[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.191.0. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 11, 1895

FOR REVENUE ONLY!

JAMA. 1895;XXIV(19):728. doi:10.1001/jama.1895.02430190032007
Abstract

The suggestion in the Journal editorial of last week,1 that the bias of the Report of the Royal Opium Commission was dictated by commercial considerations, receives support from other sources. That exceedingly well-informed journal, the New York Sun, says that " East Indian business interests of all kinds must be vastly relieved at the tenor of the British Royal Commission's report on the opium question. That Commission was appointed in the autumn of 1893 to consider the evils of opium eating and the financial difficulties that would be involved should the traffic be abolished by law."

The Commission has found no evils from the " temperate use of opium in India "—on the contrary, such use may be " even beneficial," as it argues from the fact that "the opium habit prevails among some of the most manly, hardworking, thrifty races of India." But the financial difficulties that would be involved, should the

×