How we didn't see that normalizing business dealings with criminal enterprise and then selling diy testing kits at the pharmacy wasn't a good way to handle this is beyond me. We could have taken the hint that once they're legalized in 1-2 states the safety and quality across the US jumps for some unknown reason.
There are extensive reports of heavy addictions being virtually vaporized through DMT. Obviously some measure of openness and desire to change is important, but I personally do not think the potential here is debatable.
I think the only reason these are grouped together is that ketamine is also seeing a renewed interest in research into microdosing as a depression remedy, but this seems to be mediated by a metabolite of ketamine and may be more of a direct remedy for a chemical imbalance than something like therapeutic trips. In other words, the grouping isn't psychopharmacological, but the zeitgeist of this moment in public perception of these drugs, which has been shaped by fifty-four years of the nonsensical logic of the prohibition enacted by the Controlled Substances Act in the US, some of the trappings of which have also been adopted by other nations, as often happens in a world where US policy has outsized influence both through trade and at gunpoint
Personally I'm skeptical of a lot of psychopharmacological interventions for complex disorders like clinical depression. SSRIs for example strike me as a series of remarkably irresponsible experiments with drugs that appear to permanently alter cognition on wide swaths of the population. I view psychadelics and possibly ketamine as not necessarily more effective overall, but far less dangerous in terms of unknown effects
The state murdering someone because they were carrying around a plant is the antithesis of justice.
There's also something to be said for microdosing. It's still in the anecdotal phase afaik, but I found it very helpful for depression, anxiety and socializing.
But increased abuse and dependence was apparent from studies. The studies were manipulated by the Sacklers and when that wasn't enough they bribed the FDA to say that their drug was "believed to reduce the abuse liability."
The claim that a drug has some potential side effects simply has no bearing on the question of whether prohibition is good policy, because the case against prohibition isn't and has never been that any drug is completely risk-free or cures every disease or makes you shit rainbows or whatever nonsense, the claim is that adults should get to make those decisions for themselves
> Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a non-psychotic disorder in which a person experiences apparent lasting or persistent visual hallucinations or perceptual distortions after using drugs,[1] including but not limited to psychedelics, dissociatives, entactogens, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and SSRIs.[2][3] Despite being designated as a hallucinogen-specific disorder, the specific contributory role of psychedelic drugs is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
So, from the get go the relation to psychedelics is pretty murky ?
Most hallucinogen users will experience some long-lasting effects, especially to their vision. The nature of it can vary. This can happen in only one use.
If by "precautions" you mean "restricting people's bodily autonomy and sending cops after people who don't comply", as is currently widespread policy, this is very clearly not very effective and either of the widespread direct harms caused by implementing these policies - not the least of which are the chilling effect they've had on basic research as well as a proliferation of erroneous psychopharmacological pseudoscience - and the obvious erosion of the fundamental right to self-determination and bodily autonomy would to me seem more than adequate to outweigh such a benefit even if it weren't a total fiction. Carceral prohibition is bad policy on principle and in practice