A Disgraceful Little War ~ The Opium War and Commissioner Lin

Gloria Romanorum ^ | 6/26/17 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

Believe it or not, June 26 is the International Day against Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking. In some circles in the US, advocating the legalization of recreational drugs is considered the correct, even "conservative" thing to do. Granted, these are less "conservative" circles than libertarian, but the cross-over is noticeable. For those with an historical horizon that extends back beyond the 1960s, there is no excuse for taking up this fashionable if foolhardy view.

The date of June 26 was chosen for the Day against Drug Abuse because it marks the anniversary of an event that could be known as the "Humen Opium Party" during which some 20,000 tons of contraband opium were dumped into the harbor at Humen in China.

Alarmed by the vast numbers of Chinese who had become addicted to opium, the Daoguang emperor appointed an official named Lin Zexu to cope with the problem. He was given the rank of "commissioner" and empowered to crush the opium trade.

Born in 1785, Commissioner Lin was the son of a prominent official in the Qing dynasty court. He soon achieved renown as an outstanding scholar and writer. During his early career, he established a reputation for intelligence and virtue, described by a more recent writer as: “a resolute and competent administrator, a just and fair applicator of the law and – most amazingly, bearing in mind his peers – incorruptible” [Booth, Opium, p. 129].

Unfortunately, at the heart of the issue were the merchants of a major foreign power — Great Britain. In order to balance out their trade deficit with China, the British began exporting opium into Chinese ports in large quantities. By the 1820s, opium had become the chief product exported into China by the British, with unsurprising results among the Chinese population. Following is a description of a typical opium den in China from a somewhat later source:

The room is four or five yards long and perhaps three wide low ceiling blackened with smoke and covered with black cobwebs. The floor is the bare earth the walls are black as soot save here and there where they are adorned with a few strips of red paper most of which bear inscriptions sounding like horrid mockery. Take one: "May all who enter here gain health and happiness." On all sides of this den are wooden benches like tables covered with a piece of matting and each furnished with lamp and pipe. Most of these were occupied with gaunt hollow eyed figures lying curled up some taking their first puffs others in different stages of prostration and stupefaction. [Taken from Friend of China, 1877, p. 106] Within a few months of his arrival at Canton, Commissioner Lin issued an edict demonstrating his resolve with typical Middle Kingdom contempt for foreigners:

“Let the Barbarians deliver to me every particle of opium on board their store-ships. There must not be the smallest atom concealed or withheld. And at the same time let the said Barbarians enter into a bond never hereafter to bring opium in their ships and to submit, should any be brought, to the extreme penalty of the law against the parties involved” [Hoe, The Taking of Hong Kong].

Commissioner Lin then posted a warning to the Chinese people of Canton which concluded as follows:

“Now then ye who smoke opium!...When ye take up the opium pipe to smoke, do one and all of you put the hand upon the heart, and ask yourselves: Do I deserve death or not? Ought I to leave off this hateful vice or not? People who have rebelled against heaven, who have injured their fellow-men, who have opposed reason, who have trampled on the five relations of mankind, who have set at defiance every rule of decency and propriety: methinks that though our sovereign’s laws may not slay them, yet with heaven and earth, gods and spirits, must exterminate them with their avenging lightning! Though you may escape our human punishments, think you that you can escape the punishment of heaven?” [Martin, Opium in China, p. 68].

But Lin's most audacious attempt to move the moral needle may have been a letter that he wrote directly to Queen Victoria, Britain's reigning monarch. While it is unclear whether the Queen actually read the letter or not, it ended up having little impact on the sad course of events. In the letter, Lin appeals to benevolence, justice, and logic:

"Suppose there were people from another country who carried opium for sale to England and seduced your people into buying and smoking it; certainly your honorable ruler would deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused. We have heard heretofore that your honorable ruler is kind and benevolent. Naturally you would not wish to give unto others what you yourself do not want.

We have also heard that the ships coming to Canton have all had regulations promulgated and given to them in which it is stated that it is not permitted to carry contraband goods. This indicates that the administrative orders of your honorable rule have been originally strict and clear. Only because the trading ships are numerous, heretofore perhaps they have not been examined with care. Now after this communication has been dispatched and you have clearly understood the strictness of the prohibitory laws of the Celestial Court, certainly you will not let your subjects dare again to violate the law."

Read Commissioner Lin's full Letter of Advice to Queen Victoria here.

Sadly, what Commissioner Lin failed to appreciate was just how far his own country had fallen behind the European West in terms of technological advances and military prowess. Caught somewhat off guard, the British merchants surrendered their opium under the pretense that their loss would be made good. Commissioner Lin proceeded to destroy all of the seized drug and cast it into the sea. The merchants were not compensated, and their perceived grievance soon precipitated a military response from the British. The result was the disastrous First Opium War. A reasonable summary of the depressing course of action during the war may be found here.

Following disastrous military defeats, the Qing court was forced to capitulate. For his role in the debacle, Commissioner Lin was demoted and exiled. The imperial court was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking which was the first of the so-called "Unequal Treaties" between China and the western powers. In short, Qing China was forced to pay reparations to the British merchants for the opium which was destroyed, open additional ports to western trade, and cede Hong Kong as a colony. China continued to be open to the opium trade which would consume untold lives for decades to come.

Later, the British came to regret their part in the Opium War. Philanthropist John Passmore Edwards called it, "One of the most unjust and iniquitous crimes ever perpetrated by one nation on another." Future prime minister William Gladstone opined in a similar fashion: "A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of." In the same periodical, a Mr. Omrad gave a fair assessment of Commissioner Lin's effort, saying:

"I hold that Commissioner Lin served us just right when the opium that was to have destroyed his countrymen was instead destroyed by him, and I honor the patriotism and admire the pluck of the brave commissioner who dared to step forth in defense of his country, simple justice, and common humanity against a nation so great and powerful as our own." So for those in our own day who participate in the recreational drug trade, would attempt to legalize it, or simply to acquiesce in the face of those political forces which seek to make these toxins more easily available in the name of "liberty", I would ask you to consider history. Understand that the wages paid by your intellectual ancestors were evil, destruction and death. You may succeed in making the use of such substances legal in this world, but like the British, you will not escape the punishment of heaven.

[NobleFree]

So now you are accepting the 400,000 number?

No, just pointing out the DEA's statement against interest.

Your argument here is that because addiction rate declined in this period, this demonstrates that there would have been no runaway addiction problem?

It weights against your claim.

I don't know how the DEA would know what sort of addiction rates they were suffering in 1900 because I don't know how they would have accurately polled all the drug users of that time period. Obviously they are relying on some sort of proxy factor to determine this, or they are merely putting forth some sort of wild @$$ed guess.

Courtright's conclusion of an addiction peak around 1890 is better documented, for sure. I'm pleased to note that you can view DEA claims with skepticism - at leeast when it suits you.

Opium usage had begun to decline by 1914 after rising dramatically in the post Civil War Era, peaking at around one-half million pounds per year in 1896

Usage, not addiction.

Secondly, you ignore that addiction can decline when addicted people die off, which they tend to do, especially if they are addicted to something like morphine or heroin. Perhaps the decline in addiction (if there was one) was due to the deaths of the addicts?

Whatever the reason for the decline, it weighs no less against your claim of logistic increase.

I do recall reading that societal opposition to drug usage was increasing in the 1890s and 1900s.

That's the liberty-respecting response to the situation.

[NobleFree]

Because this isn't China - as I already posted:

[DiogenesLamp's deceptive omission restored:]

“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the person’s biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.” - American Society of Addiction Medicine

humans are humans no matter where on the globe they exist, and they are susceptible to the same afflictions wherever they reside.

Occidentals are just as susceptible to opium addiction as are Orientals.

The text I posted from the American Society of Addiction Medicine rebuts your "humans are humans" reductionism.

[NobleFree]

Courtwright confirms (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VxUuPa3cnLMC) the DEA’s numbers in showing that opiate addiction declined after 1890.

Well he and Musto, David F. ((1973). The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. Yale Univ. pages 3-5.) need to get together and hash it out, because David F. Musto says opium usage was peaking in 1896.

No contradiction - usage is not addiction.

Also I didn't see any quotes to support your claim at the site to which you provided the link.

Will you also be supplying quotes in support of your quotes - or does that requirement apply only to me? Courtright has a 30-plus-page bibliography ... buy the book if you're dying to know.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, just pointing out the DEA's statement against interest.

More like speculation. Again, the numbers of Civil War veterans given drugs can be determined from actual records. How do you figure out how many people are using opium in 1900?

Courtright's conclusion of an addiction peak around 1890 is better documented, for sure. I'm pleased to note that you can view DEA claims with skepticism - at leeast when it suits you.

When I can see no basis for making such a claim, I can view it with skepticism. I don't know how anyone at the DEA could possibly know what was going on with Drug addiction in 1900. On the other hand, I can see how it would be possible for them to count the numbers of soldiers who had been given opiates.

Usage, not addiction.

Because Opium has many other usages besides addiction?

Whatever the reason for the decline, it weighs no less against your claim of logistic increase.

The "decline" if there was any, is just statistical noise. The Signal takes decades to manifest. It took 70 years for legal opium to destroy China.

[NobleFree]

Usage, not addiction.

Because Opium has many other usages besides addiction?

Yes, nonaddicted use - just like alcohol can be used by addicts and nonaddicts of that drug.

Whatever the reason for the decline, it weighs no less against your claim of logistic increase.

The "decline" if there was any, is just statistical noise.

Oh, yes? What standard errors did you calculate for those numbers, and how did you calculate them?

Or is it your statement that's noise?

[DiogenesLamp]

I omit that statement that you seem intent on repeating because it is just psychobabble that explains nothing. How many people have these genetic factors? Like 90% or something? Did they say? Do they even know?

At what weight should we put "culture" as a role in addiction? My own experience is that American culture is perfectly fine with getting addicted to drugs. I've known a lot of drug addicts, and they would spread it a lot further than themselves if it were legal to do so.

Your quoted text proves nothing and is really irrelevant to the discussion.

The text I posted from the American Society of Addiction Medicine rebuts your "humans are humans" reductionism.

It does no such thing. Till you put some hard numbers on their claims, they are meaningless. Sure, Drug addiction has a genetic factor. I put that genetic factor at 50% or better, meaning 50% of the population has it, and are susceptible to addiction.

Why do I pick 50%? Because that's what the DrugLibrary.org indicated was the addiction rate of China in 1900.

Maybe this is what your "American Society of Addiction Medicine" means when they say "genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop an addiction."

It is certainly another way of saying half the population will become addicted to drugs if they are exposed to them.

But since you are so fond of what the American Society of Addiction Medicine thinks on a subject, I'm sure you will rejoice to discover this is their position on Marijuana.

Positions

ASAM is critical of the current regulatory state of marijuana, holding that there is no such thing as appropriate medical use of the plant cannabis; in 2010, the society published a white paper calling for federal regulations to oversee research and development of cannabis based medicines and issued recommendations for state medical authorities to "...assure that physicians who choose to discuss the medical use of cannabis and cannabis-based products with patients...[a]dhere to the established professional tenets of prr patient care...";[3] in 2012 the society stated that there is no "Medical marijuana" because the plant parts in question fails to meet the standard requirements for approved medicines, that Marijuana has many serious, negative health effects.[4]

[DiogenesLamp]

No contradiction - usage is not addiction.

Only if you don't inhale, like Bill Clinton.

Will you also be supplying quotes in support of your quotes - or does that requirement apply only to me?

When I post a link, it contains a quote that supports what I claimed when I posted the link. You said that Courtwright agreed with you and you posted a link. I went to the link, I looked for some quote from Courtwright which would indicate he agreed with you, and I didn't find one.

How am I to know that Courtright does in fact agree with you when I can't see some sort of quote which indicates that he does? If I am to merely take your word for it, what is the point of providing a link? It only wasted my time.

By all means, let us both use the same standards when it comes to providing evidence in the form of links.

Courtright has a 30-plus-page bibliography ... buy the book if you're dying to know.

And I am to buy this book of his just to learn if he agrees with you or not? I don't think I want to know that badly.

[NobleFree]

Till you put some hard numbers on their claims, they are meaningless.

Numbers would make the statement even more meaningful - but even without them, all sane readers will agree that the American Society of Addiction Medicine knows more about addiction than you do.

They are considerably less authoritative on the subject of medicines in general:

there is no "Medical marijuana" because the plant parts in question fails to meet the standard requirements for approved medicines,

A substance can have medical value without being "approved" - and the Institute of Medicine has reported that marijuana does.

Marijuana has many serious, negative health effects.

So does chemotherapy - but it's appropriate when the disease being treated is even worse.

[NobleFree]

You said that Courtwright agreed with you and you posted a link. I went to the link, I looked for some quote from Courtwright which would indicate he agreed with you, and I didn't find one.

You don't seem to have looked very hard. Click the only chapter available for reading and you'll find on the first page: "the rate of opiate addiction in America increased throughout the nineteenth century, from not more than 0.72 addicts per thousand persons before 1842 to a maximum of 4.59 per thousand in the 1890s; thereafter the rate began a sustained decline."

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, nonaddicted use - just like alcohol can be used by addicts and nonaddicts of that drug.

I have known quite a few people addicted to alcohol. Most can use it without becoming addicted, but some cannot. I have known quite a few people addicted to various drugs. Most who use them become addicted, and only a few can put it down once having tried it.

These things are not at all similar in my own personal experience. Crack will hook people on the first try. Alcohol takes a lot of tries to get to the point of an addiction.

Oh, yes? What standard errors did you calculate for those numbers, and how did you calculate them?

One does not have to calculate when you can see the data points plotted on a chart. You can quickly realize that minor perturbations are just noise. Here is an example. Incidentally it is of opium importation into China.

[NobleFree]

These things are not at all similar in my own personal experience.

Your own personal experience is not randomly selected from the population at large, so can't be validly extrapolated to the population at large.

The "decline" if there was any, is just statistical noise.

Oh, yes? What standard errors did you calculate for those numbers, and how did you calculate them?

One does not have to calculate

So you were talking out your @$$ - got it.

[kaehurowing]

My city and our country is now being destroyed by drug use, the primary cause of the “homeless.” It is time to publicly execute drug dealers, as the Chinese did.

---

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35764997/city-investigates-complaints-that-homeless-are-dumping-raw-sewage-at-diamond-head

City investigates complaints that homeless are dumping raw sewage at Diamond Head
Tuesday, June 27th 2017, 5:18 pm HST
Tuesday, June 27th 2017, 5:31 pm HST
By Allyson Blair,

The cliffs makai of Diamond Head Road are home to some of the most beautiful scenery on Oahu’s south shore.

MORE
Homeless In Hawaii

But pictures only tell part of the story.

“You can smell the urine and the human waste,” said Stephany Sofos, a real estate expert who lives nearby.

In the shadow of Diamond Head lighthouse, scattered in the brush, are about a half dozen makeshift shelters.

“Homeless take buckets of feces and urine and dump it on the shoreline. I mean you see human feces floating out to sea,” she said.

The Institute for Human Services say it’s a problem that’s happening at most encampments across the island.

“We originally saw it in Kapalama Canal. Right here in Iwilei, they were dumping their waste into the drainage system,” said Kimo Carvalho, Institute for Human Services spokesman.

At the same time, Carvalho said, outreach workers have made progress on Diamond Head.

Back in March, the state swept the monument. Three months later no one has returned.

And over the past couple of years, the number of encampments on the city-owned cliffs on the makai side of Diamond Head Road have dropped by more than 50 percent.

But despite a weekly offer of shelter those who are left refuse to go. Drugs are the root of the problem, outreach workers say.

“We do notice needles. We know that there are clinical signs of meth use,” said Carvalho.

Sofos said the situation reflects badly on the entire state.

“Diamond Head is an icon. It’s the symbol of Hawaii. The city needs to step up. This is not an issue of homeless and no place to go,” she said.

It’s been three months since the city swept the cliffs.

Although officials say there have been no complaints about raw sewage at Diamond Head — there have been in other areas.

“Our action steps are to investigate and then to increase enforcement in those areas,” said Marc Alexander, of the city housing office. “We may also have to involve other partners like the Department of Health.”

As for a long-term solution, the city says it’s working to expand its Housing First program.

Hawaii News Now asked the Department of Health if it had gotten any complaints about the area.

Clean Water branch chief Alex Wong said in a statement that the office does get complaints and wants to work with property owners to find solutions.

“We understand this serious state and county concern which requires coordinated and long-term efforts to guide and support good solutions to the human and environmental impacts caused by homelessness,” he said.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

If you read enough history, you quickly realize that the English Aristocracy were/are some vicious bastards. They also tend to be successful as a result.

The decisions made by the British aristocracy led directly to sub-replacement birth rates and disastrous wars which have resulted in the socialism and ascending Mohammedanism we see there today. Lin Zexu was correct in predicting that they would not escape the punishment of heaven.

[DiogenesLamp]

Numbers would make the statement even more meaningful - but even without them, all sane readers will agree that the American Society of Addiction Medicine knows more about addiction than you do.

As I pointed out in my previous response, their statement does not contradict my position. Depending by what they mean by it, it may very well reinforce my point. In China addiction rose to the point that by 1900 about half of China's male population was addicted to Opium. If the "genetic factor" mentioned works out to about 50% of any given population, then that would correspond to what history tells us happened in China.

A substance can have medical value without being "approved" - and the Institute of Medicine has reported that marijuana does.

The point here is that you cannot hold up an organization as an "expert" only when you think they are supporting your position, and then dismiss their expertise when their position goes clearly against you.

[DiogenesLamp]

You don't seem to have looked very hard.

I didn't think I would have to look in additional links to find something you linked. Why wouldn't I expect you to just supply the end link right from the start?

Click the only chapter available for reading and you'll find on the first page: "the rate of opiate addiction in America increased throughout the nineteenth century, from not more than 0.72 addicts per thousand persons before 1842 to a maximum of 4.59 per thousand in the 1890s; thereafter the rate began a sustained decline."

Letting me know that when you posted the link would have been helpful.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, yes? What standard errors did you calculate for those numbers, and how did you calculate them?

A point that you seemingly haven't grasped is that there is no good hard data from which to calculate anything. As I have mentioned, it is easy to see how you can figure out how many Civil War Vets had been given drugs, but it is virtually impossible to determine how many people in 1900 were using or not using drugs.

The best you can do is use the proxy of drug quantities being imported to give a "best guess" estimate of what usage was, and there is no way to quantify what level of error you will get with that method.

Capiche?

So you were talking out your @$$ - got it.

No more so than you. For whatever reason you seem to think you can get hard answers from speculative claims from people who have no way of knowing the truth of what they are claiming.

Again, there were records of how many people received drugs from Civil War wounds. But knowing that usage declined by some amount in 1900 is d@mn near impossible. That can only be a guess.

[DiogenesLamp]

The decisions made by the British aristocracy led directly to sub-replacement birth rates and disastrous wars which have resulted in the socialism and ascending Mohammedanism we see there today. Lin Zexu was correct in predicting that they would not escape the punishment of heaven.

That does appear to be the case, doesn't it? Yes, the consequences of past English wrongs appear to be blossoming into full flower.

[Antoninus]

Lin Zexu was correct in predicting that they would not escape the punishment of heaven.

Indeed. And we would be wise to learn from their errors.

[NobleFree]

“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the person’s biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.” - American Society of Addiction Medicine

humans are humans no matter where on the globe they exist, and they are susceptible to the same afflictions wherever they reside.

Occidentals are just as susceptible to opium addiction as are Orientals.

The text I posted from the American Society of Addiction Medicine rebuts your "humans are humans" reductionism.

their statement does not contradict my position. Depending by what they mean by it, it may very well reinforce my point.

The importance of environmental factors, life experiences, and culture clearly do contradict your "humans are humans" reductionism.

If the "genetic factor" mentioned works out to about 50% of any given population

It doesn't - the "account for" means that half of the variation in addictedness among persons corresponds to variations in genetic factors. And since the Chinese clearly have genetic differences from the non-Chinese majority in America, there are no grounds in genetics for supposing that the Chinese experience with opiate addiction would be replicated in America.

[NobleFree]

Click the only chapter available for reading and you'll find on the first page: "the rate of opiate addiction in America increased throughout the nineteenth century, from not more than 0.72 addicts per thousand persons before 1842 to a maximum of 4.59 per thousand in the 1890s; thereafter the rate began a sustained decline."

Letting me know that when you posted the link would have been helpful.

Now that you know, do you have a response to this additional evidence for the rate of opiate addiction in America declining well before federal laws against opium?