That still gives you a very substantial decline. I think the decline from 1880 is better explained by addicted CW veterans passing on. By 1925, the ones still alive were in their 80s. You have no basis for assigning causality for the decline to drug laws.
Let's compare 1900 to 2000 using the additional 200,000 Chinese opiate addicts for the 1900 figure. The combined addiction rate in 1900 would have been about 0.77% vs 1.6% in 2000. That's a doubling despite nearly a century of prohibition!
In 1900, the market was above ground, so stats were easier to gather. They kept track of opium import figures, for example. My understanding is that doctors offices, pharmacies, mail order companies, police depts. etc. were surveyed in arriving at the addiction numbers.
Regardless, that DOJ article was supposed to be making a case for prohibition, and they cited numbers which demolish their own case. Even a severe waterboarding of the statistics can't make them say that prohibition succeeded.
The shameful addiction rates in Iran, Singapore, and the US compared to the Netherlands further bolster the case against prohibition reducing addiction.
Again, The decline I am interested in is from 1920/30-1960. Whatever the numbers were prior to that point are incidental to me. They show a broad trend, and serve to show why our fathers felt th need to enact laws against drug use (laws are reactive).
That still gives you a very substantial decline. I think the decline from 1880 is better explained by addicted CW veterans passing on. By 1925, the ones still alive were in their 80s. You have no basis for assigning causality for the decline to drug laws.
Again, I don't really care. I reject the veracity of the numbers. Spot me all you'd like. We are pulling numbers out of the air. The idea that reasonable records could be kept at this point in time, especially in the West, or even in the South, is nonsensical to me.
I can accept the idea that decline was from early attrition of war vets, which sounds reasonable, but it really doesn't matter to me. It is the overall trend, as I said before, that is better to go by.
Let's compare 1900 to 2000 using the additional 200,000 Chinese opiate addicts for the 1900 figure. The combined addiction rate in 1900 would have been about 0.77% vs 1.6% in 2000. That's a doubling despite nearly a century of prohibition!
Now, see... There you go again... Your proposition ignores the blatant fact that drug use was nearly non-existent by the 40's, and certainly by the 50's. There is nearly a generational full-stop to drug addiction between the two points that you insist upon using as data.
And during that serious decline, almost all states had laws against cocaine use, morphine use (other than doctor's care), and some 25+ states had laws against the use of all opiates, not to mention federal law, and international treaties specifically against hashish, opiates and cocaine.
Since those laws were enacted beginning in late '00, and solid declines were being experienced by the '20's It sure looks to me as though the decline is directly attributable to the institution and enforcement of those laws.
Also during that time, when drug use was nearly gone, real distribution by way of real rail expansion, paved roads, automobiles, ocean-going diesel ships, and airplanes all came into being. Logic would dictate an increased availability, by leaps and bounds, yet drug usage and supply went plummeting downward despite the obvious advantage in distribution.
Unless you can show me a good reason to overlook the very obvious drop in drug use between your points of reference, particularly (circa) 1930-1960 where drug rates were exceedingly low, I must reject your premise entirely.
It looks to me, as I have explained, like a first wave, second wave scenario, rather than a continuous data set as you would surmise. Furthermore, for a good while, the laws you seek to decry seem to have had good effect.
Let's take a different approach. Let me ask you this: What motive do you suppose our fathers had for enacting state, federal, and international treaties at that time?