Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[Diogenes]

Which emperor would that be?

http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm

Britain’s ennobling response was the Royal Opium Commission’s 2,556 page report, which concluded that opium was no worse than alcohol and, furthermore, “there is no evidence from China of any popular desire that the import of Indian opium should be stopped.”
China’s Viceroy, Chang Chih-Tung, begged to differ. In 1896, he wrote in “China’s Only Hope”:
Cast out the poison! The foreign drug is debasing the homes and sweeping away the lives of our people.
“It is not foreign intercourse that is ruining China, but this dreadful poison. Oh, the grief and desolation it has wrought to our people! Opium has spread with frightful rapidity and heartrending results through the provinces. Millions upon millions have been struck down by the plague…The ruin of the mind is the most woeful of its many deleterious effects. The poison enfeebles the will, saps the strength of the body, renders the consumer incapable of performing his regular duties, and unfit for travel from one place to another. It consumes his substance and reduces the miserable wretch to poverty, barrenness, and senility…Many thoughtful Chinese are apprehensive that opium will finally extirpate the race…”

In 1901, French writer and Naval officer Pierre Loti wrote, “China is dying of this poison.” In 1906, a memorial to the Emperor claimed,
“China can never become strong and stand shoulder to shoulder with the powers of the world, unless she can get rid of the habit of opium smoking by her subjects, about one-quarter of whom have been reduced to skeletons and look half dead.” (China Times, Jan. 16, 1906)

http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

[Diogenes]

Drugging a Nation


The Story of China
and the Opium Curse



Copyright, 1908, by
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY

“Three-tenths or four-tenths” of the Chinese people,—one hundred and fifty million opium-smokers—mean three or four times the population[Pg 10] of Great Britain, a good many more than the population of the United States!

The Chinese are notoriously inexact in statistical matters. The officials who drew up the edict probably wished to convey the impression that the situation is really grave, and employed this form of statement in order to give force to the document. No accurate estimate of the number of opium victims in China is obtainable; but it is possible to combine the impressions which have been set down by reliable observers in different parts of the “Middle Kingdom,” and thus to arrive at a fair, general impression of the truth. The following, for example, from Mr. Alexander Hosie, the commercial attaché to the British legation at Peking, should carry weight. He is reporting on conditions in Szechuen Province:

“I am well within the mark when I say that in the cities fifty per cent. of the males and twenty per cent. of the females smoke opium, and that in the country the percentage is not less than twenty-five for men and five per cent. for women.” There are about forty-two million people in Szechuen Province; and they not only raise and consume a very great quantity of opium, they also send about twenty thousand tons down the[Pg 11] Yangtse River every year for use in other provinces. The report of other travellers, merchants, and official investigators indicate that about all of the richest soil in Szechuen is given over to poppy cultivation, and that the labouring classes show a noticeable decline of late in physique and capacity for work.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33586/33 ... 3586-h.htm

[Stubby]

I ask for the name of the emperor and you provide sources for something completely different. There was not 1 emperor but at least 8 during the opium era in China.
Both quotes come from sources after both drug wars were lost and China's government was in control of the cartels (aka England, France, US, Italy and Russia). At this point, the western imperialist powers had complete access to all ports and rivers and China had ceded Hong Kong and Kowloon to the British and a sizable portion of Manchuria to Russia.

The Qing dynasty lasted from 1644-1911 (267 years). They overthrew the Ming dynasty. So not the "some thousand years" you claim. The last Qing emperor was Xuantong, you might have seen the movie "The Last Emperor." He was also known as Pu-Yi.

The last 3 emperors ascended under the age of 5 and 2 of the last 4 died quite young. Only Pu-Yi lived long but he was no longer emperor (since age 5) and died in 1967 (age 61).

[Diogenes]

I ask for the name of the emperor and you provide sources for something completely different. There was not 1 emperor but at least 8 during the opium era in China.

You cannot be thinking I was referring to a specific person? Seriously? I was referring to the office. You might have got a clue about this when I pointed out that it took 70 years or so for opium to become the horrible scourge that it eventually became.


In any case, it belies the point. Social collapse caused by massive opium usage brought down the Imperial form of Government in China. It is that form of government which had lasted thousands of years, not a specific person.

Both quotes come from sources after both drug wars were lost and China's government was in control of the cartels (aka England, France, US, Italy and Russia). At this point, the western imperialist powers had complete access to all ports and rivers and China had ceded Hong Kong and Kowloon to the British and a sizable portion of Manchuria to Russia.

The Qing dynasty lasted from 1644-1911 (267 years). They overthrew the Ming dynasty. So not the "some thousand years" you claim. The last Qing emperor was Xuantong, you might have seen the movie "The Last Emperor." He was also known as Pu-Yi.

The last 3 emperors ascended under the age of 5 and 2 of the last 4 died quite young. Only Pu-Yi lived long but he was no longer emperor (since age 5) and died in 1967 (age 61).

Yes, you can use google. Good boy! I had actually hoped you would do some of your own research. Now see if you can read and make sense of the contemporaneous article I posted in the other thread. Oh, and by the way, I saw "1911" a few weeks ago. You might want to watch it. Something tells me you would prefer "pictures" over written words.

It's got "Jackie Chan" in it. You probably remember him from the "Rush Hour" series of movies.

[Stubby]

Really? Referring to the office? Why did you not say so 4 posts ago. I call BS.

You keep trotting out Samuel Merwin as a valid, factual source for your claims about China.
What are his credentials for us to evaluate?
Why should we accept his observations and conclusions as credible or correct?
Looking into the man, his magazine, his employer and the New Thought movement leads me to suspect the veracity of his observations.

I suggest finding material from more credible sources.
here is a book review from the 21st century.

http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/pdf/554

Narcotic Culture : A History of Drugs in China

For the tl|dr crowd, read points 9 and 10.

[Stubby]

For the truly lazy here they are:
(italics are mine)

9. The seventh and following chapters deal with the development of detoxification cures and the establishment of treatment centres, which were initiated by the missionaries and the Qing authorities at the end of the imperial epoch, and continued by the republicans up to the Second World War. But the pronouncements and campaigns for the prohibition of opium aggravated the very ills that they were supposed to cure, mostly by making new substances available and introducing modes of consumption that were far more dangerous than smoking the drug. Heroin and cocaine were distributed free of charge by the Protestant clinics, and sometimes they were mixed with highly toxic substances, even deadly ones like arsenic, atropine or strychnine. These substances, which could be sniffed or chewed or injected, gave the former opium smoker the chance of taking a drug without smoking it, thereby avoiding the attention of the authorities. The treatment centres operated along the lines of prisons, and led to the social exclusion of the opium smoker, especially since his criminalisation and persecution was part of the official policy of the Chiang Kai-shek regime. In the 1930s, opium smoking was the principal reason for incarceration. [Wow the parallels to your penal system are eerie]

10. In sum, this volume demonstrates that, although opium was a relatively benign substance, especially when it was taken in moderation, as was the case in China, the transition from a culture which tolerated its use to a system of radical prohibition produced catastrophic results. In the first three decades of the twentieth century, the Chinese market was flooded with far more toxic substances. At the same time, new modes of consumption were introduced, especially injection which, although extremely dangerous, was encouraged by official campaigns. The authors argue that the prohibition campaigns caused many more deaths than the habit of smoking opium.[/b]

[Diogenes]

Really? Referring to the office? Why did you not say so 4 posts ago. I call BS.

You keep trotting out Samuel Merwin as a valid, factual source for your claims about China.
What are his credentials for us to evaluate?
Why should we accept his observations and conclusions as credible or correct?
Looking into the man, his magazine, his employer and the New Thought movement leads me to suspect the veracity of his observations.

I suggest finding material from more credible sources.
here is a book review from the 21st century.

http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/pdf/554

Narcotic Culture : A History of Drugs in China

For the tl|dr crowd, read points 9 and 10.

Must have struck a nerve.

[Diogenes]

For the truly lazy here they are:
(italics are mine)

9. The seventh and following chapters deal with the development of detoxification cures and the establishment of treatment centres, which were initiated by the missionaries and the Qing authorities at the end of the imperial epoch, and continued by the republicans up to the Second World War. But the pronouncements and campaigns for the prohibition of opium aggravated the very ills that they were supposed to cure, mostly by making new substances available and introducing modes of consumption that were far more dangerous than smoking the drug. Heroin and cocaine were distributed free of charge by the Protestant clinics, and sometimes they were mixed with highly toxic substances, even deadly ones like arsenic, atropine or strychnine. These substances, which could be sniffed or chewed or injected, gave the former opium smoker the chance of taking a drug without smoking it, thereby avoiding the attention of the authorities. The treatment centres operated along the lines of prisons, and led to the social exclusion of the opium smoker, especially since his criminalisation and persecution was part of the official policy of the Chiang Kai-shek regime. In the 1930s, opium smoking was the principal reason for incarceration. [Wow the parallels to your penal system are eerie]

10. In sum, this volume demonstrates that, although opium was a relatively benign substance, especially when it was taken in moderation, as was the case in China, the transition from a culture which tolerated its use to a system of radical prohibition produced catastrophic results. In the first three decades of the twentieth century, the Chinese market was flooded with far more toxic substances. At the same time, new modes of consumption were introduced, especially injection which, although extremely dangerous, was encouraged by official campaigns. The authors argue that the prohibition campaigns caused many more deaths than the habit of smoking opium.[/b]

Yeah, the problem started when they banned the stuff, not when they were sending 22,000 tons/year of it down the Yangtze.* Are youse guys working for the British Royal Opium Commission? They say stuff like that.

In December 1881, Sir Alcock shocked anti-opium advocates with his article “Opium and the Common Sense.” He claimed that opium was no more harmful than alcohol and insisted:
1) “In early years, the Chinese were insincere in prohibition…”
2) “The British government never had forced opium on China; the Chinese were always eager to take more than India could supply.”

* And that was just Domestically produced Chinese Opium. The Indian imports were far greater than this, not to mention adding on the Japanese production of Opium.

[Stubby]

Again your source is wanting.
What are their credentials?
And what the hell kind of site is that? A travel guide? OMG my eyes are bleeding.
How do we know that what is written on that site is correct and true?

(BTW I haven't even read anything yet)

This mad rush of yours to try to find evidence to support your claims is leading you down some very strange roads. I would not mind so much if historically your sources were valid. They tend not to be and so I remain skeptical that they will be here.

I will look at your evidence now.

[Diogenes]

Again your source is wanting.
What are their credentials?
And what the hell kind of site is that? A travel guide? OMG my eyes are bleeding.
How do we know that what is written on that site is correct and true?

(BTW I haven't even read anything yet)

This mad rush of yours to try to find evidence to support your claims is leading you down some very strange roads. I would not mind so much if historically your sources were valid. They tend not to be and so I remain skeptical that they will be here.

I will look at your evidence now.

Later. I don't think evidence is really what you want. Took a look at your PDF. The guy's argument is that everyone else made it up for various reasons. Didn't see any footnotes for his references. I thought this line was rather enlightening.

In the second and third chapters, the history of Chinese opium consumption is placed in a far wider context, which is the worldwide use of mind-affecting substances (tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco) from 1600 to 1780.

References and comparisons to Tea, Coffee, Alcohol and Tobacco, are red flags for marking drug advocacy types. They are generally an automatic disqualifier for being taken seriously. Anyone that seriously thinks those substances are comparable to opium, crack or meth, is either a liar or a nutcase who has no experience with hard drugs.


On a different note, For quite awhile I have been operating under the premise that you are a Québécois. Citing an author who writes in French reinforces this notion. This theory explains so much about you.

[hanelyp]

In the second and third chapters, the history of Chinese opium consumption is placed in a far wider context, which is the worldwide use of mind-affecting substances (tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco) from 1600 to 1780.

Coffee, tea, and tobacco aren't noted for impairing judgment.
Alcohol is widely used for purposes other than becoming intoxicated, and lacks the addictive qualities of drugs that target neural receptors.

[Stubby]

You sure like to pick and choose things. What was posted was a book review.
Written by a WOMAN (how you missed that...explains why you just never seem to get things). Her credentials are much more credible than Merwin's and more contemporary.
The actual book in written by a Dutchman (Frank Dikotter) who is an actual professor of history (Honk Kong U) and not some yahoo magazine editor on safari in China.
I will get the book from the university library just so you can have all the references you want.

Sugar is a mind altering substance, Its affect on the brain is similar to cocaine. I don't believe in the coincidence that sugar consumption (especially corn syrup) and obesity rates are sky high.
Water is a mind altering substance.

[Diogenes]

You sure like to pick and choose things. What was posted was a book review.
Written by a WOMAN (how you missed that...explains why you just never seem to get things).

Woman Shmoman. I judge people by the intelligence of their writings, not their Gender. I can honestly say I neither noticed nor cared whether it was written by a woman or a man. But given that the words


"Frank Dikötter, Lars Laamann, Zhou Xun,
Narcotic Culture : A History of Drugs in
China"

are prominently displayed on the first page of the document, it's reasonable enough to believe that the article is encapsulating his arguments. If not, then who's? The ideas of the Reviewer?

You let me know if what was written in that document was NOT the ideas of the author.

Her credentials are much more credible than Merwin's and more contemporary.

The book reviewer? Being contemporary, is a characteristic I would look at as the opposite of having credibility. Besides, who cares what are the credentials of the reviewer?

The actual book in written by a Dutchman (Frank Dikotter) who is an actual professor of history (Honk Kong U) and not some yahoo magazine editor on safari in China.

I see. You mean some Academic from a liberal drug culture who has absolutely no first hand experience what-so-ever? Got it.

I will get the book from the university library just so you can have all the references you want.

Meh. I think i've got the gist of what he's saying. I'll be surprised if I am impressed by his references.

Sugar is a mind altering substance, Its affect on the brain is similar to cocaine. I don't believe in the coincidence that sugar consumption (especially corn syrup) and obesity rates are sky high.
Water is a mind altering substance.

You see, comparing Sugar and Water to Opium or Cocaine is just "out there." Who do you expect to take such an assertion seriously? Moreover, how do YOU take such an assertion seriously?

[ladajo]

I will get the book from the university library just so you can have all the references you want.

Yup. You are young. It was pretty clear in how you argue.

[Stubby]

You seem to be implying that only students go to universities.