> As negative as the experience was, in some ways I am glad I had it, because it gave me a much deeper understanding of where my mind could go - both positive and negative.

So is it still appropriate to consider this a “bad” trip? It’s a serious question; psychedelics are experiencing a resurgence in clinical interest precisely because of their persistent effects, quite apart from the acute trip experience itself. One might assume that a trip saturated in negative affect might leave a person worse off than before, but it is clearly more complex than that. Perhaps it is akin to the difference between post-traumatic stress vs. growth, and proper management of set/setting/aftercare can promote the latter over the former.