> depression, anxiety, introversion, etc.

That's a whole array of pathologies and symptoms, for which there is no single pharmacological solution.

Many comments in this thread are over-standardising mental illness as well as the (supervised administration) therapy presented in the linked article, which is about much more than dosage and frequency. On top of that, the patient in the article expresses many specificities that are unlikely to be matched by most patients.

This is, to me, the first negative aspect of banning a drug -- it suppressed 99% of the potential evidence base and replaces it with poor 'SWIM-based' anecdotes.

I wouldn't agree that your evidence base is replaced with anecdotes (not sure what you mean by SWIM), rather since the drug has been outlawed, all you have left are anecdotes. People will use and describe the effects of drugs with or without the law's discretion, and I would imagine the decriminalization-party should be thankful for the experimentations.

> since the drug has been outlawed, all you have left are anecdotes

That's what I meant: apologies if my wording led you to read me differently.