I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why.

I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom.

If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.

The research need not show "it's 100% beneficial". It only has to be more beneficial than prohibition, which is an insanely easier bar to clear... considering prohibition stops nothing and harms tons. So.... I'm not seeing what you're getting at with "no research it's 100% beneficial" line of thought...