There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up.
Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits.
A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards.
I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.
I mean, "analgesic" is a label based entirely on perceived effects, and it's one of the most common medical drug classes (by sale volume).
That's not my point. My point is that J-dawg stated that the laws prohibiting drugs in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics" are not based on evidence.
You stated that there were evidence based laws prohibiting a different set of drugs that are not in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics".
Your assertion does not invalidate his statement.
Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.