SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE OPIUM HABIT.
It is now proper that we should ask the question “Is opium the very
dreadful thing it is made out to be?” My answer is, yes and no. Anything
immoderately indulged in is bad for one. Over-eating, excess in smoking
and drinking, are all bad. There is such a thing as too much of even
a good thing. I am prepared to admit that excess in opium is worse
than most things; but as a choice between opium and drink, I consider
drunkenness to be the greater evil. It may be that it is more common,
and therefore responsible for more distress in the world than opium; but
opium does not, and can never, degrade as drink does, and a man does not
make a beast of himself with opium. It does not make a nuisance of a
man; it does not lead to violence and to murder as drink does. I do not
ask reformers to subscribe to this view. I express it as my own opinion,
founded as it is upon close acquaintance with numerous opium consumers,
and many drunkards.
What is it that reformers have to urge against opium? They will not admit
that opium in moderation does no great harm; they will not agree that the
degree of toleration varies in people. Let us take their contentions
_seriatim_, and see how they will stand against logical and informed
discussion:
They say: (1) That opium in any degree induces physical degeneration.
I say, I have met men of wretched physique who are opium consumers, and
men of wretched physique who are not opium consumers. Also, I have met
giants in strength who are not opium consumers, and giants in strength
who are confirmed opium consumers. I will also say this, that among the
hard-working class of Indians and Burmans, such as coolies and porters,
the proportion of consumers to non-consumers is about equal, but I have
been able to observe no inferiority in capacity in the consumers, and
very often have found them superior. Those who wish to learn what the
powers of bodily endurance of an opium consumer may be are recommended to
read that very readable book “_An Australian in China_.”
(2) That the consumer is mentally inferior to his non-consuming brother.
This I qualify. It depends on the degree of indulgence, and unless this
is considered, it is not possible to argue. It is a proved fact that
the effect of opium is to quicken the perceptions, and stimulate the
imagination. Too often this is taken to be evanescent; and it is assumed
that the intellect weakens, and that, eventually, it is enfeebled beyond
chance of recovery. But if opium were not taken; in such a case, would
not advancing years bring about a like condition? Charles Lamb, who
drank more than was good for him, and Coleridge, who was an opium-eater,
complained that the effect of their particular “poisons” was to deprive
them of their capacity for singing when they awoke in the morning! Lamb
complained of this when he was forty-five, and Coleridge at the age of
sixty-three. Does anyone imagine they would have been able to “revive the
vivacities of thirty-five” if they had been always temperate men?
There is no doubt that, taken in large quantities, opium induces a
sluggishness, a lethargy, a stupor; but does not an unusually heavy meal
induce a torpor which is incompatible with any sort of intellectual
labour? I hold only with moderation.
(3) That indulgence in opium weakens the character and morals.
This applies with equal force to immoderation in most things. It does
not hold good of opium taken in moderation. To affirm this is a clear
indication of ignorance of the subject. Why, in the name of all that is
extraordinary, should a moderate dose of opium make a man a thief, or
a criminal, or a moral imbecile? Indians and Burmans, whose religion
forbids all manner of intoxicants, condemn their opium-eating brothers
to a sort of social ostracism, and when asked for a reason, say, “It is
against our religious tenets; and it is very bad in every way.” Such
uninformed statements are excusable in the unenlightened, but what of
those who ought to know, and who pride themselves upon their education
and reasoning faculties? They are as clamorous against opium and other
things in a more censurable ignorance of facts. Some who will not clear
their minds of cant, declaim against a glass of wine with all the fervour
and denunciation of fanatics, without rhyme, reason, or apprehension of
what they are talking about. In their more fluent and exuberant way,
when pressed for a reason, they tell us in effect that indulgence in
opium is “Against our religious tenets, and it is very bad in every
way.” It is time reformers recognised that opium is not such a dreadful
thing after all, and confined their attention, and devoted some of their
ample leisure, to winning back those who have gone over the limit of
moderation, instead of anathematizing them.
It is a pity that reformers do not pursue their propaganda along
reasonable and obvious lines, because they would have more supporters
and helpers if they did. To publish fulminatory pamphlets against the
opium evil, without having any experience of it at first hand beyond an
occasional hurried visit to an opium den, is worse than futile; and they
cannot hope to convince those who are really in a position, and qualified
to help them in their efforts. This is due to a profound ignorance of
facts, and a lot of people in India are responsible for the dissemination
of a lot of ill-digested nonsense. An enthusiast visits an opium den and
finds half a dozen Chinamen sprawled around, with as many opium pipes.
He does not know that these men have come in from a ten-hour day’s work.
He throws up his hands in pious consternation, and writes home about the
dreadful place he has visited, and of the horrors of intoxication he
witnessed there. The vividness of his description is modified only by the
amount of rhetoric at his command, and no one who has come into contact
with this sort of person will deny that he always has a vast store!
I once met a missionary, and in the course of conversation, we happened
upon the opium evil. He was eloquent, his views on the subject were
decided. In fact he was so decided in his views that I found it
impossible to convince him that what he described as the effects of opium
were really those symptomatic of an overdose of _bhang_. And yet, I have
little doubt that this person must have written home lurid accounts of
the opium evil, and the ruin and havoc it was causing. What reformers
ought to do is to cease memorializing Government to totally prohibit the
traffic, and try to help them more by taking an active part in checking
immoderation. Moderate indulgence in opium is less harmful in every way
than the habit of passing public resolutions and submitting memorials.
By the foregoing, I do not wish it to be surmised that I hold a brief
for the opium habit, or that I consider it a desirable thing. To be
a slave in any degree to anything is bad; the tobacco habit is bad;
the over-eating habit is bad. But opium comes in for too much of the
attention of religious propagandists, and the Government is taxed with
the charge of reaping revenue at the expense of the bodies and souls
of the people. This is a view it is the duty of anyone who knows the
subject intimately to correct. The Royal Commission on Opium in India,
which sat under the chairmanship of Lord Brassey, some thirty years ago,
collected a mass of evidence for and against opium which is unrivalled
in its extent and value. The conclusion come to by a majority of the
Commissioners was that opium in moderation did no great harm; and to
ensure moderation, they recommended a policy of close control. In
deference to popular opinion, and the religious scruples of the bulk of
Indians, they thought it desirable that the opium habit should eventually
be suppressed, and trusted that close control would, by attrition, bring
about this result.