And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war
Exactly my point - thanks for the confirmation.
You point to the 1700s as a time period when drugs were legal and imply they didn't cause any problems, as evidence that the large quantities capable of being supplied now won't either. This is deliberate manipulation of differing circumstances and misleading people into thinking they are the same thing.
Whereas a comparison to 1800s China is an exact match? YOU introduced the claim that history should be taken into account ... shame it backfired on you.
when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"? What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself
No, as I said in the thread you link to below, "the DEA found some data but wasn't bright enough to correctly interpret it." The DEA's hamfisted misconclusions from the data are not evidence and don't invalidate the data: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
[...]
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing i've presented has backfired on me. In 1830 China didn't have a major Opium Problem because it was illegal. In 1840, China had a an Opium problem because it was made legal. By 1900, the problem was serious.
In the US in 1862 we didn't have an Opium or Cocaine problem because the stuff wasn't widely known or available. By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem. So did England.
You keep spouting that bald faced lie that it wasn't causing problem when it was legal here, because you keep leaving off the fact it wasn't widely known and widely available until the aftermath of the Civil War. More or less the last 1/4 of the 19th century. Addiction problems were just getting started when we banned the crap.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
There are anecdotal accounts written at the time about the "Soldier's Disease". There are also casualty lists that show how much of the drugs were being used at those times.
It's not great data, but it's all there is. On the other hand, the British East India company kept pretty good data on the TONNAGE of opium they were shipping into China for the entire period from 1840 onward.
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
No it wouldn't. It would be regarded as an abnormal boost of the pathology. Without the druging of 400,000 people in the Civil War, it would have taken a great deal longer for Drug addiction to start working it's way up that logistical growth curve. But war often has unfortunate consequences. That boost in addiction was one of them.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
Why would they? Who would keep them and why would they do so? At the time it was completely unregulated so the government wasn't watching it. It wasn't until it started killing people that it attracted the notice of Government employed Doctors (Mid 1880s) who started researching it further.
On the other hand, the British East India company had very good reasons for keeping records of their shipments of opium. They directly correlated to business profits.
What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
And people who want to smoke dope REFUSE to see any problems. As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to portray their vice as "Freedom" and a "Right" instead of the plague that it really is. Now you may have an argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, and that not much disaster will accompany it's legalization, but for the other heavier drugs, this is utter nonsense and a dangerous misdirection of the populace.
I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your comment.