WI: Chinese grow pot to counter opium

Opium is not an more addictive than marijuana (in fact a lot less). You're ascribing the properties of Heroin to Opium, which is quite a common mistake. They don't even act on the same receptor.

:confused:

You obviously have little experience with opium. Or marijuana.

EDIT: To exemplify, I've got a few friends who have voluntarily gone to rehab for opiate addiction. I don't even know anyone who has gone to rehab for marijuana addiction who wasn't sent there by court order.

And the bit about them binding to different receptors is bullshit, too. They both bind to the u-opiod, though heroin binds to other ones, as well.
 
Last edited:
People always forget how open Europe of the time was to opium.
I can't remember the quote now but I do remember reading something good about the late Victorian/Edwardian period being one big drug fuelled haze for British high society.

It wasn't seen as forcing it on the Chinese to get them hooked, etc... It was just trade.
The stupid analogy often made is its like someone coming and selling heroin or crack on the streets of London...but even beyond the Brits not selling it on the streets it wasn't seen like that. Its more like a country suddenly deciding to ban cake- utterly ridiculous to the outside world.
Of course it wasn't right to go against Chinese laws just because there was money to be made but its not as bad as its made out. Had it been seen in the light it would be today then the British empire would have got far more involved on the side of the Chinese, as it was it was the traders seen as far more in the right especially given the Chinese had taken to killing them.
 
By the way, if anybody wants to access a more even handed account of the incident that isn't based around the insidious plots of Fu Manchu, you can find something here: http://books.google.com/books?id=8LOkbOxyNYwC&pg=PA184&dq=arsenic+"hong+kong"+"opium+war"#PPA185,M1

Naturally I have no idea what could possibly have motivated a man to try and poison the British, given that they were selling a drug freely available and were beings of sweetness and light. I can only assume it has to do with petty irritation at perceived slights.
 
Last edited:
Well, Opium was sourced mainly from within China proper (China growing ca. 85% of the global Opium supply). Imports from India were fairly minor (and outside of the control of the Imperial Court, hence the resistance to Indian Opium, it was about market share).

Opium addiction was practically unknown amongst the Chinese. The pattern of use in China was as a analgesic, not a narcotic.

The "Opium Wars" are a later rebranding (by Imperial Japan) of the Anglo-Chinese Wars to justify their attempted annexation of China.
Surely you must be using numbers from late 19th century. Before The First Opium War production and use was prohibited. Opium importation skyrocketed following the two opium wars.

Opium wasn't an issue to the British (although it was to the Chinese Government, the British were undercutting their Opium and taking market share). Silver was also of how importance to China (the decade before the 1st Anglo-Chinese War had seen silver prices skyrocket in China, so China wished to impose more restrictive trade practices to increase the amount of silver in circulation), much less so than to Britain (who had seen increases to profits due to the high price of silver in China compared to Europe).

Indeed, when the Chinese government sent the army to seize Opium coming into the docks of Canton (which incidently, was then sold, not destroyed, by the Chinese government), the British did not react (1839).
Could you provide a source to substantiate the claim that the Chinese government (presumably you're referring to Commissioner Lin) sold the opium seized. Its an accepted fact that Lin publicly destroyed the opium stock with quick lime.

I think it's well established that the Chinese government wanted to stem the outflow of silver caused by the illegal opium trade. But your assertion that the bulk of opium production in 1839 was in China seems highly unlikely - as is the assertion that opium users were not addicts.

The 2nd Anglo-Chinese War was triggered by a Chinese government plot to poison the European inhabitants of Hong Kong (arsenic in the bread) and the Chinese Army once again ranging against Europeans living in China. It was this that triggered Palmerston to send an a retaliatory force, not control of any Opium, and indeed Indian Opium exports were slashed by the war.
You can't be serious. The second war was also known as The Arrow War, because it was triggered by the incident involving the British flagged junk Arrow. It's main objective was to open up more treaty ports and force China to legalize the opium trade. It was controversial at the time because the Causes belli was criticized as being inadequate against a civilize nation. Which then triggered an argument over whether China was civilized, and the conclusion reached that it was not.
 
So the prevailing opinion is that pot would not be a substitute for opium addicts? What about first time or recreational users? Would low cost, legal marijuana offer sufficient a high for those seeking it to pass over opium?
 
So the prevailing opinion is that pot would not be a substitute for opium addicts? What about first time or recreational users? Would low cost, legal marijuana offer sufficient a high for those seeking it to pass over opium?

I would say it depends on how it's consumed and in what environment. If it's through a narghile (aka hookah), for example, it might be pleasurable and would make someone high, but it has to be over a considerable period of time.
 
I would say it depends on how it's consumed and in what environment. If it's through a narghile (aka hookah), for example, it might be pleasurable and would make someone high, but it has to be over a considerable period of time.
I'm not familiar with the paraphernalia. So smoking marijuana with the opium pipe wouldn't do?
 
No way. It took Britain the better part of a century to conquer India, and that was mostly by skilfully exploiting the subcontinent's political division. It would have been exceedingly difficult, long and costly for the British to pull that off in China, even in its weakened state. And that's assuming the other Western powers would have sat still and let it happen.

In the end , I can't really concieve the British allying with Confucian Bureaucrats, or undoing the Confucian state structure all the while suffering from rebellions all across China .

However, I wonder whether it is possible for the British to claim the mandate of Heaven , along some line such as : God/ Heaven has removed the Mandate of Heaven from the Qing'sand sent us to take over the Mandate of Heaven from these Heretics.

Finally, could claiming the Mandate of Heaven and perhaps sending Victoria to perform the rituals needed to be crowned Empress of China work somewhat ?
 
In the end , I can't really concieve the British allying with Confucian Bureaucrats, or undoing the Confucian state structure all the while suffering from rebellions all across China .

However, I wonder whether it is possible for the British to claim the mandate of Heaven , along some line such as : God/ Heaven has removed the Mandate of Heaven from the Qing'sand sent us to take over the Mandate of Heaven from these Heretics.

Finally, could claiming the Mandate of Heaven and perhaps sending Victoria to perform the rituals needed to be crowned Empress of China work somewhat ?

No, the mandate of Heaven is for Chinese. The mongols, despite heavy sinicization were never really accepted. The Manchu were only accepted as legitimate after making themselves more chinese than the Chinese. Queen Victoria is hardly likely to adopt chinese culture and customs of rule, and in any case, at least the Confucian ruling class has a strong hatred for the idea of female rulers. Official histories of female rulers, usurpers, and powers behind the throne paint them unequivocally as evil(and also stupid and shortsighted), and even today, the Dowager Empress Cixi is one of the most hated figures in Chinese history.

And finally, the Mandate is something you get after you take all China and bring peace and prosperity. Just claiming it is meaningless.
 
No, the mandate of Heaven is for Chinese. The mongols, despite heavy sinicization were never really accepted. The Manchu were only accepted as legitimate after making themselves more chinese than the Chinese. Queen Victoria is hardly likely to adopt chinese culture and customs of rule, and in any case, at least the Confucian ruling class has a strong hatred for the idea of female rulers. Official histories of female rulers, usurpers, and powers behind the throne paint them unequivocally as evil(and also stupid and shortsighted), and even today, the Dowager Empress Cixi is one of the most hated figures in Chinese history.

And finally, the Mandate is something you get after you take all China and bring peace and prosperity. Just claiming it is meaningless.
Confessedly, I'd say that even accounting for strong Chinese gender-bias Cixi brought at least some of that hate on herself.

I must also confess that I would be awfully amused by the British Empire attempting to set itself up over China in this manner...

"Yes! We are now, how do you orientals say it?, the most resplendent and luminary sons of the heavens!, or something like that... Confucius say: Hail Britannia!!"

"Yes, yes, whatever... now where did we stash that last heir of the Ming?..."
 
Top