The 'rest of us' don't have to foot any bill. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy that leads down the path of banning anything potentially dangerous. People take risks every day and psychedelic experiences are no different.
GP was just saying (given their assumptions / understanding) that it's a bad trade-off to allow people to take these particular risks. That the costs outweigh the benefits.
You, on the other hand, claim gp's (supposed) slippery slope will lead down the path of banning anything... in other words, that if we ban people from taking [these risks] it creates a slippery slope to arbitrarily banning all kinds of things with any risk involved.