Direct quote from my original response: "Psychedelics are generally not addictive".

> They do not lead to dependence or addiction.

Thanks for making my point.

Edit: Also thanks for the downvote. Being that you then proceeded to _not_ counter me with any real arguments, it also helps to make my point.

Edit 2: (this will be a bit longer)

I think I see what you mean, and I apologise if my writing and understanding was not entirely precise.

You're pointing out that the NCBI link I provided (an actual scientific study) specifically states that they _do not_ cause addiction or dependence, whereas the one you linked from Addiction Center (who seems to sell addiction treatments) with no links to studies says that they _might_ happen.

Despite my now corrected lack of precision, I'm still missing your point.

Please see my prior linked PubMed article about psychological addiction.

My point is that psychological addiction is a concern for burnt out people looking for a solution, or people who quit their job and have time to fill. Psychological addiction is different than chemical addiction.

I understand. The PubMed link says nothing about psychedelics though, which is the subject of this thread. It's merely stating the difference between substance and non-substance abuse.

You can form a psychological dependence to a substance that does not produce a physical dependence.

It seems there's an irreconcilable difference in the definitions of addiction that we are using. I think those reading have enough info to view the arguments and make up their minds.

> You can form a psychological dependence to a substance that does not produce a physical dependence.

Yes, I understand that.

Do you have any actual evidence that this happens with psychedelics though?

My personal experiences have shown me a very different picture. After a trip I don't want to touch the thing with a long pole for days or weeks, and that's the same I've seen with other people, including some heavy party-goers who are definitely addicted chemically and/or psychologically to many other substances and habits.

Sure, those are anecdotes, but so far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary of them. You haven't provided me with any either, except that Addiction Center article with no science backing. They sell addiction treatment, so it's in their business interest that more addiction exists or is purported to exist. Note that I'm not assuming malice on their side. It's probably more likely that given the lack of evidence either way, they decided to lean towards the more conservative side, which also aligns with their business.