Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s vigorous opposition to the regulation of cannabis (hemp) production

This is an extract (source). [Note: hemp is cannabis].

Now. my Lord, I object to this Bill on five  grounds:— (1) The proposed legislation is wholly un- necessary; (2) even if Government wanted to legislate in the matter, absolutely no case has been made out for prohibiting or otherwise subjecting to restriction the cultivation of hemp; ….

My Lord, my next objection to this Bill is that, even if Government wanted to legislate in this matter with the object of establishing bonded warehouses and levying a quantitative duty, I submit that absolutely no case has been made out for seeking to regulate the cultivation of hemp by licenses. Even the few Bombay official witnesses who favoured fresh legislation on the subject of hemp drugs, were careful to state that they did not desire to impose any restrictions on the freedom of cultivators in growing hemp. They considered that the restrictions on the sale of hemp and the fact that the manufacture of drugs could not, owing to the very nature of the process, he carried on surreptitiously, made it unnecessary to control the cultivation in any way.

The honourable member in charge of the Bill himself expressly stated that he did not consider it necessary to restrict the cultivation of hemp, and I believe, my Lord, that with such a great authority on my side it is not necessary for me to labour this point any further. I will, however, venture to mention to the Council a few considerations which occur to me against the proposal to empower Government to restrict cultivation as they please.

I think, in the first place, that anything which tends to multiply the points of contact between the cultivators and the lower subordinates of the Revenue, Abkari and other departments deserve to be seriously deprecated. If the cultivation of hemp comes to be prohibited, except under license, innocent cultivators may be exposed, as urged by several witnesses, to the risk of having false charges brought against them by over-zealous or blackmailing subordinates of these departments in connection with the spontaneous growth of wild hemp plants. Then, again, though Government do not propose to charge a fee for licenses granted to cultivators, these latter may experience some difficulty in getting them actually, and may even have to incur expenditure, which will not bear scrutiny, before getting them.

This point was very well brought out by the Times of India in an article on this Bill in December 1898. This is what that journal wrote on that occasion:— “If it is a desirable object of legislation to multiply the points of contact between the administration and the people, this is a most admirable Bill; but not otherwise. Unless a substantial benefit is to be gained, the less the Collector and his subordinates are called on to intervene between the cultivator and the free pursuit of his calling, the better. Every additional license, every additional compulsory resort to authority for permission to do this thing or that adds to the cultivator’s worries — adds to the opportunities that the revenue subordinate enjoys for worrying him and getting money out of him.

A license looks a harmless thing — as it would be if it were a sheet of paper and nothing more. But in India there is often more in it than is written on the face of it and it costs more than is supposed to be paid for it.” The question of assessment also comes in, in this connection, though in a somewhat remote manner. I think that men who are paying a certain assessment to Government and are raising a certain kind of crop on their land, have a right to expect that their freedom to raise that crop shall not in any way be fettered by Government. Sir James Campbell, in his evidence before the Commission, observed:— “I think the producers in Ahmednagar and Satara would resent very much any restriction 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, may cause some little dissatisfaction, but would be feasible.”

Lastly, in this connection, there is the question of growing hemp for the purposes of fibre. Dr. Witi, in his Dictionary of Economic Products, states — and the statement has been quoted by the Hemp Drugs Commission in its report — that the Indian plant from which the drugs are manufactured is but an Asiatic variety of the species from which fibre is produced in Europe; and he also contemplates the possibility of cultivating hemp “as a cold season fibre-crop on the plains of India,” and he is of opinion that “there may be some localities in India where this might be found possible and even remunerative.” I think, in view of this expression of opinion from such an authoritative quarter, the Government, instead of prohibiting cultivation, except under license, ought to encourage experiments in hemp cultivation with the object of ascertaining if the fibre-producing plant can be grown anywhere in the Presidency on a large and remunerative scale.