The argument you're replying to is "if healthcare is a right, then you don't need to go other routes."

Sort of like, "if you have nothing to hide, why value privacy?"

It overlooks the fact that, while these substances are useful in therapeutic contexts, that's not the _only_ value they have. And, even if they were not strictly useful in other contexts, that wouldn't preclude a right to use them "recreationally".

So, I totally agree with you.

I wish people could separate out complex issues like this into their 3-5 most significant constituent parts. For example: personal sovereignty/freedoms, public health implications, medicinal value, social harm/risk, cultural impact.

There are a lot of reasons to be either in favor or opposed to psychedelics, and then on top of that to support strict or permissive controls. To conflate those all into one issue is reductive and it stifles discussion and progress.

Sorry for the rant. Just wanted to get these thoughts out.

I would go one step further, being a heavily anxious person i dont think i would have had a good time with such a supervised experience. Especially given the giant influence a sitter with his framing can have on your trip. Especially looking at the horrific track record these institutions have with dealing with psychedelics.

Saying they know better/best/as the only ones is stretching the suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I am happy to fill out some sort of drug drivers license about knowing the risks and how to deal with them. But there is simply no way in hell i am letting such quacks into my trip.

edit: Since there is always the risk of someone taking this the wrong way, let me promise you that on the spectrum of "be all you can be" i am on the better half with a bunch of legal ways to go quite a lot lower at my disposal. Ways that arent closable through legislation. I would suggest focusing on some self improvement instead :)