
Opium Information
Q) What is Opium?
A) Opium is the crudest form and also the least potent of the Opiates. Opium is the milky
latex fluid contained in the un-ripened seed pod of the opium poppy. As the fluid
is exposed to air, it hardens and turns black in color. This dried form is typically
smoked, but can also be eaten. Opium is grown mainly in Myanmar (formerly Burma)
and Afghanistan.
Q) How is Opium used?
A) Today opium is sold on the street as a powder or dark brown solid and is smoked, eaten, or
injected.
Q)
What are the effects of Opium?
A) Being of similar structure, the opiate molecules occupy many of the same nerve-receptor
sites and bring on the same analgesic effect as the body's natural painkillers.
Opiates first produce a feeling of pleasure and euphoria, but with their continued
use the body demands larger amounts to reach the same sense of well-being.
Malnutrition, respiratory complications, and low blood pressure are some of the illnesses associated
with addiction.
Q) Is Opium addictive?
A) Yes, Opium is highly addictive. Tolerance (the need for higher and higher doses to maintain
the same effect) and physical and psychological dependence develop quickly. Withdrawal
from opium causes nausea, tearing, yawning, chills, and sweating.
As long ago as 100 AD, opium had been used as a folk medicine, taken with a beverage
or swallowed as a solid. Only toward the middle of the 17th century, when opium
smoking was introduced into China, did any serious addiction problems arise. In
the 18th century opium addiction was so serious there that the Chinese made many
attempts to prohibit opium cultivation and opium trade with Western countries.
At the same time opium made its way to Europe and North America, where addiction
grew out of its prevalent use as a painkiller.
Q) Is there a withdrawal from Opium?
A) Yes, withdrawal is extremely uncomfortable, and addicts typically continue
taking the drug to avoid pain rather than to attain the initial state of euphoria.
Q) What is the history of Opium?
A) Excavations of the remains of neolithic settlements in Switzerland (the Cortaillod
culture, 32002600 B.C.), have shown that Papaver was already being cultivated
then; perhaps for the food value in the seeds (45% oil), which we know as poppy
seeds. The slightly narcotic property of this plant was undoubtedly already known
then.
The milky fluid extracted from
the plant's ovary is highly narcotic after drying. This is then opium. The writings
of Theophrastus (3rd century B.C.) are the first known written source mentioning
opium. The word opium derives from the Greek word for juice of a plant, after
all, opium is prepared from the juice of Papaver somniferum.
The
Arabic doctors were well aware of the beneficial effects of opium and Arabic traders
introduced it to the Far East. In Europe it was reintroduced by Paracelsus (14931541)
and in 1680 the English doctor Sydenham could write:
'Among
the remedies which it has pleased Almighty God to give to man to relieve his sufferings,
none is so universal and so efficacious as opium.'
In
the eighteenth century opium smoking was popular in the Far East and the opium
trade was a very important source of income for the colonial rulers the English,
the Dutch, with even the Spanish getting their share in the Philippines. Although
opium was readily available in Europe at that time, its use was not problematical.
Opium contains a considerable number
of different substances, and in the nineteenth century these were isolated. In
1806 Friedrich Serturner was the first to extract one of these substances in its
pure form. He called morphine after Morpheus, the Greek god of sleep. Codeine
(Robiquet, 1832) and papaverine (Merck, 1848) followed. These pure substances
supplanted the use of raw opium for medical purposes. Like opium they were frequently
used as painkillers and against diarrhea. The invention of the hypodermic in the
midnineteenth century lead to widespread use of morphine intravenously as a painkiller.
In the United States opiate use rose
greatly in the last century, partly because of the opiumsmoking Chinese immigrants,
and partly because many of those wounded in the Civil War were given it intravenously.
In addition many 'patent medicines' contained opium extract: laudanum, paregoric,
etc. It was partly due to this that morphine also became fashionable as a 'remedy'
for opium addiction; for if the doctor gave an opium addict morphine, he was no
longer interested in opium so he was cured.
This
was also the case in Europe and although its use was at that time much more widespread
than is now regarded as acceptable for medical purposes, it led to few problems.
At the end of the last century, the
United States started to try to curb the nonmedical use of opium, especially in
China, and later tried to prohibit it. American interest here was twofold: they
wanted an economically strong China as a market for their own products, and the
moral element played a major role. As a result of the SpanishAmerican War, the
Philippines became American and the new rulers were confronted with a widespread
problem.The American bishop of the Philippines, Charles Henry Brent, carried on
a moral crusade in the US against the opium trade and opium addiction, and found
widespread support. And not only because he was riding on the waves of Prohibition,
for as we have already seen, unlike the European countries, the US also had a
domestic opium problem.
China, with
its economy weakening, also saw the rise of a strong antiopium movement. England
and the Netherlands, however, looked upon this development with disfavor as the
cultivation of the papaver was a very important source of income for Britain and
Dutch East India.
In 1909, under American
pressure, representatives from countries with colonial possessions in the Far
East and Persia met at Shanghai to hold the International Opium Conference, chaired
by Bishop Brent. This conference laid the foundation for the International Opium
Conference in The Hague in 1911. The English proposed that for participation in
this second conference and the treaty that would result from it the condition
be set that the effects of the treaty should extend to the preparation and trade
in cocaine and morphine. The Germans had considerable difficulty with this condition
as their pharmaceutical industry substantial interests in this area.
The
conference lead to the first international convention, the Opium Convention of
23 January 1912, although it went no further than obliging the affiliated countries
to take measures to control the trade in opium within their own national legal
systems. The Germans were eventually successful in having the wording changed
in all articles to do with morphine and cocaine from 'undertake to' to 'try to'.
The ratification of the convention was ultimately made dependent on countries
not present at the conference, in short it was as leaky as a sieve.
A
second conference, held in The Hague in 1913, was equally unsuccessful in effectuating
the convention and it was only at the third conference in The Hague in 1914 that
a protocol was signed allowing the convention to take effect without the signatures
of all the participating countries.
The
United States immediately gave substance to this convention with the Harrison
Narcotics Act of 17 December 1914 which not only controled the trade, but went
much further by making illegal possession of substances named in the convention
by unauthorised persons. A maximum fine of $2000 and/or five years imprisonment
was the penalty set. The basis for the criminalization of the use of drugs had
now been formalized!
World War I brought
all efforts to a standstill, and the matter only came up again after the Treaty
of Versailles was signed. In this convention the US introduced the provision that
all countries which had not signed and/or ratified the convention of 1912 should
still do this. The convention was handed over to the League of Nations in 1920
for enforcement.
In England the Dangerous
Drugs Act came into force in 1920. Of interest here is that while the Americans
also outlawed the use of heroin for medical purposes, the English upheld this
usage and even found the provision of opiates, in this case heroin, to addicts
to be acceptable medical practice.
As
stated earlier, the treaty of 1912 was 'as leaky as a sieve' because it allowed
the states to determine for themselves when and how they would fulfil their obligations
with regard to opium, which of course kept the use of opium legal until that time.
The chemical derivatives did, however, fall under this· commitment: their
use was illegal, making these substances more than opium the object of the battle.
To make this battle more effective the League of Nations held two conferences
which led to two Geneva Conventions: one of 11 February and one on 19 February
1925.
The first convention concerned
limiting the domestic production of and trade in opium in the colonies in the
Far East. The second extended the number of substances covered under the Convention
to include the coca leaf, raw cocaine, ecgonine and Indian hennep. Also, the states
were to step up monitoring of the preparation, trade and possession of the 'numbing'
substances involved.
Use as such was
not made a punishable offence. After all, opium was still being legally cultivated
and consumed in the East. An opium monopoly was seen as an effective way of combatting
misuse.
In 1931 there was an international
change of course and efforts were also made to forbid the legal production and
consumption of opium for nonmedical purposes. New conventions were signed for
this purpose: the conventions of Geneva (13 July 1931), of Bangkok (27 November
1931) and Geneva (26 June 1936) a more and more complicated network of conventions.
The last convention especially for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotics
went further towards criminalizing the use of drugs by requiring the convention
partners to lay down harsher punishment, in this case with imprisonment for all
offenders of the provision from the relevant conventions.
Ironically
enough the Americans did not sign this one because it did not go far enough.
After
World War II the United Nations took over the matter. The Economic and Social
Council of this organization set up the U.N. Commission of Narcotic Drugs. This
Commission, made up then of 40 member states, started preparations for a worldwide
drugs policy.
This resulted in the Single
Convention (New York, 30 March 1961) which replaced all previous conventions with
one.
Under this convention all parties
are required to take the necessary legal and administrative measures to restrict
the trade, production and possession of narcotics to scientific and medical purposes.
All activities which are not directed towards these scientific and medical purposes
must be considered as punishable offenses.
The convention has four lists of substances with regard of which a different regime
of supervision applies, and on recommendation of the World Health Organization
(WHO) the UN can add certain new substances to these lists. However it must be
shown that these substances present a serious threat for public health or are
involved in illicit traffic. The first is a clear criterium, the second clearly
not. As long as a substance is not forbidden, production, trade and use can, of
course, not be illegal!
Depending on the degree of misuse, substances from one list can be put on another. National
legislation would then have to be adapted to these changes.
It is of interest with this to note when the European ratified all these conventions
drug abuse was not a social problem. Unlike all other laws, the opium laws in
Europe were not introduced as a reaction to a social problem, but were more or
less imposed by foreign countries, namely the United States, the '...barbarians
of the West' for their 'extraordinary savage idea of stamping out all people who
happen to disagree ... with their social theories' against narcotics, against
alcohol and in 'their recent treatment of Socialists'. NOTE 13
And, the world was a victim of American puritanism, for in Europe it was really only
still in a few Chinese communities that nonmedical opium was used. It was no longer
a problem in Asia either now that the aggressive sales tactics by the colonial
rulers had ended. That is also disputed in most European countries, but in the
Netherlands, in Amsterdam and in Rotterdam, it was tolerated as long as its use
remained limited to the Chinese.