventually move to electric, autonomous cars.
You can basically say "there have been tragic results" about anything because there will always be irresponsible use.
I could argue that this is irresponsible use of reasoning.
Psychedelics, used responsibly, have overwhelming positive results in my experience, in scientific literature, in popular culture, in human spiritual history. The problem is that you have to validate this in your direct experience, and many people will either not have the requisite knowledge or open-mindedness to use them properly or to overcome the fear of them in the first place.
Let's be careful here, and use precise words. Yes, they are powerful, and they are to be feared, but they are not what you think they are. They're on Schedule 1 because the people banning them had an extremely narrow view on what they were capable of, as you seem to, about what they're good for.
Schedule 1 says something to effect of "No medicinal value". That is a lie, as much as 2+2=5. It's becoming increasingly clear through (slow) research and many anecdotal reports that the knee-jerk reaction most people (including myself) had to natural mushrooms is just flat out wrong. Every month we get more results about people having the worst parts of their lives changed, almost miraculously, almost as if God created a substance for healing and called it good, and for Humans to use. And then Luddites come along "drug bad always, God wrong about creating and calling it good, man ban drug it hurt man once in some circumstance" and the same Luddites leave a swath of suffering in their ignorant wake.
its precisely because of all those glowing reports i distrust the hell out of them.
We have a long history and data on how drugs in general can treat problems, but often come with side effects and other issues when they work, often serious. And sometimes per person they just don't; finding the correct drug treatment for a person is a very hard.
When i hear all this about LSD as a perfect miracle drug, I get VERY suspicious.
I can agree and sympathize with that, I think what happened was during the early days of LSD, there a strong counterculture that stemmed out of some very dark individuals like Aleister Crowley. Guys like Timothy Leary used Crowley almost like a symbol or standard, and it spawned a massive backlash against LSD and psilocybin. A lot of what was said about LSD and Psilocybin was true about Crowley and Leary, but they were just two very flawed people who took a lot of good medical research down with them.
These drugs are mysterious and powerful and some of the most irresponsible and foolish and loudest people on the planet got their hands on them. But there is a lot of promising research that suggests the baby shouldn't have be thrown out like it was in the 70's.
>The idea to alter one's mind with substances to have more pleasant / interesting / euphoric / hallucinogenic experience is vicious in principle, even if there were no other downsides.
This idea is based on a false dichotomy between "drugs" and "normal stuff". Chocolate is a substance I take with the sole intent of altering my mind to have more euphoria. That's just using big words to say I eat it only because it tastes really good. There are people who think that that is "vicious", but I assume that you are not one of them, and if you are then you should probably make reference to the fact that you're approaching this from a very unconventional angle in your post itself.
