I'd argue this is already to some extent culturally accepted, but mostly only in an "arts" context, and not generally in any formal discussion like medicine. But in general culture, people often do seem to view, e.g., the alcoholism of the absinthe-cafes era, or the drugs of the Beatniks, or the LSD of the 60s-70s, as a type of personality and lifestyle that may, in some cases, be at least worth respecting if not imitating. Mostly relates to the arts, although there are a handful of other examples, such as Paul Erdős's well-known amphetamines usage.

It seems like it does need a "why this helps me be productive" hook to convince people it has an upside. Either you need to be an artist and go for a "helps my creativity" angle, or else you need to be in some kind of focus-needing occupation and use drugs you argue improve your focus (amphetamines, off-label usage of Ritalin, etc.). Although, oddly, steroids for athletes don't get the same cultural free pass there.

I think people probably will find any concept along these lines more threatening than neurodiversity (possibly for good reason). People "wired differently" often grew up that way, so there's a sense in which you accept that's who the person is, and both they and others have gotten used to them being that person (in some cases). Most such groups are also a smallish percentage of the population, and you can't really "opt into" it on purpose, so it's a fairly fixed set. Parents aren't worried that their non-autistic teenager will one day decide to "experiment with autism", so there's less need to stigmatize it as an option. But nearly anybody can choose to become addicted to heroin, and a significant percentage of people who do, might decide it was a mistake, yet find it hard to get back out of the addiction. So it's a more "dangerous" concept in a sense, because anybody can opt into it, but possibly not opt back out.