You probably managed to do both without being "under the supervision" of anyone. I hope. Let's not be so full of ourselves.

I think most of you might be thinking about "how to prevent a moral panic that would result in the re-criminalization of psychedelics after a too liberal model", but I am convinced this is a wrong way to think about it.

You cannot prevent moral panics with oversight. If you don't have oversight, you might get a moral panic about "crazy kids getting themselves killed on drugs you can buy in the convenience store down the corner"... If you have oversight, you'll have moral panics about "crazy Doctor Frankenstein psychiatrists dosing innocent people with the devil's own drugs".

I'm pretty sure the second one sounds worse. Also, people DO have a bias formed by laws. People would say "well these drugs MUST be really dangerous, otherwise you could get them at the pub like beer". So increased oversight actually increases suspicion.

[USER=18677]@Nathanial.Dread[/USER] is right in that "alcohol is worse" is a bad argument for legalization; but I do think it's a good argument among ourselves for this very question... Alcohol consumption doesn't need medical oversight. If the psychedelics really are far less dangerous, why would they need any?

And once again, I'm not talking against the option of medical supervision of trips, I'm talking against making it mandatory. What is a good idea is regulating supply and making sure information is readily available to all (in verbal form at the purchase too, the way a good pharmacist tells the patient the most important things about a medical drug they are buying).