My argument is that it skews all the numbers, not just the 1880 numbers. I have already apologized for that misconception. If you care to really research the subject honestly, you will find numbers all the way up to 1m addicts in 1900 (still without including the Asians).
I am sorry if you are under the impression that I accept the DOJ figures, as I do not - There are too many variables at this time in history to assume the numbers are anywhere near complete. That is why I am only going by the broad trends.
I am going primarily from my own knowledge on the matter, not by DOJ's numbers. The issue is so very polarized that it requires a great deal of discovery to come to any real conclusions. I will grant you that the government numbers often favor the WoD, but likewise, the material offered by the other side are likewise biased in their own favor, and take a fairly paranoid view, without reason. The truth, FRiend, lies somewhere in the middle.
The DOJ gives you a 100 year trend, but you'd rather confine your focus to a selected 30 year period. I'd say 100 years of data is more of an overall trend than the 30 years that you cherry pick.
No, we have focused upon those years because of the argument. There is another decided drop in drug use during the Reagan years (roughly '80-'90) which is directly attributable to a real assault upon the mechanics of the supply side of the drug problem - The only other time in the history of the WoD that real and sustained actions by the administration bore real fruit in the way of a real and measurable downward trend in drug use and availability. Again, I am looking at *trends*, as the trends can be more readily confirmed.
**NOTE** I am coming perilously close to defending federal law in this matter, which is not my objective. What I mean to defend is the idea that real enforcement does have a role to play in regulation of substances which should be controlled. I do *not* endorse the current model.
The article doesn't provide any numbers for the late 20s through the 30s. It leaps ahead to the low numbers of WWII. I think a better explanation is that most young men were in uniform, including black Americans. At the age when most take up the habit, the cycle was broken. And since you are apparently accepting DOJ numbers in this time period, the article says that the number of addicts increased from between 20,000 and 40,000 in WWII to 50,000 to 60,000 in the mid 50s. That's about a 50% increase.
Actually, most data shows the drop coinciding with '06-'14 laws, and show it continuing through the '50's, with the lion's share of the increase attributable to war veterans (morphine managed care). The data is skewed here because of the difference in how addiction is addressed compared to earlier (Civil war, addiction was not well defined).
However, war injuries still required pain relief, and morphine was what they had. We are also seeing complete data on Asians by now which is ramping the *official* numbers upward ('47, I believe, was the final year for full, normalized Asian citizenship).
Did you forget about the passing of the CW veterans during this time? Besides, you already said you reject numbers prior to this time, so how can you even say there was a decline into the 20s?
The most reasonable thing to credit the drop to is the "Pure Food Act" (or something of the sort) in '06. This federal law prohibited the use of narcotics in food products and elixirs, some of which were up to 50% cocaine or morphine in suspension.
At this time, the most likely addict was white, middle-aged, and female. Since these products were largely imbibed, or eaten, without the users knowledge of the narcotics within, and used common freight and storefronts for distribution, This single law probably cut usage and availability by three quarters by itself.
Secondly, a whole slew of states were passing laws to control the distribution of morphine and cocaine (47 states in all, AFAIR), and 25+ states passed laws restricting the use of opium (probably those states the trans-continental railroad ran through). These laws further restricted, or fully eliminated the legal use of the drugs at the state level.
Thirdly, the combination of the Harrison Act (Federal, 1914), and several international treaties (which obliged the Harrison Act), began to dry up sources world wide, as shipping began to be inspected, and the product began to be controlled abroad.
While the Harrison Act certainly is blamed for creating an underground distribution (perhaps, but many state laws were already in effect), It proceeded to tax narcotics out of existence, and prosecute doctors and pharmacists (for some years) for maintaining abusers. This DID have an impact on availability, because this was the major distribution network outside of the railroads and harbors prior to the highway system.
Probably equally important though, was the awareness in the medical community, and the government/public at large, of what exactly addiction was. The much maligned Temperance Movement began out of the understanding that alcoholism was a compulsion - That the abuser could not help his circumstance.
This is a vital piece to the puzzle, no matter how uninformed their reaction was - And the reaction to hard drugs was no different. I have seen work from that era which claimed that no less than 1 in 5 people were addicted to something. There was a real and abiding problem going on if 25% of the nation was addicted.
Remember that intravenous use was barely widespread. Folks didn't know what purified heroin, morphine, and coke addictions, or anything like them were. So the first idea, naturally, was to remove them, just like they tried with alcohol. Not understanding the nature of addiction, but realizing the compulsory aspect for the first time, It is little wonder that they took the road they did.
And it seems to have worked, although doctors were later given more room to treat addicts medically, using diminishing doses to wean them away from the drugs as it was proved that "cold turkey" was a torture that few could endure.
Yet, the post-WWII rise that began in the 1950s continued unabated for the next 40-50 years despite increasingly harsh laws and enforcement.
As I have already asserted, the *gigantic* rise came with the hippies in the 60's (Perhaps because of Viet Nam too, to some degree), and ran through to 1980, where there was a decided drop during Reagan's terms, Then right back at it, unabated, till today.
Yet, the post-WWII rise that began in the 1950s continued unabated for the next 40-50 years despite increasingly harsh laws and enforcement.
Except the Reagan years...
Addicted CW veterans were in their 60s by 1906, and in their 70s by 1914. If you accept that there were large numbers of addicted veterans, then a large decline from 1880-1920 was already in the cards.
I am going primarily from my own knowledge on the matter, not by DOJ's numbers.
What are the specific addiction numbers you are using for each of the periods we've been discussing, including 1980-2000, and what is your source for each of them?
I will grant you that the government numbers often favor the WoD, but likewise, the material offered by the other side are likewise biased in their own favor, and take a fairly paranoid view, without reason.
The thing is, the fedgov agencies charged with leading the WOD have apparently decided that these are the best addiction numbers, and are presenting them to the public. In the court of public opinion, this is like an expert witness for the prosecution giving testimony favorable to the defense.
As I have already asserted, the *gigantic* rise came with the hippies in the 60's (Perhaps because of Viet Nam too, to some degree), and ran through to 1980, where there was a decided drop during Reagan's terms, Then right back at it, unabated, till today.
So the increasingly harsh laws failed to prevent or stop addiction in its tracks during the 1960s and 1970s, then they did stop it in the Reagan years, then they didn't after the Reagan years. And then despite getting ramped up to cabinet level status under Bush I in 1989, addiction still resumed its upward march.
It is beyond a stretch, IMO, to assign causality to the laws for any declines in addiction during this period.