The claim that a drug has some potential side effects simply has no bearing on the question of whether prohibition is good policy, because the case against prohibition isn't and has never been that any drug is completely risk-free or cures every disease or makes you shit rainbows or whatever nonsense, the claim is that adults should get to make those decisions for themselves
> Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a non-psychotic disorder in which a person experiences apparent lasting or persistent visual hallucinations or perceptual distortions after using drugs,[1] including but not limited to psychedelics, dissociatives, entactogens, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and SSRIs.[2][3] Despite being designated as a hallucinogen-specific disorder, the specific contributory role of psychedelic drugs is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
So, from the get go the relation to psychedelics is pretty murky ?
Most hallucinogen users will experience some long-lasting effects, especially to their vision. The nature of it can vary. This can happen in only one use.
If by "precautions" you mean "restricting people's bodily autonomy and sending cops after people who don't comply", as is currently widespread policy, this is very clearly not very effective and either of the widespread direct harms caused by implementing these policies - not the least of which are the chilling effect they've had on basic research as well as a proliferation of erroneous psychopharmacological pseudoscience - and the obvious erosion of the fundamental right to self-determination and bodily autonomy would to me seem more than adequate to outweigh such a benefit even if it weren't a total fiction. Carceral prohibition is bad policy on principle and in practice