I mean, we could be saying the same thing about psychedelics in 30 years time. "Wow, everyone knew psychedelics were bad for hundreds of years! What were medical professionals doing recommending them in the 2020s?"

I understand that we are not talking about the same specific mechanism (addiction), but I also want to keep my eyes open and not blindly stumble into the same broader category of problem all over again.

Except, we have known for centuries that psylocibe is benign. The Nahua people in Mexico's Central Valley people have been using them for ceremonial purposes for centuries with no addictive side effects ever reported; its use even being described in Spanish colonial codices [0]. They are only "new" to the Western culture. In contrast, we have known for centuries that opioids are extremely addictive. [1]

[0] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_aztecorum

[1] Look under History and look for Avicenna https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid

A similar story could be told about genus Papaver.

> using them for ceremonial purposes for centuries with no addictive side effects

A key caveat is "ceremonial." Was it available at the Nahua corner store?