Jump to content
Toggle search
Toggle menu
  • 3.3K articles
  • 1.1K files
  • 88 users
  • 27.6K edits
Landrace.wiki
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Since 7 October 2026 every request to landrace.wiki passes through Cloudflare, a security service brought in after a denial-of-service attack made the site unreachable. The Privacy policy now explains what this means for your data.

Indian Hemp Drugs Commission

From Landrace.wiki
More actions
First page of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report
First page of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report
First page of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report
Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94
Publication
AuthorIndian Hemp Drugs Commission
LanguageEnglish
Composed1893–1894
Published1894 (supplementary volume 1895)
PublisherGovernment Central Printing Office
PlaceSimla
Volumes7 (plus 1 supplementary)
Cannabis Content
Regions documentedBengal, Bombay Presidency, Central Provinces, North-Western Provinces, Punjab, Sind, Madras
Varieties describedBhang; ganja (flat, round, chur); charas
PreparationsBhang infusion (siddhi); edible confections (majum); ganja smoking; charas
Uses documentedMedicinal, recreational, religious and ritual
Access
Digital facsimileView on the Internet Archive
Original held atWellcome Collection; National Library of Scotland


The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (IHDC) was a body appointed by the Government of India in 1893 to inquire into the cultivation of cannabis, the manufacture of and trade in its products, the social and moral effects of their consumption, and the desirability of prohibition.[1] Its findings were published in 1894 as a Report of seven volumes and a supplementary volume,[2] running to some 3,281 pages.[citation needed] The commission took evidence from 1,193 witnesses and concluded that the moderate use of cannabis was practically harmless and that prohibition was neither necessary nor expedient. It remains the most extensive single inquiry into cannabis undertaken in the nineteenth century,[citation needed] and its volumes are a principal documentary record of the plant's varieties, regional cultivation and ritual use in British India before prohibition.

The commission and its sources used the term hemp drugs for the cannabis preparations then in use, chiefly bhang, ganja and charas. This article uses cannabis as the general term, retaining hemp only in the commission's name, in the titles of its volumes and chapters, and in quoted matter.

As a colonial administrative document, the Report is evidence of late-Victorian governmental thinking about intoxicants as much as it is a record of cannabis itself, and modern historians read it in that double light.[3]

Origins

The commission originated not in any administrative initiative within India but in pressure applied at Westminster by the British temperance and anti-opium movements. In 1891 the Anglo-Indian newspaper the Allahabad Pioneer alleged that ganja was far more harmful than opium and that the lunatic asylums of India were filled with ganja smokers. The claim was taken up in the House of Commons by Mark Stewart, and then pressed by the Baptist temperance campaigner William Sproston Caine, whose views on Indian intoxicants had formed during a tour of India in 1888–1889 with the missionary Thomas Evans.[4]

On 2 March 1893 Caine asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India would be instructed to appoint an expert commission to examine the cannabis trade in Bengal, the effect of consumption on the people and the desirability of prohibition, and proposed that it be partly composed of "non-official natives of India"; the Under-Secretary, George Russell, replied that it would be.[5] The Government of India constituted the commission by resolution on 3 July 1893; on the suggestion of Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State for India, the inquiry was widened from Bengal alone to the whole of British India.[1] Historians have emphasised that cannabis was of limited intrinsic interest to its parliamentary sponsors, for whom it served chiefly as an adjunct to the larger campaign against the opium trade; the contemporaneous Royal Commission on Opium of 1893–1895 overshadowed it at the time and has done so since.[4]

Members and method

The commission had seven members and a secretary. Its president was W. Mackworth Young, then First Financial Commissioner of the Punjab. The other British members were H. T. Ommanney of Bombay, A. H. L. Fraser of the Central Provinces, and Surgeon-Major C. J. H. Warden, professor of chemistry at the Medical College, Calcutta, who served as the panel's medical and chemical expert. The three non-official Indian members, whose inclusion Caine had proposed,[5] were Raja Soshi Sikhareswar Roy of Tahirpur in Bengal, Kanwar Harnam Singh Ahluwalia of the Punjab, and Lala Nihal Chand of Muzaffarnagar in the North-Western Provinces. H. J. McIntosh acted as secretary.[6] The participation of Indian members has been read by later scholars as a contested exercise in which an aspiring Indian elite negotiated authority on terms set by British scientific and legal procedure.[7]

The commission first met in Calcutta on 3 August 1893 and concluded its work on 6 August 1894. Its president attended 86 meetings for the examination of witnesses, which were held at 28 centres in seven provinces and Burma. Its members also made visits, generally unannounced, to see the drugs cultivated and manufactured, and to the warehouses, shops and religious places where they were stored, sold or consumed. To structure the inquiry it put a standard list of 70 questions to the witnesses, whose written answers formed the bulk of the evidence, and it classified witnesses as official, non-official or other persons and associations. Evidence was received from 1,193 witnesses, among them civil and medical officers, private practitioners of both European and indigenous medicine, zamindars and planters, professional men, missionaries and traders.[8] In his note of dissent Raja Soshi Sikhareswar Roy wrote that witnesses who knew no English had answered from a translation of the questions that was "not always very accurate", and that oral evidence was recorded in substance rather than in the witnesses' exact words.[9]

The report

The Report was printed in 1894, with some supplementary matter carrying an 1895 imprint. It comprises a volume of findings and a series of evidence volumes arranged by province. Volume I is the report proper, in eighteen chapters, and includes the notes of dissent. Volume II gathers the appendices on the asylum and insanity enquiry; Volume III the miscellaneous memoranda, among them a philological note by George Grierson on references to hemp in Sanskrit and Hindi literature and an essay by J. M. Campbell on the religion of hemp. Volumes IV to VII print the evidence of witnesses, grouped as Bengal and Assam; the North-Western Provinces, Oudh and the Punjab; the Central Provinces and Madras; and Bombay, Sind and the remaining territories with Burma. A supplementary volume records answers on consumption in the native army.[2] Volume I and the miscellaneous appendices of Volume III were printed at the Government Central Printing Office, Simla, and the Bengal and Assam evidence of Volume IV at the Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta.[10][11] The full set has been digitised from the Wellcome Trust and National Library of Scotland copies, and the principal chapters exist in keyword-searchable transcription.[citation needed]

Cannabis of British India as documented by the commission

The commission's largest contribution, for the present purpose, is descriptive: across its volumes it recorded the forms of the plant, the regions in which each was grown, the boundary between wild and cultivated stands, and the social and ritual settings of use. This material is the most systematic survey of the cannabis of late-nineteenth-century India in any single source.

Products and their grades

The commission took its working definitions of the three products from the botanist David Prain's Report on the Cultivation and Use of Gánjá and set them at the head of its chapter on cultivation. Ganja was the dried flowering tops of cultivated female plants, coated with resin because they had been unable to set seed freely; Charas was the resinous matter collected separately; and Bhang was the dry leaves of the plant, male or female, cultivated or not.[12]: 3–4 The commission added that the word "cultivated" often had to be read out of the definition of ganja, since wild female plants also yielded it, and that bhang in practice often took in the female flower heads and was also the name of the drink made from the drugs.[13] Ganja was used principally for smoking, and bhang as a drink or in sweetmeats. The Ganja Mahal of Bengal issued ganja in three forms, flat, round and broken (chur), terms peculiar to the Bengal manufacture, which the commission judged more perfect than that of any other province.[14][15][16] Whether a crop yielded charas, it inferred, depended on the quantity of resin in the flower heads and on the economy of extracting it rather than on any quality inherent in the resin.[17]

Regional cultivation

The commission's province-by-province survey set the licensed cultivation of Bengal – confined to a small tract in the north, administered as the Ganja Mahal around Naogaon – alongside much smaller and more dispersed industries elsewhere, and treated Bengal as one production system among several rather than the whole.[18] In the Bombay Presidency regular cultivation centred on Ahmednagar and Satara, with the older Khandesh tract in sharp decline; in the Central Provinces it was restricted by law from 1890–91 to the Nimar district around Khandwa, which supplied much of the ganja of western and central India.[19] The North-Western Provinces grew the plant in the Himalayan tracts of Kumaon and Garhwal, principally for fibre but yielding charas and bhang as by-products, and on the plains at Fatehgarh for bhang. In the Punjab, where ganja was not smoked, the small cultivation was for bhang, and charas was supplied overwhelmingly by import.[20] Sind grew bhang as its principal crop and was noted as the one tract where the drug plant also yielded fibre.[17] In Madras, regular cultivation was confined to a few hill sites, supplemented by widespread cultivation of a few plants in household yards.[18] The detailed agronomy of the Bengal tract, including the seedless cultivation technique and the selection of female plants, is treated in the article on Cannabis in West Bengal and the Ganja Mahal.

The commission found that ganja of good quality required some cultivation and tending, but that ganja of an inferior kind could be made from spontaneous or casual growth, while bhang was taken from wild and cultivated plants alike.[20][13] Charas it described as practically a foreign article in British India: the bulk was imported from Yarkand in Central Asia through the Himalayan passes, with smaller quantities from Nepal and the state of Gwalior, and it was the principal import from Yarkand, so that prohibiting it would paralyse that trade.[20]

Wild and cultivated growth

On the question of where the plant grew of its own accord, the commission drew on the botanist George Watt and on George King, director of the Botanical Survey of India. It observed that Watt placed only the Western Himalaya and Kashmir within the plant's indigenous range, and that in doubtful language, while King regarded the so-called wild growth of India as an escape from cultivation. The commission took the botanists' evidence to exclude India from the area of indigenous growth.[21] Its own survey found wild growth throughout the Himalaya from Kashmir to the far east of Assam, and along the frontier ranges of East Bengal, Assam and Upper Burma to the borders of China. In the populous parts of the sub-Himalayan tract and in the valleys of Assam, it found, that growth was kept up in great measure by fresh seed from the ganja and bhang that people consumed.[22] The commission judged that preventing the manufacture of ganja, though not impossible, would be attended with considerable difficulty, and that suppressing bhang, which would mean extirpating the wild plant, would in some tracts be a matter of great difficulty.[20]

Social and religious use

Chapter IX of the first volume, on social and religious customs, is the commission's fullest treatment of cannabis culture. The evidence was gathered through two of the standard questions and arranged by region. The commission found the use of bhang in connection with social and religious custom to be more or less common throughout northern India: offered as an infusion on the last day of the Durga Puja in Bengal, drunk during Holi in Bihar and the North-Western Provinces, and associated above all with the worship of Shiva, to whom the plant was held sacred and in whose honour ganja was smoked by ascetics.[23] The chapter records the near-universal use of cannabis by sadhus, fakirs and sannyasis; the use of bhang as a customary drink at Sikh festivals; and regional offerings of ganja and bhang at temples and melas across Bengal, the Central Provinces and the Madras Presidency, including the Trinath cult of eastern Bengal and the Surma Valley, in which the drug was offered by both Hindus and Muslims.[23] The commission concluded that consumers would regard interference with these uses as interference with long-established usage and an encroachment on their religious liberty.[24] The textual background to the customs was set out in Campbell's note on the religion of hemp and Grierson's note on the plant in Sanskrit and Hindi literature, both in the third volume.[10] The living forms of this devotional and festival use in Bengal are treated in Cannabis in Bengali Religion and Tantric cannabis use in India.

Findings and recommendations

The commission's central evidentiary task was the claim that cannabis caused insanity. Reviewing the statistics of the lunatic asylums it visited, it found that cannabis had often been entered as the cause of insanity in admission papers by police and untrained officers, without medical foundation, and concluded that the asylum returns gave no trustworthy basis for connecting cannabis with insanity.[25][26] Examining every asylum in British India for the year 1892, it found that of the 222 admissions attributed across India to cannabis only 98 could be regarded as in any way reliable; the recorded cause of insanity was commonly supplied by police rather than established by medical inquiry, and in some asylums had been altered after admission, from "unknown" or other causes to ganja, under administrative pressure to complete the returns.[27]

The commission distinguished throughout between moderate and excessive use. It held that moderate use produced practically no ill effects on body, mind or character, that excessive use was injurious but comparatively exceptional, and that the harm of excess fell largely on the consumer rather than on society. It judged the abuse of bhang less harmful than the abuse of alcohol, and accepted that there was apparently some reason for the common belief that alcohol did more harm in India than the hemp drugs.[28][20][29] On policy it rejected prohibition, holding it neither necessary nor expedient in view of the ascertained effects of the drugs, the prevalence of the habit, the social and religious feeling on the subject and the risk of driving consumers to more harmful intoxicants. In its place it recommended control and restriction: taxation as full as could be imposed without encouraging smuggling or the use of worse substances, cultivation only under licence and concentrated in limited areas, a limited number of shops and a limit on lawful possession.[29][30]

Two of the three Indian members, Raja Soshi Sikhareswar Roy and Lala Nihal Chand, signed the report subject to notes of dissent.[30] Roy held ganja and charas to be injurious to some consumers, especially the weak and underfed, even in comparatively moderate doses. He recommended prohibiting charas and, as a first step towards prohibiting ganja, concentrating its cultivation in one place and bringing its manufacture and sale under direct government supervision; bhang he would leave alone for the present.[9] Nihal Chand filed the longer dissent, accepting that bhang was the least injurious of the intoxicants in common use but maintaining a sharper distinction between it and the smoked preparations, and arguing that the rising duties only accustomed consumers to a higher burden and to smuggling.[31] The majority recommendations nonetheless prevailed. The Government of India adopted them, with some reservations, in its Resolution No. 1369 Ex. of 21 March 1895.[32]

The government's response

The Government of India answered the report in Resolution No. 1369 Ex., issued by the Finance and Commerce Department at Calcutta on 21 March 1895, which reviewed the findings division by division and passed orders on them.[32] It accepted that the moderate use of the drugs was not injurious and refused prohibition, holding that "The prohibition of ganja is an interference with liberty which the Government of India is not justified in undertaking, except upon evidence which clearly establishes the fact that the harm permitted by non-prohibition is great and manifest", that to a million people in India the drug afforded "a harmless pleasure, and in some cases even a beneficial stimulant", and that suppressing ganja while permitting bhang would be unequal.[33]

In place of prohibition the Resolution ordered control and taxation. Cultivation was to be forbidden except under licence and "concentrated into selected areas in each province, which should be no larger than is absolutely necessary", so that there should be "one system throughout all the provinces of India in which the cultivation of the hemp plant is permitted", with the same system introduced in the Native States so far as might be.[34] The commission's fourteen suggestions were quoted in full and approved generally, with the Bengal system of ganja administration named as the one to be followed "as being on the whole the best". Taxation was to be worked up to the Bengal standard, the incidence being "very much too low in all provinces" except Bengal and Assam, and lawful possession was fixed at 5 tolas of ganja or charas and a quarter of a sér of bhang.[35]

The Resolution did not follow the commission in every particular. It doubted the recommendation to extirpate the plant's spontaneous growth, thinking it hardly worth while given "the generally innocuous character of bhang" except where it interfered with the control of ganja, and asked the Government of Bengal to re-examine the question; it left the separate licensing of the different drugs, and consumption on or off shop premises, to local governments; and it declined to divide the charas duty between the province of issue and the province of consumption.[35] Copies of the Resolution and of the report went to all local governments and administrations, and the Resolution was published in the Gazette of India.[36]

Reception and historiography

Contemporary medical opinion in Britain received the conclusions favourably, the medical press treating them, like those of the opium commission, as a corrective to exaggerated claims about the harms of Indian intoxicants.[37] Indian temperance and missionary organisations, which had pressed for the inquiry in the expectation of prohibition, were disappointed by the outcome.[4]

Later assessment has been mixed. Oriana Josseau Kalant's critical review of 1972 questioned the commission's sampling, which leaned heavily on official witnesses, and its handling of the asylum data.[38] James Mills has located the inquiry within the colonial networks and missionary politics that produced it and within the asylum system that generated the insanity claims, arguing that its anti-prohibition outcome cannot be separated from the colonial government's reliance on cannabis revenue.[4][39] Amit Ranjan Basu has re-examined the insanity evidence from the Bengal volume, treating the commission's scepticism as broadly sound while showing how the inquiry nonetheless gave shape to a durable category of cannabis-related madness.[26] More recent medical-historical readings accept the commission's clinical reasoning as broadly consistent with later epidemiology while noting the conflict of interest of British members in a revenue-dependent administration.[40][25]

Legacy

The Report became a reference point in twentieth-century drug-policy debate. It is frequently paired with the United States' LaGuardia Committee report of 1944 as one of the principal pre-1960s official inquiries to find against the prohibition of cannabis.[citation needed] It was republished in the United States in 1969 and was taken up by advocates of reform; Tod Mikuriya's 1968 summary of its findings and his later anthologies of medical-cannabis papers brought it to the attention of the movement, and it has been cited in reform and harm-reduction argument since.[41][42]

Within India the commission's framework of licensed and taxed sale, without prohibition of cultivation or of bhang, remained the basis of cannabis regulation into the period after independence. That framework was overturned by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prohibited charas and ganja while leaving the leaf-based bhang to regulation by the states, in the context of India's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.[43] The commission is regularly invoked in contemporary Indian debate on cannabis law as evidence that the 1985 prohibition departed from more than a century of official practice.[40]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. I, "Introductory", para. 1, p. 1 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office – via Internet Archive.
  3. ↑ Mills, James H., Cannabis Britannica: Empire, Trade, and Prohibition 1800–1928, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Mills, James H. (2005). "Cannabis in the Commons: Colonial Networks, Missionary Politics and the Origins of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893–4". Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History. 6 (1). doi:10.1353/cch.2005.0012.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 "Hemp Drugs in Bengal". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 2 March 1893. Vol. 9, col. 822.
  6. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. I, "Introductory", para. 2, p. 1 – via Internet Archive.
  7. ↑ Shamir, Ronen; Hacker, Daphna (2001). "Colonialism's Civilizing Mission: The Case of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission". Law & Social Inquiry. 26 (2): 435–461. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2001.tb00184.x.
  8. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. I, "Introductory", paras. 8–16, pp. 6–14 – via Internet Archive.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. "Note of dissent by Raja Soshi Sikhareswar Roy", pp. 363–381 – via Internet Archive.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. III: Appendices, Miscellaneous. Simla: Government Central Printing Office – via Internet Archive.
  11. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. IV: Evidence of Witnesses from Bengal and Assam. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India – via Internet Archive.
  12. ↑ Prain, D. (1893). Report on the Cultivation and Use of Gánjá. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press – via National Library of Scotland.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. V, "Methods of cultivation and matters connected therewith", paras. 151–154, pp. 59–60 – via Internet Archive.
  14. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. VIII, "Extent of use and the manner and forms in which the hemp drugs are consumed", paras. 415–429, pp. 154–158 – via Internet Archive.
  15. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. VI, "Preparation of the raw drugs from the cultivated and wild plant", paras. 220–225, pp. 85–87 – via Internet Archive.
  16. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. VI, "Preparation of the raw drugs from the cultivated and wild plant", para. 273, p. 103 – via Internet Archive.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. II, "Important points connected with the natural history of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa)", paras. 23–24, pp. 17–18 – via Internet Archive.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. IV, "Extent of cultivation, and its tendency to increase or decrease", paras. 89–150, pp. 35–58 – via Internet Archive.
  19. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. VII, "Trade and movement of the hemp drugs", para. 304, p. 115 – via Internet Archive.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. XIV, "The policy of hemp drug administration", paras. 564–567, pp. 272–273 – via Internet Archive.
  21. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. II, "Important points connected with the natural history of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa)", paras. 19–22, pp. 15–17 – via Internet Archive.
  22. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. III, "The existence, prevalence, and character of the spontaneous growth", paras. 84–85, pp. 33–34 – via Internet Archive.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. IX, "Social and religious customs", paras. 431–450, pp. 159–166 – via Internet Archive.
  24. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. IX, "Social and religious customs", para. 450, p. 166 – via Internet Archive.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Ayonrinde, Oyedeji A. (2020). "Cannabis and psychosis: revisiting a nineteenth century study of 'Indian Hemp and Insanity' in Colonial British India". Psychological Medicine. 50 (7): 1164–1172. doi:10.1017/S0033291719001077.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Basu, Amit Ranjan (2000). "Cannabis and Madness: Evidence from the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, Bengal 1894". Studies in History. 16 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1177/025764300001600106.
  27. ↑ Mills, James H. (2000). "Asylum Knowledge as Colonial Knowledge". Madness, Cannabis and Colonialism: The 'Native Only' Lunatic Asylums of British India, 1857–1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 59–63. doi:10.1057/9780230286047. ISBN 978-1-349-41971-5.
  28. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. XIII, "Effects – moral: general summary of conclusions", para. 552, pp. 263–264 – via Internet Archive.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. XIV, "The policy of hemp drug administration", paras. 553–590, pp. 265–290 – via Internet Archive.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. ch. XVIII, "Summary", paras. 740–742, pp. 359–361 – via Internet Archive.
  31. ↑ Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1894). Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94. Vol. I: Report. Simla: Government Central Printing Office. "Note of dissent by Lala Nihal Chand", pp. 383–477 – via Internet Archive.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Government of India (21 March 1895). Resolution No. 1369 Ex. [on the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] (Report). Calcutta: Finance and Commerce Department, Separate Revenue (Excise) – via National Library of Scotland.
  33. ↑ Government of India (21 March 1895). Resolution No. 1369 Ex. [on the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] (Report). Calcutta: Finance and Commerce Department, Separate Revenue (Excise). VI. Question of prohibition, paras. 33–37, pp. 11–12 – via National Library of Scotland.
  34. ↑ Government of India (21 March 1895). Resolution No. 1369 Ex. [on the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] (Report). Calcutta: Finance and Commerce Department, Separate Revenue (Excise). I. Cultivation, paras. 3–14, pp. 2–5 – via National Library of Scotland.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Government of India (21 March 1895). Resolution No. 1369 Ex. [on the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] (Report). Calcutta: Finance and Commerce Department, Separate Revenue (Excise). VIII. Control and taxation, paras. 46–67, pp. 14–22 – via National Library of Scotland.
  36. ↑ Government of India (21 March 1895). Resolution No. 1369 Ex. [on the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] (Report). Calcutta: Finance and Commerce Department, Separate Revenue (Excise). IX. Conclusion, paras. 68–69 and the Order, pp. 22–23 – via National Library of Scotland.
  37. ↑ "The Indian Hemp Drug Commission," Texas Medical Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, September 1895, pp. 138–139 (reprinted from the British Medical Journal), PMC9613253.
  38. ↑ Kalant, Oriana Josseau (1972). "Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94: A Critical Review". International Journal of the Addictions. 7 (1): 77–96. doi:10.3109/10826087209026763.
  39. ↑ Mills, James H. (2000). Madness, Cannabis and Colonialism: The 'Native Only' Lunatic Asylums of British India, 1857–1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230286047. ISBN 978-1-349-41971-5.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Hall, Wayne (2019). "The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893–1894". Addiction. 114 (9): 1679–1682. doi:10.1111/add.14640.
  41. ↑ Abel, Ernest L. (1980). "The Indian Hemp Drug Debate". Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years. Boston: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2189-5_6.
  42. ↑ Mikuriya, Tod H. (1968). "Physical, Mental, and Moral Effects of Marijuana: The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report". International Journal of the Addictions. 3 (2): 253–270. doi:10.3109/10826086809067437.
  43. ↑ The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(Act No. 61 of 1985), 1985, sections 2(iii) and 8.India.

Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893–1894 1894 English Government Central Printing Office Simla Bengal Bombay Presidency Central Provinces North-Western Provinces Punjab Sind Madras Bhang Ganja Charas Bhang infusion Edible confection (majum) Ganja smoking Charas Medicinal Recreational Religious https://archive.org/details/b32222920 0001 Wellcome Collection Government report Government commission report

Retrieved from "https://landrace.wiki/index.php?title=Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission&oldid=20805"