That is true, but the general public creates its view on perceptions. Recreational drugs are frowned upon in many societies. In some (often primitive) societies the same substances may even be revered. But much of the world is very averse to psychoactive drugs in the popular opinion.
Same is true for other chemicals in our environment, too. For instance, it is common that people (even the same people) have a negative attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for human consumption (recreational use for intoxication) and a positive attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for use as fuel (biofuel, a renewable source of energy).
(And it is also common that people approve of drinking alcohol but do not approve of smoking marijuana, regardless of legality. And vice versa.)
And I think this is quite understandable, and not really about "war on drugs", it's about corporate responsibility.
Many companies are taking some flak for supplying completely legal chemical substances to the public (say, sugar drinks).
This means logically, you have to ignore the preconceptions, because they have no basis in reality, just your biases.
A reason that has little to do with recreation and a lot with altering brain chemistry.
It ultimately comes down to the concept of personal responsibility. Drinking does not absolve one of their subsequent actions and choices, regardless of their subsequent "mental state". Any choice to have an "unsound mind" was made while of sound mind, and thus responsibility for all results lie with the person themselves. Being mentally impaired doesn't magically transform someone into a blameless zombie.
Colleges seem to be doing their best to erode this concept, but I digress.
What isn't right is things such as the doctor telling Sandy that obesity is "primary genetic". Even if the statement is scientifically correct in a narrow context, it functions to absolve Sandy of responsibility for solving her own problem - whether it be by dieting, seeing additional doctors, exercising, or all of the above. Heck, telling her husband "I am fine with my weight" is in this same category of self-actualization, although she must accept others' inevitable reactions.
As for my comment, I certainly wasn't meaning to advocate "personal responsibility" in the sense of "let them suffer". In aggregate, addiction should be addressed as a public health problem. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the individuals of responsibility for their own actions because their brain has been chemically altered. This is what I was getting at, because that junk reasoning is used to justify inebriated behavior as nobody's fault, which is then used to justify a sweeping bans on altering one's mental state.
Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation.
Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recorded overdoses on it, and no known long term physical side effects. It is impossible to get addicted to LSD, because frequent use builds up a massive short term tolerance extremely quickly.
Contrast that with acetaminophen. It is widely and cheaply available, overused by a large number of people and it does some serious damage to your liver. You can also overdose on it.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry already produces many chemicals that are used recreationally, like opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines(including methamphetamine), various other stimulants, ketamine, DXM etc.
Infact, the only class of popular recreational compounds they don't produce happen to be the comparatively much safer psychedelics including tryptamines, phenylethylamines and lysergamides.