For Smoking, the Street is an Open Space, not a Public Place

About nine years ago, after dinner at a restaurant late one night, I was standing with a few friends on the street outside, waiting for the cabs that they had booked to take them home. A police patrol came by, and one of the police officers approached one of my friends who was smoking and demanded that he pay a fine for smoking in a public place. I pointed out to the police officer that there were other people around us standing and smoking as well. The police officer got irritated and started yelling at me. We got into an argument, and I was taken into police custody and released the next morning. I forgot about the whole matter until, about a year later, I received a summons to appear in court for a FIR filed against me by the police. There were three charges against me - disturbing the public peace, obstructing a police officer on duty, and insulting the modesty of a woman through words or gestures (the police officer administering the fine being a female). 

I knew the charges were false since I was there in person at the time of the incident. I went through the FIR and the accompanying witness written statements and saw flaws in the evidence. I looked up The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 or the COPTA Act as it is known in short. Sec 3(L) of the COPTA Act 2003 states that '"public place" means any place which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centers, restaurants, public offices, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space;' The definition of what constitutes a public place, according to the COPTA Act, where the police have jurisdiction to impose fines on smokers, gives clear examples of what constitutes a public place, and nowhere does it state that the street falls into this category. It is essentially what is defined in the Act as an 'open space'. I decided that I would not employ a lawyer and would defend myself as a party-in-person for a number of reasons, including: my personal interest in seeing where the police and judiciary wanted to go with this matter, my financial situation, and the fact that these charges were false. I appeared in court and pleaded not guilty of the charges against me. The case was posted for trial. The prosecution listed seven witnesses - three police officers, 3 staff from the restaurant outside which the incident happened and an unknown seventh witness. The three police officers were the female police officer (a police sub-inspector who was the complainant), a head constable who had accompanied her, and the station house office of the police station that I was detained in. The three restaurant staff were two employees working in the restaurant at the time of the incident, and a day manager who came to work the next morning after the incident.

The case was called for hearing for a total of about sixty times spread over nearly eight years. It was even called for hearing during the fake Covid 19 pandemic. I attended court for every single hearing. During the fake pandemic, I was not allowed inside the court premises despite my stating that I was the accused as party-in-person. The court officials demanded that I produce an advocate identification for entry. In the sixty-odd hearings that were called, the complainant turned up about 2-3 times. Out of the list of seven prosecution witnesses, finally only three appeared in court to give evidence - the complainant herself, the station house officer and the day manager of the restaurant. I cross-examined both the complainant and the station house officer and asked them whether, according to the COPTA Act, the street was a public place or an open space. Both the complainant and station house officer stated that it was a public place. I read out to them the definition of a public place, as per the COPTA Act. I pointed out that the street was nowhere listed as a public place, but falls in the category of open space, outside the jurisdiction of the police for administering a fine according to the COPTA Act. The officers insisted that the street was a public place without any supporting material, other than what appears to be their personal opinions.

Finally, after the prosecution witnesses had given their evidence, since I did not call upon any defense witnesses, I was asked to give a statement in court, as the accused, under Section 313 of the CrPC. I prepared a written statement and submitted it in court. Besides pointing out the flaws in the statements and evidence of the police officers directly related to the charged filed against me, my written statement under Section 313 of the CrPC included the following section regarding the COPTA Act 2003:

3. THE COPTA ACT 2003

Now, this brings me to the most important aspect of the police action against me. When I looked up the The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003, or COPTA Act 2003, I found that the entire police action at the time of the incident - of fining an individual for smoking on the street - is illegal and outside their jurisdiction. Not only this, but wherever in India the police are stopping a person standing or walking down a street smoking a cigarette, beedi, cigar, etc., they are committing an illegal action outside their ambit and, essentially, extorting money from the public. This action is mostly targeted at the middle- and low-income classes. I think it would be rare to see a police officer walk up to an Adani or Ambani, or a politician, or a senior police officer, or even a judge of the judiciary and impose a COPTA fine on him, if they saw him standing on the street with a cigarette.

COPTA is an Act aimed at protecting the general public from tobacco harms. COPTA is mainly directed at the supply chain of tobacco to regulate it and control tobacco use. The focus of the COPTA Act 2003, which has 33 sections, is first the producers and distributors of tobacco products, and then, the consumers. In terms of its relevance to the general public, i.e. with consumption or, specifically smoking tobacco, the regulatory aspects are to be implemented by law enforcement in public places, such as railway stations, government offices, libraries, public conveyances, etc., where the public generally gathers, in close proximity of about one or two feet, standing together for some moments in time for a common purpose, constrained and separated from open spaces by the boundaries of the public place. In an open space, people are passing each other momentarily, as it happens with people walking on the street, or any other open space. Even if they are standing together, each person is free to move further away into the open space as he or she wishes. The person is not constrained in movement, like it is in a public place. In order to not infringe upon the fundamental rights of an individual, which include the right of a smoker to smoke a product that is approved by the government and legally sold in retail outlets, Sec 3(L) of the COPTA Act 2003 states that '"public place" means any place which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centers, restaurants, public offices, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space;' The phrase 'but does not include any open space' is a key part of the definition of what a public place is. It is also a key part that recognizes the rights of an individual to freely smoke legal products in an open space. If this phrase was not present, then, effectively, the individual can only smoke in private places, such as homes. Such a rule would mean that the individual is literally confined to a small part of his rightful free space in this world, further impinging on his freedom. Those creating such laws in the name of protecting public health may have been aware that restricting people to only private places for smoking would amplify the exposure of others in the private places, including children, women and elders. In fact, this concern for people in private spaces is one of the precise reasons why a person steps out into the street, or any other open space, to have a smoke. The policymakers may have also included this phrase knowing the impossibility of preventing people from smoking in open spaces ,which make up most of the planet's surface. If the phrase 'does not include any open space' was not included in the COPTA definition of what a public place is, effectively lawmakers and society would be saying that there is no place for a smoker in this world. 

Smoking is a human trait. It is one of the earliest distinguishers of the human species branching out from the primate species. Possibly, the discovery of fire was soon followed by the discovery of smoking. Smoking is one of the methods of administering medicine in Ayurveda's panchakarma process for detoxifying and restoring balance to the body and mind. People have smoked for tens of thousands of years. They have mostly smoked plants and herbs much less toxic than tobacco, like cannabis for example, which is highly medicinal, especially to relieve stress, anxiety, fatigue, for digestion, etc.. In colonial times, in order for the British businessmen and politicians to become rich from their tobacco businesses, and in order to make more revenue, the government took away cannabis - the medicine and intoxicant of the poorest castes and classes of Indian society and the spiritual herb of the sadhus of all religions - and replaced it with the vastly more harmful tobacco. So today, while on the one hand the government earns a very significant chunk of its revenue from tobacco and constantly increases the taxation of tobacco products, on the other hand, it implements policies such as the COPTA Act 2003 that not only ensure it gets its revenue from tobacco but also enables it to take penal action against the individual for consuming the very same product that the government vastly profits the most from, by stating that the product is harmful for public health. The poor indigent smoker - who makes up a significant proportion of the people this country - over time has had his medicinal cannabis replaced with harmful tobacco, has had to pay increasingly high prices for the tobacco, and has also got penalized for smoking the tobacco. Is there anything such as the fundamental rights of a smoker to life, liberty, equality, justice and good health? When we talk about a smoker we are talking about Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Jawaharlal Nehru, Satyajit Ray, Che Guevara, etc., here, as much as we are talking about the poor indigent common man. However, for the smoker belonging to the upper classes of society all this pain, suffering and discrimination is mostly invisible. The upper class smoker still gets his cannabis from the black market, buys the most expensive tobacco at the highest price without feeling the slightest pinch on his pocket from the ever-increasing prices, and never ever pays a COPTA fine. It is always the poor working class man or mendicant, standing in some discrete corner of the street, trying to get some relief from the pain and toil of surviving in this brutal world with a smoke for a few moments, who is the main target for this extortion. The newspapers state that lakhs of people are fined every year for COPTA violations by the police in India and I am positive that a majority of these are fines imposed by the police of members of the public, who are standing or walking on the street and smoking in open spaces that are outside police jurisdiction for imposing COPTA fines. 

In addition to the COPTA definition of what constitutes a public place, the Guidelines for Law Enforcers for effective implementation of Tobacco Control Laws 2013, published by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, defines a public place as '“public place” means any place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centres, restaurants, public offices, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space;'. Here, a few more examples of what constitutes a public place have been included, in addition to what is defined in COPTA Act 2003. But here also the very important phrase 'but does not include any open space' is present. Further, in Section 4 of the Guidelines, Rules relating to prohibition on smoking in public places (Section 4), it states that '(c) “Open space” mentioned in Section 3 (1) of the Act shall not include any place visited by the public such as open auditorium, stadium, railway station, bus stop/stand, and other such places. (d) “Public place” defined in Section 3 (1) of the Act shall also include work places, shopping malls, and cinema halls.' As we can see here, there is an even further clarity being provided as to what constitutes public places and open spaces. Please note that nowhere in the list of public places provided does the street find mention. The street outside the restaurant, 80 Feet Road, and the broad pavement that it includes, is very clearly an open space as per COPTA definitions. It is not a public place.

As a result of this legal matter, I decided to try and reach out to some legal experts on COPTA or those involved in anti-tobacco policy making in Karnataka, to see if they could throw more light on the matter of the street as an open space. I wrote to the Karnataka State Anti-Tobacco Control Cell. I did not receive any response from them. I wrote to Mr. XXXXX, asking for clarity on whether the street is an open space or public place. When I had searched the internet, his name appeared as an expert on tobacco control policies. Mr. XXXXX replied to my email saying he was not a lawyer.  In his own words, he has been engaged in public health research and policy related work as it concerns tobacco towards reducing tobacco use in society. He said that he was willing to assist in any possible way. He was the one who shared the Guidelines for Law Enforcers for effective implementation of Tobacco Control Laws 2013, published by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. He said that on page 15 of the Guidelines document, the following further clarity was provided on public place and open space: '(b) “restaurant” shall mean any place to which the public has access and where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption on the premises by any person by way of business for consideration monetary or otherwise and shall include the open space surrounding such premises and includes- (i) Refreshment room, banquet halls, discotheques, canteen, coffee house, pubs, bar, airport lounge, and the like. (c) “Open space” mentioned in Section 3 (1) of the Act shall not include any place visited by the public such as open auditorium, stadium, railway station, bus stop/stand, and other such places." Mr. Bhojani stated that the phrase "and shall include the open space surrounding such premises" leaves room for interpretation, especially if there is a bus stop close to the restaurant. In this case, there is no bus stand nearby. There is a school, of course, but that has not stopped the shop outside Empire from selling tobacco products.

 
Now, when a law enforceable by penal action is left for interpretation, it is particularly worrisome. Who will interpret and how will they interpret? The restaurant's premises cannot be projected outwards in undefined directions, offering an umbrella for the police to harass a citizen. The open space surrounding the restaurant essentially includes the whole universe.

XXXXX Hotel does not have a smoking zone inside. There is no bus stop or other public place as designated by the COPTA Act close by on the broad pavement of  xxxxx Road outside. Some customers stand there in the open space and smoke for a few minutes as they wait for a cab or other friends. Other people are either entering or leaving the restaurant, or walking on the street. The shop attached to the restaurant is where cigarettes are sometimes purchased. If one wants to know the distance we were at from the entrance of XXXXX hotel when the incident took place, I would say that it was about 50 feet. My friend was standing near the edge of the footpath, waiting for his cab. So, is this outside the maximum limit of space that the phrase "and shall include the open space surrounding such premises" is referring to? Or does this inclusion of open space surrounding a restaurant depend on the distance of the police officer implementing COPTA from the hotel? Does wherever the smoker stand and smoke immediately become included in the "open space surrounding such premises"? What about standing on the terrace of the next building? Do private residents living next to restaurants become liable for COPTA action if they step out into their gardens to smoke?  

The COPTA Act 2003 by itself is quite clear. It appears that the Guidelines for Law Enforcers for effective implementation of Tobacco Control Laws 2013, published by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, which introduced the additional phrase "and shall include the open space surrounding such premises" is a dilution of the COPTA Act and a transgression into the freedoms and liberties of the citizen.

We see everywhere shops and commercial establishments putting up No Smoking signs outside their establishments. No business establishment has the right to put up a No Smoking sign outside its premises. Its jurisdiction ends within its boundaries. What someone can do or cannot do outside its premises is beyond its jurisdiction. No Smoking signs should face inwards into these establishment and not outwards to the surrounding open spaces that make up the universe beyond it. If someone smokes inside the boundaries, violating smoking rules, then action can be taken by the owner or police and other such authorized persons. It is this projection by these commercial establishments into open spaces, working hand in hand with the police department, that creates the intrusions in the open space of the citizen who is a smoker.

There appears to be a massive lack of knowledge on the part of both law enforcement and the judiciary in the matter of public place and open space with regard to COPTA rules. I would like to think that it is ignorance and not a willful exploitation of the public using the loopholes in the law and the lack of knowledge among the public. It appears that the police department has decided on its own that even open spaces come under its jurisdiction and that the judiciary is supporting this invasion of fundamental rights. If the definition of what constitutes a public place or open space is not clear, and left to interpretation by individual members of the police department based on how they feel at the moment, then this can be used at will, as is being used at will, according to the whims and fancies of the enforcing police officer, resulting in cases of harassment of the public. 

As is obvious here, the lack of thought behind the dubious tobacco control measures taken in this country in the name of public health, including the COPTA Act, is one of the fundamental reasons why lakhs of Indians across India today are victims of police extortion and judicial harassment in the name of tobacco control. Almost all these victims are persons belonging to the lower and middle classes. As I stated earlier, this whole process - of prohibiting the medicinal cannabis to introduce the harmful tobacco in order for more profits and revenue, the increasing costs and regulations on tobacco, the legal harassment of the smoker, etc., - displays a complete disregard for one of the basic human rights of an individual. The error in thinking that smoking is harmful - which is at the root of the cannabis smoked as ganja is harmful and cannabis drunk as bhang is medicinal story - is a myth created by the Indian upper castes, working in conjunction with the British, in order to suppress the lower castes and classes, to take away their ganja from them and promote the more harmful tobacco. This is despite the fact that, as I stated earlier, smoking is one of the five methods of purifying the body and mind according to Ayurveda. The State needs to understand that humans have been smoking for tens of thousands of years and will continue to do so as long as the species exists. It is impossible for the State to stop a human who wishes to smoke from smoking. This lies in the area of liberty of the individual to choose what to consume. Yes, if the State wishes so much to protect public health, it can ensure that the most healthy medicinal herbs are available for the smoker. Completely legalize cannabis for all purposes, and within the space of a year, the State will achieve more reduction in tobacco use than decades of tobacco-control laws and policies have managed to achieve in this country. But then, it will drastically reduce one of the biggest sources of State revenue, tobacco. Therefore, the State along with the powerful tobacco lobby refuses to allow the re-introduction of cannabis. The State appears to be so ignorant of cannabis that it does not recognize that revenue from cannabis will exceed revenue from tobacco within a few years. Not only that, cumulatively, revenue from both cannabis and tobacco will significantly increase overall State revenue while at the same time improving public health and meeting tobacco control targets. Why is this not happening? Are the law makers, policy makers, judiciary, police and other entities making so much revenue from the tobacco industry and the criminal cases foisted on the people, in the name of tobacco control, that they do not want to let it happen? 

For those who have the head-in-the-sand kind of attitude that believes all smoking is harmful and would like to see tobacco, cannabis, and all other forms of human consumption of plants through smoking to cease, have you considered this...Besides this being a natural impossibility, even if all humans were completely banned from smoking, air pollution will still be one of the leading causes of death in India. This air pollution does not come from humans smoking tobacco or ganja, but from the billions of sources of fossil fuel emission, besides large-scale human actions like crop stubble burning. Overlooking all these gross injustices to public health, and targeting the individual tobacco smoker, who is not even smoking in a public place, shows some serious issues with our society today.

In this specific instance, I would go as far as stating that is a case of incorrect implementation of the COPTA Act. It is the police department that has disturbed the public peace, unlawfully fined a person of the public, as well as detained and initiated legal action against the accused. The question of obstructing a police officer on duty does not arise here as the police action itself is illegal. Thus, sections 186 and 504 of the IPC do not have any firm basis...

The judge, in his judgement acquitted me of the charges made against me by the police, stating that there was lack of evidence for conviction. Regarding the matter of whether the street is an open space or a public place, as per the COPTA Act, the judge wrote in his order that "in my considered opinion" the street is a public place. He, like the police officers, did not provide any evidence to back his opinion. Now, when the police and judiciary implement laws based on their personal opinions and personal interests, it is a serious concern for the citizen as the freedom enshrined in the Constitution becomes a matter of the personal opinions of these supposed protectors of the citizen and the Constitution.

Cannabis in 19th Century India: The Burma Province

Based on the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's report of 1894-95, this article includes: 

• My overview of cannabis usage in Burma of 1894-95
• The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's findings regarding Burma 
• Report from Rangoon Lunatic Asylum
• The Burma Memorandum on the smuggling of ganja into Rangoon submitted to the Commission by Mr. R. G. Culloden, Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent of the Preventive Service, Rangoon
• Correspondence between members of the Burma administration
• Questions by the Hemp Commission to witnesses
• List of Burma witnesses who deposed before the Hemp Commission
• Individual witness statements of the witnesses from Burma.

Overview

(Image source: Wikiepedia)

Three entities were central to initiating global cannabis prohibition 150 years ago: Britain, China and Burma. Britain and China were the actors and Burma was the stage where the conspiracy was played out. The love of opium was behind the murder of the most beneficial plant created by nature 27 million years ago for the benefit of not just humans, but many living species. The motive behind this terrible crime was to supplant cannabis with the dangerous and highly addictive opium, the favorite drug of the British and the Chinese. The method employed to kill cannabis was treachery and deceit. 150 years later, the actors are still the same, the stage is still the same, the victim is still the same, the motive is still the same, and the methods are still the same.

When the British developed their love for opium and introduced opium in China, teaching the Chinese, in turn, to develop a love for opium, they formed a partnership that enabled opium to be cultivated in China and transported to Britain. In the process, a large number of the British and the Chinese became addicted to not just opium, but the wealth that its trade brought. In between Britain and China stood Burma. The people of Burma, comprising of many tribal communities, were primarily cannabis users at the time. These tribal communities spread across Burma, and into the neighbouring Chinese regions. The people of Burma, and their rulers, were averse to opium and also western alcohol that the British had introduced in Burma. This presented an obstacle in the smooth trade of opium between China and Britain. When the British annexed Burma, one of the first things they did was to start attacking the cannabis culture of Burma. They started spreading the false propaganda that cannabis caused insanity, based on erroneous statistics from the Dacca Lunatic Asylum in the Bengal Presidency. With this false myth to support their actions, they promoted opium and western alcohol. Cannabis was prohibited and even the homestead growing of it was snuffed out through the use of informers, rewards and prosecutions, instilling fear in the people of Burma. With no option other than opium and western alcohol, the people of Burma took more to opium, since western alcohol's intoxicating effects came nowhere near that provided by cannabis or opium. Within 17 years of opening opium shops in Burma, the level of addiction to opium was so great among the people of Burma that the administration was forced to introduce a system of registering users to whom opium could be sold. The prohibition of cannabis led to a new menace - the illegal smuggling and trade of cannabis through the black market from primarily neighbouring India. The Chinese opium businessmen worked with the British to counter this menace and threat to the opium trade and consolidate it.

Burma was the first place in the world in the modern era where cannabis was prohibited. Before that, there is only one known instance of cannabis prohibition, and that was in Turkey as far back as the 12th century A.D. The reason for cannabis prohibition in Turkey at that time was religious sanction that forbid the use of cannabis. How long this prohibition lasted is not known. 

The British province of Burma, in 19th century, had the following districts: Tenasserim, Pegu, Eastern Division, Southern Division, Arakan Division, Hanthawaddy, Mandalay, Tharrawaddy, Meiktila, Mergui, Sagaing, Upper Chindwin, Pakkoku, Akyab, Yeu, Rangoon, Moulmein, Bassein, Manbin, Thayetmyo, Tounghoo, Prome, Shwegyin, Minbu, Magwe, Myingyan, Yemethin, Thongwa, Myanaung, Nyaungywe, Thibaw...

The cannabis culture in Burma prior to prohibition

Contrary to the widespread allegations that cannabis was unknown in Burma till it was introduced by troops from the Punjab Province and Madras Presidency, it is clear from the Hemp Commission's report that Burma did have a cannabis culture before the plant was prohibited. Ganja appears to have been known by the name 'se chauk' in Burma. It appears that Burma an extensive culture as well, much like India, with Upper Burma, Tenasserim and Bassein being areas where cultivation and consumption was extensive. The Commission reports that 'It has already been seen from the evidence of Mr. Lewis (19) that the hemp plant was formerly cultivated in Upper Burma. And it would appear to have been cultivated on a considerable scale, for it was the sole source of supply to the shops in Lower Burma. The information collected by Mr. Bridges, Commissioner, Eastern Division, though it shows that under Burmese rule the plant was not uncommonly reared in yards and gardens, does not convey any idea of the extent of the cultivation in the days before prohibition, when the crop must have been worth growing on the frontier of Lower Burma. The Deputy Commissioner of Mergui states that in those days the plant was cultivated in parts of the Tenasserim township, and some other localities in that division of the province. The Deputy Commissioner of Pegu also writes that before the prohibition the hemp plant is reported to have been abundantly cultivated in Bassein district, and in small quantities in Pegu.'

Places such as Upper Burma, Tenasserim, Bassein, Prome, Shwebo, Bhamo, Allanmyo, Thayetmyo, Wuntho, Meiktila, Kyauksé, and Mandalay are mentioned by witnesses as areas where sporadic cultivation still happened at the time of the Hemp Commission's study and report. The various communities associated with cannabis in the Commission's report include the Kachins, Danus, Shans, Karens, Palaungs and Lawas. The proximity of the Kachin, Danu and Shan communities with China, with some of these communities residing partly in China itself, suggests that together they would have presented a significant risk to the British colonists and their Chinese associates who wished to leverage the areas occupied by these communities for their opium cultivation and trade. It is also possible that these communities may have opposed the opium trade in some fashion or demanded a stake in the trade, leading to the military action by the colonists in these regions and the suppression of cannabis along with these communities. The fact that these communities were experts at cannabis cultivation for ganja can be seen from the Commission's report, where an ex-Sawbwa gives an account. According to the Commission, he states that 'the stem of the plant is split when about the thickness of the finger and a month before maturity, and a piece of wood inserted. A light earthen chatty, or more often a basket, is placed over the flower-head, and allowed to rest upon it, to prevent the plant growing and make the head grow thick. In order to do this, the flower-bearing branches are gathered together and thrust into the vessel, which has a mouth of about a foot in diameter. This is the regular practice in cultivation for drugs. The chatty or basket is kept on the plant for about a month. These processes are not unknown in India.'

J. E. Bridges, Commissioner of the Eastern Division, states that 'The Mandalay Myowun informed me that the use of ganja was well-known in Upper Burma, and that before the reign of King Mindon it was widely used, the Ministers of Court mixing it with the tobacco of their cherrots. It was also used as an aphrodisiac at the court, sometimes mixed with other ingredients and sometimes taken pure in small pills. In King Mindon's time the use of ganja was prohibited with other intoxicants (bein-bin-chawza-ayet), but the  prohibition was not strictly enforced as regards ganja. The ex-Nyaungywe Saw Maung informed me that 30 per cent. of the Danus (residents of the Myelat or intermediate States between Burma and the Shan States) and 20 per cent. of the Shans smoke ganja. He stated that the drug was also widely used by Kachins, who use the fibre to make cloth... I was also informed that ganja is largely used by persons exposed to damp, such as fishermen. According to a Burmese saying ganja inspires fear, liquor gives courage, and opium produces politeness.' In his oral evidence, J. E. Bridges states that 'In the Danu country, lying between Burma and the Shan states proper, it is said that every man grows a few plants for his own consumption. Part of the Danu country is British, and some of the villages are in the Shan States... The use of the drug would seem to be more common in the Danu country than among the Shans, and still more common among the Kachins, who are said to cultivate the plant in fields. The fibre they use to make cloths is said to be the produce of the same plant.' 

Myowun U. Pe Si, C. I. E., late Town Magistrate of Mandalay, states that 'During the Burmese time, the person who drank liquor would be dealt with severely: the opium consumer less severely, and the ganja smoker would be least severely punishable. Drink was most severely punished because the man who takes liquor is violent and quarrelsome. Ganja makes a man more jocose and not violent. Opium is more expensive than ganja and more difficult to give up as a habit, and was therefore thought a worse habit. I think also that the man who uses opium becomes a lazy man and unfit to do anything. The ganja consumer does not; and a man does not get get into the habit of smoking ganja, as in the case of opium, so as to be unable to give it up. But all three were prohibited. The prohibition originates in religion, but the king sanctioned it.' The Burmans, who are largely Buddhists, had the same problem as Indian Hindus who practised the caste system. The priests who formed the upper-castes forbid the use of cannabis, stating that it was against religious scriptures. And this, when there are reports that the Buddha himself, and his followers, ate rotis (Indian bread) made from hemp flour.

Besides the cultivation of cannabis for ganja, the Commission reports that the Kachins, Palaungs, and Lawas cultivated cannabis for its fibre.

In Burma, the community known as Karens cultivated large quantities of ganja for sale to timber traders (Thitgaungs), who use it as medicine for elephants. A witness to the Hemp Commission states that "Every one possessing elephants is bound to keep ganja." Another witness states that "When an elephant suffers from agunbai, the symptoms of which are trembling of the body, hasty perspiration, sores in throat and excessive warmth in the body, native doctors prescribe bhang. If not attended to immediately, the elephant dies within three hours. The administration of bhang with other medicines thrice cures the animal. When the elephant becomes must and lustful and does not eat, bhang with other medicines proves very effective. A camel can be cured of tetanus by giving him on three alternate days—bhang a quarter seer, sugar one seer, oil one-and-half seer. Bhang is sometimes given to a horse in the ease of stomach-ache or for removing fatigue."  In Burdwan it was habitually given to the Raj Bari elephants as a tonic.

Use of false myths by the British to justify cannabis prohibition

As they did later in India, the British created false myths that cannabis was far more harmful to the body than opium or western alcohol. Worse, they created the false myth that cannabis caused insanity, a myth that was powerful enough to convince most people that it should be prohibited.

False myths that cannabis was harmful to the body

The false myths of the harm that cannabis caused to the body used by the British colonists for prohibiting cannabis were that cannabis was a harmful drug which caused dysentery, bronchitis, and asthma. 

But, like in India, we see the senior medical experts - most of whom had many years of experience in the medical field and with cannabis use - stating that the moderate use of cannabis was not at all harmful, in fact, that is could actually be beneficial to the user. Four out of eight commissioned medical officers gave evidence to the Commission. The Commission reports that 'Surgeon-Major Thomas (witness No. 42) stated that no ill-effects were produced by moderate doses. Surgeon-Major Dantra (witness No. 40) has had 17 years' service, nearly the whole in Burma, and stated: "It neither causes dysentery nor asthma, but it produces cough." Surgeon-Major P. W. Dalzell (witness No. 41) stated: "I am not aware that it causes either dysentery, bronchitis, or asthma." Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Mukerji (witness No. 39) has 26 years' service, and stated: "I have seen several habitual moderate smokers who did not suffer at all either physically, mentally, or morally.' Besides these four commissioned officers, two out of three assistant surgeons gave evidence to the Commission. The Commission states that 'Witness No. 46 stated: "Habitual moderate use has apparently no noxious effect." Assistant Surgeon Moonshi (witness No. 45) has 21 years' service, and stated: "I have known habitual moderate consumers of these drugs to enjoy robust health." According to the witness, the drugs do not cause bronchitis, asthma, or dysentery; "on the contrary, asthmatic people often resort to it to allay their sufferings..."' The single hospital assistant who was examined gave evidence to the Commission. The Commission reports that 'One hospital assistant was examined (witness No. 48), who stated: "The moderate use does not cause dysentery and bronchitis."' No native medical practitioner was approached by the Hemp Commission to provide evidence in Burma.

Besides these medical witnesses examined in Burma, a large number of medical witnesses were examined in India by the Hemp Commission. Based on the collective evidence provided, the Hemp Commission came to the final conclusion that the moderate use of cannabis did not cause any of the aforementioned physical harms. 

By 1894, most ganja consumption was associated with Indians from Punjab Province and the Madras Presidency arriving in Burma to serve in the army and police forces. The fact that most of the users appear to have been of robust health, with the use of ganja primarily enabling these consumers to counter the adverse conditions in which they were expected to work, especially in the jungles of Burma, are recorded by some witnesses. Mr. R. G. Culloden, Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent of the Preventive Service, Rangoon, states in his memorandum on ganja smuggling into Rangoon, submitted to the Hemp Commission that 'Punjabis, Pathans, natives of Upper India and Madrassi sepoys are those addicted to the use of ganja. The attempts at smuggling have been more frequent since the introduction of the Punjabi element in the police force; this is no doubt owing to a greater demand for the article. Judging from the physique of the latter race of men it would appear that the moderate indulgence in the use of the drug is attended with no ill effects.'

The false myth that cannabis causes insanity

The Hemp Commission itself states in its report that no other myth has had as profound an effect in contributing to global cannabis prohibition as the myth that cannabis causes insanity. The Commission states that this myth was largely instrumental in enabling the colonists to prohibit cannabis in Burma. Sir Ashley Eden, the Chief Commissioner of Burma in the years preceding cannabis prohibition in Burma, quoted statistics from the Dacca Lunatic Asylum in the Bengal Presidency to push for cannabis prohibition in Burma in 1873.

The Hemp Commission states that 'The province of Burma stands on a different footing from that of any other province, inasmuch as the hemp drugs are entirely prohibited. This prohibition was put into force in the year 1873 and embodied in the Excise Act, 1881. The Chief Commissioner has power to grant special licenses for cultivation, sale, and possession of the drugs; but the power has not been used. The prohibition arose out of the inquiry made by the Government of India in 1871. Sir Ashley Eden, then Chief Commissioner, recorded the following remarks regarding ganja in his review of the Excise Report for 1870-71: "The sale of this article is prohibited at Ramree, Sandoway, Tavoy, and Mergui, and the Chief Commissioner considers that no further addition should be made to the number of places for the sale of this pernicious drug, which is smoked only by the natives of India. Indeed, he would be glad to have the opinion of the Commissioners as to the possibility of withdrawing all licenses for the sale of ganja throughout the province. Its use is at present happily little known to the people of the country; at the same time there is every reason to fear that a taste for it may be spread among them by the people of India as in the case of opium. It certainly seems to the Chief Commissioner that it is very desirable to at once sacrifice the small revenue derived from this source and stop the consumption absolutely before the evil comes upon the country. The only sufferers from the cessation of the supply will be a few of the Indian labourers who come to work here during the rice season. They must learn to take the want of ganja as one of the discomforts of a sojourn in a foreign land, for which they are amply compensated by the large earnings they obtain. The Chief Commissioner observes that the percentage of persons admitted to the Dacca Lunatic Asylum in Bengal who had lost their intellect from the effects of ganja was from: 1860 to 1867 - 45.4 Per cent; 1868 to 1870 - 34.7 Per cent.'

We have seen above that Sir Ashley Eden's statement that 'Its use is at present happily little known to the people of the country' was because the British colonists had suppressed almost all cannabis cultivation in the preceding decades, and also that despite this various Burmese communities still continued to grow cannabis, with this being one of the primary reasons for the military annexation of Upper Burma by the British. We see another fallacious statement by Sir Ashley Eden - 'at the same time there is every reason to fear that a taste for it may be spread among them by the people of India as in the case of opium.' Cannabis was always the intoxicant that Indians had been using for thousands of years. Opium as a drug was almost unknown in India till the British popularized it, and it appears that this was the case in Burma as well. I strongly believe that one of the primary unstated reasons for prohibiting cannabis in Burma was for the British colonists to cultivate an interest in opium among the Burmese people so that it would further aid in the trade of opium between Britain and China. Powerful opium businessmen from both Britain and China would have lobbied the government to prohibit cannabis. We can see proof of the fact that the Burmese were originally ganja-smokers who were forced to switch to opium once cannabis was prohibited from the letter by the Deputy Commissioner, Rangoon Town District, to the Secretary of the Financial Commissioner, Burma, dated 13th December 1893, where it is stated that 'Ganja was prohibited in Burma in 1873. At that time I was in Thayetmyo, where there was a ganja-shop. Burmans who smoked ganja then were afraid of being punished for being in possession of it and took to using kunbon, which is prepared from opium, betel, and other leaves cut fine, dried, and fried with opium; then they smoke it. Natives - especially those belonging to the Commissariat Department, elephant and cattle drivers and lascars - did not give up the use of ganja, but they smoked it secretly, as ganja grew round about there, especially at Allanmya.' In a letter dated 30th January 1894, the Commissioner, Tenasserim Division writes to the Financial Commissioner, Burma, that 'If a Burman once takes to gambling, to drinking, or to opium-smoking, he is for this very reason lost, and he, by his want of self-control turns what is a harmless amusement or pleasure into a vice that utterly ruins him and makes him still more recklessly self-indulgent than he is by nature. It is for this reason that opium-smoking is for Burmans such a monstrous evil. If a Burman took to ganja in a similar way as he would were its consumption and even possession not prohibited, the effects would be terrible.'

It is interesting to see that in 1878, five years after cannabis prohibition had been in place in Burma, the British Government in India asked the Commissioner of Burma to re-examine the prohibition, since it appeared that it was not working as expected and smuggling was rampant, besides some doubts emerging on the veracity of the Dacca Asylum statistics. The Hemp Commission reports that 'The Chief Commissioner, however, considered that "a return to the license system would be a retrograde step, and that the possession of ganja in British Burma should be altogether prohibited by law. The grounds for this opinion are that ganja is admittedly more baneful than opium; that as yet the drug is unknown to the Burmese, or at any rate is not used by them to such an extent as to become a luxury the sudden withdrawal of which would be felt; that in the Arakan Hill Tracts the total prohibition of ganja has worked well; and that the people of Burma at present addicted to its use are solely, it is believed, immigrant natives of India" (Excise Report for 1877-78).' 

Once cannabis was prohibited in Burma, the 'ganja causes insanity myth' was used to support cannabis regulation and eventual prohibition everywhere, starting with India - the land of cannabis - and then spreading all over the world. One of the key proponents of the myth that 'ganja caused insanity' was a Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie (Bengal witness No. 104) who had served as the Superintendent of the Dacca Lunatic Asylum. One of the major beneficiaries of the inputs provided by Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie was the Opium Commission. They maximized this witness's statements and converted it into propaganda that was consumed all over the world. 

The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1894-95 itself examined Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie and found his claims to be false. The Hemp Commission states in its report on Burma that 'Although these statistics have been discussed seriously from year to year, they have not been much used as the basis of measures of ganja administration except in the case of Burma. In this case the Commission found that the measures taken in Burma were ostensibly based on the lunatic asylum returns which were quoted by more than one Chief Commissioner, special reference being made to the figures for the Dacca Asylum. This special reference to this asylum and the fact that it is situated in the most important ganja-consuming tract in India were among the reasons why the Commission summoned SurgeonLieutenant-Colonel Crombie (Bengal witness No. 104) as a witness; for he had been seven years Superintendent of that asylum. Before the Opium Commission also, and in an interesting discussion on opium published as a Supplement to the Indian Medical Gazette of July 1892, Dr. Crombie had incidentally spoken strongly of the evil effects of hemp drugs as seen in his asylum experience. The Commission hoped therefore that Dr. Crombie might be found to have devoted special attention to his asylum work, and to be able to speak with exceptional authority. He informed the Commission in his written evidence that "nearly thirty per cent. of the inmates of lunatic asylums in Bengal are persons who have been ganja smokers, and in a very large proportion of these I believe ganja to be the actual and immediate cause of their insanity. But though I am not prepared to say that the moderate use of ganja is never the cause of insanity, it is most frequently the result of long excessive use, and especially of occasional debauches with the drug. It has the same relationship to insanity in India that alcohol has in Europe, and may be the cause of fierce maniacal excitement of short duration (as in delirium tremens) or of a chronic cheerful mania which is the characteristic insanity of Indian asylums. It has not the same tendency to lead to dementia, the result of tissue changes in the brain, as alcohol has. Like alcohol, it will especially lead to insanity in persons of deficient self-control who take to the drug as a relief from mental trouble. Both forms of ganja insanity, the acute and chronic, are distinguishable by the symptoms."' 

After examining Dr. Crombie, the Hemp Commission reported that 'And in view of the small proportion of true hemp drug cases and the large proportion (nearly 2 to 1) of error in the cases accepted and recorded as hemp drug cases in Dr. Crombie's time too much weight should not be attached to his views regarding the clinical features of hemp drug insanity. The results of a careful analysis and examination of his cases corresponds on the whole pretty accurately with the examination of the cases of 1892 for all India made by the Commission. Looking back at his work in Dacca from his present point of view, Dr. Crombie seems to have thought that he had had some experience of special value, but the impression appears on examination to be due to a mistake of memory. There is practically nothing that differentiates his experience or the practice of the Dacca Asylum from that of other Superintendents and other asylums in India.' 

But the damage was already done, and the Hemp Commission's statements were buried in the deluge of propaganda launched by the Opium Commission subsequently. Even though the Hemp Commission states here that 'Although these statistics have been discussed seriously from year to year, they have not been much used as the basis of measures of ganja administration except in the case of Burma', what followed was that the prohibition in Burma served as the key argument for extending cannabis prohibition throughout India and the other British colonies in Egypt, Trinidad and Greece soon after. The Hemp Commission itself states in its final conclusions on the 'cannabis causes insanity myth' that 'Over and over again the statistics of Indian asylums have been referred to in official documents or scientific treatises not only in this country, but also in other countries where the use of these drugs has demanded attention. Other alleged effects of the drugs have attracted but little attention compared with their alleged connection with insanity.' 

What is astonishing is that nobody seems to have listened to the Hemp Commission's findings. Instead, the whole world believed the false propaganda unleased by Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie and the Opium Commission. What is even more astonishing is that more than 150 years later, the whole world still believes this false propaganda, despite eminent physicians like William O'Shaugnessy stating in the 19th century itself that cannabis is a far safer drug than opium or alcohol. I have elaborated in detail regarding the 'ganja causes insanity' myth in my article Police Doctors Magistrates and Lunatic Asylums Create Cannabis-Insanity Myth that shows how the myth was built up based on erroneous records and statistics. The importance of the impact of this myth must not be under-estimated. If there is one single cause of cannabis prohibition in the modern era, it is this false myth that started taking effect in Burma, spread to India, and eventually the whole world. 

The suppression of cannabis homestead growing and oppression of the people based on its prohibition

By 1894, the prohibition of cannabis had been so complete and effective that the plant had become a distant memory to many Burmese. A number of witnesses to the Hemp Commission claim to have seen cannabis growing in the wild, or cultivated sporadically, but on closer examination these were found to be other species of plants. Only in Upper Burma were a few plants spotted occasionally growing near settlements or in the forest areas. This indicates that Upper Burma had indeed been one of the key areas for cannabis cultivation and consumption before the British decided to prohibit it completely. An extended military action in Upper Burma is reported in the Hemp Commission's report by some witnesses. The nature of this military action, which involved Indian soldiers from the Punjab Province and Madras Presidency, is not explicitly stated, but one can guess that it involved the eradication of cannabis.   

Colonel H. R, Spearman, Commissioner, Tenasserim Division, was not satisfied with simple fines being imposed on persons found in possession of cannabis. He demanded imprisonment, and rigourous imprisonment at that. He states, in his evidence that 'Possession is now punishable with fine or imprisonment, It should be punishable with rigorous imprisonment only. As a Magistrate, I found imprisonment a much better deterrent than fine, and in awarding it had the whole Burman population with me.' In his oral evidence to the Hemp Commission, he states that 'Punishment should fall with absolute certainty and in fixed degree. Fine is useless, because if you fine lightly you do not punish the man, while a heavy fine is so difficult to realize that the higher judicial officers object to them, and imprisonment is better in every way. I should regard the matter purely from the Burman point of view, without regard in the least the discomfort, of hardship, or suffering of natives of India. If they choose to come to this country they must accept the conditions there.' Said the man from Britain who had come to Burma, taken away the people's cannabis, and imposed opium and western alcohol on them.

K. G. Burne, Deputy Commissioner, Mandalay, states that 'In 1891 I found that hemp was grown in gardens, compounds and cleared yards round houses in this district. There was no extensive cultivation by any individual - no field cultivation but individuals had plants, I was told, planted for their own use... I issued order, under the cognizance of the Commissioner, warning the people that this was illegal, and that those who cultivated the drug would be prosecuted. A few prosecutions did follow, one or two cases, as an example. I believe this was the first action of the kind taken in this district after the extension of the Excise Act to Upper Burma in 1888.'

A. M. B. Irwin, Deputy Commissioner, Tharrawaddy, states that 'I think that the working of the prohibition is a means of oppression by the police and a cause of corruption among them. The Assistant Commissioner of Akyab, who has to deal with the prosecutions, used to class a great many cases as intentionally false, which means that the cases were got up by the informers or the police of excise officers.'  

E. Lewis, Excise Officer, Rangoon, states 'Our preventive measures undoubtedly lead to oppression. False charges are frequent. A small piece of ganja is put under a man's bedding... It is common in case of enmity, as, for example, one policeman against another, especially if there is a woman in the case. Ganja is more frequently used in this way than opium, because it is cheaper.' 

It is interesting to note that two pages (pages 340 and 341) are missing in Volume 1 of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's report that I am referring to. These pages continue to deal with the policy of excise administration in Burma. In what remains from the report regarding Burma, the Hemp Commission recommends that provisions be made in the Excise Act XXII of 1881 so as to enable the Indian cannabis consumers who come to work in Burma to be able to purchase cannabis in Burma, while continuing to keep it out of the hands of the people of Burma. 

The rise of the cannabis black market

Whenever the state tries to prohibit a commodity that is important to the people, it results in the rise of the black market. This is a truth that has been seen numerous times in multiple places, and it is the reason why most knowledgeable persons advise against prohibition. With prohibition, the entire trade of the commodity goes underground, becoming invisible to the state. It is precisely what happened with cannabis after its prohibition in Burma. 

At the time of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's study and report in 1894-95, cannabis had already been prohibited for two decades in Burma. It had ceased to exist as a legal crop. Upper Burma appears to have been the region where cannabis was found in abundance before the prohibition. The Hemp Commission reports that 'Ganja was made contraband in Lower Burma in 1872-73. In that year large seizures of ganja illicitly brought from Upper Burma were made, and witness (19) states that Upper Burma was the chief source of supply in those days.' 

The Commission states that 'It appears from the information collected that the contraband article is introduced from ports on the Madras coasts, amongst which Pondicherry is prominently mentioned. The volume of the smuggling cannot be estimated.' Besides the sea route, the postal route also appears to have started being employed for smuggling ganja into Burma. Mr. R. G. Culloden, Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent of the Preventive Service, Rangoon, states in his memorandum on ganja smuggling into Rangoon, submitted to the Hemp Commission that 'From the statement of seizures of ganja during the past five years, it will be seen that the illicit traffic is kept up with more or less regularly, the largest quantities coming from the Madras Coast. Advantage has been taken of smuggling the drug by post.' In a letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Akyab to the Secretary of the Financial Commissioner, Burma, dated 1st December 1893, the Deputy Commissioner states that 'It is now brought in to some extent by post, but principally in Rangoon by the crew of British India Steamer Navigation Company's steamers, who put it in floating tins, and as they come up the river, somewhere about Elephant Point, throw it to accomplices who are on the look-out in small boats or sampans.' Even though the Madras Presidency is mentioned in the report as the key source of illegal import of cannabis, there would have been numerous other places that would have been sources, including the mountainous regions of Assam that bordered Burma, the Kachin hills and the Shan states. It can be seen from the report on seizures that the quantity of cannabis seized was the highest in the years of the Hemp Commission's study, exceeding the previous few years by a large amount. 

Showing how futile it is to try and prohibit cannabis, with such an absurd action only resulting in the state itself remaining in the dark with regard to its trade and use, the Commission reports that 'It has been shown that the hemp drugs, or ganja at least, are smuggled into Burma in considerable quantity. But it is impossible to say to what extent the Indians manage to supply their wants, or with any accuracy the price they have to pay for the drug. There does not seem to be any use by the Burmans or people other than the natives of India. The inquiries made by the Commission tend to show that the quantity introduced into the country is increasing.'

The destruction of the people caused by opium and alcohol with cannabis prohibition

The prohibition of cannabis led to the greatly increased use of opium and western alcohol among the people of Burma. It appears that in the short time that opium had been established and promoted by the British colonists, it had turned into an epidemic amongst the local Burmese population, thus eating into the supply of opium for the British, forcing the establishment to set up regulations such as sale of opium to only registered users. The British administration that was instrumental in this massive destruction of public health, continued to portray itself as a protector, with special emphasis on the continued prohibition of cannabis, while appearing concerned about the damage that opium and western alcohol was causing to the people.

E. Lewis, Excise Officer, Rangoon, states 'When the Burmans in Thayetmyo found their ganja supply stopped they took to opium. Finding it too strong to smoke and too troublesome to prepare, the Chinamen introduced a mixture of dried leaf an dopium fired together. Th epipe they used is a foot long with a small tube six inches from the bottom with four inches of water in it. The smoke is passed through that. The Burmans learned that.'

Colonel H. R, Spearman, Commissioner, Tenasserim Division, states in his oral evidence to the Hemp Commission that 'I am exceedingly anxious to prevent as much as possible Burmans from becoming consumers [of ganja]. They cannot control passion. They exceed in opium or liquor as well as in revenge; and would, I believe, exceed in ganja if they took it.' It appears that there was almost no regulation on opium at the time. Colonel H. R, Spearman states in his oral evidence to the Hemp Commission that 'There is no chance of checking opium by the present system. It seems to me that the proper measure would be to have licensed shops and only license consumption there, except in the case of respectable Chinamen, who might be allowed to take out licenses at the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner. That would have checked consumption by Burmans. I would not recommend such a system in regard to ganja, because there is no established use of ganja. Opium is lawfully sold in the country. Besides that, opium is used by Burmans already; ganja is not.' The fact that the opium menace had gone wildly out of control in the short period since cannabis prohibition forced the administration to introduce the system of selling opium only to registered users. Such a move also failed miserably as we can see from Colonel Spearman's statement that 'In regard to opium we have found that some Burmans would not register at all and that others registered eagerly to enable them really to sell to other non-registered consumers. I regard the registering as utterly untrustworthy.' Regarding the accompanying menace of alcohol consumption and addiction, Colonel Spearman states, in his oral evidence, that 'The Burmans use alcohol. The use is extending, both the moderate and excessive use.' 

A. M. B. Irwin, Deputy Commissioner, Tharrawaddy, states that 'I do not think it is likely that the Burmans would ever take to ganja, for they have not taken advantage of the opportunities, such as they are, which have already presented themselves, though they have taken to liquor and opium readily enough.'

Lieutenant-Colonel C. B. Cooke, Commissioner of Pegu, who served as Assistant Secretary to Sir Ashley Eden when the report which initiation cannabis prohibition was made, states that 'I remember that when recommending the prohibition of the hemp drug, Sir Ashley Eden remarked to me that it was too late to prohibit opium in the same way, though he would have wished to do so, because shops had been opened and the use established for seventeen years.' So, it is clear from this statement that the establishment of shops and sale of opium had only been in place for seventeen years, i.e., during the time of the British presence in Burma. The statement that it is too late to prohibit sale of opium from shops established just 17 years ago, as against sale of ganja from shops possibly established hundreds or thousands of years before defies logic. Lieutenant-Colonel C. B. Cooke, further says 'On the other hand, I could not recommend any relaxation of the prohibition [of cannabis], because the obstacles the Government has placed in the way of Burmans procuring opium would be likely to make them turn to the hemp drug if it were legally procurable. The obstacles referred to consist in the prohibition to supply opium to any Burman who is not a registered consumer.' Lieutenant-Colonel Cooke admits that these regulations have been useless, when he states in the same breath that 'I do not think a similar measure in regard to ganja would be practicable any more than the measure is likely to be in regard to opium, for an unregistered consumer will be able to get his supply through a native of India, and in the same way a registered consumer will be able to get more than his legal allowance.' 

J. K. Macrae, Magistrate of Hanthawaddy, says 'Their adoption of the opium habit leads to the supposition that they would have adopted ganja.'

There are, however, some officers in Burma who correctly attribute crime and violence to alcohol and opium. M. J. Chisholm, District Superintendent of Police, Akyab, states that 'Mostly all the violent crimes in this district have originated in the liquor shops.' W. H. Tarleton, District Superintendent of Police, Thayetmyo, states that 'The large proportion of criminals in this district are opium smokers and not consumers of ganja, etc.'

Surgeon-Major S. H. Dantra, Civil Surgeon, Mandalay, says 'Majority of men deny having substituted alcohol for any of these drugs; but from a few cases that have come under my notice I feel certain in my mind that the sale of ganja and charas being stopped, and they being so expensive in Burma, that it is quite beyond the means of many to procure them, that they resort to alcohol instead, and the consequences have been very serious on account of their going to excess in the hope of getting the same effect as that of ganja or charas.'

Myowun U. Pe Si, C. I. E., late Town Magistrate of Mandalay, states that 'About three or four hundred persons intoxicated from liquor would be brought before me as a Magistrate in a year. About twice as many people were found intoxicated from opium than from ganja.'

The situation in Burma today

Burma (now Myanmar) is today the largest illegal producer of opium in the world. It overtook Afghanistan a couple of years ago after being the second largest producer for many decades. Two factors resulted in Burma becoming the world's largest illicit producer in place of Afghanistan. 

The first factor is the decline in opium production in Afghanistan after the Taliban took over. Apparently, the Taliban started cracking down on opium cultivation projecting themselves as protectors of the people. But the underlying reason is most likely that the US and UK found it increasingly difficult to access opium from Afghanistan, possibly due to interference by intermediate countries like Iran and parts of Europe in the illicit trade. The US and UK have also, in recent times, shown a shift to cocaine and methamphetamine that can be more easily supplied by countries from south and central America like Mexico, Colombia, etc., in addition to opium. The role of the Chinese in the decline in opium production in Afghanistan cannot be ruled out, since Afghanistan presents competition to the Chinese opium trade centered in Burma. Through its proxy, Pakistan, and support for the Taliban, the Chinese may well have exerted pressure on opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

The second factor for the rise of Burma as the world's leading producer of illegal opium is the taking over of the country by the military junta. The military junta receives support from the Chinese government and arms from the Indian government. In return, the Chinese maintain control over the opium trade in the east. India, being the world's largest legal producer of opium, ensures that there is sufficient opium reaching it from Burma by supporting the military junta. During the brief period of democracy in Burma, the possibility of the cannabis culture re-emerging, especially with the global cannabis legalization movement gaining significant traction, would have alarmed the Chinese, as well as the Indian administration. 

It appears that there is an agreement between the western powers - the US and Uk - and the eastern powers - China and India - to divide the global opium trade with the western powers obtaining their opium from Afghanistan and South America and the eastern powers obtaining their opium from Burma. Russia plays both these regions, facilitating the smooth trade and control of opium in the east and west. 

As increasing global awareness of the harms of opium emerged in the last decade, in parallel with the rise of the cannabis legalization movements, and the deaths from the opioid crisis took center-stage in public health, it was necessary for these five entities that control the opium policies and trade globally - the US, UK, China, Russia and India - to do something drastic to wrest control back for the opium business. They achieved this through another strategy of global treachery. Together, they created a fake pandemic called Covid-19 and imprisoned the entire world. They used this fake pandemic to not only try and slow down the cannabis legalization movement, but also to boost the sales of opioids and other synthetic pharmaceutical drugs that these nations are leading manufacturers, consumers and traders of. The ruse has worked, at least for sometime, as the people of the world have been fooled once again, into getting further addicted to opium, and other synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. 

But cannabis is the plant of Siva and Siva is the supreme spirit of the universe. All trickery and deceit will eventually die at his feet and his precious herb will once again find its rightful place as the foremost intoxicant, medicine, entheogen, crop and industrial raw material of the world... How many die before this happens depends on the level of ignorance and fear with which the people of the world continue to exist till they muster up sufficient courage and intelligence to recognize their oppression, oppressors, the methods used, and where salvation lies...

The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's findings

THE EXISTENCE, PREVALENCE, AND CHARACTER OF THE SPONTANEOUS GROWTH

Burma.

73. Ganja was made contraband in Lower Burma in 1872-73. In that year large seizures of ganja illicitly brought from Upper Burma were made, and witness (19) states that Upper Burma was the chief source of supply in those days. This being the case, with the known tendency of the plant to run wild, the apparent suitability of Upper Burma to the growth of the plant, and the fact that the ganja-supply has by no means totally ceased notwithstanding the prohibition, it is remarkable that the evidence of the existence of the spontaneous growth should be so uncertain as to make it doubtful if it is to be found in any of the settled districts except as a very occasional weed. 

74. The Deputy Commissioner of Mergui alone mentions any extensive growth, and there are internal reasons for distrusting his statements. He no doubt made the acquaintance of the plant during his service in Kumaon, but he seems to have left that district over fifteen years ago, and his memory may not have served him. He talks unscientifically of the indigenous wild plant, which shows that he cannot claim to have made any study of the plant. The Burmese name he gives to the plant, "pi-san-bin," the literal translation of which is apparently "net-rope plant," is not used by any other witness. A rich alluvial loam, a climate hot and damp, and a low level are not, as far as the information given to the Commission teaches, conditions favourable to the spontaneous growth of hemp or to the development of its fibre. In his second paper he writes that the Siamese use the cultivated variety of hemp, which suggests that he is talking of some plant in which the distinction between wild and cultivated forms is more marked than is the case with Cannabis. He was unable to procure specimens of the plant in June in reply to the request of the Commission reporting that the plant was not in growth at that season. Under these circumstances, this evidence must be regarded as falling far short of proof. The Commissioner of Pegu (2) had the plant pointed out to him growing outside three villages in Upper Burma among the rubbish heaps. He would not have known the plant if it had not been pointed out to him. The Commissioner of Akyab mentioned the scanty and scattered growth in his division of a plant which the Chittagonians call boil ally, and which he supposed to be a species of wild hemp. He has kindly sent specimens of the plant in answer to a request from the Commission, and they are found to belong to two species of Sida, viz., Sida spinosa, L., and Sida carpinifolia, L. These plants have no narcotic properties. The Commissioner of the Eastern Division, Upper Burma, who has been at some pains to make enquiries, and the Deputy Commissioner of Mandalay can give no information of the wild growth, though both have apparently come across cultivation of the plant. The Deputy Commissioner of Toungoo mentions the wild growth as existing, though not abundant, in Prome and Shwebo. The Inspector-General of Police in an expedition north-east of Bhamo found that his men were getting some kind of ganja from the Kachins, who gathered it in the jungles. A specimen of the ganja from these hills has been examined, and consisted merely of leaves and tops of the plant rolled into balls, and showing no signs of cultivation or preparation. A District Superintendent of Police states that in Upper Burma the plant is often seen growing near villages. 

75. The evidence cannot be accepted as showing more than a casual growth in the neighbourhood of villages, which could easily be accounted for. It can neither be extensive in any particular case, nor can the cases be very numerous. Except the doubtful report from Mergui, there is no evidence of any tendency in the growth to reproduce itself and spread. These remarks apply to the settled districts only. The plant probably has run wild in the Kachin country and in the mountain ranges adjoining China, Assam, Manipur, Lushai, and Tippera.

EXTENT OF CULTIVATION, AND ITS TENDENCY TO INCREASE OR DECREASE.

Burma. 

136. It has already been seen from the evidence of Mr. Lewis (19) that the hemp plant was formerly cultivated in Upper Burma. And it would appear to have been cultivated on a considerable scale, for it was the sole source of supply to the shops in Lower Burma. The information collected by Mr. Bridges, Commissioner, Eastern Division, though it shows that under Burmese rule the plant was not uncommonly reared in yards and gardens, does not convey any idea of the extent of the cultivation in the days before prohibition, when the crop must have been worth growing on the frontier of Lower Burma. The Deputy Commissioner of Mergui states that in those days the plant was cultivated in parts of the Tenasserim township, and some other localities in that division of the province. The Deputy Commissioner of Pegu also writes that before the prohibition the hemp plant is reported to have been abundantly cultivated in Bassein district, and in small quantities in Pegu.

137. It does not appear that the Burmans proper were ever given to the hemp drugs, and it is not therefore surprising that the more extensive cultivation in Upper Burma should have ceased with that of Lower Burma directly the prohibition was passed and the market in Lower Burma was closed. Some survival of the practice which supplied the shops is, however, indicated in the evidence of Mr. Tarleton, District Superintendent of Police of Thayetmyo (29), who says that "certain villages round Tindau and Thetngaibyin in the Allanmyo Sub-division are in the habit of trading in ganja, which they bring into Allanmyo and Thayetmyo and sell to natives of India." Unfortunately this witness was unable to attend in answer to the invitation of the Commission, and they are therefore left in doubt as to the precise value of the statement. Mr. Bridges states that he has frequently noticed in the diaries of excise officers in Upper Burma references to the cultivation of ganja; and again—"In Upper Burma the growth of the plant in a small way by consumers for their own use is general, but the consumers are few." Mr. Fowle, Sub-divisional Officer, Kyauktau, in the Pegu district, reports that the hemp plant is grown in back gardens in the Wuntho township at the base of the spurs of hills radiating from the Maingthong peak. Other official witnesses state that a few plants are still occasionally cultivated in secret, and that prosecutions are sometimes instituted on this account. This testimony comes from Lower as well as Upper Burma. But it appears on the whole that the practice is efficiently checked in the settled districts. The districts of Thayetmyo, Meiktila, Kyauksé, and Mandalay are perhaps indicated as those in which it is most prevalent. It is of course impossible under the circumstances to form any estimate of the extent of this cultivation.

138. The Deputy Commissioner of Mergui mentions the cultivation of the plant in Siam beyond the frontier of Burma. The Commissioner, Eastern Division, and the Inspector-General of Police speak of cultivation in the Danu country which lies between Burma and the Shan States proper, and part of which is British territory. A former chief of the Shan State of Nyaungwe describes the cultivation in his own country, which is probably typical of the practice of the Shans over a much larger area. At this point the Kachin tribes appear to be mingled with the Shans, and their habit of growing the hemp on a considerable scale for fibre is described by Mr. Bridges and the ex-Sawbwa of Nyaungwe. This habit probably adheres to the Kachin race in their own country to the north, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be found over the continuous mountain tract which stretches up to the Province of Assam. In the Danu and Shan country the cultivation is of the homestead kind; a few plants only are reared in each case for home consumption. The practice is more common among the Danus than the Shans, and the produce would appear to be more than sufficient for home consumption, for some quantity is smuggled into Burma. In the Upper Chindwin district there is a small amount of secret cultivation.

METHODS OF CULTIVATION AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

Burma.

211. Mr. Bridges (3) and the ex-Sawbwa of Nyaungwe State (50) are the only witnesses who give any details of the cultivation in Burma. The Shans and the Danu people appear to rear the plant for the drug in their homestead land; the Kachins, Palaungs, and Lawas to cultivate for fibre in fields. Mr. Bridges is informed that in the former cultivation the male plant is exterminated. The ex-Sawbwa does not know of this practice. But he says that the stem of the plant is split when about the thickness of the finger and a month before maturity, and a piece of wood inserted. A light earthen chatty, or more often a basket, is placed over the flower-head, and allowed to rest upon it, to prevent the plant growing and make the head grow thick. In order to do this, the flower-bearing branches are gathered together and thrust into the vessel, which has a mouth of about a foot in diameter. This is the regular practice in cultivation for drugs. The chatty or basket is kept on the plant for about a month. These processes are not unknown in India. The splitting of the stem is frequently mentioned, but the use of the chatty in only two provinces. No account of the Kachin cultivation has been furnished.

PREPARATION OF THE RAW DRUGS FROM THE CULTIVATED AND WILD PLANT

265. There is no information that the ganja of the Shan country is prepared by any other process than drying. A specimen of Kachin ganja was forwarded to the Commission, and consisted of bundles of flower tops and leaves loosely rolled together. It looked like the produce of the wild plant.

TRADE AND MOVEMENT OF THE HEMP DRUGS

Burma.

327. There is no legitimate trade in Burma. The smuggling which is carried on on a considerable scale will be dealt with more appropriately in connection with prohibition and excise arrangements. A few facts may be noted in this place. It appears from the information collected that the contraband article is introduced from ports on the Madras coasts, amongst which Pondicherry is prominently mentioned. The volume of the smuggling cannot be estimated. The Financial Commissioner reports the following detections:— 

And the Assistant Collector of Customs reports for 1893-94 (1st April to 30th November) tolas 30,353, or nearly 10 maunds. This is probably but a fraction of the total imports. The smuggling into Upper Burma from the Shan States and Kachin Hills is probably insignificant in quantity.

EXTENT OF USE AND THE MANNER AND FORMS IN WHICH THE HEMP DRUGS ARE CONSUMED

Burma

406. It has been shown that the hemp drugs, or ganja at least, are smuggled into Burma in considerable quantity. But it is impossible to say to what extent the Indians manage to supply their wants, or with any accuracy the price they have to pay for the drug. There does not seem to be any use by the Burmans or people other than the natives of India. The inquiries made by the Commission tend to show that the quantity introduced into the country is increasing.

EFFECTS - PHYSICAL

Burma

508. Eight commissioned officers were examined in Burma. Surgeon-Major Thomas (witness No. 42) stated that no ill-effects were produced by moderate doses. Surgeon-Major Dantra (witness No. 40) has had 17 years' service, nearly the whole in Burma, and stated: "It neither causes dysentery nor asthma, but it produces cough." Surgeon-Major P. W. Dalzell (witness No. 41) stated: "I am not aware that it causes either dysentery, bronchitis, or asthma." Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Mukerji (witness No. 39) has 26 years' service, and stated: "I have seen several habitual moderate smokers who did not suffer at all either physically, mentally, or morally. Captain Castor (witness No. 44) stated: "Not as far as I know. Causes loss of appetite." The remaining witnesses do not reply to the question.

Three assistant surgeons were examined. Witness No. 46 stated: "Habitual moderate use has apparently no noxious effect." Assistant Surgeon Moonshi (witness No. 45) has 21 years' service, and stated: "I have known habitual moderate consumers of these drugs to enjoy robust health." According to the witness, the drugs do not cause bronchitis, asthma, or dysentery; "on the contrary, asthmatic people often resort to it to allay their sufferings. Immoderate use causes gastro-intestinal irritation." The third witness was not examined regarding effects of moderate use.

One hospital assistant was examined (witness No. 48), who stated: "The moderate use does not cause dysentery and bronchitis." No private practitioners were examined.

EFFECTS - MENTAL

Dacca Asylum no exception.

519. Although these statistics have been discussed seriously from year to year, they have not been much used as the basis of measures of ganja administration except in the case of Burma. In this case the Commission found that the measures taken in Burma were ostensibly based on the lunatic asylum returns which were quoted by more than one Chief Commissioner, special reference being made to the figures for the Dacca Asylum. This special reference to this asylum and the fact that it is situated in the most important ganja-consuming tract in India were among the reasons why the Commission summoned SurgeonLieutenant-Colonel Crombie (Bengal witness No. 104) as a witness; for he had been seven years Superintendent of that asylum. Before the Opium Commission also, and in an interesting discussion on opium published as a Supplement to the Indian Medical Gazette of July 1892, Dr. Crombie had incidentally spoken strongly of the evil effects of hemp drugs as seen in his asylum experience. The Commission hoped therefore that Dr. Crombie might be found to have devoted special attention to his asylum work, and to be able to speak with exceptional authority. He informed the Commission in his written evidence that "nearly thirty per cent. of the inmates of lunatic asylums in Bengal are persons who have been ganja smokers, and in a very large proportion of these I believe ganja to be the actual and immediate cause of their insanity. But though I am not prepared to say that the moderate use of ganja is never the cause of insanity, it is most frequently the result of long excessive use, and especially of occasional debauches with the drug. It has the same relationship to insanity in India that alcohol has in Europe, and may be the cause of fierce maniacal excitement of short duration (as in delirium tremens) or of a chronic cheerful mania which is the characteristic insanity of Indian asylums. It has not the same tendency to lead to dementia, the result of tissue changes in the brain, as alcohol has. Like alcohol, it will especially lead to insanity in persons of deficient self-control who take to the drug as a relief from mental trouble. Both forms of ganja insanity, the acute and chronic, are distinguishable by the symptoms. (See separate memorandum.)" 

These views, which are stated in greater detail in a separate memorandum, are based entirely on his experience as Superintendent of the Dacca Asylum and as visitor to other asylums; for Dr. Crombie says: "In my practice outside of lunatic asylums my experience is confined to very few cases, only two or three in the whole course of my service, of ganja intoxication brought to hospital." The Commission were anxious to ascertain how far these views might be regarded as having authority. They accordingly examined the registers and case books of the Dacca Asylum for all the years during which Dr. Crombie had been Superintendent, and perused his reports. They were unable to find in these records any ground for thinking that Dr. Crombie's practice differed from that of other Asylum Superintendents, or gave him special opportunities of knowledge. They took the registers for these years and also the papers for all the hemp drug cases of 1887 (Dr. Crombie's last year at Dacca) to Calcutta to discuss them with Dr. Crombie. That discussion is contained in the record of his oral evidence. 

First, as to procedure, Dr. Crombie told the Commission that the descriptive roll is "by no means trustworthy," but that "subsequent discoveries" were made in the asylum by examination of friends or of the lunatic on recovery and by other means, and that the entries in the asylum books would be altered accordingly. "This," he said, "was my practice." The Commission had found no trace of this practice in the asylum records; and they showed Dr. Crombie the registers and asked him to point out any such alterations. He then withdrew his statement, and accepted as accurate the statement of Rames Chandra Sib, Overseer of the Dacca Asylum, who has made the entries in the registers and compiled Statement No. VII ever since 1880. His statement is: "The cause is entered in the register from the descriptive roll..................... Cause is never entered in the register from enquiry made after the patient's admission. I know of no case of this being done. The entry made at the top of the page would never be altered. But if any enquiry which I might make showed cause not hitherto known, this fact would be entered in the history of the case. I remember such cases, and I might be able to point them out. But that entry in the history of the case would not alter the cause as shown in Statement VII of the annual report. That statement is filled up only from the entries made in the descriptive roll as copied into our register." Dr. Crombie's procedure then differed in no respect from the most mechanical and unintelligent record of causation in any asylum in India, for it was left entirely as clerical work to a subordinate. And the only statistics on which Dr. Crombie bases his views regarding insanity rest on the descriptive rolls, of which he strongly declares his distrust. 

Secondly, in regard to Dr. Crombie's attention to the special matter of causation of insanity, it appears that "there was no discussion of cause in any annual report written by him from Dacca, nor any formal discussion in writing." Like other Superintendents, he seems not to have felt that his duty required special attention to this subject. 

Thirdly, the Commission discussed with Dr. Crombie the cases of 1887, and the results of this discussion of them are recorded in his oral examination. They afford clear proof of the fact that even a careful examination of the papers received with the lunatics on their admission would have prevented five out of the fourteen cases being recorded as hemp drug cases (viz., the first, fourth, tenth, thirteenth, and probably also the twelfth), and would have led to two more being recorded as mixed or doubtful cases (viz., the second and fourteenth). The history in the asylum should have prevented the fifth case being retained as a ganja case; for the true cause (peripheral irritation) was clearly established, and insanity was cured on removal of that cause. It should also have led to the rejection of the eighth case, or at least to its being recorded as a mixed case. Thus nine out of the fourteen hemp drug cases of 1887 at Dacca are found to have been erroneously entered as such. There remain only five true hemp drug cases. Dr. Crombie says: "Taking my whole asylum experience, I think that this may probably be accepted as fairly representative of the real state of the case." The total admissions in 1887 to the Dacca Asylum were 55. Of these Dr. Crombie now accepts only 5 (or 9 per cent.) as due to hemp drugs. And he states that this may be accepted as fairly representative of the real state of the case, so far as his experience enables him to judge. 

Fourthly, as to Dr. Crombie's conclusions. As there were fifty-five admissions into the asylum in 1887, the number of cases (five) which may reasonably be attributed to ganja turns out to be only nine per cent. As Dr. Crombie says that the "chronic cheerful mania" which he describes is only found in a portion (or, as his separate memorandum shows, in a minority) of the admissions, and as he admits that it "may be due in part to difference of character" and not to the drug, there does not seem to be much, if any, ground for associating this chairomania with hemp. And in view of the small proportion of true hemp drug cases and the large proportion (nearly 2 to 1) of error in the cases accepted and recorded as hemp drug cases in Dr. Crombie's time too much weight should not be attached to his views regarding the clinical features of hemp drug insanity. The results of a careful analysis and examination of his cases corresponds on the whole pretty accurately with the examination of the cases of 1892 for all India made by the Commission. Looking back at his work in Dacca from his present point of view, Dr. Crombie seems to have thought that he had had some experience of special value, but the impression appears on examination to be due to a mistake of memory. There is practically nothing that differentiates his experience or the practice of the Dacca Asylum from that of other Superintendents and other asylums in India.

PROVINCIAL SYSTEMS EXAMINED

Burma. History of prohibition.

692. The province of Burma stands on a different footing from that of any other province, inasmuch as the hemp drugs are entirely prohibited. This prohibition was put into force in the year 1873 and embodied in the Excise Act, 1881. The Chief Commissioner has power to grant special licenses for cultivation, sale, and possession of the drugs; but the power has not been used. The prohibition arose out of the inquiry made by the Government of India in 1871. Sir Ashley Eden, then Chief Commissioner, recorded the following remarks regarding ganja in his review of the Excise Report for 1870-71: "The sale of this article is prohibited at Ramree, Sandoway, Tavoy, and Mergui, and the Chief Commissioner considers that no further addition should be made to the number of places for the sale of this pernicious drug, which is smoked only by the natives of India. Indeed, he would be glad to have the opinion of the Commissioners as to the possibility of withdrawing all licenses for the sale of ganja throughout the province. Its use is at present happily little known to the people of the country; at the same time there is every reason to fear that a taste for it may be spread among them by the people of India as in the case of opium. It certainly seems to the Chief Commissioner that it is very desirable to at once sacrifice the small revenue derived from this source and stop the consumption absolutely before the evil comes upon the country. The only sufferers from the cessation of the supply will be a few of the Indian labourers who come to work here during the rice season. They must learn to take the want of ganja as one of the discomforts of a sojourn in a foreign land, for which they are amply compensated by the large earnings they obtain. The Chief Commissioner observes that the percentage of persons admitted to the Dacca Lunatic Asylum in Bengal who had lost their intellect from the effects of ganja was from —

1860 to 1867 45.4 Per cent.

1868 to 1870 34.7 Per cent.

It has been said that some ganja has been grown lately in this province. The cultivation should be at once checked." A copy of these remarks, together with the opinions of local officers, civil and medical, was sent to the Government of India in reply to the enquiry. There is very little in the opinions which goes to establish the injuriousness of the drugs, and it may therefore be taken that Sir Ashley Eden's strong expression of opinion embodies the reasons for which the Government of India concurred in absolute prohibition which was enforced from the beginning of the year 1873-74. Apparently Sir Ashley Eden relied largely upon the statistics of the Dacca Lunatic Asylum for his opinion. The arguments to be derived from these statistics have been considerably modified by the Commission's investigations. In 1878 the Government of India addressed the Chief Commissioner of Burma in the following terms: "In 1873 the sale and cultivation of ganja in British Burma were prohibited. In September 1874 the import of the drug by sea was also prohibited. These arrangements received the approval of the Government of India on the understanding that it would be possible by this means to prevent the use of ganja altogether in British Burma. Your present proposals show that it has not as yet been found possible, and tend to throw some doubt upon the policy of 1873 and 1874. I am therefore directed to request that you will be good enough to examine the result of the repressive measures already adopted, and favour the Government of India with your opinion as to whether it would be advisable to persevere in the attempt to prohibit absolutely the use of ganja in British Burma, or whether it would not be preferable to revert to a system of licensed sale of the drug upon payment of heavy duties." The Chief Commissioner, however, considered that "a return to the license system would be a retrograde step, and that the possession of ganja in British Burma should be altogether prohibited by law. The grounds for this opinion are that ganja is admittedly more baneful than opium; that as yet the drug is unknown to the Burmese, or at any rate is not used by them to such an extent as to become a luxury the sudden withdrawal of which would be felt; that in the Arakan Hill Tracts the total prohibition of ganja has worked well; and that the people of Burma at present addicted to its use are solely, it is believed, immigrant natives of India" (Excise Report for 1877-78). These views were accepted by the Government of India, and the provisions relating to Burma in Act XXII of 1881 were the result. From that date the subject was not mentioned in the Excise Reports for the next 8 years. In the report for 1890-91 the only notice is that one Burman was prosecuted for cultivation of ganja. In the report for 1891-92, 31 breaches of the Excise law in respect of ganja are mentioned, in which 27 convictions, involving 236 tolas of ganja, were secured. This was in the Arakan Division. There is a special statement for Upper Burma showing 12 tolas of ganja confiscated in Yew and 13 viss and 1 tola in Lower Chindwin. The same statement for 1892-93 shows 2,000 tolas of ganja as confiscated in Yew and 532 (or 352) in Upper Chindwin. There is still no mention of the subject in the reports.

[two pages missing from the Hemp Commission report - pages 340 and 341]

correct or not. But in the case of ganja there seems little or no risk of the Burmese taking to its use in contravention of the law, inasmuch as they seem to have no predisposition to do so. Under these circumstances the Commission would recommend that where there is a demand for the hemp drugs among natives of India in Burma, provision should be made for meeting this demand by a licit supply under the same regulations as are in force in other non-producing countries, the prohibition of cultivation being maintained as well as that of the use by the Burmans.

Report from Rangoon Lunatic Asylum

Notes from experts

MEMORANDUM BY Mr. R. G. CULLODEN, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR of CUSTOMS AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PREVENTIVE SERVICE, RANGOON, ON THE SMUGGLING OF GANJA INTO RANGOON

Ganja has always been considered a prohibited drug in Burma. The prohibition of its importation has so far been successful that the drug has been kept out  of the local market to a considerable extent; this is proved by the fact that whenever traced to any one possessing it, only very small quantities of the drug have been found on them.

That there exists a demand for the article and that high prices are paid for it no one can deny; this is testified to by the many attempts that are made to smuggle it into the country, and on which even heavy penalties inflicted on detected cases do not appear to have any deterrent effect. 

From the statement of seizures of ganja during the past five years, it will be seen that the illicit traffic is kept up with more or less regularly, the largest quantities coming from the Madras Coast. Advantage has been taken of smuggling the drug by post.

There are many amongst the consumers who cannot do without the drug, the want being felt by them as much as the want of alcohol is by persons addicted to its use. The following will illustrate this. A Madrasi sepoy was once brought up for being in possession of 3 tolas weight of ganja, he cried as though his very existence was at stake when told that the drug would be confiscated. He said that if it was taken from him, he would be unable to perform his duties, and as he was ordered to a station in Upper Burma, where it was impossible to obtain it he would die. He declared that he only indulged in very small quantities at a time and that it did him no harm. I have seen several similar instances of a craving for the drug, the accused in such cases being more than willing to submit a fine than be deprived of the ganja. From my experience I am inclined to believe that the moderate consumption of the drug has not the demoralising effect imputed to it, though I would not venture to assert that there would not be a tendency to the abuse of the drug, if the prohibition was removed.

Punjabis, Pathans, natives of Upper India and Madrassi sepoys are those addicted to the use of ganja. The attempts at smuggling have been more frequent since the introduction of the Punjabi element in the police force; this is no doubt owing to a greater demand for the article. Judging from the physique of the latter race of men it would appear that the moderate indulgence in the use of the drug is attended with no ill effects.

No case of Burmans making use of ganja has even been brought to my notice. Hemp is grown in Upper Burma, and Burmans, if they choose, could use it as a narcotic without let or hindrance. The Burma ganja is said to be inferior in quality to that obtained in India, hence it is not valued so much by the natives of India and smuggling is, therefore, likely to be always resorted to as a means of getting the latter article into Rangoon.

The following recent cases of seizure indicate how ganja is smuggled. On the 6th July 1893 the customs preventive officers, acting on information, searched the S. S. Camorta from Madras, and found 5, 481 tolas of ganja packed in tin cases concealed inside the paint lockers in the forecastle of the steamer. As this part of the ship is occupied by the crew, they were charged with having brought it on board, but they disclaimed liability and consequently penalty of 500 rupees was inflicted on the vessel, in accordance with the orders of the Government of India as per letter No.5205, dated Simla, 10th October 1889, the amount being recoverable rateably from the wages of the crew. On the 21st date of the same month, or 15 days later, another large seizure was made, the ganja weighing 6,613 tolas and packed in tins was found concealed partly in the lazarette and partly inside the linen locker of the S. S. Scindia from Madras. The captain handed over the butler of the first-class saloon as the guilty one, the key of the locker having been in his possession. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate to pay a fine of 500 rupees, and this not being paid, he was sent to prison for three months and 20 days. On the 21st Augist last as much as 11,760 tolas of ganja were found in two cases landed as passengers luggage ex S. S. Nowshera from Madras. The gunner of Brooking Street wharf was implicated, as on landing those boxes he declared that they belonged to him. His accomplice, a native, who brought the ganja by the steamer as his luggage was awarded two months imprisonment. On the 18th of last month 2,420 tolas of ganja were found in a case declared to contain a sewing machine. The case was in transit from Madras to Mandalay and was consigned to a native at the latter place. It was allowed to go on its destination and intimation having been sent by telegram to the Deputy Commissioner there, two natives who came and took delivery of the case were arrested. There has since been another seizure of 3,360 tolas of ganja, the drug being found in a box declared to contain shoes intended for Mandalay. The case was dealt with in a similar manner to the foregoing one, but the result is not yet known.

In 1888-89 the number of seizures was abnormally high, the aggregate quantity of ganja weighing as much as 17,753 tolas, and may be accounted for by the influx of a large body of native (Punjabi and Madrasi) troops consequent on the annexation of Upper Burma. 

The following statement shows the seizure of ganja during the last five years, also during the first eight months of 1893-94:-

Correspondence between members of the Burma administration

Questions by the Hemp Commission to witnesses

List of Burma witnesses who deposed before the Hemp Commission

Individual witness statements of the witnesses from Burma