Replies

Opium was legal since the nation's founding - Ben Franklin used laudanum. But even accepting your cooked books ...

You mean your cooked books. Yes, all the drugs were legal back in Franklin's era, but there was not major and widespread abuse going on. Widespread usage did not occur until After the Civil War, meaning after a whole lot of people had been informed of and exposed to the existence of these strong narcotic drugs.

Asserting equality between Franklin's era and the post Civil War period is a form of lying. By any reasonable measure, drug addiction began with the Civil war.

America had (no less than) 43 years to China's 58, and yet as you acknowledge America's addiction rate was never anything remotely like China's.

You have a serious lack of understanding regarding all the particulars involved. The major market was in China, and that's where the British concentrated their efforts. It was far easier to ship opium from India to China than it was to ship it to the United States.

They wanted Tea and Silk and Porcelain and Gold from China. What did they want from the United States? Pretty much Cotton. Most of our other products they could make just as well themselves.

Also, the British at that time were highly racist, and considered it perfectly acceptable to turn loose the demon of drug addiction on those "heathens". They could do so with impunity and very low chances of bad ramifications coming back to bite them. Not so had they tried shipping that crap to the United States.

Though the Emperor of China could not make his plea reach the Queen's ear, we had no such problem, and if Queen Victoria had heard that the British were shipping poison to her brethren in the United States, she would have quickly called the East India company to an accounting.

You leave out many factors in your statement, but of course it doesn't suit your agenda to have an actual understanding of what happened and why.

Looks like the addiction experts are right to say culture and environment are important factors.

If you think "culture" will protect you from hard drugs, you haven't taken a look around you lately. Did you happen to see this pic?

where was this picture taken?

Yes, all the drugs were legal back in Franklin's era, but there was not major and widespread abuse going on.

Exactly my point.

Asserting equality between Franklin's era and the post Civil War period

I never did that.

The major market was in China, and that's where the British concentrated their efforts. It was far easier to ship opium from India to China than it was to ship it to the United States.

They wanted Tea and Silk and Porcelain and Gold from China. What did they want from the United States? Pretty much Cotton. Most of our other products they could make just as well themselves.

Also, the British at that time were highly racist, and considered it perfectly acceptable to turn loose the demon of drug addiction on those "heathens". They could do so with impunity and very low chances of bad ramifications coming back to bite them. Not so had they tried shipping that crap to the United States.

Though the Emperor of China could not make his plea reach the Queen's ear, we had no such problem, and if Queen Victoria had heard that the British were shipping poison to her brethren in the United States, she would have quickly called the East India company to an accounting.

Oh, so you mean the spread of addiction is NOT a simple matter of physiology, as you appeared to be claiming earlier? I agree.

Looks like the addiction experts are right to say culture and environment are important factors.

If you think "culture" will protect you from hard drugs,

My awareness of their effects will protect me from hard drugs.

you haven't taken a look around you lately. Did you happen to see this pic?

Many times - it seems to be one of your favorites. What do you imagine it proves? What it proves to me is that legalizing sale and use in one small area will concentrate sale and use in that area, which is almost certainly not a desirable outcome.