The OP's comment reminded me of a some people I've come across that were into meditation and were anti-psychedelics, and to me it seemed like their main issue was that you could get these very deep experiences like ego-death but you didn't earn it, you didn't sit and quiet yourself for months and years, you just popped something into your mouth, experienced a bit of nausea and were teleported into a different dimension. It always seemed to me that they felt cheated because they took the hard road and felt that it's unfair that others took a short cut. Needless to say that it was even weirder given that they also tend to talk about compassion and inner peace a lot.

I totally understand if you believe that you simply cannot separate the psychedelic from other parts because it is what gives the benefits. I did get the feeling that that's not quite it though, that there's a lot of "and you shouldn't try to", and that feels like "you shouldn't get the benefits without embracing the experience, potentially encountering your demons etc", or a religious practice surrounding it.

What you are describing is the state of enlightenment, and those who have had sustained experiences with it would disagree.

Perhaps I've swallowed too much propaganda, but this seems like a testable belief. What if it's not true? What if psychadelic-assisted therapy is just one of multiple viable psychadelic-assisted treatment approaches? What if people want to be able to use store-bought neurotransmitters to regulate their minds without going through the trip-induced emotional or spiritual experience that they may not want?

Would achieving a deeper understanding of the relevant neurochemistry and allowing people to make their own choices be so bad? Would more treatment options be a negative?