[NobleFree]

He just argues that there were much fewer people addicted by opiates administered to ease the pain of war wounds than do others.

"Just"?! Quantity is the crux of your claim.

Beyond that, I note your form of argument

When you're losing on substance, talk about form.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Just"?! Quantity is the crux of your claim.

According to the rebuttal you cited.

"The only clear disagreement is the few who estimate the number of addicted Civil War veterans. Some claim 45,000 (Ashley, 1972 and 1978; Geis, 1973; Health PAC, 1970; and Kenny, 1972); others 400,000. (H. Jones and Jones, 1977; Lingeman, 1969; Schwartz, 1980; Starkey, 197 1; Summers et. al., 1975; and Westin and Shaffer, 1972)"

I think the lesser number of 45,000 is still a sufficient number to meet the "quantity" point I put forth.

45,000 new Drug addicts is a pretty good kickstart to a disease with a logistical growth curve.