James H Mills, Cannabis Britannica: empire, trade, and prohibition 1800–1928, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. xii, 239, £25.00 (hardback 0-19-924938-5).

Abstract

Myths and conspiracies have littered cannabis's past and a good history of the plant has long been needed. Focusing on the British empire's relationship with cannabis, this account stretches from 1800 to 1928, tantalizingly leaving us to await the second volume for the years up to the present. Writings on the cannabis plant generally consider its medicinal and euphoriant properties, but Mills examines all aspects, including its use as a source of fibre for rope dating back to at least the sixteenth century. We learn that, unlike opium, cannabis was not widely consumed by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britons. From the 1700s British medical publications showed an awareness of the plant's properties as a medicine and intoxicant but it was not until the mid-nineteenth century that William Brooke O' Shaughnessy, a pioneer of telegraph technology in India, wrote the definitive account of cannabis based in part on his human and animal experiments. Meanwhile in India cannabis preparations were popular as tonics, medicines and for recreation. This book contains a great deal of interesting information, such as the description of how cannabis cultivation fitted into a nineteenth-century Indian village's ecological, social and economic systems. A range of crops were grown but it was the hemp harvest that paid the land's rent and even influenced the timing of weddings and festivals. Before the hemp was trampled to make hashish, an 1889 commentator recorded that “the persons to be so employed salute the ganja before placing their feet on it”. Much original material is quoted, which is entertaining to read, but at times the path of argument can be difficult to discern amid the dense forest of fact and anecdote. Mills is rather dismissive of other works on cannabis and their authors, on the grounds that they have failed to consider the history of its regulation, whether or not that was part of their brief or might be of interest to their readership. This cannabis history is intended not only for its own value but because “It may be directly relevant to contemporary debates about laws and policies relating to cannabis in Britain today.” Today's politicians, Mills contends, defend the UK cannabis laws on the assumption that the judgements of their predecessors “were based on solid ground” and have since been reinforced by reference back to an unknown past. If the reality of this past were known, he suggests, the case for the current laws would be weakened. While such research can be valuable in informing current debates, the claims that this book makes for its powers are exaggerated and some opportunities for comparisons with the present are missed. The author seems to imply that had cannabis not been controlled in the 1920s, it could still be legal today, but the intervening years have seen many psychoactive substances, including some with therapeutic pedigrees, come under even stricter controls. Are today's politicians defending cannabis prohibition because they think their predecessors knew best and should not be questioned, or because they have their own reasons and precedent is a useful tool for supporting them? It is interesting to read about Indian methods of tax evasion and smuggling which developed to outwit colonial administrators, but more might have been extracted to inform current policy: what level and what methods of taxation prompted cultivators to start breaking the law? Tobacco smuggling in contemporary Britain has grown as duty has risen on cigarettes; what factors determine the point at which such subterfuge becomes worthwhile? While this book leaves room for further histories of cannabis in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is certainly an enjoyable and informative read, and I look forward to starting volume two.