16
remember seeing a person intoxicated by ganja. I
only know ganja intoxication by description, and
it has been described to me as not dissimilar to that
caused by alcohol. I have seen a great many
cases of drunkenness from toddy. It must, I
suppose, injure a person to get intoxicated from
alcohol in any form. I do not know of any
adulteration of the drugs. There does not appear
to me to be any necessity for Government to
take measures to prevent adulteration. I think
40 tolas is an unnecessarily high maximum for
legal possession of ganja. I think five would be
rather too low, owing to the shops being scat--
tered; but it would be sufficient in average cases.
Question 68.—I think there is no prohibition
against consumption of bhang or ganja in the
premises in the shops of Surat. The shops are
not a nuisance, and the fact that smoking is there
done in public would be rather deterrent than
otherwise.
9. Evidence of MR. J. M. CAMPBELL, C.I.E., Collector of Land Revenue and Customs and Opium, Bombay.
Oral evidence.
I have twenty-four years' service in all divisions
of the presidency (except Sind).
I do not think the hemp drugs are used to
any great extent. I find the actual consumption
to be about 8.6 seers per thousand of population,
and there is no smuggling in Bombay; so that
this means less than it would mean in other pro
- v i n c e s w h e r e t h e r e i s s m u g g l i n g . D h a r w a r i s t h e
only district where there is marked increase, and this
is accompanied by decrease in liquor consumption.
There liquor seems to be displaced by drugs; but
this is not the case elsewhere in the province.
I do not think that the drugs do any appreciable
harm to the people. I think there has been an
impression in the province that there is harm done
by these drugs, and that they are not a good
source of revenue. There is an idea that nothing
should be done to stimulate consumption. No
doubt to aim at revenue only might stimulate
consumption. But on the one hand, the impres
-sion regarding the ill-effects of the drugs is not
so strong as it was. When one is not giving
attention to the subject, the only thing one
notices is the excessive use. The moderate use
does not obtrude itself on notice. When one sees
more of the subject, the effects are found to be
generally less hurtful. Then, on the other hand,
to take up the drugs more carefully and aim at
control and to raise taxation could not itself tend
to increase consumption. But a high taxation
might lead to smuggling and other illicit practices.
This would not, however, lead to increased con
-sumption. There would be special danger of
smuggling from Native States outside the pro
-vince, such as Indore on the one side and
Hyderabad on the other. I do not think that
taxation could be considerably raised without
coming to some arrangements with Native States
within and without the province. Some such
arrangements might be made with the Native
States within the presidency as have been made
in respect to opium; and I think the compensa--
tion payable would be small, and that the Native
States would have no objection.
I am not of opinion that the effects of the drugs
are such as to justify prohibition nor any stringent
restriction. I think the producers in Ahmednagar
and Satara would resent very much any restric--
tion of cultivation. I think that the prohibition
of cultivation in those districts where it is
trifling, so as to confine it to the two districts
above named, might cause some little dissatis
- f a c t i o n , b u t w o u l d b e f e a s i b l e . I t c o u l d b e d o n e .
The system of restricted cultivation and bonded
warehouses, however introduces so many com-plications, as compared with the present system,
that it would require careful consideration. I
think a R10 (ten-rupee) transport fee per
maund could be levied without any change of
system, and the present system could not work
well with a higher fee. Something like the
Central Provinces system might be required. I
do not recommend this at present in the Deccan.
The rise in price by a tax of, say, R2 (two rupees)
per seer, as in the Central Provinces, would be
very much felt, and would cause more discontent
than would be worth while exciting for the small
increase of revenue that would result. If there
were a large increase of revenue it might be
different. As it is, I do not, as at present advised,
recommend such a change as far as the interests
of Bombay are concerned. I admit, however,
that if the question were regarded
as part of a general system of excise, there might be othe
r grounds for taking action towards equalizing
taxation. Smuggling from Bombay to the
Central Provinces must be encouraged by the
difference in rates. I think also, perhaps, that
the heavy general excise taxation Bombay
—the high revenue realised from excise as compared
with other provinces—would be an argument
against increasing taxation on any special in
-toxicant, such as hemp drugs. I believe that the
two habits, liquor and drugs, are practically quite
distinct. If they were fully distinct, then there
would be little force in the last argument I have
referred to. Another objection to high taxation
of drugs is that Hindus and some Muhammadans
might object to it owing to the increased price of
drugs being an inducement to take to liquor,
which their religion condemns. In view of all
the circumstances of the case, I would not
impose on the drug more than a transport tax
of R10 a maund under existing circumstances.
I think that the object of Government in taxa
- t i o n o f t h e d r u g s s h o u l d b e t h e g r e a t e s t r e v e n u e
with the least possible consumption, that is, I
think the drug is sufficiently harmful to make it
a proper thing to seek to keep the consumption
low. I think that the natural demand must be
met to prevent smuggling and such practices;
but the Government should seek to keep the
facilities for supply as low as possible. I do not
think the present demand is too great. I would
therefore rather aim at not increasing it than at
cutting down the existing sources or facilities for
supply and reducing consumption. The latter
would unnecessarily cause discontent, and be
unadvisable. I would aim at getting as much
revenue as possible without increasing the existing
demand and consumption, and without interfering
with it.
As to the maximum of possession, I think that