I don't know whether you or the person you're replying to is more correct, but it doesn't change their point: That these decisions are not something the average person should be making for themselves. If anything, your disagreement kind of makes the point even clearer.

Maybe there might be an argument for people to be able to choose to obtain drugs like the ones mentioned by GP, but not without some kind of control-mechanism to at a bare minimum ensure they have been presented with the risks and have given some level of demonstration that they understand them.

E.g. I quite like the mechanism now in place for online pharmacies in the UK, where you can buy prescription drugs like Viagra, or OTC but restricted products like Daktacort (combination anti-fungal and steroids), but need to convince a doctor (for the former) or pharmacist (for the latter) in writing that you've at least bothered to read what they've written about the drugs (since nothing stops you from just faking the symptoms, but you at least need to describe relevant symptoms free-form semi-coherently, or they'll do additional checks before selling to you).

It has weaknesses, and certainly won't stop people from abusing abusable drugs, but it at least makes it possible to pick up on the most idiotic attempts at misusing drugs they don't even understand.

Alternatively, I've used PushDoctor a couple of times - a UK service that connects you with an actual GP via video chat; the last time it took me 10 minutes from I scheduled an appointment until I'd uploaded pictures of a rash, had a conversation with the GP and had the prescription passed to a local pharmacy electronically; even if one were to consider taking away their "gatekeeper" role in terms of letting them deny treatments they don't think are necessary, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to still at least require a consultation like that for the most dangerous drugs to give an opportunity to at least inform.