If the founding fathers were doing it, then everyone was doing it.
And just as people of the time talked about booze and beer and wine, and partying and so on, they would have talked about the pot and hash they were using, just like all pot heads do, except that back then there was no law against it.
Why wouldn’t everyone be using the free drug, that anyone could grow, anywhere?
Cannabis as an intoxicant never penetrated into the white world, during those thousands of years you mentioned, and when it came up, like during the Crusades, it was looked down on as something to avoid.
If pot use was open, common, and legal, then why did it quit being used by Americans? How is it that you can’t prove your pathetic accusations against our nation’s early generations?
Why is the lie so important to you?
They were. An they weren't writing about it for three reasons:
1. It was, as you said, free and easily available. So no one was selling it. Selling things is what people wrote about. There was no "improvement" to weed, it just was what it was.
2. It was mild. It wasn't some massive hallucinogen or made into hash like in the Holy Land. It was mild and relaxing, and that's it.
3. It was and herbal medicinal, and people didn't go off talking about medicines like they did beer, wine or tobacco - all of which were used to run buisiness and make profits. In fact, if it was discussed anywhere it was in the herbal references of the day for its medicinal uses.
In short, weed was not then, and is not now, a big deal. What has made it a big deal is political hysteria and commerical profit - the later known to have started from Dow Chemical company when it manufactured nylon and wanted to replace hemp. The latter from drug warriors who push draconian, rights-shattering drug laws and from alcohol manufacturers who see a threat to their multi-billion dollar a year businesses. Oh, and from medicine, which is terrified of losing all sorts of billions on their protected drugs from replacements with weed.
None of it is a mystery. Not a bit.