More Poppy Talk

More than two months ago (TIME, Nov. 24 et seq.), poppy talk began at Geneva to settle two important points:

1) That the use of opium products for other than medical and scientific purposes is abuse and not legitimate.

2) In order to prevent abuse of these products, it is necessary to exercise control of the production of raw opium in such a manner that there shall be no surplus available for non-medical and nonscientific purposes.

The U. S. Delegation, headed by Representative Stephen G. Porter of Pennsylvania, was bound by a joint resolution of the U. S. Congress not to sign any agreement which did not plainly embody the above two basic principles of the International Opium Conference.

Mr. Porter agreed, under pressure, to extend the time limit for the com- plete suppression of opium production from 10 to 15 years, but the period was virtually to begin forthwith. Britain would and could not agree. She wanted the period to begin from a time when China had effectively suppressed the excess growth of the opium poppy and so removed the danger of smuggling. In other words, progressive restriction on the cultivation of the poppy was not practical international politics until the smuggling danger had been removed.

India declared that limitation of opium production was an unwarrantable interference with her domestic affairs.

Turkey and Persia declared that it was impossible for their peasants to give up cultivating the poppy until other profitable crops were given them in return.

Many Eastern countries declared that the drug danger was existent only in the Occident, and particularly in the U. S.; that use of opium in the Orient is wide, its abuse rare.

In face of this opposition, the U. S. delegation, last week, quit Geneva, entrained for Paris en route for Washington, washed its hands of the conference. China followed suit.