And here you are lying again. [...] There were no laws against drug use
So no lie.
It's like saying there wasn't any cybercrime back then so we don't need laws against cybercrime now.
'Medicinal preparations of cannabis became available in American pharmacies in the 1850s following an introduction to its use in Western medicine by William O'Shaughnessy a decade earlier in 1839.[4] [...] As early as 1853, recreational cannabis was listed as a "fashionable narcotic".[9] By the 1880s, oriental-style hashish parlors were flourishing alongside opium dens, to the point that one could be found in every major city on the east coast. It was estimated there were around 500 such establishments in New York City alone.[10] An article in Harper’s Magazine (1883), attributed to Harry Hubbell Kane, describes a hashish-house in New York frequented by a large clientele, including males and females of "the better classes," and further talks about parlors in Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago.[4]' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States
the consequences of which kept getting worse
The available evidence says the opposite: "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." (http://web.archive.org/web/20110529221013/http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm) 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
No, it's very much a lie. It is a deliberate lie of misdirection.
By the 1880s, oriental-style hashish parlors were flourishing alongside opium dens, to the point that one could be found in every major city on the east coast. It was estimated there were around 500 such establishments in New York City alone.
And you are proving my point for me. 1880 is a LONG way from 1776. It is also after the Civil war, which is as I said, what primed the pump for narcotic drug usage.
I am at a loss to respond to this further. You just blew your whole argument out of the water, and I suppose the best I can do is to simply point out that your own citation disproves your own claim. Stick a fork in you, you are done.