I agree.
This sounds ideal, but is problematic because it is still the responsibility of that individual to do their homework, and to discern what is the best available information. Correct implies consensus - even if there is objective consensus about how something works, there is no reason to expect a subjective consensus about its suitability to the prospective user.
Well, it is called here the “Ancient psychedelic Ayahuasca”, so claiming that nobody really knows anything about it can be interpreted as an ethnocentric bias. Is it surprising or irresponsible that people might advocate something which has been used in one form or another for centuries? There also seems to be a real double-standard with regards to evidence and legitimacy when sacraments are concerned, compared to other plants/foods. Is eating maca root or goji berries “abuse” if there is no “medically accepted” reason for ingesting it? Most people I know routinely ingest things based upon taste and tradition with little concern for their possible medical significance, and people don’t fuss about this.
Why should I, as an American, not be free to credit those who have used it for centuries as being more informed in comparison to the institutions of western medicine who readily admit to not knowing much about it? In either case, it is not as if the pharmacological action of the stuff is obscure.
