I made no claims for the period 1991-2004 (what's the significance?), the period 1979-1991 (again, what's the significance?), or the period 1970-1979 (again, what's the significance?).
You pull these out for no reason -- other than you selectively picked certain times where my statement wouldn't appply.
If I made the statement, "The stock market has gone down in the last five years, I'd fully expect you to post, "Uh, no, you're wrong. It went up three years ago on June 18, last November from the 14th to the 15th, and just last month it rose again! So you're wrong."
Two of those show a positive correlation, for periods ranging from 9 to 13 years, between increased arrests and increased demand for mj. The other shows a positive correlation between decreased arrests and decreased demand from 1979-1991. Given those correlations, one can't very well make a case for saying increased enforcement efforts caused a reduction in demand.
You pull these out for no reason -- other than you selectively picked certain times where my statement wouldn't appply.
You meant to show causality with your figures, correct? If so, then the examples I gave tend to refute your claim.