Rhetorically, the author asks "Why would governments worldwide keep such a profound[ly beneficial] fungi out of the reach of their people?"
Good question. Because governments are evil, of course! That's what she invites us to conclude, right?
But here's a better answer: Because we don't really know whether psychedelics are profoundly beneficial, and we don't know this because there is no scientific consensus as to whether they are profoundly beneficial. And yes, we don't know this despite all the anecdotal evidence that her and Joe Rogan present us.
So why don't we reserve judgment until we know these things, and stop writing articles that imply that we do know and that the big bad Government is holding out on us?
That would be a valid cause for careful exploration. Instead, what we have is an outright ban and consistent propaganda that "drugs are bad, mmkay?"
The logical next step to "we don't know" is "let's find out", not "EVIL! DON'T TOUCH! GO TO JAIL OTHERWISE!"
I think calling the governments of the world "evil" in that respect is very over-simplistic, but it's definitely fair to call them irrational and wrong.
Also, this "governments are implied to be evil" reading may be in your own mind - Amber doesn't make that statement, and I didn't get that from the article.
Good question. Because governments are evil, of course! That's what she invites us to conclude, right?
But here's a better answer: Because we don't really know whether psychedelics are profoundly beneficial, and we don't know this because there is no scientific consensus as to whether they are profoundly beneficial. And yes, we don't know this despite all the anecdotal evidence that her and Joe Rogan present us.
So why don't we reserve judgment until we know these things, and stop writing articles that imply that we do know and that the big bad Government is holding out on us?