> You were the one that moved the goalposts, claiming that the lack of universal healthcare is "the problem at stake here."
One either use a money argument and I'm allowed to refute it, or don't. But you cannot tell me I'm moving the goalpost for responding to the argument.
If you remove money from your rephrasing of the argument you get “I should not be required to use these in a set and setting sanctioned by The State” which is different: I don't mind if you really want to self medicate, nor does the state (as illustrated by the fact that there's no felony or crime for self medication), but in average it's a pretty poor idea: you're way more likely to harm yourself than achieve your goal. If Steve Jobs died because he wasn't smart enough to make the proper medical call for himself, so can you.
If you really want to do it “because freedom”, then go for it, but if you do it because there's money at stake like OP, then you're not actually doing it freely, you're doing it under economic constraint and blaming “too much state” is delusional.
> But don't come into a political discussion about personal sovereignty and tell people "you don't actually need sovereignty, you just need more state."
The argument being made was, in short, “it's too fucking expensive, fuck the state” when the reality is that it's expensive because the state doesn't want to intervene, which is what I pointed out. Also, “personal sovereignty” is an oxymoron unless you're a king or some autocrat. Sovereignty is a collective process, it's “we the people” not “Me myself and I”.
> At the end of the day, psychedelics sit at the intersection of personal responsibility, medicine, and social order. We can argue whether and how they should be allowed, whether they have medicinal value, and what the impact on society is, at large. But those discussions are orthogonal to the questions about the optimal configuration of medical care and health systems.
The comment I responded to at the beginning was complaining about the cost of health professional, it wasn't at all about psychedelics in particular, and that's the argument I responded to.
> That's just insulting.
Nobody insulted anyone, please don't play the “this is offensive” card.