184
we shall be justified in advocating restriction so
long as we do not interfere with the legitimate
requirements of the people, and so long as we do
not incur any risk of illicit dealings or of driving
people to have recourse to more injurious intox¬
icants. Revenue consideration is at once thrown
out of our consideration. For, according to the
theory I have enunciated above, it is merely an
accident that Government derives a revenue from
excise. The imposition of the duty is merely a
weapon for restricting consumption.
Now, let us take up the first point we have to
consider—legitimate requirements of the people.
I have already tried to establish that craving
for ganja is an abnormal one. It is a vice
contracted by evil company. It has no beneficial
effects; on the contrary it is a most deleterious
article to consume.
The people have no
natural longing for it. It is not a necessity
with them. Only those who have created an
artificial and unnatural habit for themselves
find it necessary to continue the habit. Even in
their cases jail reports show that it is not difficult
to shake off the habit.
I therefore hold that the consumption of ganja
ought to be absolutely prohibited if it be practi¬
cable to do so. I do not, however, think that
that would be practicable. Total prohibition cannot
be enforced without maintaining an army of
detectives totally disproportionate with the object
to be gained.
Let us, therefore, see whether further restric¬
tions can or cannot be imposed on the consump¬
tion of the drug.
The total number of licenses issued for the sale
of this drug in Bengal during 1891-92 was 2,578.
The quantity of ganja consumed in that year was
5,677 maunds. The licenses are granted by
auction to the highest bidders. The rates of duty
imposed were R7, R6-4, and R5 for each seer of
chur, round, and flat ganja, respectively. The
rates at present are R8, R7-4, and R6, re¬
spectively. The total revenue derived from duty
on ganja and license fees amounted in 1891-92 to
R22,92,568, so that on the average each seer of
ganja paid a revenue of R10 during the year.
Of this amount, the duty varied from R5 to R7,
so that a large part of the revenue has been derived
from license fees. It proves also that the duty on
ganja can be easily raised to R10 a seer. The
effect will be a reduction in the license fees,
without appreciably diminishing the consumption.
The fact that the abkars have been paying R10
per seer to Government whilst Government has
imposed a duty on the drug not exceeding R8 a
seer shows that the present rate of duty has no
deterrent effect upon consumption. For if ganja
is, from its own demand, capable of realising a
price of more than R10 a seer, any duty less than
that has no effect in decreasing consumption,
whilst it is manifestly unreasonable to leave that
portion of the revenue which is derived in excess
of the duty to the uncertain contingencies of
competition by the abkars at the time of granting-
the licenses by auction.
To restrict consumption, therefore, we must
raise the duty on ganja far above R10.
The objections to suddenly raise the duty far
above its present limit are—
(A) It will drive people to resort to illicit
dealings.
(B) It will drive people to resort to other
forms of intoxicants.
Under head (A) we have to contend with two
difficulties—
(a) The people may clandestinely grow ganja
in their own premises.
(b) They may smuggle it from the tracts
where it is produced under Govern¬
ment supervision.
With regard to (a), it is to be observed that
successful cultivation of ganja is an operation
requiring a great deal of care, industry, and skill,
extending over several months of the year.
Surely it would be an unmerited slur on the
detective ability of our officers to say that they
would be unable to detect a man who would be
carrying on an unlawful occupation, extending
over several months of the year, and that not
within his own house, but on open lands requiring
to be watered by the rains and to be lighted
by the sun.
That an illicit cultivation of ganja is now prac¬
tically impossible is admitted on all sides.
Mr. Samuells, the Excise Commissioner of
Bengal, says at page 36 of his Excise Administra¬
tion Report for the year 1891-92:—
"As to smuggling, any one who reads in that
report the elaborate process by which ganja is
manufactured from the green plant must admit
that smuggling during cultivation would not be
of much use, and the manufacture is not one
of those operations that can be performed in
secret."
There is one point to which I wish to lay
particular stress in this connection. The cultiva¬
tion of ganja has been confined to the Rajshahi
tracts for nearly half a century. Previous to that
even there is no evidence to show that ganja used
to be ever grown on a large scale in any other
part of Bengal. It follows, therefore, that the
cultivators of Bengal, even if they had ever culti¬
vated ganja, have long forgotten the method of
its cultivation, and would be unable to cultivate
it now even if they be willing to do so. Further,
it has been by no means established that the soil
and climate of other parts of Bengal would be at
all suitable to the growth of the ganja-bearing
hemp plant. An experiment to cultivate the
ganja at Sibpur under the scientific supervi¬
sion of the Director of Land Records has by
no means proved a success. It is also known
that the presence of a single male plant is sufficient
to destroy the whole crop of a field. Ganja experts
would be necessary to root out the male plants
before one can hope to successfully raise a crop of
ganja.
Under these circumstances, I am of opinion
that a further restriction on the use of ganja is
not likely to lead the people to resort to illicit
cultivation.
With regard to (b), I must say that petty thefts
of ganja from the ganja mahals will always take
place, whatever establishment we may keep to
guard the tracts. But I think, with our detectives
awake, any extensive smuggling would be simply
impossible. Ganja is incapable of extensive
smuggling. Its bulk is against such a practice.
You cannot keep concealed within your clothes
and bedding ten seers of ganja, though you would
easily be able to so conceal double the amount of
opium.
But what makes one particularly confident that
there would be no danger of smuggling is the
analogous case which we have of opium. Even
with its increased price ganja would not be more