We're talking about the impact of drug use on mental health. I'm saying: look at the homeless epidemic. 90% of those folks have substance abuse issues.

If you've done any psychedelics you would be foolish to not notice that they can drive a person insane under the right circumstances.

Would I be foolish, or do I just need to be convinced with better evidence? You seem to be using a gateway type drug analogy combined with anecdote mixed with all sorts of other factors.

And no I wasn't talking about "drugs" I was talking about psychedelics and their targeted use/dosage. I made the counter claim to provide evidence that psychedelics cause permanent psychosis. No one seems to be able to produce such evidence, and your point of casually linking homelessness to drug use may be all fine in a grand sense but with respect to the topic at hand it just looks like a red herring.

I think it's foolish to think that acid doesn't induce psychosis. But perhaps you need better evidence.

That's not to say that microdosing can't be useful. But I think it's possibly quite dangerous for some people. My evidence of that is knowing people who have done too much acid, and meeting plenty of street people in Haight-Ashbury who do acid.

Perhaps a more harmonious way of discussing this notion: what percentage of times does psychedelic usage lead to psychosis, and what evidence do we have that could suggest a plausibly accurate answer to that question?

This perfectly encapsulates my feeling. I see a lot of talk about the psychosis hypothesis but little in the way of evidence. Folks have some really rustled jimmies about being called out that evidence.

As a psychedelics enthusiast myself, who is particularly fascinated by the phenomenon whereby they demonstrate that the way we perceive reality in normal states of mind is obviously imperfect/filtered, reading people who are in normal states of mind talking about what psychedelics "are" or "do" (or, talkig about anything regarding reality, really) is....trippy.