I'm more curious why psychedelics are (or were) viewed as something that can cause social problems. It's more clear with drugs that create physical dependence, like opioids or dopamine reuptake inhibitors (cocaine, amphetamines). However, drugs in those classes, along with other addictive drugs like benzodiazepines, are legal with a doctor's prescription.

Why can't people take LSD once a year in a safe, supervised setting?

``In a second procedure, which is the favored treatment in the United States, a single, very high LSD dose (0.3 to 0.6 mg) is administered after correspondingly intensive psychological preparation of the patients. This method, described as psychedelic therapy, attempts to induce a mystical-religious experience through the shock effects of LSD. This experience can then serve as a starting point for a restructuring and curing of the patient's personality in the accompanying psychotherapeutic treatment. The term psychedelic, which can be translated as "mind-manifesting" or "mind-expanding," was introduced by Humphry Osmond, a pioneer of LSD research in the United States.''[1]

Read the rest of the reference, you'll find why/how LSD became associated with the counter-culture, and then became illegal because of that. My take is that LSD, when administered responsibly, can lead to major positive life changes for those in need.

It is a pity that it is illegal, which only increases the risk of abuse/work dosage/mixing with other stuff, but perhaps in a more civilized age...

[1] Hofmann, Albert; LSD: My Problem Child; url ->http://www.psychedelic-library.org/child4.htm

I don't have a good answer, but I do know that LSD came around when there was a lot of change going on in the world. That might have had something to do with it.

I'm actually pretty curious now, so I'll look into it.

"And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not harmful at all, are the most illegal"

That's just wrong, a drug like coffee is a good example of "least harmful" and isn't anywhere near "most illegal"

Coffee has an LD50, whereas they haven't found one for marijuana.

I was speaking with that scope in mind.

The specific drugs I had in mind were psychedelics.

This what what my fact checker had turned up: http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/LIBRARY/mj_overdose.htm

And I was careful not to say THC.

While I disagree to some extent with your parent's point(that legality of drug use isn't strongly correlated with the danger of said drug use), one data point(not illegal, mostly non-harmful) is hardly enough to refute it. To refute it, it is better to point out that relatively few controlled substances in the US have any significant controversy over their criminalization(marijuana and ecstasy are the only two that I recall).

I could have written my sentence better. If I used illegal-ness as my main qualifier instead of harm, that might fix some confusion.

And, it is amazing that the most illegal drugs are the least physically harmful. Still not perfect, but an improvement.

I'm no expert on this, so I admit that this might not always be the case. I went out looking for something to illustrate my point. Didn't need to go any further than wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Rat...

read up on caffeine then.