StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've seen a number of people using the opium wars as an example in if 'abusive' Drugs like weed are legalised. While I find that a flawed argument, I am interested in finding out why did Opium managed to cause such a large harm to China?

Opium is discovered long before the Opium wars, and no nation has ever gotten so addicted to this substance as compared to China. So why did Opium managed to become so widespread in China, while the British Empire wasn't affected on such a huge scale?

Well, the opium wars came into being primarily as a result of European colonialism rather than as a result of addiction to drugs. The primary thing is that England did not want to pay silver for Chinese tea, so, they cultivated opium instead to sell to China. Too bad that opium was illegal. So, finally, when China busted a few English ships with opium on them, England declared that China had committed an act of war, and retaliated, and forced China to cede several ports to England, which England used to sell opium to China. China then got a lot of addicted laborers and bureaucrats, as well as a loss of good income. This led to economic depression in China, as well as the popularization of an opium culture.

It should be fairly obvious why this has very little relation to modern day legalization of marijuana.

Akhlut wrote:Well, the opium wars came into being primarily as a result of European colonialism rather than as a result of addiction to drugs. The primary thing is that England did not want to pay silver for Chinese tea, so, they cultivated opium instead to sell to China. Too bad that opium was illegal. So, finally, when China busted a few English ships with opium on them, England declared that China had committed an act of war, and retaliated, and forced China to cede several ports to England, which England used to sell opium to China. China then got a lot of addicted laborers and bureaucrats, as well as a loss of good income. This led to economic depression in China, as well as the popularization of an opium culture.

It should be fairly obvious why this has very little relation to modern day legalization of marijuana.

Which reminds me, why didn't Opium manage to affect people from other nations as well? Say India?

ray245 wrote:I've seen a number of people using the opium wars as an example in if 'abusive' Drugs like weed are legalised. While I find that a flawed argument, I am interested in finding out why did Opium managed to cause such a large harm to China?

Opium is discovered long before the Opium wars, and no nation has ever gotten so addicted to this substance as compared to China. So why did Opium managed to become so widespread in China, while the British Empire wasn't affected on such a huge scale?

For someone who talks about China all the time, you know surprisingly little about it.

Opium use became widespread in China because the British used it as a tool of colonial domination, paying with it for Chinese goods in lieu of actual money, and thus cultivating addiction among the populace. When the Chinese government objected to this, the British went to war with them and smacked them around like red-headed stepchildren.

I have NEVER heard of the Opium wars used as an argument for or against the War on Drugs. Ever. Are you sure you are not mixing something up here?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

ray245 wrote:

Akhlut wrote:Well, the opium wars came into being primarily as a result of European colonialism rather than as a result of addiction to drugs. The primary thing is that England did not want to pay silver for Chinese tea, so, they cultivated opium instead to sell to China. Too bad that opium was illegal. So, finally, when China busted a few English ships with opium on them, England declared that China had committed an act of war, and retaliated, and forced China to cede several ports to England, which England used to sell opium to China. China then got a lot of addicted laborers and bureaucrats, as well as a loss of good income. This led to economic depression in China, as well as the popularization of an opium culture.

It should be fairly obvious why this has very little relation to modern day legalization of marijuana.

Which reminds me, why didn't Opium manage to affect people from other nations as well? Say India?

It DID affect people from other nations. There were opium dens in pretty much every major port city in the 19th century. The reason why its use in China has reached endemic proportions have been outlined in my previous post.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:

ray245 wrote:I've seen a number of people using the opium wars as an example in if 'abusive' Drugs like weed are legalised. While I find that a flawed argument, I am interested in finding out why did Opium managed to cause such a large harm to China?

Opium is discovered long before the Opium wars, and no nation has ever gotten so addicted to this substance as compared to China. So why did Opium managed to become so widespread in China, while the British Empire wasn't affected on such a huge scale?

For someone who talks about China all the time, you know surprisingly little about it.

Opium use became widespread in China because the British used it as a tool of colonial domination, paying with it for Chinese goods in lieu of actual money, and thus cultivating addiction among the populace. When the Chinese government objected to this, the British went to war with them and smacked them around like red-headed stepchildren.

I have NEVER heard of the Opium wars used as an argument for or against the War on Drugs. Ever. Are you sure you are not mixing something up here?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

My knowledge about late 19th-20th century China is lacking to a large extend. I still have no idea, what my great-grandfather, as the Garrison commander of Hainan, did during ww2!

As for that used as an argument, I've heard someone talking about it in offline, and basically go on a rant about how Drugs is dangerous. Given that most people is don't even know what kind of effect Marijuana can have on a person, I'm not surprised.

ray245 wrote:I've seen a number of people using the opium wars as an example in if 'abusive' Drugs like weed are legalised. While I find that a flawed argument, I am interested in finding out why did Opium managed to cause such a large harm to China?

Opium is discovered long before the Opium wars, and no nation has ever gotten so addicted to this substance as compared to China. So why did Opium managed to become so widespread in China, while the British Empire wasn't affected on such a huge scale?

1. A deliberate policy to sanction opium use and its sales amongst the populace. As an outlier example, there even propaganda that states the British paid off coolies with opium so as to encourage their use.

2. There is no evidence that opium abuse was any worse off in China than in other countries. The KEY problem here was the resulting inbalance in trade. The abuse of opium in Britain was probably just as bad, the difference was that unlike China, the British were more effective in education and social policies. The economic effects is also partly migitated by the fact that unlike China, the British WERE producing opium.

We have to understand that the Chinese variant of the Opium wars isn't strictly accurate either. The Chinese attempt to enforce enforcement was not strictly legal, since they did not have the legal authority to seize and impound British ships carrying opium. Given other historical examples, its plausible that the British claims that Chinese troops were using this oppurtinity to plunder British merchants is equally valid, although the reason for war was equally obviously NOT about protecting British trade, but rather, to enforce the sale of a valuable trade good.

ray245 wrote:Which reminds me, why didn't Opium manage to affect people from other nations as well? Say India?

I'm sure India has had opium addicts as long as people have grown opium in the region.

From the mid 1850's through WWI the US had establishments called "opium dens" in every major city (and quite a few minor ones) which were, particularly in the beginning, a direct import of Chinese opium culture. This eventually lead to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which regulated the sale of cocaine and opiates. It was believed that time that 1 in every 400 Americans was a true opium addict and quite a few more used it fairly regularly. This represented the beginning of the punitive (as opposed to emphasizing rehabilitation) "drug war" in the US whose effects have spilled beyond our borders to deposing heads of state (Manuel Noriega) or attacking other countries (any place that grows cocaine, poppy fields in Afganistan, etc.)

Because back before 1914 opium was used in such things as cough syrup and teething medications the US was seeing people addicted from childhood, even infancy. Because pain management was not as well understood as today quite a few US Civil War veterans wound up as opiate addicts as well. Although originally legal, opium dens were gradually outlawed during the decades leading up to the Harrison Act, which was one of the origins of organized crime in the US, a problem that still plagues us today.

So, um, yeah, opium has affected other nations, people all over the world in fact. The British-Chinese Opium Wars were just one manifestation of the ongoing problems of drug addiction, trade, and prohibition.

Broomstick wrote:

ray245 wrote:Which reminds me, why didn't Opium manage to affect people from other nations as well? Say India?

I'm sure India has had opium addicts as long as people have grown opium in the region.

From the mid 1850's through WWI the US had establishments called "opium dens" in every major city (and quite a few minor ones) which were, particularly in the beginning, a direct import of Chinese opium culture. This eventually lead to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which regulated the sale of cocaine and opiates. It was believed that time that 1 in every 400 Americans was a true opium addict and quite a few more used it fairly regularly. This represented the beginning of the punitive (as opposed to emphasizing rehabilitation) "drug war" in the US whose effects have spilled beyond our borders to deposing heads of state (Manuel Noriega) or attacking other countries (any place that grows cocaine, poppy fields in Afganistan, etc.)

Because back before 1914 opium was used in such things as cough syrup and teething medications the US was seeing people addicted from childhood, even infancy. Because pain management was not as well understood as today quite a few US Civil War veterans wound up as opiate addicts as well. Although originally legal, opium dens were gradually outlawed during the decades leading up to the Harrison Act, which was one of the origins of organized crime in the US, a problem that still plagues us today.

So, um, yeah, opium has affected other nations, people all over the world in fact. The British-Chinese Opium Wars were just one manifestation of the ongoing problems of drug addiction, trade, and prohibition.

Hmm, doesn't that means legalizing or even regulating Opium is a bad idea? If Opium was regulated in the past and that did not help the situation, why should we legalize opium?

Ray, I'm not sure you phrased that as clearly as you thought you did.

Nonetheless, I take it that your question concerns whether it is better to legalize, regulate, or outright ban drugs. That's a very good question, and I don't think our collective civilization(s) have ever had a definitive answer.

You can allow anything and everything - essentially, this is what the situation was prior to 1914 in the US (some localities banned opium dens, but use of opium in, say, your own home was still entirely legal). It caused problems, like a lot of addicts and the fall out from that like poverty, exploitation, neglect of family and self, crime, illness, and early death.

You can regulate it - this tactic was tried prior to 1914 in some areas that did not outright ban opiates. You still get poverty, exploitation, neglect, illness, and early death.

You can outlaw it. The problem is, addicts don't stop just because what they're doing is illegal. You get fewer addicts, significantly fewer, but those that remain are hardcore and thus their poverty, exploitation, neglect, crime, illness, and dying problems are much more intense, worse, and among the addict population, frequent than when drugs are legal. You also wind up with organized crime to supply the drugs to addicts.

So the conflict is usually between those who want to ban the stuff, the increase the enforcement effort to try to achieve 100% compliance (impossible, of course) and those who are proponents of damage control who try to achieve the state where you have the least amount of damage as a result of addictive drugs. What that state is will vary with the substance in question. As an example, complete prohibition for alcohol was tried, but in the US it was later decided that a complete ban was counter-productive, alcohol was legalized again, and now the emphasis is more on punishing excess use and abuse.

An additional complication is that many addictive drugs also have a medical use. Outright prohibition of opiates would be immeasurably cruel as they are still the best drugs we have for control of acute pain. Removing them from society entirely would entail enormous suffering among the injured and ill. Other drugs, such as psychedelic mushrooms, are not considered to have a medicinal use and thus are simply not permitted, and with no legitimate uses there is not a supply of legal substance to be diverted as there is for painkillers.

The problem is that opium is a very useful but very powerful tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to kill someone, opiates can heal or harm. Opiates are too useful to get rid of, but in the wrong hands, or misused, they can cause great harm. We have not yet solved this dilemma.

Broomstick wrote:Ray, I'm not sure you phrased that as clearly as you thought you did.

Nonetheless, I take it that your question concerns whether it is better to legalize, regulate, or outright ban drugs. That's a very good question, and I don't think our collective civilization(s) have ever had a definitive answer.

You can allow anything and everything - essentially, this is what the situation was prior to 1914 in the US (some localities banned opium dens, but use of opium in, say, your own home was still entirely legal). It caused problems, like a lot of addicts and the fall out from that like poverty, exploitation, neglect of family and self, crime, illness, and early death.

You can regulate it - this tactic was tried prior to 1914 in some areas that did not outright ban opiates. You still get poverty, exploitation, neglect, illness, and early death.

You can outlaw it. The problem is, addicts don't stop just because what they're doing is illegal. You get fewer addicts, significantly fewer, but those that remain are hardcore and thus their poverty, exploitation, neglect, crime, illness, and dying problems are much more intense, worse, and among the addict population, frequent than when drugs are legal. You also wind up with organized crime to supply the drugs to addicts.

So the conflict is usually between those who want to ban the stuff, the increase the enforcement effort to try to achieve 100% compliance (impossible, of course) and those who are proponents of damage control who try to achieve the state where you have the least amount of damage as a result of addictive drugs. What that state is will vary with the substance in question. As an example, complete prohibition for alcohol was tried, but in the US it was later decided that a complete ban was counter-productive, alcohol was legalized again, and now the emphasis is more on punishing excess use and abuse.

An additional complication is that many addictive drugs also have a medical use. Outright prohibition of opiates would be immeasurably cruel as they are still the best drugs we have for control of acute pain. Removing them from society entirely would entail enormous suffering among the injured and ill. Other drugs, such as psychedelic mushrooms, are not considered to have a medicinal use and thus are simply not permitted, and with no legitimate uses there is not a supply of legal substance to be diverted as there is for painkillers.

The problem is that opium is a very useful but very powerful tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to kill someone, opiates can heal or harm. Opiates are too useful to get rid of, but in the wrong hands, or misused, they can cause great harm. We have not yet solved this dilemma.

Can't you allow the use of Opium in medical institution, while preventing the use of Opium for recreational purpose? Unlike marijuana, doesn't opium cause a greater harm to society?

Which reminds me, has anyone tried to regulate the source? The source meaning people who grow those drugs? Set up an international agency that oversees the production of those drugs. While it isn't a fool-proof plan, as people can grow those drugs in small amount in their house, people can actually ensure that most of the drugs being produced can end up in the right hands.

ray245 wrote: Can't you allow the use of Opium in medical institution, while preventing the use of Opium for recreational purpose? Unlike marijuana, doesn't opium cause a greater harm to society?

Which reminds me, has anyone tried to regulate the source? The source meaning people who grow those drugs? Set up an international agency that oversees the production of those drugs. While it isn't a fool-proof plan, as people can grow those drugs in small amount in their house, people can actually ensure that most of the drugs being produced can end up in the right hands.

We have or had various versions of opium as products for use in the pharmacy I work at. There were a couple of belladonna/opium suppositories of varying strength that we used to cary but I think they've either completely gone out of production or the manufacturer is going through some issues that have basically killed the supply for a while.

We still have tincture of opium for use as an oral liquid. Morphine and codeine, which are derived from opium are both much more widely used in medical situations. It's always a bit of a novelty to see tincture of opium ordered for a patient since it doesn't appear to happen all that often.

Heroin, which is also derived from opium and is illegal for medical or other use in most countries. I think the UK has a commercial injectable version that can be used for medical reasons but I don't think it is that popular, but I can't say for sure.

ray245 wrote:Can't you allow the use of Opium in medical institution, while preventing the use of Opium for recreational purpose? Unlike marijuana, doesn't opium cause a greater harm to society?

Yes, opium can cause great harm to society even while being a valuable drug. The problem is diversion - basically, medical opiates (that is, medications created from opium) stolen from legitimate users such as hospitals and clinics and resold illegally. My father was a pharmacy director at a large hospital in Detroit for many years and despite heavy security on the opiates there was always a certain amount stolen every year. Sometimes the way theft was discovered was heartbreaking, such as when patients on the burn ward started complaining about more and more pain and it turned out one of the nurses was stealing morphine and other painkillers and replacing with plain saline for injections and some other pill for the tablet forms.

Which reminds me, has anyone tried to regulate the source? The source meaning people who grow those drugs?

Yes, of course. From treaties to actual bombing of illegal poppy fields. Part of the problem is that opium poppies grow wild throughout Europe and Asia. When you can go out into random fields and find a new source of seeds over that extensive an area it makes it impossible to wipe out illicit production.

There is a similar problem with marijuana in the Americas. The stuff grows like a weed everywhere and always has. Some cultivated varieties are more potent, but if a producer's stock is entirely wiped out getting more seeds and plants and starting over is a small problem.

Set up an international agency that oversees the production of those drugs.

That has been done, it's called the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs drawn up in 1961 to replace an earlier treaty from 1931. It's not like governments have been ignoring the problem, it's just proven very difficult to solve.

Again, the problem here is not legitimate producers and users, it's the illegal parts of this. Criminals don't follow the laws. Neither do a lot of addicts. It's easy to grow opium poppies. Although problem native to Asia they are now found all over the world, either deliberately introduced or escaped from either legitimate or illegal fields.

ray245 wrote:
Can't you allow the use of Opium in medical institution, while preventing the use of Opium for recreational purpose? Unlike marijuana, doesn't opium cause a greater harm to society? .

Lol, use of, or more to the point, abuse of prescription drugs is a huge problem in the US. Abuse of Oxycontin is a huge problem, as is the various sub groups of Percect and even smaller pain killers like Lortab. Morphine, as Broomstick mentioned, is also a huge black market illegal drug. Simply saying we should ban illegal use while keeping the medicinal use is absurd. Just by making it illegal, you are not deterring addicts from being addicted.

During the same basic time frame as the Opium wars, there was a huge problem with Opiom as well in the United States in the form of Laudenum

The Americans had a better time in controlling the problem because Laudenum was manufactured to a large extent in America due to the tariff system and so the various state governments could control the matter to some degree (not very much, but more than what the Qing could do). Also, I think a very large number of Laudenum addicts were Civil War veterans and working class folk, while opium usage in China was found throughout all of society.

Pelranius wrote:The Americans had a better time in controlling the problem because Laudenum was manufactured to a large extent in America due to the tariff system and so the various state governments could control the matter to some degree (not very much, but more than what the Qing could do). Also, I think a very large number of Laudenum addicts were Civil War veterans and working class folk, while opium usage in China was found throughout all of society.

not exactly. While it could be found throughout Chinese society, the majority of abusers found in the opium dens were found in the coolie and other working castes of Chinese society.

Of course, that could just mean that those in the higher classes got their sources elsewhere.