What has always struck me as strange is how the 'war on some drugs' effect persists even in pharmacology research aimed mostly at producing definitely-going-to-be-a-controlled-substance-by-prescription-only-for-serious-conditions pharmaceutical compounds.
For the recreational drugs, the reasons are usually shamefully cynical and tend to have an unflattering history; but lots of social arrangements are like that, so it's hardly fundamentally baffling.
The fact that, say, tweaking at the properties of very high powered opiates is (while regulated, you don't just get to take that fentanyl with you to work on over the weekend) perfectly on the up-and-up, 100% respectable research work, with assorted products on the market and in production; but it takes several decades to legally give LSD to a tiny test population, all of which will almost certainly be dead within the short to mid term, just seems weird.
It's even odder given that traversing the search space for new drugs is a daunting and failure-prone task, with billions of dollars at stake, so any molecule that does interesting things to humans and is safe enough that untrained users mostly don't kill themselves would be pure gold in terms of helping to target your development efforts. This obviously doesn't mean 'Novartis to fund clinical trials of, like, nature's medicine, man...'; but I would have expected that full lobbying pressure would be exerted until it became legal(purely for research purposes) to exploit basically any compound on the table as a starting point for tweaking functional groups and looking for marketable behavior. Anything less just seems like leaving money on the table.