305
make in 1893. I have no experience beyond that
acquired in the course of that inquiry. I have
nothing to add now to what I have written in the
Report. I have made no systematic inquiry since
then. I wished to make further physiological
inquiries on my return from leave; but I found
Dr. Cunningham had been asked to conduct ex-
periments. In regard to the chemical part of my
report, I was extremely disappointed, as it was
only partial and inconclusive. At home I tried
to get the matter taken up. I have received a
letter from Professor Dunstane suggesting further
inquiry in a manner and at a cost he indicated.
I recommended a reference to this Commission and
said I would mention the subject also. I put in
his letter with a strong recommendation that some
such steps as he indicates should be taken to com-
plete the chemical inquiry which I regard as very
important, both practically and scientifically. It
would have great practical importance in connec-
tion with the use of the drug Cannabis indica,
though not in connection with the questions be-
fore this Commission. As to myself, then, my
views regarding hemp drugs are contained in my
Report and my written answers to the questions of
the Commission. I have nothing which I desire
to add.
In page 62 of my Report I describe the effects
of bhang (Chapter VI). I took bhang myself
and observed the symptoms. The tendency to
laugh was not marked. I was rather depressed,
but this may have been because I was not well at
the time. I experienced the thirst and increased
appetite. I took the usual dose made in an emul-
sion as described by Hem Chandra Kerr (but
without the spices) about a tola and half of dry
leaves. I was rather disappointed with the result.
I have also seen the drug taken by natives, men
habituated to it, and seen the effects.
The experiments on monkeys and cats were
conducted by me (page 64); but the difficulty of
administering to the monkeys made the experi-
ments unsatisfactory, so I recorded little about
them. I have observed the condition of the pupil
with human smokers, but have not seen dilatation
with them; nor have I seen contraction. In
regard to cats, it has to be borne in mind that
they got very strong doses of the drug. Dr.
Russell's experiments quoted by me at page 65
are, I understand, in addition to those conducted
by him in Assam and quoted in the Assam Excise
Report of 1881-82. My view in page 74 of my
Report that a dose of ganja drunk is twice as
strong as the same dose smoked, is based exclusively
on Dr. Russell's paper quoted at page 65; for
I have never inhaled ganja by smoking. My
statement that ganja is five times as powerful as
bhang is based on the quantity of resin obtainable.
(Cf. also the remarks at the top of page 11;
the remarks about charas there are quoted from
Volume III of Dymock and Warden's Pharmaco-
graphia Indica.) His experiments with pure
charas from Central Asia showed 75 per cent. of
'resin as compared with 25 per cent. in ganja
(vide Table X on page 32 of my Report).
On page 75 the remarks about indigestion
being traceable to hemp, especially bhang, are not
based on the examination of many cases but on
what I have heard of the common idea of people
having pains and flatulence and so on and attribut-
ing them to the drugs. If this is so, I fancy it is
due to indigestion caused by using so much vege-
table matter. I have sought to accommodate
with the slight effects I had seen the stories told
to me in perfect good faith as to the evils result-
ing from the use of the drug. My comparison
between the effects of smoking and drinking hemp
on page 75 is not based on observation of cases,
but principally on hearsay evidence. It is based
on an attempt to accommodate what I have
learned from others with what little I have seen.
I have seen many ganja-smokers, but I have not
seen the same cases often. I have not observed
the history of cases so as to observe the effects.
I have seen for the most part people who smoked
when they were tired. I have also seen the fakirs
who have smoked largely. I have as a rule seen no
effects except suffusion of the eyes. I saw a man
in a frenzied condition only once among a company
of fakirs. He was supposed to be possessed. I
was told that his state was attributable to ganja;
but I cannot put any reliance on the case, as I
had no evidence apart from that statement. My
knowledge of bhang consumers enables me to say
that the darwans take bhang to a considerable
extent; but that is the extent of my experience:
I have only seen it among these darwans. I have
not been able to get any native gentleman to
admit the use.
The ordinary method of smoking ganja is
inhaling from a chillum either direct or through
the hands. I have neither seen a cloth used.
The effort of inhaling is great. I was never
able to inhale myself. A moderate smoker takes
three whiffs at a time and that is all. That
is the regulation dose. I have seen one man
smoke by himself. I have more usually seen
smoking in company. The three strong steady
pulls are taken in succession by a man. He does
not blow anything out till they are over. After
his three whiffs he passes on the pipe to his neigh-
bour. It does not come back to him again, so
far as I have seen: the one set of three whiffs is
all. Perhaps the reddening of the conjunctivæ is
due to over-exertion in inhaling. I cannot say.
I never saw any excessive consumers except a few
fakirs. The excessive consumer smokes exactly
like the others, but would take more than three
whiffs and would take the chillum again and
again. I have never seen tobacco inhaled in this
way by natives. I have not been interested in
this point. In my experiment with ganja, I used
a chillum and took three whiffs, but could not
inhale. There were no effects. What I used was
unmixed ganja.
In my written answer to question 45, I refer
to cases of insanity. I discussed the cases with
Dr. Walsh and other medical friends. I had not
the cases nor the papers before me.
APPENDIX.
Letter from Professor Dunstane put
in by DR. PRAIN.
Dated 17 Bloomsbury Square, London, W. C., the 18th
November 1893.
From—PROFESSOR DUNSTANE, Secretary, Pharmacolo-
gical Committee of the Royal Society,
To—SURGEON-CAPTAIN DAVID PRAIN.
I much regret that we were unsuccessful in try-
ing to meet when you were in town. I should like
to have discussed this whole subject of Indian
hemp with you and to have explained to you my
difficulties in starting the chemical
enquiry. I
have already made preliminary experiments with
medicinal preparations of the drug (made in this
country), and I feel no doubt that I should be able
to solve the problem of finding and defining the
active constituent. The work would, however, be
long and troublesome, even with the genuine
2 T