Any effect comes at a cost (call it addiction, or what ever), the greater the effect the greater the cost. It is unlikely that any drug that will alter our perception can ever come without a cost. Because the greater and more powerful the experience the harder it will be to cope without that experience.

There are three distinct issues here.

First, the notion that any beneficial pharmacological effect necessarily comes with a (hopefully lesser) negative side effect is a product of the current biochemical paradigm, which often relies on the accidental discovery of properties, and on statistical testing to minimize side effects. The hard truth about this paradigm is that in most cases the pharmaceutical makers do not understand how their substances actually work, because they don't have enough knowledge to engineer them from scratch. As noted in the original post, it is future advances that will make it possible to engineer biochemical substances with specific targeted effects, because the drug designers will finally understand what it is that they're actually doing. And once this happens the artists are sure to jump in.

Second, the assertion that an aesthetic experience may be so powerful as to alter someone's life in a negative way is a fascinating idea to explore in this context. I personally have experienced artworks that changed my life permanently in what I consider to be beneficial ways. And yet is it not an accepted fact that certain violent films have induced certain viewers to commit copycat crimes? Which leads to the open question of whether for the good of society an aesthetic experience should have limits imposed on its power, whether it is induced materially, electronically, or biochemically.

Third, that paleo-futurist quote about food pills is there for a reason.