Medicine - Drugs > Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894-1895 > Volume I
(357) Page 323
Download files
Individual page:
Thumbnail gallery: Grid view | List view

CH. XVI.] REPORT OF THE INDIAN HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION, 1893-94. 323
In view, however, of the
indefinite and uncertain information obtained regard-
ing the extent of the traffic in the drug and the limited nature of
the consump-
tion, the Madras Government came to the conclusion that in most
parts of the
Presidency no restriction was called for, but remarked that it was
prepared to
extend the provisions of the Abkari Act relating to intoxicating
drugs to limited
areas on adequate cause being shown.
Experience, however,
showed that the demand for the drugs was considerably
larger than was suspected, and that the competition in certain
districts for the
privilege of vend was very keen. Accordingly the licenses for
retail vend were
sold by auction, with the result that the revenue from this source
rose the first
year from Rs. 8,805 to Rs. 54,989. No further measures for
controlling culti-
vation or restricting consumption were taken. The Board again
considered the
question of limiting the legal possession of the drug, which had
been advo-
cated by the majority of the Collectors, but came to the decision
that restrictions
on the cultivation of the plant should precede those on possession,
and their
objections to revising the idea of licensing cultivation appear to
have been (a) that
this would involve the taking out of a license by every person who
had a plant
or two in his garden; and (b) that it would have been
necessary to make a large
increase in the number of shops in order to meet the legitimate
demands of
consumers. It is not clear why the Board changed their views
regarding pro-
hibition of cultivation which they had previously recommended. And
the num-
ber of shops existing in Madras is under the existing arrangement
manifestly in-
adequate, being one for every 144,781 of the inhabitants.
Considering that the
consumption of the drugs in Madras is found to be much larger than
was sus-
pected, and that the propriety of introducing more control into the
admin-
istration has for several years been recognized, the Commission are
of opinion that
the needed reforms should be no longer delayed.
Treatment of the subject
in
Bombay.
661. The system in
Bombay, which was introduced in 1880, does not seem
to have been brought under
discussion since that
time. The Commissioner of Excise states that the
subject attracted little attention till the Commission was
appointed. The Com-
missioner of the Northern Division says that the system seems to
have grown up
in a haphazard way. The subject has been treated mainly from the
revenue
point of view, and the control exercised has not been strict. At
the same time the
area of regular ganja cultivation in Bombay seems to be
considerably larger
than in any other province; and if measures with a view to
restriction in con-
sumption are necessary anywhere, they certainly appear to be so in
this Presi-
dency.
Control of cultivation for ganja.
662. The Commission on a
full review of the whole circumstances con-
nected with the ganja administration have framed the
opinion that cultivation of the hemp plant for the
production of narcotics in Madras and Bombay should be prohibited
except under
license, and that the licensed cultivators should be restricted to
a limited area as
in Bengal and the Central Provinces. They are of opinion that no
greater
difficulties exist in this respect than have been already overcome
in these
provinces. A few remarks are offered in justification of this
view.
Set display mode to: Large image | Zoom image | Transcription
Images and transcriptions on this page, including medium image downloads, may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence unless otherwise stated.
India Papers > Medicine - Drugs > Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894-1895 > Volume I > (357) Page 323 |
---|
Permanent URL | https://digital.nls.uk/74574780 |
---|---|
Description | Chapter XVI, cont. |
Description | [Volume 1]: Report. |
---|---|
Attribution and copyright: |
|
![]() |