Major Project Progress

This will be brief but I've had another little light bulb moment.
I'm still considering how I will demarcate my history project, which you may find worrying but I believe this will take shape organically when everything fully makes sense and I'm unwilling to force an answer. However, I do believe that the differen't historians' perspective on recreational drug use is fundamental to identifying how the 60s is portrayed. For example, how can a historian excuse the explicit and repeated use of recreational drugs by such a young demographic? If they are able to euphemise this area, what else are they romanticising? It may seem a trivial aspect but it is something which goes largely unnoticed as a "normal", "understood" aspect of the era. Why is this? When considering other eras of such heightened drug use, for example during the opium trade, it is depicated as dark and menacing - a blotch on the page of history. Why is it accepted in our understanding of the 60s?