To the Editor of the wppingg of sue mute fore work jy Opium Licensing Bure ie shameful that the illicit hae grown we its present dimer find thes anserupulous jshured by" a comparatively small number of people, A. great me ereae of users of the drug would ho a worse calamity. Tt is argued that @ monopoly covtd ultimately sell opium so cheaply—that there be little or no, profit in smug But is it noy reasonable to pose that a great reduction in removal of ban would ser number of people [using the harmful drug?
If to reduce the price to one-tenth of, prevent might mown, that, say, five times as many peo-the physical and moral zzenveration of the people wall be much greater than it is now, T remember wheat opium in the interior was remarkably cheap, with the result Ghat an appalling number fof the people used it. If a much smaller nuniber, now use it because fof increased cost and risk, that is surely a gain to the nation at lane, even though it be not on a high plane. Opium licensing and cheap= ening would almost certainly larje= ly increase the axe of the drug hal, to everyong's det And while there is, any thi at all for monopoly. there will be who will Apart from the small quantity required medicinally, it seems best, to keep the poison outlawed, and if men exploit humanity for gain, ley them know they the Jaw and merit the of honest people, Give no to anyone by legalizing the trade for indulgence only; and let the proper officials, backed by a stronger public sentiment, try still harder to stop this iniquitous trafic, am, el Shanghai, Feb. 17, 1995)... 3
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.