47
3.
In February last a Bill was introduced and read a first time by which the definition of Prepared Opium was so altered as to cover the Opium contained in these pills and wine.
This called forth two Petitions against the Bill. One of these was from the Dealers in Opium Pills and Wine, some 80 in number, of whom many had been carrying on the business for a great number of years, while others had only recently engaged in it. These Petitioners objected to the Bill on the ground that it interfered with their vested interest.
The other Petition was from influential members of the Chinese Community, who urged that if these pills and wine were brought within the Monopoly of the Opium Farmer, those who wished to cure themselves of the opium habit would probably be deprived of the power of availing themselves of these medicines, as it would be to the Farmer's interest to prevent their use.
4.
With regard to the first Petition, it is to be observed that under the Farmer who held the Monopoly for the period 1895-1898, the vendors of opium pills and wine were licensed by the Opium Dross Farmer, under the Opium Farmer, both parties apparently having been under the impression that the pills and wine came within the definition of Prepared Opium. Subsequent Farmers did not continue the system of licenses, probably because the consumption was then small.
The contention in the second Petition that by taking opium internally the habit of smoking opium is cured is not supported by reliable evidence. In this connection, I would call your attention to the remarks under the headings "Form of consumption" and "Is cure possible?" contained in a Memorandum by the Colonial Secretary, Straits Settlements, transmitted to Lord Ripon.