The question is also how the cost compares to other potentially damaging activities and circumstances - including work stress as an employee, work stress as a founder, someone who is bankrupted by the health system, someone who abuses more common and popular drugs like cocaine and alcohol, and so on.

These are all at least as likely to lead to "deterministic" behavioural and emotional changes, not to mention direct physical health issues.

In a broader context, your implication that psychedelics are somehow uniquely dangerous because you disapprove of how they have affected a sample of people you know personally really doesn't stand up to wider scrutiny.