According to the US government's own numbers, addiction was higher in 2000 than in 1900.
"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." [that's 0.5%]
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
__________________________________________
The ONDCP estimate of the number of addicts to cocaine or heroin in 2000 was just over 4 million. In a population of 280,000,000 that works out to over 1.4%. See copy of table at this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1454298/posts?page=88#88
__________________________________________
That's a 0.5% rate in 1900 vs a 1.4% rate in 2000. An addiction rate 1.4% is greater than 0.5%, yes?
Exactly. And in those days pure cocaine, heroin and opium was sold with less restrictions than today’s cough medicine.
Runaway addiction and drug abuse are just symptoms of a sick society, they do not cause it. Even if all drugs were somehow controlled(impossible even in a police state), these sick people would abuse things like paint, turpentine, etc. As my grandfather witnessed in a Soviet gulag, people will even use shoe/belt leather and cook it to get high.
“That’s a 0.5% rate in 1900 vs a 1.4% rate in 2000. An addiction rate 1.4% is greater than 0.5%, yes? “
Yes, if you trust the numbers.
I am not sure the canvassing methods of the 1900 were as thorough as the ones today.
Hard to prove either way, in my opinion.
I support laws whether they are deterrents or not.
For example, whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not, it is just, so I support it for murder, forcible rape, and kidnap.
It is impossible to say what “might have been.”
Had opium and heroin been illegal in 1900, maybe there would have been a .001 percent addiction rate. Who knows?