Chinese legalise the opium trade?

I'm going to leave it to someone else to refute your argument that opium is not particularly addictive; I don't know much about pharmaceuticals. But I do know my Chinese history. Clearly, you do not.
Clearly the British were (at the time) convinced that 'opium' was a menace only to the underclasses. Lots of people were 'opium-eaters', and it wasn't a huge problem. However, the operative word there is 'eater'. The British usually took opium either as laudanum (opium in alcohol, drunk) or actually swallowed opium pills. In either case the drug, while addictive, didn't have the same rush as other, more direct, forms. The method the Chinese used was smoking it, and that was FAR more addictive. Compare crack cocaine vs regular cocaine, for instance.

But... There was already lots of evidence that opium (even as laudanum) was addictive (to some extent), and good evidence that smoking opium was much worse (the EIC had problems with some of its workers smoking opium, especially in Assam).

So, yes 67th Tigers is basically spouting the same lines that the British opium traders did, with far less justification.
 
Yes, also in the 19th century. The standards werent on the "19th century world" werent just set by the UK, you know:rolleyes:

Susano

As Tyr says opium wasn't illegal in most of the world during this period so not quite sure what your saying here?

Steve
 

Susano

Banned
Susano

As Tyr says opium wasn't illegal in most of the world during this period so not quite sure what your saying

"Most of the world"... well, technically, yes. However - well, the Chinese percentage of the world population was considerably lower back then than it is nowadays, but it was still significant. So the opium ban there cant just be glanced over - the Chinese set "world normality" just as much as the British or other European countries did.
 
"Most of the world"... well, technically, yes. However - well, the Chinese percentage of the world population was considerably lower back then than it is nowadays, but it was still significant. So the opium ban there cant just be glanced over - the Chinese set "world normality" just as much as the British or other European countries did.

Susano

Actually the population of China is proportionally probably about the same today as in 1830, if not a bit higher. However the factor that they were pretty much an exception to the rest of the world does mean it makes their behaviour an exception. As I said I haven't claimed they shouldn't be allowed to ban opium. I'm just pointing out it was very much an exception.

This is a different matter from the even greater isolation of the Chinese in their rejection of the diplomatic rules elsewhere in the world.

Steve
 
Yes, also in the 19th century. The standards werent on the "19th century world" werent just set by the UK, you know:rolleyes:

A bit wrong on two counts there.
Firstly- standards were set by the UK far more than you realise, just as they're set by the US today. There wasn't the mass media effect the modern world has but British influence was still large, mainly in high society.
Secondly- it wasn't just the UK who were fine about opium. Most countries were. The US for instance didn't even start acting against it till right at the end of the 19th century,

Really, demonising the UK and painting them as modern day drug pushers is a really overly simplified and wrong view of history.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
不对! The idea that Lin Zexu was "part of an internal powerplay between the Han and the Manchu, using the barbarians as a pawn" is simply untrue. The ruling dynasty had been in power for two hundred years; Manchu-Han relations had long ceased to be a major issue.

So why a mere nine years after the first anglo-chinese war finishes does the Han population of Nanjiang rise up and massacre the Manchu banner population?

Imperial China was under military occupation, it just so happens that the occupiers had the same coloured skin as the occupied.

The first anglo-chinese war occurs between the White Lotus Rebellion (1796-1804) and the Tiaping Rebellion (1850-64). Both are bloody Han uprisings against the Manchus, the later killing 1/8th of the civilian population (making it an attrocity of a scale rarely witnessed in the west).

Any idea that Imperial China is a settled happy state is erroneous.

And no, Lin was not sent to shut down all foreign trade. He was specifically charged with stopping the importation of opium, and it was Lin who had been chosen due to his strong anti-opium stance. Had the Daoguang Emperor wished to stop all foreign trade through Guangzhou, Lin would not have been his choice for imperial commissioner; again, he had been picked based on his previous campaigns to eradicate opium in other provinces.

So, why does he also attempt to shut down the salt trade?

The Imperial court is concerned with China, and with the apparent outflow of silver (although the high price of silver was actually a result of the earlier White Lotus rebellion, and indeed by the 1830's silver is being released back into the market from the hoards and the price is dropping dramatically). Whilst perhaps some were legitimatly concerned over the use of opium (and Lin is certainly sincere)

And as for Palmerston's letter, the "indignities put upon Her Majesty's Superintendent, and by the outrageous proceedings adopted towards Her Majesty's other subjects in China" that you cite refer to the Chinese blocking the exit from Guangzhou until Charles Elliott (the Superintendent) persuaded traders to turn over their opium, which Lin promptly destroyed.

No, the Opium was all handed over in early June 1839.

In October 1839 (4 months after the Opium issue was resolved in Lin's favour) Lin then expelled the British from the port of Canton and threatened to execute the entire crew of any merchantman not signing a Chinese bond. He despatched a naval squadron under Admiral Kuan to blockade the British in Hong Kong. Elliot's response was to have HMS Volage and HMS Hyacinth move to blockade any British trader from entering Canton and potentially precipitating a war, as the British constitution required British subjects to have a fair trial (and did allow other states to judge it's citizens, but Chinese justice was exceptionally corrupt), and he would have to intervene.

When a British merchantman attempted to run the blockade, the RN attempted to intercept, but the Chinese fleet blockading Hong Kong under Kuan moved to position to attack the port of Hong Kong and deployed fire rafts, after several warnings Elliot ordered them driven off, and a brief one sided battle occurred, ending as soon as the Chinese fleet sailed off.

It was this blatent Chinese aggression in October-November that precipitated Anglo-Indian intervention, not the Opium issue which had already been settled.

I'm going to leave it to someone else to refute your argument that opium is not particularly addictive; I don't know much about pharmaceuticals. But I do know my Chinese history. Clearly, you do not.

Yes, it's best to stick with the party line, questioning "China as victim" is liable to get you fired and exiled. I think, to quote Prof. Yuan Weishi, you've been "drinking the wolf's milk".
 

Susano

Banned
So why a mere nine years after the first anglo-chinese war finishes does the Han population of Nanjiang rise up and massacre the Manchu banner population?
Because the ruling dynasty was unpopular, especially after the lost war? That was an insurrection, not an ethnic strife, especially seeing how the Banners were not exactly ethnically pure anymore, anyways.

The first anglo-chinese war occurs between the White Lotus Rebellion (1796-1804) and the Tiaping Rebellion (1850-64). Both are bloody Han uprisings against the Manchus, the later killing 1/8th of the civilian population (making it an attrocity of a scale rarely witnessed in the west).
Both are bloody insurrection against the ruling dynasty. The Qing dynasty was not the stablest of Chinese dynasties, by no means, but it also was no military occupation regime. It just was another Chinese dynasty, albeit one of the more unpopular ones (pretty much from the start, but then at the start they were indeed still foreign conquerors).

Yes, it's best to stick with the party line,
You know that argument might have merit - but coming from you, its merely incredibly ironic.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Clearly the British were (at the time) convinced that 'opium' was a menace only to the underclasses. Lots of people were 'opium-eaters', and it wasn't a huge problem. However, the operative word there is 'eater'. The British usually took opium either as laudanum (opium in alcohol, drunk) or actually swallowed opium pills. In either case the drug, while addictive, didn't have the same rush as other, more direct, forms. The method the Chinese used was smoking it, and that was FAR more addictive. Compare crack cocaine vs regular cocaine, for instance.

But... There was already lots of evidence that opium (even as laudanum) was addictive (to some extent), and good evidence that smoking opium was much worse (the EIC had problems with some of its workers smoking opium, especially in Assam).

So, yes 67th Tigers is basically spouting the same lines that the British opium traders did, with far less justification.

It's prettymuch the other way around:

Method - approx efficiency
IV - 100% (effects are instant)
Enema - 100% (near instant)
Swallowed - 25% (15mins to an hour, depending on how full the stomach is)
Smoked - 2% (instant)

So an extremely typical opium smoker (3g pd, 12 pipes) is taking a dose of 4-6mg of morphine over a prolonged period. A pipe of opium would typically deliver 330ug of morphine (i.e. it takes 6-7 pipes of opium to deliver the same morphine as a standard 25 drops of laundenum).

If you read the experiences of those that smoked opium, whilst onset is rapid, there is no real "high" like with cocaine freebase, so comparisons to the McDonalds of the cocaine world aren't really applicable. The effects of the opium-tobacco mix were relief from pain, followed by deep sleep after 10-20 pipes (depending upon tolerence and body mass), at least some of the effects must be ascribed to the large does of nicotine taken with the morphine.
 
Because the ruling dynasty was unpopular, especially after the lost war? That was an insurrection, not an ethnic strife, especially seeing how the Banners were not exactly ethnically pure anymore, anyways.

While there are arguments that the Qing were viewed as alien, this isn't one of them. It isn't like the Ming iddn't also face peasant rebellions...
 
Well, yes, by their detractors. I think at the very latest by the 19th century that was more a propaganda argument than any reality.
:confused:There was a strong anti-Qing feeling at the time, which manifests itself as Triads, for one thing. Then, somewhat later, as the Taiping revolt.

Yes, I'm sure that many peasants grumbled at their overlords, whoever they were; and yes, it wasn't at the level of 'I'm going to throw away my life by revolting'; but as a level of chronic dissatisfaction I understand that it WAS very much reality.
 
Top