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.
:
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 he 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 impres-
sion 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 at- tention 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 Lor
Ripon
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.