Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
Any definition you're thinking of that places any psychotic episode as a definite indicator of mental illness is completely irrelevant as soon as the subject is under the influence of a mind-altering drug.
When people say "psychedelics cause mental illness" that could mean:
* Someone with no underlying mental illness takes a few doses of LSD and is left with a life long psychotic illness
* Someone with no underlying mental illness regularly takes huge doses of LSD, and ends up with a life long psychotic illness
* Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD use, when it would have gone un-known if they hadn't taken psychedelics
* Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD. But it probably would have happened anyway.
* Someone with mental illness has that illness temporarily triggered by LSD.
Because LSD is illegal and it's very hard to research we don't know much about the interactions of LSD and mental illness.
While I'm strongly pro-legalisation I do find it problematic when people dismiss any possible harms of drug use, when it's fine to say we don't know, but should legalise anyway.
And then the professionals can help measure dependency and long term effects, and people can participate in studies and contribute to the science of recreational drug use. Drugs are always medical grade, never laced with other substances, and doctors can recommend safe alternatives to the dangerous recreational drugs.
Power dynamics between a doctor and an addict may pose ethical problems, but if the doctor has the proper oversight these problems can be mitigated.
Doctors already regulate recreational and personal-enhancement via their strangehold on opiates and stimulants. We don't need to further this system.
http://www.amazon.com/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B00...
It's also online as part of his blog: http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1
Take note of active and strong predisposition. They're saying if someone is obviously having problems, or seems like they might (e.g. many family members have had issues), they can find those folks out.
It is not in any way suggesting they can detect psychotic dispositions in general.
Since the beginning of the era of modern psychedelic research, no one has developed any serious longterm mental illness as the result of taking psychedelics in a research setting. And this is out of thousands of people.
I think part of the reason is that it's actually a lot easier to determine if someone is predisposed to mental illness than it actually is to determine if the person sitting in front of you has a mental illness. E.g. if one of your parents was bipolar or you had a relative who committed suicide then you'd be immediately excluded from any trial. And because they are only doing this research on adults, this means that participants would have all had 20+ years to figure out if their parents have signs of mental illness or whatever.
Look in the references: "Four additional studies found post-LSD psychotics with prior psychosis but also patients in whom the drug precipitated psychosis without a prodrome ... One group reported cases of psychosis following a single dose, suggesting a peculiar vulnerability to the drug in certain individuals. A review of this problem concluded that prior illness was evident in many, but not all, psychoses following LSD "
Your general gist seems to be correct (that it's a rather low risk for people without history), but "no one" seems to be incorrect. Which makes sense - LSD's a powerful medication. And for comparison, this happens with stuff they give to kids, like Ritalin and speed.
Although the elephant got a considerably larger dose (297 mg!!) than people would, and the experimenters handled the situation poorly.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/feb/26/research.scie...
Nothing is risk-free.