As I stated, I was using America as the context, as I thought the parent post was. Our history with drugs and alcohol does not match all places, in all times.
More importantly, we are talking about people's _perceptions_ of these events and how they influence modern thought. Most of us are taught things like "the pilgrims served beer at the table instead of water". The reason for it, or whether or not it is even true, doesn't change that we all grow up thinking that "beer is no big deal - even the pilgrim's children drank it".
You could even extend that to Sherlock Holmes - it is subtle in the stories, but no one checks or cares if it was actually legal. We _are_ all left with the negative impression that he was a secret drug addict, who often disappeared for periods of time to indulge.
When you start something with "I question how genuinely accurate that is" then it's not unreasonable to think that the question concerns historical accuracy, rather than people's perceptions.
I had never heard about the Pilgrims and beer thing.
What we learned about was how Coca Cola used to contain cocaine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#Coca_.E2.80.93_cocain... . "Coca-Cola once contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass". It still imports coca leaves for flavoring.
I believe that is as well known as Pilgrims and their beer. While inaccurate, Google estimates 530,000 results for '"coca cola" cocaine' and 550,000 for 'pilgrims beer'.
On a purely timing note, the phrase "Drug use _started_ as illegal" is difficult to justify. Why was the non-medicinal use of certain compounds banned before there were users of the drug? How did the legislature know to ban them before there were any observed social consequences?
Only relatively recently has that been possible, as some proposed bans include "the sale of any chemical that might be used recreationally" and "any compound with any binding to any cannabinoid receptor" (quoted from http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour... ). I believe the UK also has laws regarding molecules which are "similar to" prohibited drugs.
However, those are less than a generation old, and not part of people's perceptions.
More importantly, we are talking about people's _perceptions_ of these events and how they influence modern thought. Most of us are taught things like "the pilgrims served beer at the table instead of water". The reason for it, or whether or not it is even true, doesn't change that we all grow up thinking that "beer is no big deal - even the pilgrim's children drank it".
You could even extend that to Sherlock Holmes - it is subtle in the stories, but no one checks or cares if it was actually legal. We _are_ all left with the negative impression that he was a secret drug addict, who often disappeared for periods of time to indulge.