Oriental peoples are "different"--that opium does them no harm. Every
writer on the subject of opium in China, produces evidence to show the
shocking results upon that country, during the hey-day of the deluge.
The complete moral degradation, and economic ruin of thousands of
helpless individuals. Nor do we think the medical profession would
agree with this assumption that opium is harmless to Orientals, because
they are "different." Their only real difference lies in their
helplessness to protect themselves from foreign aggression.
Another argument advanced by the upholders of the Monopoly is that the
Orientals have always been users of opium, that they like it, it suits
them, it would be unfair to deprive them of it. We have seen to what
extent the Chinese liked it, and how it was forced upon them by two
wars. Not until they were completely crushed, and had to accept the
terms of the conquerer, did they submit. It can hardly, therefore, be
called a vice indigenous to the Chinese. Japan is another Oriental
nation that disproves this argument. As we have said before, there are
no opium shops in Japan, and the sale of opium is not conducted by the
Japanese Government. On the contrary, the Japanese have the same fear
of this drug that a European nation has, and exercises the same
precautions to protect its people. But, as we have said before, Japan
is the only Oriental nation that has not been subjugated by a European
nation, and therefore has never had opium thrust upon her. She is the
only country in the Far East that has managed to preserve her
sovereignty, and has never been subject to certain blighting influences
of European culture.
Another exception to this assumption that the Orientals cannot do
without opium lies in the Philippines. When America acquired those
islands some twenty years ago, our first act was to eliminate the opium
traffic, which had been established there by our predecessors. It had
been in existence for decades, but we immediately set about to abolish
it. Root and branch we did away with it, and shed no crocodile tears as
to the "hardship" this would be to the people who had come under our
protection. We wished no revenue coming from such a source as this. Yet
we might have cut in half the cost of our Philippine budget had we
followed the example set by other nations. We have seen that certain
British colonies, Hongkong and the Straits Settlements, for example,
derive from one-third to one-half of their upkeep expenses from this
traffic. But we refrained from treating our Filipinos in this manner.
We are called sentimentalists out in the East--at such times as we are
not called money-getters. To-day, the Philippines are very nearly ready
for self-government. Would they have been so nearly ready had we
continued to drug them as they had been drugged before we took
possession? Drugged peoples are usually docile and submissive--perhaps
that is the secret of much of the successful colonizing, about which we
hear so much.
But let us leave aside the question of the Orientals, and whether or no
opium is good for them. We recognize quite clearly that it is not good
for ourselves, for Americans. We recognize that fact quite as clearly
as England realizes that it is not good for the inhabitants of the
British Isles. Quite as clearly as France, while setting up opium shops
in her colony of Indo-China, refuses to establish them in Paris or
Marseilles. America is unique in the fact that although we have
colonial possessions, we do not have a double standard of morality. We
attempt to throw around our colonies the same safeguards that we throw
around ourselves at home. But the question arises, how successful are
we in protecting ourselves at home? Not particularly so, according to
the daily press.
How great the danger to ourselves was recognized some thirty-seven
years ago by an Episcopal missionary to China, the Rev. John Liggins.
In 1882 he published a small book, already referred to, entitled:
"England's Coercive Opium Policy and Its Disastrous Results in China
and India." The preface to this unheeded warning runs thus. "Our aim in
this sketch is to present, as briefly as possible, the most important
facts and testimonies concerning a traffic which is as disgraceful to
England as it is ruinous to China and hurtful to India.... It is also
of the highest importance that the people throughout our wide domain
should be aroused concerning the new, fascinating and deadly foe which
has entered our country through the Golden Gate, and which already
numbers its victims by the thousands, and will soon do so by the tens
of thousands."
The Rev. Mr. Liggins saw it coming--that danger which is almost ready
to overwhelm us to-day. He recognized clearly that the Opium Monopoly
of that great nation which rules nearly one-third of the world--the
British Empire--would in time reach further and further afield for new
victims. It is too lucrative a trade to be confined to only a few
countries. Markets must not only be created and legalized in subject
states, but new ones added in outside countries, through smuggling. All
too fatally easy of accomplishment, and so profitable, financially, as
to be worth any risk and effort. The prediction as to our own danger,
made in 1882, seems to be abundantly realized.
The number of drug addicts in America to-day are fairly startling. The
number is variously estimated in New York City alone as from ten
thousand to one hundred thousand. It is said that there may be a
million in the country. Yet these figures are the merest guesswork, by
no means substantiated. Certain it is that the campaign of the New York
Health Department has uncovered thousands of them, and any other city
that chose to do so, could produce facts equally startling.
The laws on our statute books concerning the prescription of narcotic
drugs are powerless to deal with the situation. It is shooting into the
air to try to "regulate" this condition. It is as thoroughly well
"regulated" as it can ever be by the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, a
Federal Law whose enforcement is in the hands of the Internal Revenue
Department. By the provisions of this Act, every pound of opium or its
derivatives that comes into this country, legitimately, is accounted
for, and its distribution, both wholesale and retail, made a matter of
record. Thus, the Board of Trade returns show the amount imported by
the big wholesale drug houses. These must account for their sales to
the retail drug stores, and the amounts must tally. The drug stores can
only sell narcotic drugs on a physician's prescription, and the
prescriptions are kept on file, and the quantity sold must correspond
to the quantity called for by these prescriptions, as well as to the
amount obtained from the wholesale drug house. In prescribing
narcotics, the physician is obliged to write his prescription in
triplicate--one copy for his own protection, one copy for the local
druggist, and one copy to be filed with the health department. Nor is
he allowed to prescribe narcotics for an addict without decreasing the
dosage. His prescription cannot call for thirty grains of morphia day
after day--it must show, in a chronic case of this kind, a daily
diminution of the amount prescribed, thus indicating a desire to get
the patient off the drug, eventually. All these records are kept on
file, open to inspection whenever an accounting is demanded,
consequently any leak can be instantly accounted for. This Harrison Act
is as comprehensive and as nearly perfect as possible, yet it does not
cover the situation. By this means, violations can be detected, whether
on the part of an unscrupulous physician or druggist, or even the
wholesale house, but these violations are only occasional. The root of
the evil remains untouched.
At one time, it was believed that carelessness on the part of the
physician was chiefly responsible for creating drug addicts, but the
recent campaign against violators of the Harrison Act seems to have
completely exonerated him of this charge. For one patient who becomes a
drug addict while under a doctor's care, through the accidental misuse
of morphia, there are a hundred who form the habit through other ways.
It is not the occasional, accidental victim, given morphia for the
relief of pain, which is creating our thousands of drug users. It is
not the occasional unscrupulous physician who is responsible. If this
was all, we could easily cope with these unwitting abuses, or even
deliberate instances of misuse. But the question goes deeper than this.
The Opium Monopoly was not established for any humane or altruistic
purpose. It was not established to provide the medical profession with
a drug for the relief of pain, to ease the agony of the injured and
wounded, or to calm the last days of those dying with an incurable
disease. This, which may be called the legitimate use of opium, is not
the object of the Opium Monopoly. Used only in this manner, there would
be no money in it. It is only when opium is produced in quantities far
in excess of the legitimate needs of the world that it becomes worth
while--to the Opium Monopoly. That Monopoly was established not to
relieve pain and suffering, but with the deliberate intention of
creating pain and suffering, by creating drug victims by the thousand.
It is these hundreds of thousands of customers that are profitable. The
menace to America lies in the large amounts of opium which are smuggled
into the country for this purpose. Boys and girls of sixteen and
seventeen first acquire this habit through curiosity, through
association with what they call "bad company," peddlers who first offer
it free, as a gift, well knowing that after a few doses the fatal habit
will be formed. Where do these vendors obtain their supplies?
The daily papers often contain suggestive paragraphs. Thus the "New
York Times," under date of February 28, 1919: "Seize Opium in
Schenectady. Opium, valued by Federal officials at $10,000 was seized
in Schenectady, and four Chinamen were arrested in a raid on Chinese
places of business on Centre street to-day. The Federal officials
expressed the belief that opium had been smuggled, and that Schenectady
is the distributing point for this part of the State."
An item in the "Seattle Union Record," of June 24, 1919, gives us cause
for further consideration.
BRITISH DRUG SHIP HELD BY UNITED STATES
FINE OF $49,265 ASSESSED FOR BRINGING "DOPE" TO AMERICA
LINER ALLOWED TO MOVE UNDER BOND
NO ARRESTS MADE, THOUGH BOOZE IS FOUND ABOARD
No arrests were made up to Tuesday noon in connection with the
enormous seizure of opium, cocaine and liquor on the Blue Funnel
liner Cyclops, although the investigation is being continued by
federal officials. The ship has been seized and a fine of $49,265
has been assessed against her for having drugs not listed in the
ship's manifest.
United States District Attorney Robert C. Saunders filed a libel
Monday night against the Cyclops, the boat being seized later by
the customs service. Bond was fixed at $100,000, or twice the fine.
The Fidelity Surety Company filed the bond Monday. The ship was
released Tuesday morning.
A civil libel suit may be filed against Capt. W. Duncan, holding
him responsible for the liquor found on the ship. Captain Duncan,
questioned Monday by customs officials, claimed to know nothing
about the contraband.
The result of Monday's checking of the opium and cocaine showed
that the seizure amounted to 778 tins of opium, 670 ounces of
cocaine and 16 ounces of morphine.
A small paragraph in a New York paper, dated June 12, 1919, reads thus:
"Two New Yorkers jailed for smuggling opium. Pleas of guilty to charges
of opium smuggling were entered in the Federal Court to-day by Albertus
Schneitzer and Maxwell Auerbach, of New York. They were fined $500
each, and sent to Atlanta penitentiary, the former for two years, and
the latter for one year. The men were arrested in connection with the
seizure of opium on the Canadian border."
We cannot grapple with our problem unless we face the facts; if we
ignore the source of supply and distribution, and the reasons for this
immense over-production of opium on the part of the British Opium
Monopoly. The anti-narcotic laws on our statute books are powerless to
protect us. With Canada, a British province, to the north, and all
Mexico on the south, what chance have we against such exposure? Of what
use to send two smugglers to the penitentiary, when at the Calcutta
opium sales, once a month opium is auctioned off under the auspices of
the British Government, to be disposed of as the buyers may see fit?
Much of it, as we have seen, goes to those helpless states and colonies
which have no control over their own affairs, where the opium traffic
is conducted under the administration of the alien government. Much of
the rest of it goes out for smuggling purposes, to be distributed in
devious, roundabout, underhand channels throughout the world. We are
coming in for our share in this distribution.
We feel that our country is in grave peril. Our politicians and our
diplomats have been too careful all these years, to speak of this
business, through fear of offending a powerful nation. But we feel that
the time has now come to speak. England has been relying upon our
silence to "get away with it." Upon our ignorance, and upon that
silence which gives consent. But in this new, changed world, reborn out
of the blood and agony of the great war, is it not time to practice
some of the decencies which we have proclaimed so loudly? As we have
said before, no stronger opponents of this policy are to be found than
among a section of the people of England itself. We look to them to
join us, in this great issue, and we feel that we shall not look in
vain.
Printed in the United States of America