In addition to a regulation’s existence, EPA must also do the testing and prosecute violations. I’m not sure they do here, even before the trump era, especially since for a while EPA was steadily lowering the safe limits. I think instances of that are contained within those articles, but unfortunately they are walls of text and you and I have no reason to greatly trust my memory.
My post was in response to this question:
> I can see the perspective that making, having, or dealing [LSD] is an unacceptable risk of harm to people who didn't consent. Is there some reason that's unrealistic?
My point was that the factors of “unacceptable risk” in regulations are laden with things that have nothing to do with actual levels of harm to people. You corroborated that point with your post; I’m only clarifying here. This is the system we have, and it can be quite bad at actual harm reduction due to cultural factors.
It’s weird to live in a world where a substance that showed great promise in therapy, fighting alcoholism and other addictions etc. has been banned for 50 years, while another substance that makes dish washing and floor cleaning easier but causes cancer and birth defects in people close to where it’s made is broadly sanctioned.