I've known people who did it nearly daily for long stretches, and others who would only take it once a month and take Prozac after to mitigate and potential damage. I'm not saying that the latter is the only non-abusive way of taking it, but clearly the former would constitute abuse.
I think it's critical that all of us (however we feel about the 'morality' of doing drugs) have the humility to acknowledge that there isn't any policy "solution" to these problems. These are humanity problems (really, animal problems, since any animal can experience addiction and chemical dependence).
It is arguably deeply unfair to prohibit people from experiencing the best that these substances have to offer (and I don't just mean in a therapy setting). But it's also dangerous to "let" them get in over their heads. Unfortunately though, the verb "let" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even well-meaning and trusted parents aren't able to effectively guarantee their children's safety (either with prohibition or with a more lenient, discussion-based strategy). How much less effective then, is a government which isn't and can't ever be completely trusted by its citizens? No matter what, we won't 'solve' this with some perfect policy.
_Almost everyone_ who uses recreational drugs or drinks stops drinking or doing drugs _on their own_ without any intervention. There's this idea that's been propagated that drugs are this evil demon that you can never shake once you get addicted, because for people who deal with drug addicts professionally, _all they ever see_ are people who haven't quit drugs almost by definition. However, those drug addicts are a _small_ percentage of all the people who have used drugs.
https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi...
Drug policy is basically based on the survivorship bias fallacy.
In other worlds, well-adjusted people with support networks rarely "get addicted" to drugs (as if they are some sort of cursed potion that anyone who consumes is afflicted).