It's absurd to call psychedelic advocates "cultists and shills." What do you even define as "psychedelics advocates?" Are people who want further research into the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics cultists and shills? Obviously any substance will have side effects, and some will be very negative. But perhaps people with crippling mental health issues will be willing to take that risk when the science exists to allow them to give *informed* consent. Are those people cultists and shills?
I agree that not all advocates are "cultist" but I did not even know this existed as a real disease, https://www.perception.foundation/faq. Wow , not sure if the site is accurate but either way it seems both sides of the issue need to be very honest and smart about psychedelics because info about Marijuana is just starting to be better known and that info was never in the conversation before, just like psychedelics now.
There are few drugs for which withdrawal symptoms can include death, but alcohol is one of them and it's legal for adults to consume it recreationally. I don't think elucidating the risks of any substance is ever a bad thing, but it's also disingenuous to frame this as presenting "both sides" of an issue.
The claim that a drug has some potential side effects simply has no bearing on the question of whether prohibition is good policy, because the case against prohibition isn't and has never been that any drug is completely risk-free or cures every disease or makes you shit rainbows or whatever nonsense, the claim is that adults should get to make those decisions for themselves
I agree that was over the top. I was motivated to exaggerate a bit to counter what I sometimes see as one-sided, breathless advocacy. HPPD exists, and as another poster said, it may be attributable to things like anxiety - so maybe not the end of the world? Still, it needs to be in the discussion.
