The British had Technological superiority over the Chinese. They blew the Hell out of Shanghai and killed thousands of people with their cannon fire. Chinese ships were simply no match for them, and so the Chinese had to sue for piece. As part of the Treaty, the British required the Emperor to make no armaments (cannons) with which he could threaten the Brits. (Were I him, I would have done it anyways, but the British had their spies.)
The Japanese, on the other hand, started copying British Technology, and in a few decades they could field a force that could do some damage to the Brits. Of course they never had to deal with Opium streaming into their port cities.
Also, up until 1914 recreational drugs were completely legal in the US and it didn’t destroy the country.
OMFG! This is the stupid meme that will just not freaking die! And here I am having once more to explain that Drug usage and availability did not even get started in this country until the Civil War and it's aftermath. Sure, there were Opiodes and Cocanoids since the 1700s, but usage and availability was never sufficient to let them develop into a problem.
You are also wrong about when we first started interfering with drug usage and sales. It wasn't begun with the Harrison Narcotic act of 1914, the first legislative act was the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906.
By this time, a lot of people were noticing a great deal of problems being caused by Laudanum and other Addictive substances. They passed the pure food and drug act because they wanted to know what people were putting into all those "Patent" medicines. As it turned out, it was mostly opiods cocanoids and alcohol. People were dying from the stuff.
The usage by 1900 had risen to two percent of the population (estimated) and it pretty much stabilized at that level. It was 2% a hundred years ago, and it's still 2% today. It didn't get any worse because we started fighting it. Do you want to see what happens when you don't?
Back then we believed in something called “personal responsibility” instead of relying on the iron fist of government.
No, people back then pretty much believed in the Iron fist of Government. Have you never heard of this thing called the "Civil War"?
Apart from that, it is the government's responsibility to insure that it's population isn't dying en masse, and towards that end it is reasonable for the government to intervene in any occasions in which the population is so threatened.
Just how many freedoms are you willing to give up to ensure your neighbor doesn’t smoke a joint and watch cartoons?
None. That's why I don't want them stealing from me directly, or mooching off me through government welfare. I also don't want them spreading that sh*t to other people who are so inclined to do so.
Beyond that, you are using the least dangerous and most trivial of drugs to justify a philosophy that opens the door for the most deadly and horrible ones.
Your philosophy is either correct or it isn't, and if it is, then you've got to take the bad drugs too, and if it isn't, you'll have to come up with another argument as to why we should draw the line at pot and forbid meth.