There is easy way to "disprove" it in any argument:
If drugs solve depression and improve mental state, suggest goverment should finance and distribute drugs to homeless people.
If drugs solve depression and improve mental state, suggest goverment should finance and distribute drugs to homeless people.
Your statement is even less accurate, somehow, than saying "well if chemotherapy really works then why don't we just hand out random chemotherapy drugs to homeless people."
I won't bother quoting any studies, because they wildly contradict one another, but the conventional wisdom is that some drugs can be beneficial in some circumstances. And often the benefit is harm reduction, ie managing pain with cannabis rather than opioids.
HN decorum says we're supposed to assume best intentions on everyone's part. So I'll assume there is an honest misunderstanding on your part.
No reputable person seriously claims that any drug is a miracle cure-all. The most diehard advocates of microdosing is generally beneficial for many/most people. But that is quite a far sight from proclaiming it is a magic cure for anything, let alone everything.
Hopefully now you understand the matter actually being discussed. It's also possible you're trolling and didn't misunderstand things in the first place but I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
For the record I am skeptical re: microdosing. I have no direct experience and no plans to give it a go. It's certainly intriguing though.
_____
¹ I mean, it's the internet and you can find somebody claiming literally anything. You can probably find a chicken soup recipe that involves Tide Pods.
Wealthy and able to have a "doctor" prescribe you drugs? OK it's fine. You aren't one of those dirty "addicts" because a guy with two letters in front of his name says it OK.
The good news is that I certainly don't believe any of the homeless-bashing things that you said.
I was replying to a poster who claimed that drugs are a sham because -- in their opinion -- if drugs weren't a sham, we could simply give a bunch of drugs to homeless people.
I found their argument absurd for a number of reasons and I told them so. But I certainly don't believe any of the things that you are accusing me of, so at least you and I are in agreement on some things.
This is not a war on the poor, psychedelic medicine requires care when administered.
I'm all for someone deciding they need drugs to function. It doesn't matter to me how you live your life. If you do it with a doctor, fine. If you want to figure it out on your own because you don't have access to medical care, that does not make that person a criminal.
There are plenty of people self medicating with nicotine & alcohol every day, no one says it is necessary to lock them up. The only difference I see is it is a handy source of tax revenue and somehow "socially acceptable".
They were calling out the simplistic nature of the OP comment, and asserting that proper use of psychedelics for medical treatment involves a safe, controlled environment.
Nothing they said or were asserting had to do with US drug policy.
I think also that the US's healthcare is partially to blame - if you had universal healthcare, then poor people would also (in theory) have equal access to drug prescriptions.
I do think that, generally speaking, many drugs are best done under medical supervision. I have a friend of my brothers who died of a heroin overdose, her first time trying the drug. I tell myself that if we lived in a world where foolish college kids have to go to a pharmacy and get their hits administered by a registered pharmacist, maybe she'd still be alive.
I also generally agree that the War on Drugs is bullshit. It didn't work for alcohol during prohibition, and it's not working now. The smart move is legalize, tax and regulate.
Also, I'm sorry that you've been through the system. The system sucks in so many ways. But it sounds like it's (at least somewhat) in your past, and I'm happy for that. I hope you are in a good place now, or at least a better place.