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.