There is a great need for more research (as a lot has been blocked by prohibition) but early signs indicate psilocybe use would have a net improvement for society for long term psychological problems.
But there is certainly risk that it creates a new class of problems. But, people are doing clandestine treatment with psilocybes currently, so it seems unlikely that legalization will find new classes of issues or a higher incidence rate of issues vs relatively-uninformed clandestine use. If there is a concerning issue, we'd expect that we've already seen it, but perhaps underestimated it.
Psychological problems are not comparable to addiction and death, particularly as our current resarch seems to show them solving more problems than they cause.
There are always companies that will try to make bank in an emerging market, but the details are different than an entrenched company using their power like in the opioid crisis.
Opioid use is 8000 years old, but Morphine was only isolated 219 years ago. Psilocybin was first isolated by Albert Hoffman in 1958. Though mushroom use for religious purposes is known to be at least 6000 years old, I think it is likely that humans have been using them ever since they first stepped into the Americas. There is a big difference between smoking opium and shooting morphine. There is little to no difference between taking a psilocybin pill and eating mushrooms. Have you heard of any mushroom-eater epidemics in the last 6000 years? I think there has been plenty of time for at least one, but you think another 10-15 years will do it?
The human body rapidly develops tolerance to tryptamine-based psychedelics (i.e., most of the ones being discussed here). In general, if you take a tryptamine, then taking more won't do anything for at least a couple weeks. (Tolerance isn't all-or-nothing; even if a person has developed it, it's still possible to get a small response with a gigantic dose.)
But even if there were no such thing as tolerance, psychedelics aren't pleasant in the day-in-day-out way that a beer after work can be, or that I imagine an opioid would be. They require far too much emotional work. It's typical to take a moderate mushroom dose, and then spend a month or two "integrating" the experience (i.e., figuring out what the heck all those insights mean).
Why do you say that? Isn’t psilocybin non-addicting? Wouldn’t that be a major difference to the opioid epidemic? I’m not sure I follow the analogy you’re trying to make.
Some good feedback... not sure why downvoted was a fair enough question?... point was are the long term side effects fully understood before mass circulation? How much lobbying has gone into getting it over the line? Is history going to repeat?
It won't be an addiction crisis but possibly a crisis of another kind, perhaps socioeconomic. Mind changes and shifts in priorities of an already disenfranchised youth could deplete the stock of candidates who want to contribute to the capitalist system. The 1960s could be nothing compared to the mid-late 2020s.
The ability to think independently and outside of the box nurtured by psychedelics actually turned out well for capitalism. It was not good for military recruiting and war support though.
The rise in software and hardware innovations that came out of the SF counter culture included Steve Jobs and Apple. He did quite a bit of acid.
It's possible Oregon regrets this for some reason I can't imagine, but a repeat of the opioid crisis isn't a realistic outcome.