You won’t see benefits if your sample only includes addicts! But some people’s drug habits are objectively not addiction. For example, someone who takes LSD 3 or 4 times a year, with months in between. It seems quite plausible to me that this could be beneficial to them whereas someone taking it say twice a week would see detrimental effects.
Taking it twice a week is a waste of a dose, unless one is microdosing or threshold dosing (where tolerance, in my experience, doesn't quite kick in as hard).
Addiction issues are a totally different animal. Just look up the definition of addiction. I’ll comfortably stand by my statement of use on the order of every few years being wellllllll within the margins of reasonable use.
Your absolutist stance is absurd. Just because all people who don't believe that some substance affects them negatively are wrong because a certain percentage of people who consume that substance are actually wrong. The same goes for certain changes in behavior, they don't automatically mean that a problem exists.
This basic claim is like saying an ocasional drinker who's become more social because alcohol helps them with talking to groups of people in certain specific situations is no different from an alcoholic because both drink and behave differently while drinking. Context, quantity and quality all make defining differences. How tedious it is to be judged harshly by someone who can't see this and takes any example of consuming something as a case of not admitting addiction. Often there really is no addiction.
They all believe it doesn’t affect them negativity, that people can’t tell.
They are all wrong. We can see the changes in them. Good or bad.
The ones that make an effort to get off for awhile are usually shocked when they realize how they were being affected.
I have never seen positive long term affects in anyone of them. Even though they all claim otherwise.
My 2 cents