Persuasive Essay On Portugal

Also, citizens became addicted, and the drug eventually killed thousands of people. China’s actions angered Britain politicians even though opium was illegal in Britain as well. But was a result, war started between the two countries. In 1842, the treaty of Nanking ended the war. It was the first unequal treaty with Britain and it said that Chinese had to give up Hong Kong to Britain for ninty-nine years, the British would live in China by extraterritoriality at four ports, distribution of opium would continue and Christain missionaries will be set up throughout China. When China couldn’t meet the ridiculous requirements of the treaty, the second Opium War began in 1956. As a result, Britain won again by the Treaty of Tientsin. The treaty asked to open more ports to outer nations, let foreign leaders into the capital Beijing, and legalized the distribution and use of opium. Their situation was dangerously bad.

China has 5000 years of history which experienced wars, collapses, failures and successes. The Opium War in the year 1839 and 1856 marked the changing point of China’s trade policy with foreigners, especially with British in opium and tea. China changed from getting tributes to being forced to sign the Nanjing Treaty and Tianjing Treaty with British and French. Due to China’s over confidence and unwelcome attitude toward foreigners and opium, it caused the British to declare the Opium War to China which made Chinese suffer for many years, but at the same time it also forced China to open its doors to the foreigners.

The Opium Wars were a series of conflicts that eventually led to China’s decline through the trade and abuse of the drug opium. The first of the Opium Wars (1839-42) was fought between China and Britain, and the second war (1856-1860) involved France as well. In both wars, the foreign powers triumphed over China, causing havoc, causing the fall of the Qing dynasty. Prior to the Opium Wars, China was full of rich culture, remarkable goods, and useful inventions. They had invented gunpowder, kites, and porcelain, all of which were in demand. The Qing dynasty had believed that they were superior to other countries, and refused to let any foreigners access any Chinese territory. There was only one area where trade was permitted, and it was inside the province of Canton, though payments were only allowed to be made in silver. The largest demand was for silk and tea from China, but England had a limited amount of the silver to trade. So instead, they began to trade Opium to China. Opium was in high demand at the time, and many merchants accepted it as currency for goods. With Britain having control of several poppy fields in India, producing large amounts of the drug was not a problem. The trade of opium was the root cause of the Opium Wars, but other causes such as China’s unfair trade superiority, the economic opportunity the west saw in the trade, and the addiction to the drug all helped cause the wars as well.

Portugal was in the midst of a drug crisis. A large number Portuguese people that returned to Portugal after the military dictatorship that ended in 1974 were using drugs. (Thornton) Hard drugs were getting into the country easily due to open borders. The country saw a surge in numerous public health concerns such as drug abuse, addiction, overdosing, and new cases of HIV/AIDS. “In 1999, nearly one per cent of the population—a hundred thousand people—were heroin addicts, and Portugal reported the highest rate of drug-related AIDS deaths in the European Union.” (Spector) Initially, the government responded with traditional methods of drug control- policies that criminalized drug users harshly with prison and fines, (Aleem) but the policies weren’t working very well. The

For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.

The long-term effects of the opium trade were economically harmful to the Chinese. In “An Argument for Legalization,” senior official and advisor to Emperor Daoguang,

Opium came from opium poppy seeds, which were grown and sold under British ruling in India. The British East India Company developed a monopoly which took place in effectively growing opium and making profits and/or trading it with the Chinese in exchange for their premium good such as silk, porcelain, and tea. According to Memorials on the Legalization and Elimination of Opium by Xu Naiji and Yuan Yulin, they explained how the rise of opium prompted many debts and death around China. Opium became an addiction for many, from the poor to officials in government positions. Cutting off all access of trading opium would’ve started issues in the trading network, not just with Britain but with the Western countries as well. Instead of passing laws to completely ban opium, they reverted to only permitting the barbarian merchants to import opium to pay duty as a medication. This made it unacceptable for money to be involved with the product. According to Xu Naiji, smokers of opium were lazy, with no purpose in life and if they were caught smoking it, the only punishment was getting the opium confiscated. However, if any officer, scholar, or soldier were found smoking opium, the would be immediately dismissed from public employ. Yuan Yulin, a minister, believes that the expansion of opium is the government’s fault, being that they cannot decipher right from wrong; he thought it was unfair that prohibition of smoking opium only applied to the officers of the government, scholars, and military but not the common people. The British capitalized on the effects of opium, because many of China’s population were going to put forth their money, goods, etc. for

In conclusion, the 1839 “Letter to Queen Victoria” by Lin Zexu argued that Opium is a source of evil and pain and appealed to the Queen of Great Britain to abolish sale and smuggling of opium in China. Zexu did this through exemplifying the past trading relationship of China and Great Britain, also by moral persuasion, and last by means of warnings and

To contextualize relevant to the political, social, and economic causes and effects of the first and second opium wars during the modern period 1750-1900 CE, the rate of interconnectedness, industrialization and global integration was rapidly increasing in the western hemisphere while the eastern hemisphere, specifically China, was experiencing great misfortune. At this time there was a significantly high demand for Chinese goods in Europe such as porcelain and chinese silk, but the Chinese did not have a demand for goods in Europe. Since China accumulated most of the silver from Europe there was an unbalanced distribution of silver, which caused the Europeans to start selling opium to the Chinese in order to restore the flow of silver out of China. This resulted in the first opium war in 1839- 1842, the major Civil war in 1850-1864, and second opium war in 1856-1860 which horrendously affected China’s economy, government, and social relations.

In the early eighteen hundreds, Britain and other European countries demanded more and more Chinese commodities, especially tea and silk. However, only the port in Canton was opened to foreign countries, and Chinese would not take any other form of payments besides silver. The desire to make China into a free market that foreigners have more access to and the increasing, though illegal, European opium import to China eventually created tension between the European countries, especially Britain, and the Chinese government (Allingham Par. 1-2). The two battles fought and won by European powers were known as the Opium Wars. China’s politics, economy, and intellects were both positively and negatively

Xu’s memorandum advocates for the government allowing opium to be brought into China by foreign traders as a taxable good as the best way to combat the opium problem. Xu views strict laws against opium as ineffectual for tackling the drug problem in China, noting in the first paragraph that, “the more severe the interdicts against [opium] are made, the more widely do the evils arising therefrom spread” (Xu page 1). While he acknowledges the addictive and destructive effects of opium on those who use it, Xu believes that the stricter the laws proscribing the dissemination and use of opium, the more widely used the drug becomes. Xu argues that the prohibitions against the opium trade led to increased smuggling by foreign traders and increased use of the drug across China. Conversely, when the state’s policy towards opium was one of leniency, in which opium was allowed into China and taxed as a medicine, the issues involving opium were

Starting in the 1970s, the Netherlands left on an even minded damage diminishment way to deal with medications that has brought about a framework in which need is given to social insurance and counteractive action while, at the same time, solid authorization measures are coordinated against sorted out wrongdoing. The Netherlands’ experience with drugs in the 19th century was in some ways unique. Although it was certainly not a drug-free nation, it differed from the United States and other Western European nations in that it did not have the problem of addicted soldiers and there was little scientific research or public concern regarding addiction. Two key factors shaped the evolution of the Dutch policy on drugs during this period: the development of the modern medical profession, and the immense profitability of Dutch colonial drug operations (Benjamin, Dolin, 2001). By the early 20th century, the Netherlands was the world’s largest cocaine producer; huge profits were made first from opium leases – the practice by which the government leased the right to sell opium to local colonial populations – and then later via state monopoly on the sale of opium (Benjamin, Dolin, 2001). The Dutch government established a Working Party on Drugs, which came to be known as the Baan Commission. Its recommendations largely determined the course of the Netherlands’ drug policy and resulted in an overhaul of the Opium Act in 1976

By decriminalizing all drugs, governments can minimize overdose rates. Deaths due to drug use have decreased significantly, from approximately 80 in 2001, to 16 in 2012 (The Portugal Experiment …). In 2011 Portugal decided to decriminalize the use of all drugs. This included drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and unleashed a major public health campaign to tackle addiction. As a result, Portugal’s drug addiction has been treated more as a medical challenge rather than as a criminal justice issue. Due to the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, more people with drug problems have come forward and asked for help. With that, it has lowered the over dose rate

Portugal has a very unsettling history of drugs. After the Portuguese overthrew their dictator, many residents and soldiers returned home with a diverse number of drugs. With the borders being open, many people brought in drugs, as well as went out with drugs. It got so bad that by 1999, it is said that 1% of the population used heroin and drug related AIDS deaths were occurring. All this changed in 2001, when the country decided to decriminalize drug use. If a person is caught with a 10-day supply of any drug, that person is sent to rehab with a lawyer, social worker and doctor. But it is not a mandatory option, if that person decides not to attend, he or she is let go with no charge against them. Most of the time there is no charge depending on the

In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession, acquisition and consumption of narcotic substances for personal use. Ten years later irrefutable empirical evidence points to the fact that decriminalization did not lead to a spike in the number of drug dependent persons or an increase in drug related violence. On the contrary numerous studies show that there has been significant decline in petty crimes related to drug consumption like theft, because of availability of methadone treatment, decrease in HIV incidence amongst injecting drug users, along with reduction in recidivist crimes (Domoslawski, 2011)