No, just pointing out the DEA's statement against interest.
Your argument here is that because addiction rate declined in this period, this demonstrates that there would have been no runaway addiction problem?
It weights against your claim.
I don't know how the DEA would know what sort of addiction rates they were suffering in 1900 because I don't know how they would have accurately polled all the drug users of that time period. Obviously they are relying on some sort of proxy factor to determine this, or they are merely putting forth some sort of wild @$$ed guess.
Courtright's conclusion of an addiction peak around 1890 is better documented, for sure. I'm pleased to note that you can view DEA claims with skepticism - at leeast when it suits you.
Opium usage had begun to decline by 1914 after rising dramatically in the post Civil War Era, peaking at around one-half million pounds per year in 1896
Usage, not addiction.
Secondly, you ignore that addiction can decline when addicted people die off, which they tend to do, especially if they are addicted to something like morphine or heroin. Perhaps the decline in addiction (if there was one) was due to the deaths of the addicts?
Whatever the reason for the decline, it weighs no less against your claim of logistic increase.
I do recall reading that societal opposition to drug usage was increasing in the 1890s and 1900s.
That's the liberty-respecting response to the situation.
More like speculation. Again, the numbers of Civil War veterans given drugs can be determined from actual records. How do you figure out how many people are using opium in 1900?
Courtright's conclusion of an addiction peak around 1890 is better documented, for sure. I'm pleased to note that you can view DEA claims with skepticism - at leeast when it suits you.
When I can see no basis for making such a claim, I can view it with skepticism. I don't know how anyone at the DEA could possibly know what was going on with Drug addiction in 1900. On the other hand, I can see how it would be possible for them to count the numbers of soldiers who had been given opiates.
Usage, not addiction.
Because Opium has many other usages besides addiction?
Whatever the reason for the decline, it weighs no less against your claim of logistic increase.
The "decline" if there was any, is just statistical noise. The Signal takes decades to manifest. It took 70 years for legal opium to destroy China.