In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising. Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal, hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic quantities.
I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.
High fructose corn syrup isn't marketed to consumers. It's marketed to corporations that otherwise would use sugar. Sugar is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere because of BS tariffs advocated for by Florida sugar barons.
True, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it serves as a model for designing and marketing substances that are cheap, addictive, and ultimately toxic.
Where I live it's illegal for tobacco companies to market their product. In any way. Anywhere. They are hidden in the shops and if one wants to buy it one needs to specifically ask for it.
Lots of plants that have medicinal effects are immediately dangerous, especially compared to what ends up being a poor diet choice that takes a while to have much of any effect.
"Medicinal" partly implies that a small amount of the substance will have an impact on the body, and there are many substances in plants where the dose does matter.
I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.