Pre-Prohibition Drug Consumption Rates

Berzerker · May 24, 2003, 02:34

Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs
by James P. Gray

This author was on "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC tonight and he said there was 1 addict/1,000 people before federal prohibition began in 1914, and today, after decades of prohibition, we now have 15 addicts/1,000 people.
These numbers are new to me, I read addiction rates were comparable, not so lopsided. But trying to find out what addiction rates were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is difficult.

The 15/1,000 sounds about right for today, that's about 4 million addicts. But the 1/1,000 ratio would mean there was only about 20,000 addicts in ~1900. Anyone know where I can find good data on pre-prohibition addoction rates? I suppose I can buy his book and look at his footnotes if all else fails...

Btw, after this author cited these numbers and the numbers in Holland, Scarborough ignored everything he said and ended the segment with a comment about how he lost someone because of drugs and that's why he thinks legalisation is mis-guided. The irony is, if this author is right, that Joe Scarborough may have lost that person because of drug prohibition.

Berzerker · May 24, 2003, 04:45

Oops, correction, the author is Mike Gray and the book is "Drug Crazy". Hmm...two Gray's wote books on this...

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 05:05

There are a number of things that could explain it, but I believe the most proper one is that social upheaval, disillusionment, and a greater need for escape led to the increased drug use.

Skanky Burns · May 24, 2003, 05:20

Increased availability would surely play a part.

Solly · May 24, 2003, 08:14

As would increased prosperity.

Jac de Molay · May 24, 2003, 09:59

Crack, crystal meth, and ecstasy weren't around either.

Spiffor · May 24, 2003, 10:02

But wasn't opium much more common ?

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 10:16

Opium, yes. It's stronger derivatives in 'affordable' quantities, no.

Vandal-1 · May 24, 2003, 10:22

The rate of istitutionalization would be less as medical care was less available especially in the Western US.
The only treatment for cancer was often Morphine Sulfate.The likelyhood that a Addict will be found is proportional to the effort to find them,the war on drugs hasincreased that effort.

Al B. Sure! · May 24, 2003, 10:32

two reasons... one, drugs weren't known to be that bad back then. Freud for example had suggested people take Cocaine because it helped his headaches or some ****... nevertheless, most people didn't go near the stuff. Churches and what not figured it was bad and urged people to not do opium and not be perscribed morphine and coke.

secondly, drug use is now much accepted. people wouldn't stand for drug abuse (ie- not 'medicinal') back in the day. now, due to the looseness of society, drug use is common

Berzerker · May 24, 2003, 15:27

Hmm...so drugs were less available, less accepted, and some didn't even exist. Yet the largest spike in addiction rates for that period followed the Civil War with all those emotionally and physically wounded veterans of the war. Speer, drugs were more accepted back then than now and your reference to Freud shows that. Furthermore, why are drugs so much more available now? Because prohibition makes drugs so much more valuable. If the drugs were dirt cheap, farmers would have good reason to grow other crops.

Quote:

social upheaval, disillusionment, and a greater need for escape led to the increased drug use.

So life is harder now? Not likely...

Quote:

Opium, yes. It's stronger derivatives in 'affordable' quantities, no.

Opium was much cheaper a century ago even after accounting for inflation, prohibition has driven the cost up.

Quote:

Crack, crystal meth, and ecstasy weren't around either.

Crack is merely cocaine in a smokeable form, meth, or speed, became available before the Harrison Act, and ecstasy is not addictive I understand.

Quote:

The likelyhood that a Addict will be found is proportional to the effort to find them,the war on drugs has increased that effort.

But when drugs were legal, finding them was alot easier since they didn't have to fear police.

Jac de Molay · May 24, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Crack is merely cocaine in a smokeable form,

And also far more addictive because of the way it's prepared, and the chemicals added. It's also far cheaper than powder, which made it easy to sell in the inner cities.

There would be hell on earth in many parts of this country if crack was more readily available through legalization, IMO.

Berzerker · May 24, 2003, 17:26

Quote:

And also far more addictive because of the way it's prepared, and the chemicals added. It's also far cheaper than powder, which made it easy to sell in the inner cities.

There would be hell on earth in many parts of this country if crack was more readily available through legalization, IMO.

Why do you think crack became available? Because of prohibition! Inflating the cost of cocaine - a goal of prohibition - led to the production of crack. You've identified an effect of prohibition to argue in favor of prohibition. That's like pointing to all the gangsters created by alcohol prohibition to justify alcohol prohibition...

Furthermore, the reason cocaine became so prevalent was because of the war on pot. The former is easier to transport undetected, so banning the latter created the incentive to traffic in other drugs that are easier to hide. Btw, I tried crack a couple times, it was no different than free basing cocaine. And frankly, I considered both a waste of time.

Al B. Sure! · May 24, 2003, 18:28

you've done crack, Berzerker? no wonder you're a libertarian...

Berzerker · May 25, 2003, 23:35

So you think everyone who has used crack is a libertarian, Speer? I've used LSD too, would that make me a liberal? And I've used alcohol, am I now a conservative?

Kuciwalker · May 25, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

and ecstasy is not addictive I understand.

hell yes it is

Shi Huangdi · May 26, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
So you think everyone who has used crack is a libertarian, Speer? I've used LSD too, would that make me a liberal? And I've used alcohol, am I now a conservative?

It's a waste time trying to infer any logic from anything Speer, an admitted fascist, posts.

TCO · May 26, 2003, 00:11

Doper.

TCO · May 26, 2003, 00:12

Speer, where is your leather jacket??

Al B. Sure! · May 26, 2003, 01:16

yep the drugs sure got into your brain if you couldn't understand what i had said... let me try again...

Berzerker smoked crack... no wonder he has such a crazy, CRACKpot idealogy as libertarianism...

Al B. Sure! · May 26, 2003, 01:17

GP:

it's in your closet... remember that i left it there when i came over to get my wang sucked?

TCO · May 26, 2003, 01:24

Aren't you supposed to be in Lebanon? Crying? Poor little wigger Nazi.

Al B. Sure! · May 26, 2003, 01:26

because i felt sorry that such a navyman as yourself would be reduced to sucking my wang... but then i remembered that you had been doing it for years on your submarine...

TCO · May 26, 2003, 01:27

I guess I will have to have Mom beat you again, little Nazi.