Point is with motorcycles, cars, scuba, yes, even horses, the risks are more or less known and probability of various outcomes, including harm, can be reasoned

Point is with motorcycles, cars, scuba, yes, even horses, the risks are more or less known and probability of various outcomes, including harm, can be reasoned about. Which is why we should legalize and regulate the drugs that we do understand. The risks of cannabis and LSD are also more or less known, and the (remarkably low) probability of harm (particularly compared with motorcycles, cars, etc) can be reasoned about. The harm in making these well-understood substances criminal is far greater than the harm in regulating them. Indeed, as the GP points out, the harm in making the well-understood substances illegal is exacerbated by the harm from designer analogs. As a clinician and scientist questions of prohibition are largely beside the point. You're simply pulling the wool over your eyes if you believe that to be true. Prohibition is a causal factor in the danger of substance abuse.