As a counterpoint, I'd read Michael Pollan. Also, a fundamental problem with this article is the lumping of 'psychedelics' into a neat category so it can be cri

As a counterpoint, I'd read Michael Pollan. Also, a fundamental problem with this article is the lumping of 'psychedelics' into a neat category so it can be critiqued. In the real world, the story of what's happening is diverse. TL;DR: This is a dangerously biased dismissal of actual science and historical progress in understanding of various 'psychedelics', and it's exactly the kind of cherry-picking dismissal that's been fought against for decades.