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...