This just screams "hidden agenda", doesn't it?

[MrScorpio]

[Ohio Joe]

1. I don't know...

It screams 'Stupid' to me.

[madaboutharry]

2. Where does this chart come from?

This is so disturbing. There are people who are making shit loads of money of this bullshit.

[MrScorpio]

8. Here you go

http://tomjoadsghost.tumblr.com/post/34304023110

[Angry Dragon]

3. Does that take into account prison spending??

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

4. Prohibition cannot work in a free society

It's too easy to work the black market.

You have to have the kind of law enforcement that Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union had, then you can enforce prohibition, but it's a huge price to pay.

[treestar]

5. Definitely looks like the spending is not working

Not having any effect on the addiction rate.

[a geek named Bob]

6. MrScorpio...

It looks like the run up to a bubble crash.

[HiPointDem]

7. I don't quite believe that 'addiction rate' line. From where I sit, drugs seem a lot more

available, and drug use a lot more ubiquitous than it did in the 70s.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. I wonder if it has to do with a changing definition of "addiction"?

[HiPointDem]

18. could very well be.

[Indydem]

9. Perhaps if Math isn't your strong suit.

1970 population: 203,392,031
1% = 2,033,920
Spending = $500,000,000.00 (est)
Spending per addict: $246

2010 Population: 308,745,538
1.25% = 4,631,183
Spending = $20 Billion
Spending per addict: $4,318

OH MY GOD, RIGHT??

Except that your chart is bullshit:

"In 2010, an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—or 8.9 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month." -NIMH

SO, the actual numbers are:

2010 Population: 308,745,538
8.9 = 22,600,000
Spending = $20 Billion
Spending per addict: $884

OH MY GOD IT'S ALMOST FOUR TIMES AS MUCH!

Oh, except when you figure for inflation:

"What cost $246 in 1970 would cost $1365.63 in 2010."

So we are actually spending $481 LESS per addict than we did in 1970 (adjusted for inflation, of course.)

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. So long as you lump in abused a psychotherapeutic medication & conflate "has used" with addict. n/t

[Scootaloo]

12. Noticed that too

I guess having a Bartles & James makes you a complete alcoholic according to some people, too.

[laundry_queen]

11. That would only hold true

if you included the numbers of addicts of prescription drugs from the 1970's too. You can't use the chart's numbers for 1970 and not look up those numbers, and only look up the 2010 numbers. If you don't have parallel numbers for both from the same source, then you cannot compare. Perhaps math genius needs a course in statistics.

[Indydem]

14. I am aparently more competant than whoever made that chart.

Regardless of whether of not the statistics from the NIMH are correct relative to your personal guidelines as to who is an addict or not, there are sure as shit more than 1.25% who are addicts.

As for the prescription drug addicts circa 1970 - those statistics were not readily available and it's not my job to find them. It's the job of the OP who posted a crappy graphic that is so fucking terrible as to be easily disproven.

[laundry_queen]

15. Never said it was 'your job'

nevertheless, if you are going to 'disprove' the chart, you had better do it right, otherwise you are no better.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. The guidelines are not personal and there are not "sure as shit" more

that 1% - 2% addicts in the population. You're trying to compare apples and pipe wrenches and presenting it as some kind of a valid point.

[elehhhhna]

20. wonder what the stats are for boozers

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. And you can extend that addiction rate line all the way back to when they first started counting

in the late 19th century during the days of opium dens. It stays absolutely consistent.

As long as substances that will alter brain chemistry exist, people (and almost every other mammalian species on earth) will use them and a very small percentage of those will use them to the point of harm.

The agenda is not hidden at all.
& R

[brindis_desala]

16. Read the "New Jim Crow"

It's about holding power and making profit at the expense of the poor.

"the objective conditions of drug use alone cannot explain why drugs became an issue immediately prior to the 1986 Congressional elections. Explanations for the rise of drug usage as a social problem are to be found primarily in the political realm."

from: Drug Abuse and Politics: The Construction of a Social Problem --Eric L Jensen

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. non-election kick. n/t

[Blecht]

22. Agenda, yes

Hidden, no.