Those alcohol related deaths include car accidents. If ~150,000,000 people in the US regularly took LSD you would get a significant increase in such accidents independent of any other health effects. Falls, suicides and other mental Heath related deaths would also increase. LSD related deaths are hard to track as only ~0.1% of adult are active users but from the data we have 8k deaths per month at that scale is roughly within the margin for error.
Now, you can reasonably argue that fewer than 150 million people would take LSD but that’s hardly making it safer for those who would. It’s just arguing Alcohol is popular not that it’s inherently more dangerous.
Of course it is. Wow.
LSD is not habit forming. That's the point. This is so frustrating and you keep ignoring it. LSD does not present the same danger to the individual as alcohol because people are not drawn to keep using it in the same way. This in itself reduces the dangers of chronic problems, because lifetime exposure is reduced. It also reduces the liklihood of acute problems, because the frequency of use is reduced. This includes both physical and mental health issues, and consequences of intoxication like car crashes.
>> It’s just arguing Alcohol is popular not that it’s inherently more dangerous.
No, it isn't.
Alcohol is addictive. More so than most other drugs.
That is an inherent danger of alcohol.
You are in denial.
Alcohol withdrawal can be nasty. But it takes years and dedication (usually) to build up an alcohol habit that threatens serious withdrawal symptoms; for the most part, "withdrawal" is simply a hangover.
Contrast with a minor tranq such as diazepam: you can easily acquire a habit from which withdrawal is potentially life-threatening, in as little as a month.
LSD is mildly addictive (18) slightly less than MDMA (20) or Marijuana (21). But MDMA is inherently much more harmful. That said, when LSD was legal it was quickly becoming popular and caused users a lot of issues. As such the more addictive nature of alcohol (81) is just one property and not enough on it’s own to compare it to other drugs.
Research by John Hastings. Relative rankings are definite, numbers given are (+/-)1%
While addictiveness is not the same as habit forming, it does link to overall useage.
It's literally impossible to acquire an LSD habit. After 3 or 4 days of continuous LSD use, no amount of LSD will have much effect on you. You need to lay off it for a few weeks to re-sensitise.
In that same month about 8000 people in the US died from alcohol-related issues. So I'm losing sight of your point?
Booze just is well established in the literature (AFAICT) as more addictive and more deadly than many/most other recreational drugs. Generally excluding tobacco, opiates, cocaine or methamphetamine, sure, but experts in the field tend to rank it more or less with them. If you don't think the people studying this stuff have taken the widespread nature of alcohol's use into account ... well I think they likely have.
LSD, your example there, is generally considered non (or relatively non) habit-forming, we'd be unlikely ever to see chronic health effects there. At the doses it's commonly used we'd be unlikely to see acute mortalities (though vasoconstriction can be a side-effect), though I imagine some idiots would still take it and get in the car. Result - even if available freely and used widely, it's very likely it would cause fewer deaths and other societal problems than booze.