The East India company deals in opium to China

This may be a well known episode in history to others, but for me I am just learning. This is an interesting episode.

"In the 18th century, ... the (East India) Company created a British monopoly on opium buying in Bengal by prohibiting licensing opium farmers and prohibiting private cultivation. The monopoly system established in 1799 continued with minimal changes until 1947.

"... 1799 ... the drug was smuggled into China from Bengal by traffickers and agency houses such as Jardine, Matheson & Co and Dent & Co. in amounts averaging 900 tons a year. The proceeds of the drug-smugglers landing their cargoes at Lintin Island were paid into the Company's factory at Canton..."

"In 1838 with the amount of smuggled opium entering China approaching 1,400 tons a year, the Chinese imposed a death penalty for opium smuggling and sent a Special Imperial Commissioner, Lin Zexu, to curb smuggling. This resulted in the First Opium War (1839–42). After the war Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Nanking and the Chinese market opened to the opium traders of Britain and other nations. The Jardines and Apcar and Company dominated the trade, although P&O also tried to take a share. A Second Opium War fought by Britain and France against China lasted from 1856 until 1860 and led to the Treaty of Tientsin which legalised the importation of opium."

The East India Company

----


All I can say about this is that - these people do not give a rats ass about the welfare of a people.


----

By 1838, the British were selling roughly 1,400 tons of opium per year to China. Legalisation of the opium trade was the subject of ongoing debate within the Chinese administration, but it was repeatedly rejected, and as of 1838 the government sentenced native drug traffickers to death.

In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor appointed scholar-official Lin Zexu to the post of Special Imperial Commissioner, with the task of eradicating the opium trade. Lin sent an open letter to Queen Victoria questioning the moral reasoning of the British government.

Lin banned the sale of opium and demanded that all supplies of the drug be surrendered to the Chinese authorities. He also closed the channel to Canton, effectively holding British traders hostage in the city. As well as seizing opium supplies in the factories, Chinese troops boarded British ships in international waters outside Chinese jurisdiction, where their cargo was still legal, and destroyed the opium aboard.

During April and May 1839, British and American dealers surrendered 20,283 chests and 200 sacks of opium which was publicly destroyed on the beach outside of Guangzhou. Lin was able to sustain stability and prohibition policy for many months.

After the opium was surrendered, trade was restarted on the strict condition that no more drugs would be smuggled into China. Lin demanded that all merchants sign a bond promising not to deal in opium, under penalty of death. The British officially opposed signing of the bond, but some merchants who did not trade opium, such as Olyphant & Co. were willing to sign.

The First Opium War


----

Dent & Co. or Dent's, was one of the wealthiest British merchant firms, or Hongs, active in China during the 19th century. A direct rival to Jardine, Matheson & Co, together with Russell & Co., these three companies are recognised as the original Canton Hongs active in early Colonial Hong Kong.

Dent & Co.

Opium was huge. Like HUGE huge.

Opium dens were a popular pass-time for a lot of people back then.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Today it is huge. Like HUGE huge.

Only it is concentrated and sold as Heroin, and also made into prescription pills like Oxycodone/OxyContin, etc.

a reply to: nOraKat

Yes. I'm aware.

And since you know that, I'm kind of surprised you had no idea how huge it was back then.

a reply to: nOraKat

It explains to me and others why the war went to Afghanistan . The Taliban had stopped the opium production and so the need to restart the trade .

This 2013 corbet report also speeks about the subject


You might like a audio file on some history about china and the drug issue they had to deal with . The ones on Mao Zedong are especially interesting . soundcloud.com...

a reply to: nOraKat
If you are interested in the East India Company, you might also like to read up on the fact that it was the Company, not the British state, that conquered India. As a sort of side-effect of protecting its trade there from French competition.
They ruled territories in India until the Indian Mutiny, after which the government at home took over the responsibility, and the Company was wound up in 1874.
(So it's a case of "dealt in opium" rather than "deals in opium".)

a reply to: Shamrock6

The point of the post was not to say how huge it was, but to point out that the government was involved in the drug trade.

a reply to: DISRAELI

With such government support such as *establishing government sanctioned monopolies*, and sending ships and armies to wage wars to protect the trade, its hard to tell the difference between the two.

a reply to: nOraKat

With such government support such as *establishing government sanctioned monopolies*, and sending ships and armies to wage wars to protect the trade, its hard to tell the difference between the two.

Quite so. In fact, the East India Company was founded by a royal charter and the Crown received a share of the proceeds from the exploitation of India (and other countries, too; the Company didn't stop at India by any means).

The Company's charter was renewed periodically by the British Parliament. New conditions and taxes on Company operations were imposed whenever it came up for renewal; it was Parliament that oversaw the manner in which India was governed and administered; India was seen as being held in trust for the Crown by the Company.

The Charter of 1813 explicitly asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Company's Indian territories. Then, with the Government of India Act of 1858, the British government nationalised the Company.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The story in the first video:

..that Soldiers in Afghanistan are there to protect the heroin production..

.. and NATO acting as a heroin trafficker, distributing the heroin to be sold in their own countries..

It all sounds very bizarre.

If you told me this years ago I would not even have considered it, but now after reading some of this history, it is not that hard for me to believe.

If its true, then not much has changed. It is a bizarre revelation.

Maybe they get a kick out of doing this crazy sh#t, feeling bad-ass and being - above the law.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Shamrock6

The point of the post was not to say how huge it was, but to point out that the government was involved in the drug trade.

A trade which was perfectly legal, btw, until it wasn't. As your source points out.

a reply to: Phage

Still f'ed up..

"Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws, but I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."

- official Lin Zexu wrote to 'Her Majesty'

Lin pledged that nothing would divert him from his missions," If the traffic in opium were not stopped, a few decades from now we shall not only be without soldiers to resist the enemy, but also in want of silver to provide an army.

The EIC's response - you will take our opium dammit! kaboom! Stab / shoot .. arrrrgh

Hong Kong was seized by the British and a free and open port. Tariffs were abolished thus preventing the Chinese from raising future duties to protect domestic industries and extraterritorial practices exempted Westerners from Chinese law.

Most importantly, the opium problem was never addressed and after the treaty was signed opium addiction doubled.

The First Opium War

.. and btw, its still legal.. for the pharmaceutical companies to sell.

a reply to: nOraKat

Still f'ed up..

No more so than a lot of practices during that era. And less so than many.
Ain't imperialism grand?

a reply to: Phage

Its f'ed up because its detrimental to people and families, and causes great suffering.

And to push that onto people knowingly..

a reply to: nOraKat

So. You're in favor of drug laws?

Tell me, do you think that the Chinese emperor was really concerned about the welfare of the people or just on the problem of imports in general? The movement of wealth out of the country?

a reply to: Phage

Do you think that the Chinese emperor was really concerned about the welfare of the people or just on the problem of imports in general? The movement of wealth out of the country?

Both, I should think. Mass opium addiction has debilitating effects on economies that rely largely on manual labour.

Your point about drug laws is good as far as it goes, but we must not forget that China in the nineteenth century was a despotism. The emperor or his eunuchs and mandarins didn't fancy the idea of the common folk being able to escape from their grip into an opium dream whenever they felt like it. To be trite, drug-taking is a form of rebellion as well as a form of escape; the authorities have always recognized this.

Still, my sympathies are entirely with the Chinese. I don't think economic principles should be imposed at gunpoint on those who don't wish to subscribe to them (I don't like Marxists either). China, after all, was and is a sovereign nation.

a reply to: Phage

Not sure what you are getting at..

Yes, to consideration/compassion ..pro-welfare gov't. Welfare before profit. Not sure about drug laws.. I cannot say I have a solution to that. Prob. opium based, coca based, and some methamphetamine drugs should be regulated.

It shouldn't be pushed on people.

Don't think I need to say that..

I don't think the Emperor's disposition makes the act any better. The scholar Lin seemed to have good intentions.

a reply to: Phage

Fortunately, unlike you and others here, most people of the time had a healthy reaction to this:

Critics.. denounced the war as "unjust and iniquitous" and criticised Lord Palmerston's willingness "to protect an infamous contraband traffic." The public and press in the United States and Britain expressed outrage that Britain was supporting the opium trade.

Actually I think the reaction, or non-reaction (of ATS) is bizarre, especially considering that it may still go on today. It reflects the mindset of our world leaders.

well, if it keeps the plebs happy...
drug pushing still goes on to-day, we all know that

Are American Troops Protecting Afghan Opium?

As many have noted, the U.S. government has – at least at some times in some parts of the world – protected drug operations. (Big American banks also launder money for drug cartels.. The U.S. military has openly said that it is protecting Afghani poppy fields..

----

REAL REASON FOR AFGHANISTAN WAR

----

Why US guarding opium