27
the drug has done for him." I have seen evil
effects of alcohol. I knew one man who cut his
throat in delirium tremens.
I have known
several cases of the evil effects of alcohol, not
many, but certainly some among natives. I cannot
explain why my experience of ganja should differ
from what is frequently asserted. It may be
unique. But it is my experience. I have no
doubt that disease and other evil things which
have no sort of connection with ganja are often
attributed to it. It is natural to cry down the
poor man's stimulant. The rich men and leaders
of society do not use it.
Question 35.—I do not believe that prohibition
of ganja would lead to any appreciable increase in
consumption of alcohol or to any increase at all
in opium. I think the poor man would have to
do without his stimulant. I think the expense of
alcohol has to be taken into account. But the
principal thing is the difference of habit. I know
that a number of poor persons of the same classes
as take ganja already take alcohol. But my ex-
perience is that these poor people take alcohol with
a view to getting intoxicated; and they cannot
get enough without paying high for it. My idea
is that ganja is not used with a view to becoming
intoxicated or incapacitated, but only for relief.
A man says of weak liquor, "Is men nasha nahin
hai"—by which I understand him to mean that
there it is not strong enough to intoxicate. As
to the better classes, I cannot presume to give any
opinion as to whether any of them used ganja for-
merly and have given it up for liquor.
Question 65.—I think that the limit of taxa-
tion in regard to ganja has been reached; for
while the consumption of alcohol has a tendency
to rise, that of ganja has been steadily decreasing.
The consumption of ganja has fallen from an esti-
mated production of 26,677 maunds in 1854 and a
total of 8,125 maunds of retail sale in Bengal in
1873-74, to 5,451 maunds of retail sale in 1892-93.
This shows a marked decrease owing to the grow-
ing taxation. It might be possible to go a little
further without extinguishing ganja; but my
opinion is that if Government went much further
in taxation it would extinguish the industry alto-
gether. That is, if pushed far enough, and not
very far either, an increase in the price of the drug
from increased taxation would tend to extinguish
the demand.
Question 59.—The actual procedure in regard
to the cultivation and distribution of ganja is as
follows:—A man wants to grow. He applies on
a prescribed form for permission to cultivate.
He has to give the survey number of the field
and the area. He may apply for what area he
wants.
License, which is free of any fee, is
never refused except in case of misconduct during
the previous year. I myself have refused on
this ground. After the cultivator gets his license
there is no active interference with him except to
see that the land cultivated corresponds with the
register, so as to check the production. No pres-
sure, of course, would be brought to bear on a
man to cultivate. If he did not, the entry would
be altered. But a man cultivating more than
his license covered would be liable to prosecution.
There is no active interference with the man
beyond this inspection of the fields until the man
has manufactured his crop.
Then he has to
apply for a storage license. In his application he
specifies the kind of ganja, the estimated quanti-
ty, and the number of bundles. The bundles are
of prescribed size. No weighments are made.
The statement of quantity is an estimate. The
cultivator makes the estimate. It is checked by
the supervisor. The cultivator cannot wait for
the supervisor; so he has to check it either in the
place of manufacture at the field or in the cultiva-
tor's store, according to the pressure of work on
him. In many cases there is no need to apply for
storage license when a purchaser is found before
manufacture is complete. The ganja is then taken
direct to the weighing shed. A supervisor should
then be present; but there are only three. The
stuff cannot be removed to the weighing shed
without the supervisor's permission.
In the store the stuff is entirely in the cultiva-
tor's charge; but it is inspected periodically. The
whole of the stocks are, I believe, as a fact, in-
spected once a month, and weighed if there is any
suspicion of fraud, i.e., of clandestine disposal of
any of the stuff.
The goladar is unrestricted in his dealings
with the cultivator; but the supervisor's permis-
sion is required for the removal of the stuff, and
it can only be moved to the Government weighing
shed.
Stocks not sold remain in the cultivator's pri-
vate stores, but are destroyed after two years if
not sold. There is no special standard of wastage,
but a man is expected to explain any serious
variation; and this is one of the reasons why
cultivators will not apply punctually for storage
license.
I should have said that the permission of the
supervisor is necessary before cutting the crop.
But the supervisor need not be present. All the
time the crop is growing, estimates of the crop are
being entered in the diaries; and any important
discrepancy would lead to enquiries being made.
The opportunities for fraud or clandestine dis-
posal of the crop are few—
(1) There is always a chance of pilferage from
the field, generally speaking, by an outsider.
Mendicants have been detected and punish-
ed for this. Pilfering of a trifling character
by the owner would be more difficult of
detection.
Extensive pilfering must be
seldom indulged in, (a) because he has in
all probability entered into negotiations
for disposal of the produce of his whole
field at a better price than he would get
locally, and (b) because it is the interest of
all persons to give information to the police,
and the consequence of detection would be
most serious.
(2) In the above there is an opportunity for
fraud owing to the fact that absolute ac-
curacy of figures is not and cannot be
secured in regard to the quantity in store.
It begins with an estimate, and allowance
has to be made for dryage, damage, and
waste. The only real test is at the weigh-
ing shed.
I think the most favourable opportunity for
fraud is at the time of manufacture. For ten to
one the supervisor has not been able to make the
final estimate; and there the drug is in the hands
of the cultivator and purchaser.
Fraud, when the
stuff is in the store of the cultivator, is much less
likely, because the estimate has been made
At
present the great uncertainty regarding the amount
of damage makes it impossible to insist on ac-
curacy. Therefore I am trying to enforce the rule
that the stores must be "secure." Apart from
this there is no cheek on pilfering in having even
secure store houses so long as they are in the hands
of the cultivators.