Well not being a restricted drug is a practical difference. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against microdosing or anything. I'm just skeptical. I've listened to one too many acid-head's long winded speeches about enlightenment to take what people are self reporting about it seriously.
I'm a big believer in medical use of psychedelics, but if the effect is strictly due to placebo, then there are cheaper and safer placebos we can give.
Placebos actually do work even if the patient knows they are placebos (source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...), but regardless, how do you keep the patients from finding out that the psychedelics are just placebos? Why not just use some other realistic-sounding placebo like a rare herb or something?
I ate two bananas before my motorcycle test for their placebo effects to calm nerves. Cool as a cucumber I passed without a jitter on the throttle. It's anect-data-l. I know.
I think you misunderstand placebo. The placebo is needed foremost to reduce falsely reporting positive and negative effects after the study. E.G. for most drugs not beating placebo is essentially the same as zero or even negative effect. The rare exceptions when giving sugar water actually improves something because person thought they got a cure are themselves very anecdotal.
