I agree. Also, if you're not dealing with accusations the proper way, you're looking like a cult. If you're going to suggest using psychedelics in a therapy settings and a side note is "oh yeah and we don't report rapes because that could set back our efforts", you're really just showing terrible judgement and that you have no business being anywhere in a medical profession.
On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are.
I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power.
I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.
To be honest, my desire for the use is mostly driven by self-interest: I enjoy using and can clearly responsibly use so I don't want to be held back by the incapable.
To that end, I think I'm willing to accept it as "pay into this insurance fund that will cover you if you need care" so that you remove the societal cost that you impose and then when you legalize you remove the externalities like the drug lords and all that.
> Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way.
And I assume they do so for very similar reasons. The difference between a church and a cult is its size & power, if you're large enough, you become a church and then a religion. If you're small, you're a cult that believes in obviously imaginary stuff.
I don't think we should have the Pope or some Hollywood star in charge of medical treatments, and everyone should be skeptical if musicians promise them a cure for cancer as well.
On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are.
I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power.
I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.