Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original p

Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original position of assuming that everything is forbidden by default, and that good reason must be given for that restriction to be lifted. This is not how the world works. It is restriction that is the aberrant case, and the one which needs to be constantly defending itself. The moment it becomes clear that the restriction is not justified, it must be gotten rid of. Restriction is inherently costly and harmful. If it is not preventing greater harm than it is causing, there's no defense for it. When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are. I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.