i understand what you're saying, but you are the one who said "the issue at hand being that recreational use is never an approved cause for prescription". although it implicitly is, i just mentioned that most 'new' psychoactives require prescriptions (probably because many are dangerous). my point was more that recreational drugs are outside the brief of medical prescription, in part because Rx has implications of responsibility, safety, and liability in the treatment of disorder. i also doubt that doctors would be the appropriate medical professional for prescribing recreational drugs, which demands a patient-role. so i think non-prescription OTC use supervised by pharmacists would be more appropriate.
i definitely agree that it should be systematically possible for a benign drug to be made legal. i mean, salvia divinorum is banned for pretty much ~no reason~ other than the state's hostility to potent psychoactives. but i also think interest groups would be a logjam in this process, as they would demand extensive evaluations and re-evaluations of potential products, and also argue over the benign nature of products. this would also require a bit of an overhall of the state-federal mix in australia drug law. at the end of the day i don't think harmlessness is an adequate quality for legality (individual decision making/cost-benefit analysis is more reasonable imo).