>Could it be consistent with the data that potent psychedelic drugs banishes all prior strong feelings?
That's not how psychedelic drugs work. If anything I would say it's more the opposite. We tend to naturally suppress a lot of feelings and memories when in regular everyday-life mode. A psychedelic experience can make people dig all those up, open all the mental closets and make people re-evaluate their feelings about everything.
I suppose all I'm asking if there is consensus that is universally good or not. In the goal of eliminating PTSD it clearly seems worth it, but do we think that something that can very quickly "make people re-evaluate their feelings about everything" has zero negative consequences?
Right, got you now. Universally good seems like an impossible bar but it's a good question and I don't think there is such consensus.
>do we think that something that can very quickly "make people re-evaluate their feelings about everything" has zero negative consequences?
How many negative consequences does sticking with the status quo have, over potential alternatives?
To be clear, I'm critical of the hype around psychedelics for treating people's mental issues, like PTSD. It has cultish undertones where the drug is the miracle savior that will fix all your problems. There also seems to be an industry developing of groups and companies trying to push this idea for profit, because they see the potential. There's always good money to be made with religious believers.
That said though, used in the right way, with the right intentions and realistic expectations, psychedelic drugs can be a very useful tool.
That's not how psychedelic drugs work. If anything I would say it's more the opposite. We tend to naturally suppress a lot of feelings and memories when in regular everyday-life mode. A psychedelic experience can make people dig all those up, open all the mental closets and make people re-evaluate their feelings about everything.