I use antidepressants, and have for years. I was resistant at first (mostly due to some ableist nonsense about being one of those people with something wrong. I also didn't understand that I had any kind of problem.)
Popular ideas about "happy pills" are so wrong about how these drugs work. A "happy pill" would be basically useless, I think. The thing that makes a good antidepressant useful is that it makes depression manageable, so you have the strength/insight to deal with symptoms as they come along.
I had to learn a lot about psychoactive drugs when I dealt with a lot of anxiety and depression as my life turned upside down in 2008. This is not to mention insomnia, which has been a problem for most of my life. I ended up using a lot of sleep aids then, and looking into anti-anxiety meds. My impression of anti-anxiety meds like benzodiazapenes wasn't a good one. They seem more like traditionally-recreational drugs, where they just push a psych symptom out of view for a while, until the drug wears off.
I don't see how that helps very much. It's the difference between a hand up and a handout. Then again, these drugs are widely used for an illness I don't know that I've truly experienced. However, Andrew Sullivan points to someone's anti-anxiety experience with psilocybin that sounds precisely like my description of why antidepressants are useful drugs.
Hallucinogens and other recreational drugs that aren't alcohol or marijuana are pretty taboo in the world of psychology, but I wonder if they need to be.