I'm not a "joiner." So I have no interest in being part of a religious or quasi-religious group.
But there are many roles to fill in the fight for the right of self-determination, and legitimizing the consumption of entheogens and such via bureaucratic means is one that some people are compelled to work on, and that's a good thing IMO even if it's not something I will participate in. It also insulates me from the consequences of any stupid or ill-informed actions taken by the group that I may not have supported or agreed with (and to be fair, it also insulates such groups from the consequences of any stupid or ill-informed actions taken by me!).
There was a warning tucked away at the beginning of the Book of the Subgenius that made quite an impression on me when I read it:
IGNORE THIS: FNORD: The term 'SubGenius' is used because it is the most mironic description possible, you fool. To practice and preach the same things is utter madness. Sometimes communication must be made more difficult and irritating than necessary, in order to convey certain dangerous complexities.
...to convey them without being imprisoned or killed, that is. In this context, "Preachers" should avoid "practicing" and "Practitioners" should avoid "preaching." Keeping the roles separate makes both groups (or types of individuals) MUCH more difficult to stop, and as we've seen with cases presented in this thread, doing both in the current legal climate makes an individual or group very easy to stop, or otherwise suppress.
Dark Ages come and go, and then come back. When the pendulum of cultural trends swings back away from personal freedom (e.g. the political climate takes a hard swing to the Right thanks to some perceived crisis or other), it's advantageous to not be on any handy lists of potential troublemakers, i.e. those who exercise their personal freedom in ways that are seen as immoral or "wrong" by the dominant majority, which would likely include members of any psychedelic-based group (whether it is "religious" or secular).
Heck, one of the things that terrifies the keepers of the status-quo about psychedelics is that this class of drugs tends to be highly-corrosive to rigid, pyramid-scheme type authoritarian hierarchies (and ossified dogmas), which are the 'bread and butter' of our contemporary (and highly-dysfunctional) culture. That's probably why there is a slight amount of official tolerance for specific groups who consume such substances, but none for the right of the individual to explore their own mind as he or she sees fit.
Besides, the idea that something is "legitimate" simply because an arbitrary number of people participate in it is a juvenile and absurd test of "legitimacy" that's more appropriate for inconsequential contexts, like analyzing fashion trends among teenagers or determining which TV show should get a People's Choice Award.