The difference between "causing" and "exposing" doesn't seem very meaningful or scientific. I often see people make the same claim of these drugs when they cause psychosis or schizophrenia, but it sounds more like a defense of the drug than anything else.
What we want, for understandable reasons, is a predictable way to just make ourselves happier, smarter, and more effective.
Psychedelics seem to be able to do that for some people, but not for others, and the effect overall seems like it has this "journey" component as well as a hefty dose of non-determinism.
I suspect that the thing we really don't like about that is what it says about self-improvement.
What if there isn't a neat, linear, deterministic path from "worse" to "better?" What if it always takes some kind of winding journey, whether involving psychedelics or not? What if there is no happy pill, or at least not one whose brand of happiness we would really want?
Why do you think this can cause schizophrenia? Are you trying to suggest a psychosis can temporarily produce similar symptoms, or that there is fundamental damage to the brain resulting in long term disease? These are massively different claims.
