Not exactly. The 400,000 figure from 1880 is opiate addiction only. The 380,000 figure from 1900 combines opiate and cocaine addicts.
If it were an apples to apples comparison, the decline would have been even more dramatic.
Even if the numbers are correct, if Asians are not included in the addiction rates, the rates are sure to be skewed favorably.
Let's say you are correct about the 1880 numbers, and that Asians were left out of the addiction figures. That strengthens MY case. Let's assume that there were 300,000 Chinese in the US in 1880, and that 10% were addicted to opium. That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
Secondly, While the general population grew immensely (1880-1900), one must also consider the distribution capabilities, and where an addict might support his habit - This renders large swaths of the continent invalid, as timely delivery was simply not to be had, and the expense could not be paid.
Once again, you strengthen my case and weaken yours. There was more distribution capability in 1900 than 1880. Despite that, we had a decline in addiction in the years 1880-1900 when drugs were freely available.
I meant to add the following in my prior post. You said the drug laws "delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction."
How can you claim that when the decline had already been underway for a couple of decades?
I will cede the point, though it is incidental to my overall thrust.
That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
I am sorry, I was not clear. I happen to know that Asians were excluded from the 1880 census from prior research (although they were footnoted therein, as it is the footnote I found to be ridiculous enough to remember). I do not recall if they were included in the 1900 census, though I would suspect they were not, as they were not considered citizens until much later. What I intended to suggest is that the Asian community may well be withheld completely. Without counting that community, any numbers are skewed favorably, and falsely.
300,000 Chinese in the US in 1880, and that 10% were addicted to opium. That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
Outside of my obvious disagreement as posted above, I believe opiate use to be much higher that 10% in the Chinese community. They were largely male, away from wives and families, forbidden to associate with white females, forbidden to leave the confines of "Chinatowns", worked like dogs, treated like slaves, and sent most of their money back home. What do you suppose they did with their free time?
Once again, you strengthen my case and weaken yours. There was more distribution capability in 1900 than 1880. Despite that, we had a decline in addiction in the years 1880-1900 when drugs were freely available.
Accepted, sort of. You forget the war. Most of the south was decimated. distribution probably remained largely the same there, as construction was more likely reconstruction. There were also the gauge problems with the railroads - much of that was happening during this time too, as the nation settled on a standard railroad width. More reconstruction. And a lot of where the railways were going were repeating and replacing canals and rivers, so while travel was certainly becoming faster (it is for this reason that I will accept your premise), It was not necessarily becoming more widespread.
Let's not forget that "nation in flux" thing either. The west was opening up. Huge population shifts were heading west for free land and open spaces. That doesn't translate into more distribution for many years. Anything west of the Mississippi that wasn't near to the railroad had terrible freight and coach service.
As I said, without an in-depth study of all of these factors, I am disinclined to take the numbers at face value.
I meant to add the following in my prior post. You said the drug laws "delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction."
How can you claim that when the decline had already been underway for a couple of decades?
I question the validity of the overall data, as I have said. For that reason, I don't look at a decade at a time, but the overall trend.
If one considers the data to be generally indicative, there was a problem with drugs in this country particularly from tinctures and elixirs (early 1800's), though not persistent, as distribution was very limited. However, it grew exponentially after the introduction of straight cocaine, opiates and morphine, and the hypodermic needle, along with greater distribution networks (mid 1800s). This seems to have come to a head with the indiscriminate use of morphine in the Civil War for medicinal pain relief (1865), and a real, broad discovery of what addiction is in the following decades (1870-1910). Thereafter come the laws to limit the use of narcotics (1914+), and a dramatic decline of their use all the way into the '50s.
It would seem to me that the serious addiction problems (by virtue of numbers addicted), at least those broad enough to cause social notice, came after the civil war. The problem persisted until laws were enacted (laws generally being reactive in nature), and then the use thereof went dramatically downward, even as real distribution capabilities (Automobile, real rail expansion, real paved road expansion, super-highways, flight) became readily available.
The "second wave", as it were came with liberalism, and the psychedelic '60s. Again, it took some decades for the problem to become bad enough to become a serious problem - Serious enough for a societal reaction, and so we have the WoD (again, laws are reactive).
To strengthen my point about believing early addiction numbers, consider how hard it is now to count serious addicts, who are generally transient, landing in flophouses or living on the street... They are generally countable primarily due to welfare roles and law enforcement. Considering their transient nature, and without the modern (albeit socialist by nature) methods, How does one suppose those addicts were tallied way back when?