>> I suspect psychedelics are as safe as they can be under Schedule I. > It disturbing that your response to [awful stuff] is to insist categorically that "psy

>> I suspect psychedelics are as safe as they can be under Schedule I. > It disturbing that your response to [awful stuff] is to insist categorically that "psychedelics are safe". I think a careful misreading of my text might be needed to make that declaration. If an explanation would help: I indicated a neutral position to clarify I wasn't advocating. My use of "I suspect" makes clear this isn't an expert position - which makes your choice of "categorical" unproductive. Unless you want to punctuate disdain. What is deceivingly false is your assertion that I 'insisted psychedelics are safe'. You trimmed away necessary context about conditions (Schedule 1) that prevent the prevent mental health professionals (guides) being developed and inserted into the equation - specifically to reduce tragedies (and people lashing out in response). > Then you have the nerve to suggest we ignore the grieving warning of an associate of the dead man. I suggested muting a series of statements that were extraordinary in their length and constant change into disconnected directions. Or one could do nothing and try to absorb that. It was a neutral suggestion.