Saying everyone was 'coked out of our mind' seems a bit far fetched. Yeah there were niche products using coke and consuming/exporting it was legal, but historic production numbers from the period are a small percentage of modern production numbers even considering the populations were lower.
Cocaine exports then vs. now: early 20th century legal exports at their peak(1921 - 30 tons) were roughly 1/20 to 1/30 of current illicit production.
At the time most coca production was for local consumption, far less was aimed at the international recreational market.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037687169...
Not to say there were not other drugs on the market, like Morphine
It wasn't niche. In the US cocaine was available just about everywhere - pharmacies, grocery stores, mail order, being used (in high quantities) in dozens of beverages, and so on. [1] By the time of its effective prohibition it was seen by many as the largest health crisis in existence.
I suspect the numbers you're citing are subject to a large number of biases - different demand/utilization in different areas, considering mass without purity, poor recording keeping and/or off the book deals, and so on.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/
Again saying everyone was using a ton of coke back then, doesn't really line up with reality. Yes it was sold openly in pharmacies until 1914, and seen as a problem. Estimates from the time (1900) show 200,000 people (~0.3% of a ~76 million population) were regular addicted users. Compared with 2020's numbers: 6 around 6 million Americans use cocaine on a regular basis (1.8 percent).
Way more people are using it now than then.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/ https://recovery.org/cocaine/history
The problem you run into with stuff like this is poor sources. For instance, I don't think the 200k addicted users passes the sniff test (pun intended?) or even close. Consider that there were hundreds of various commercial concoctions nationwide, including Coca Cola, including it in ever larger quantities. There were factories plying their laborers with it, recreational use, medical use, and more. And then there was also a nationwide frenzy against it, all over a supposed 0.3% addiction rate, and in an era before the magnifying effects of the internet? To say nothing of a seemingly large proportion of famous names of the time admitting to using cocaine in various forms? This really does not pass the sniff test.
The source for the 200k/0.3% claim is a lengthy chain that eventually leads to this [1] book which then makes that claim by simply stating that the American Pharmaceutical Association said so, in 1902. A primary source for that, so far as I can find, does not exist, and my web fu is pretty decent. So if we just assume that this was said, how was this measured? And were the ulterior motivations? For instance cocaine's widespread usage in tonics and various pharmaceuticals would obviously create a major interest in a pharmaceutical trade group greatly downplaying its negative effects (including addiction) as much as possible. The 'safe and effective' of a different time.
The book also mentions that the primary addicts were "middle class genteel women." And so if that number was ever stated, I expect it was simply representing the group that actively sought treatment for addiction, which is obviously not exactly meaningful. Note also that you're comparing a potentially lowballed figure of addiction to a potentially highballed figure of usage.
[1] - https://archive.org/details/hepcatsnarcspipe0000jonn/page/25...
Demand / Use are the key metrics, not availability.
If you have those numbers, then you have a point.
On the other hand 7up used to have lithium in it. (though that was later in the 20s)