Cool! And honestly, psychedelics have helped me in more ways than I can count. (I believe you and I have chatted about this on several occasions in the past, actually.)
Still, I believe that honesty about what helps and what doesn't is a good start for psychedelics. What I don't want to see happen is see these to fall into the same "miracle cure-all" category like we saw with marijuana legalization.
While I personally believe the benefits outweigh the cons in many circumstances, that doesn't negate the fact that these are some powerful substances. One of the last papers I read hinted that psilocin was about 100x more powerful than your standard SSRI and it works more efficiently than serotonin itself. (Serotonin, psilocin, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, etc, are all closely related tryptamines, for those who were curious.)
Edit: Oh, I should also add that I have a skeptical bias about microdosing but you aren't going to hear me talk shit about it. Even if the placebo effect turns out to be a heavy factor but if it still works effectively, then that is awesome. Why complain about something trivial if it works effectively in highly complex situations?
I grew up with these types of laws and they are just more of an inconvenience than anything else. My old hometown restricted the sale of beer and wine for many years, but it was easy enough just to go to the next town over. (Simultaneously, the town hosted a state managed liquor store which was extremely weird.)
If smaller communities want to restrict products like that, whatever. Hell, even restricting some services is OK as long as it's not discrimination based.
Personally, I wouldn't live in one of those places. It's not about the tobacco but more about the people who are elected by those communities to make laws like that. If smaller communities of like-minded people want to make their own laws like that, so be it. I wouldn't be like-minded, in that case.