The History of the Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek and its

Transcription

331
The History of the
Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek
and its Successors
as Manufacturers of Narcotic Drugs,
analysed from an International Perspective
VOLUME 2
PART II
ESTIMATES AND MODELS
332
ISBN Volume 1 978-0-9872751-2-7
Volume 2 978-0-9872751-3-4
333
CHAPTER 15
ESTIMATES OF THE MANUFACTURING COST OF COCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE
FROM VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS DURING THE PERIOD 1902-1912.
15.1 Introduction
In this chapter estimates are made of the cost of manufacturing cocaine hydrochloride from
three different raw materials: Java coca, Huanuco (Peru) coca and crude cocaine during the
period 1902-1912. These costs are compared with the prices at which the cocaine was sold
and the difference between selling price and manufacturing cost (including selling expenses
and administration cost) representing the profit margin (operating income) is calculated.
In the USA imports of cocaine and its raw materials were subject to substantial duties. The
result was that selling prices and production cost of cocaine were quite different in the USA
and in Europe, where no duties were payable.1 This led to differences in profitability
depending on where the cocaine was produced and sold, and which raw material was used. In
this chapter for each raw material annual profit margins are estimated for both the USA and
Europe. Comparison of these profit margins provides a good understanding of the economic
reasons for the relative preferences for the raw materials and how the situation changed over
the period.
The estimates comprise two distinct components: the factory costs i.e. the costs of making the
cocaine, including overheads, and the raw material cost.
The estimates of the factory costs are based on cost incurred by NCF when processing
of Java coca during the period 1910-1914 as calculated in chapter 18. These NCF costs are
also used as a starting point to estimate manufacturing cost for cocaine made from the
alternative raw materials: Huanuco coca and crude cocaine from Peru. Yield factors used to
calculate output of cocaine from the various raw materials are those established in chapter 17.
All estimates are deemed to be constant over the period and valid for all cocaine
manufacturers.
The raw material costs are subject to considerable variations over time and estimates
thereof are made on an annual basis. For Java coca and crude cocaine good price information
is available. For Huanuco coca, for the years 1905-1914, the annual prices are estimated in an
indirect way on the basis of government statistics on the value of the total imports of coca
leaf into the USA.
Although the bulk of the cocaine was produced in Germany, the word “Europe” is used throughout this chapter
to describe the situation with respect to the duty.
1
334
15.2 Cost Estimates
Fixed and Variable Cost excluding Raw Material Cost
The basis for the cost calculations are the NCF figures used in Table 18.16 for the period
1910-1914. These figures are considered as a good approximation and deemed valid for the
total period 1902-1913. The costs are modified for the various raw materials as described
below and are entered in Table 15.1.
For Java coca: The yield is set at the average estimated in Table 17.7 of 10.9 kg per ton leaf.
The average total alkaloid content over the period was 1.55%.2 The amounts for Fixed Cost
as appearing in Table 18.16 are used unchanged. The amount for depreciation is assumed to
relate for 50% to the extraction facility and for the rest to the synthesis and purification
equipment.
For Huanuco (Peru) coca: The yield is assumed equal to the estimate in Table 17.7 of 6.0 kg
per tonne. Because of the lower yield per tonne of leaf compared to Java coca, the capacity of
the extraction facility is greater by a factor 10.9/6 which leads to a (10.9/6)0.6 = 1.43 times
greater depreciation cost for the extraction facility.3 For the other equipment depreciation is
set at 50% of that of the NCF because equipment for cocaine synthesis is not required.
Labour cost and cost of chemicals, solvents and energy (CS&E cost) in the extraction
department are estimated higher than with Java coca because of the larger volume of leaf that
has to be processed, but labour costs for the other operations are lower because most cocaine
is made by direct extraction rather than via ecgonine as is the case with Java coca. Cost for
chemicals, solvents and energy for “synthesis” are therefor set at nil
For Crude cocaine: The yield is assumed to be 100% on the basis of the assay which
determined the price. Substantially smaller labour cost and CS&E cost are required for
processing crude cocaine in comparison to processing Java coca.
2
The average of alkaloid content of Java coca processed by Merck during the period 1906-1918 was 1.544%. A.
Hirschmüller, ‘E. Merck und das Kokain’ Gesnerus 52 (1995) 121, Table 3 (calc. HHB).
3
The formula for the approximate capital cost in relation to the capacity of the equipment installed
c2 /c1 = k0.6 is a general one for the chemical industry. (c2 /c1 represents the approximate ratio
of the capital costs of two factories when k is the ratio of the production capacities).
F.C. Vilbrandt, Chemical Engineering Plant Design, 3rd Ed. (New York 1949) 449.
335
Table 15.1 Manufacturing Cost Cocaine HCl (500 kg p.a.) excluding Raw Material Cost
NCF
1910-1914
Java Coca
Yield 10.9 kg/t
Output 500 kg p.a.
Huanuco Coca
Yield 6.0 kg/t
Output 500 kg p.a.
Crude Cocaine
Yield 1.00 kg/kg
Output 500 kg p.a.
Cost
NLG/p.a.
Number of
Employees
Cost
NLG/kg
Number of
Employees
Cost
NLG/kg
Number of
Employees
Cost
NLG/kg
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Fixed Cost
Labour
extraction
synthesis and purification
engineering
laboratory and clerk
15,629
31
Director + Staff
Administration
Depreciation
5,429
1,100
4,692
11
2
9
11
2
9
11
2
4
Total Fixed Cost
26,850
54
48
21
5
3
7
9
3
0
0
3
0
Total Cost of
Chemicals, Solvents & Energy
15
12
3
Total Cost excl. Raw Materials
69
60
24
6
5
2
4
17
26
9
2
1
2
14
4
0
1
0
1
2
Variable Cost
Chemicals, Solvents & Energy
extraction
purification
synthesis
Sources and Notes
[1]
Table 18.16 Column ‘1910-1914’, Fixed Costs
[2]
Table 18.3 Column ‘1910-1914’, Number of Employees
[3]
[3] = [1] / 500 (Fixed cost per kg)
[4]
[4] = [3] – 3 (No processing via ecgonine)
[5]
[5] = 14/17 * [3] (Proportionally reduced)
[6]
No leaf extraction, no processing via ecgonine
[7]
Estimates by the author
Raw Material Cost
Java Coca: From the year 1905 onwards good statistical information is available on the prices
at which Java coca was sold in Amsterdam.4 For the years 1902-1905 the price is based on a
publication of 1908.5 Huanuco Coca (ex Peru): Information on the price of coca leaf imported
into the USA is available for the period 1906-1912 from the statistics by the US Department
of Commerce.6 Estimates of the price of Huanuco coca, the variety of coca from Peru
preferentially used for the manufacture of cocaine, are made on the basis of the US import
4
P. Brusse, Jaarverslag voor kinabast en Coca (Annual Report on Cinchona bark and Coca) (1910-1933),
Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam.
5
G. van der Sleen, ‘Over Java-Coca’, De Indische Mercuur, (1908) February 25, 127.
6
United States Department of Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, an annual
publication (1892/93- ).
336
statistics.7 For the years 1902-1905 estimates of the Huanuco import price were made using
wholesale prices compiled by Spillane from data published in a trade journal.8
Crude Cocaine: For the years 1902-1913 information on prices of crude cocaine ex Peru is
available from Gehe’s Handelsbericht.9
Calculation of the Cost of Huanuco Coca
The calculation of the price of Huanuco coca is somewhat complex. For the years 1905/061913/14 the total value of the US coca imports and the total weight thereof is known from the
FC&N statistics. We know furthermore (estimates of) quantities and prices of the other coca
varieties imported into the USA: Java coca and Trujillo coca. From that information the price
of Huanuco coca (x3) can be calculated by solving a set of algebraic equations. These
equations are the following:
The total value of the US imports of coca leaf is
C = ax1 + bx2 + cx3
in which a, b and c are the quantities of imported coca from Java, Trujillo and Huanuco
respectively, and x1, x2 and x3 are the respective prices.
From the FC&N statistics we know C and (a + b + c)
An estimate of a is contained in Table 16 column [21] and x1 is known from Table JCL 5
(Brusse)
An estimate of b is contained in Table 17.8 columns [1] + [3], and we know that x2 = 2/3 x3
(approximately, Spillane)
Substitution yields
c = (a + b + c) - a - b
and C = ax1 + (2/3 b + c) x3
hence
x3 = (C - ax1) / (2/3 b + c)
The calculations also require conversions of some data available for calendar years into
(approximate) amounts pertaining to US fiscal years (July-June). This is done by averaging
sets of two subsequent years. The calculations are shown in the following table 15.2.
7
Ibidem.
J. F. Spillane, Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United States, 1884-1920 (Baltimore
2000) 54.
9
Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsbericht (1877 - 1914).
8
Sources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
TOTAL
Weighted
Average
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
Calendar
Year
950
0
0
0
161
82
162
90
110
284
61
metric
tonnes
[3]
Java
672
60
60
60
60
60
60
82
82
82
66
metric
tonnes
[4]
Trujillo
Import USA
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908/09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
Fiscal
Year
Table JCL 5 (Part IV) column [9]
[2] = 2 * 1.55 * [1]
Table 16.9 column [10]
Table 17.8 (column [1] + column [3])
Table PCL 2 (part IV) column [4]
[6] = average column [2] subsequent years in US¢/lb
[7] = average column [3] subsequent years in lb
Figures in blue are calculated / estimated by the author
89
80
72
58
86
123
121
67
60
47
NL cents
per kg
[2]
NL cents
per unit
[1]
28.6
25.9
23.2
18.6
27.6
39.6
39.1
21.6
19.5
15.1
Java
Java
Coca Prices
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
15.3
18.4
14.0
12.0
11.5
13.9
19.1
17.1
11.8
12.8
US cents
per lb
[5]
Total USA
2,027
0
0
177
268
269
278
220
434
380
lb 000
[7]
Java
a
1,343
132
132
132
132
132
157
181
181
163
lb 000
[8]
Trujillo
b
7,532
2,518
1,383
323
701
307
792
778
561
169
lb 000
[9]
Huanuco
c
Coca Import USA Quantities
[8] = average column [4] subsequent years in lb
[9] = [10] - [7] - [8]
[12] = [6] * [7] * 10
[13] = [11] - [12]
[14] = [9] + [8] * 2 / 3
[15] = [13] / [14] / 10
14.5
15.4
13.9
11.8
13.0
19.0
22.2
17.1
11.6
9.8
US cents
per lb
[6]
Java
Coca Prices
Table 15.2 Calculation of the of Cost Huanuco Coca in the USA (1905/06-1912/13)
10,902
2,650
1,516
633
1,101
709
1,227
1,180
1,176
712
lb 000
[10]
Total
a+b+c
1,670,941
488,545
212,424
76,109
128,881
98,454
234,162
201,950
139,035
91,381
USD
[11]
Total
293,990
0
0
20,946
34,942
51,034
61,727
37,785
50,401
37,153
USD
[12]
Java
1,376,951
488,545
212,424
55,163
93,939
47,420
172,435
164,165
88,634
54,228
USD
[13]
Total less
Java
Coca Import USA Values (Before Duty)
8,428
2,606
1,472
412
789
395
897
899
681
277
lb 000
[14]
Huanuco Equ.
2/3*b+c
Quantity
16.3
18.7
14.4
13.4
11.9
12.0
19.2
18.3
13.0
19.6
US cent / lb
[15]
Huanuco
Calculated
Price
337
Table 15.2 Calculation of the Cost of Huanuco coca ,USA 1905/06 -1913/14 (Before Duty)
338
Table 15.3 The Cost of Huanuco coca, USA 1902-1914, by Calendar Year,
Before and After Duty
Fiscal
Year
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908/09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
Huanuco
Coca
Before Duty
US cents/lb
[1]
17.5
15.0
15.0
16.5
18.7
14.4
13.4
11.9
12.0
19.2
18.3
13.0
19.6
Calendar
Year
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
Huanuco
Import
Coca
Duty
Before Duty
US cents/lb US cents/lb
[2]
[3]
16.3
15.0
15.8
17.6
16.6
13.9
12.7
12.0
15.6
18.7
15.6
16.3
Huanuco
Coca
After Duty
US cents/lb
[4]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
16.3
15.0
15.8
17.6
16.6
13.9
12.7
12.0
20.6
23.7
20.6
21.3
Sources and Notes:
[1] 1901/02 to 1904/05: Spillane wholesale prices /2 (the average for the
period 1906-1914), thereafter Table 15.2 column [15]
[2] Averages column [1] for subsequent years
[3] Table 15.4 (below)
[4] = [2] + [3]
15.3 Margin on the Sales of Cocaine HCl
Using the information compiled in Tables 15.1 and 15.2 together with data on selling prices
of cocaine HCl in Europe (Germany) and in the USA, manufacturing costs and margins on
the sales could be calculated for both the US and for European conditions. The results are
shown in Tables 15.5 to 15.7 for all three raw materials, Crude cocaine, Peru (Huanuco) coca
and Java coca, for both Europe and the USA.
Under Sources and Notes the calculations and the provenance of the data are briefly
explained. As far as required all input for Table 15.5 is recalculated for calendar years and
expressed in NLG per kg cocaine HCl.
Most of the calculations are straightforward; somewhat complex are those on the
duty included in the raw material prices for the USA. The US import duties on cocaine
(including crude cocaine) came into force in 1896.10 During the fiscal year 1909/10 the
system was changed by the US Government; thereafter duties were also levied on coca leaf
and the duty on cocaine was changed from 25% ad valorem to USD 1.50 per oz. The tariff
was changed again in 1913/14 and in 1922.
10
P. Gootenberg, ‘Reluctance or resistance? Constructing cocaine (prohibitions) in Peru, 1910-50’, Chapter 3
in: P. Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999) 50.
339
The duties are specified in the following Table:
Table 15.4 Duty on US Imports of Cocaine and Coca Leaf
DUTY
On Cocaine
On Coca Leaf
1896-1909
1910-1913
1914-1922
from 1923
25% ad valorem
USD 1.50 per oz
USD 2.00 per oz
USD 2.60 per oz
nil
5¢ per lb
10¢ per lb
10¢ per lb
Source: FC&N Statistics
The margins on the sales on cocaine HCl in Europe and the USA appearing in Tables 15.5 to
15.7 are presented in Chapter 5 as Tables 5.7 to 5.11 and depicted as graphs. They show
clearly why manufacturers developed a preference for Java coca and why Huanuco coca was
an economically viable raw material only in the USA.
Table 15.5 Margin on the Sales of Cocaine made from Crude Cocaine
Europe and USA 1902-1912
Table 15.5
MARGIN ON THE SALES OF COCAINE - EUROPE and USA
Yield : 100% on assay
Raw Material
Year
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
EU Price
Crude Coc
NLG/kg
[1]
197
201
195
174
189
127
122
142
161
166
139
CRUDE COCAINE
EU Cost
EU Price
Cocaine HCl Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
NLG/kg
[2]
[3]
221
225
219
198
213
151
146
166
185
190
163
Cocaine Cost = Raw Material Cost + NLG 24
EU Margin
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[4]
338
295
256
249
230
183
146
162
162
177
148
Sources and Notes
[1]
Table PCC 5, column [5] (per kg 100%)
[2]
[2] = [1] + 24
[3]
Tables COC 4-5 column [5]
[4]
[4] = [3] - [2]
117
70
37
51
17
32
1
-3
-23
-13
-15
US Price
Crude Coc
NLG/kg
[5]
246
251
243
218
236
159
152
177
293
298
271
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
US Cost
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[6]
270
275
267
242
260
183
176
201
317
322
295
US Price
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[7]
364
356
307
312
259
220
189
368
299
329
285
1902-1909: [5] = [1] * 1.25
1910-1912: [5] = [1] + 132
[6] = [5] + 24
Table COC 3, column [4]
[8] = [7] - [6]
US Margin
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[8]
94
81
40
70
-1
37
13
167
-18
7
-10
340
Table 15.6 Margin on the Sales of Cocaine made from Huanuco Coca
Table 15.6
Yield: 6 kg per ton of leaf
Raw Material
HUANUCO COCA LEAF
EU Price
Calendar
Year
Huanuco
US¢/lb
[1]
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
16.3
15.0
15.8
17.6
16.6
13.9
12.7
12.0
15.6
18.7
15.6
EU Cost
EU Price
NLG/kg
NLG/kg
[2]
[3]
209
197
204
221
212
187
176
170
203
231
203
338
295
256
249
230
183
146
162
162
177
148
EU Margin
US Price
US Cost
US Price
US Margin
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[4]
Huanuco
US¢/lb
[5]
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[6]
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[7]
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[8]
129
98
52
28
18
-4
-29
-8
-40
-54
-55
Sources and Notes
[1]
1902-1905
Huanuco wholesale prices / 2
1906-1912
[2]
[2] = [1] * 10 * 2.49 / 0.4536 / 6 + 60
[3]
[4]
[4] = [3] - [2]
16.3
15.0
15.8
17.6
16.6
13.9
12.7
12.0
20.6
23.7
20.6
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
209
197
204
221
212
187
176
170
248
277
249
364
356
307
312
259
220
189
368
299
329
285
155
159
103
91
47
33
13
198
51
52
36
1902-1909: [5] = [1]
1910-1912: [5] = [1] + 5
[6] = [5] * 10 * 2.49 / 0.4536 / 6 + 60
[8] = [7] - [6]
Table 15.7 Margin on the Sales of Cocaine made from Java Coca
Table 15.6
Yield: 10.9 kg per ton of leaf
Raw Material
Year
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
EU Price
Java
NLc/unit
[1]
16.7
16.7
16.7
28.6
25.9
23.2
18.6
27.6
39.6
39.1
21.6
JAVA COCA LEAF
EU Cost
EU Price
NLG/kg
NLG/kg
[2]
[3]
116
116
116
150
143
135
122
147
182
180
130
338
295
256
249
230
183
146
162
162
177
148
EU Margin
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[4]
222
179
140
99
87
48
24
15
-19
-3
18
Sources and Notes
[1]
Price per ½ kg per % total alkaloid
1902-04: van der Sleen (1908),
from 1905 onwards: Table JCL 5, column [9]
[2]
[3] = [1] / 10.9 * 31 + 69 (1.55% total alkaloid)
[3]
[4]
[5] = [4] - [3]
US Price
Java Coca
NLc/unit
[5]
16.7
16.7
16.7
28.6
25.9
23.2
18.6
27.6
52.1
51.6
34.1
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
US Cost
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[6]
116
116
116
150
143
135
122
147
217
216
166
US Price
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[7]
364
356
307
312
259
220
189
368
299
329
285
1902-1909: [5] = [1]
1910-1912: [5] = [1] + 12.5
[6] =[5] / 10.9 * 30 + 69
[8] = [7] - [6]
US Margin
Cocaine HCl
NLG/kg
[8]
248
240
191
162
116
85
67
221
82
113
119
341
15.4
Summary and Conclusions
From 1900 cocaine prices in Europe declined steadily to about half of the original value in
1908, and stayed at that low level until the outbreak of World War I. Sales volume did not
increase until the end of the period and profit margins on cocaine dwindled to virtually nonexistent (cf. chapter 5). Over the period Java coca became the raw material of choice
replacing crude cocaine and coca leaf from Peru.
In the USA the situation was somewhat different because of import duties imposed on
cocaine and its raw materials, the level of which was increased in 1910.
In this chapter annual cocaine prices were compared with estimates of the manufacturing
costs which varied with the raw material price, and the profit margins on sales were
calculated. The calculations were made for all three raw materials and for Europe and the
USA. The results show clearly that Java coca was the most economical raw material,
although even for Java coca the margin on sales had virtually disappeared after1907. Graphs
of the profit margins for the various raw materials plotted against time are presented in
chapter 5.
The cost of Huanuco coca was estimated from the total value of US imports of coca leaf, total
weight of the US imports and imports of Java coca into the USA. The mathematical model
used for the calculations was too complex to allow for a numerical estimate of the accuracy
of the Huanuco figures, but the accuracy is considered to be quite high because the
uncertainty is mainly in variables affecting the end result in a limited way.
LIST OF LETTER-SYMBOLS USED IN CHAPTER 15
C
Total cost of coca leaf imported into the USA
a
b
c
Quantity of Java coca imported into the USA
Quantity of Trujillo coca imported into the USA
Quantity of Huanuco coca imported into the USA
x1
x2
x3
Price of the Java coca
Price of the Trujillo coca
Price of the Huanuco coca
342
343
CHAPTER 16
ESTIMATES OF COCAINE MANUFACTURED WORLDWIDE (1892-1930)
PART I
EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF PERUVIAN COCA LEAF
16.1 Introduction
Statistics on cocaine manufactured worldwide and estimates thereof
For a good insight of the functioning of the industry that manufactured and supplied cocaine
worldwide it is key to know, at least approximately, the quantities that were produced
annually. However, quantitative information on the production of cocaine for the period from
ca 1890 to 1920 is scarce. Detailed information on quantities of cocaine manufactured is only
available for Merck Darmstadt.1 The cocaine consumption worldwide for the year 1910 has
been estimated at 13,000–15,000 kg.2
Musto has made an estimate of annual quantities of the ‘cocaine equivalent’ of exported raw
materials for cocaine (coca leaf and crude cocaine) during the early 20th century.3 That
‘cocaine equivalent’ is loosely defined by Musto, but it represents roughly the amount of
total coca alkaloids contained in the raw materials exported.
It is possible to estimate how much cocaine was produced worldwide on the basis of the
quantities of the principal raw materials, coca leaf and crude cocaine from Peru and coca leaf
from Java, that were used in the manufacture. Quantitative information on the trade in these
raw materials is available from export and import statistics. Deduction of the amounts of coca
leaf used for beverages and for chewing from the trade statistics results in the quantities
which were used for the manufacture of cocaine. Combining this quantitative information
with yield factors, i.e. estimates of how much cocaine will have been produced from each of
the raw materials, leads to estimates of quantities of cocaine manufactured. In chapter 17
such estimate is presented for the amounts of cocaine produced from the raw materials
exported during the period 1892-1930.
In preparation for the estimates of chapter 17 a critical review of the exports and imports of
Peruvian coca is presented in this chapter. The total quantities of coca exported from Peru
annually are quite well documented; the knowledge of how much went to the main ultimate
destinations (the USA, Germany and “Other Countries”) is less certain and less complete. In
this chapter all data are critically reviewed and anomalies showing up when comparing
statistics from various sources are analyzed. Mathematical methods have been developed to
arrive at improved estimates of exports to the USA and Chile. The accuracy of the estimated
values is evaluated.
A. Hirschmüller, ‘E. Merck und das Kokain’,Gesnerus 52 (1995) 116-132.
W.G. van Wettum, Note on the forthcoming Geneva Conference, dated 13 December 1923. Nationaal Archief,
The Hague, Access No 2.05.21, Item 1466, p4.
3
D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca through the early 20th Century’, Drug and Alcohol Dependenc
49 [2] (1998) 145-156.
1
2
344
Statistics on cocaine by League of Nations bodies
A first systematic attempt to collect quantitative information on the production of cocaine and
other drugs of dependence was made after the end of the First World War by the then newly
formed League of Nations which became responsible for the implementation of the
International Opium Convention of The Hague of 1912. The League established the Opium
Advisory Committee (OAC) as the main body to deal with drug matters.4 The OAC requested
quantitative information from signatories to the Hague Convention on production,
consumption, imports, exports and stocks of the opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine and coca
leaf.5 The data obtained have been published by the League of Nations; it is notable that not
all countries involved submitted all requested information.6 For the years 1925-1928 similar
data were collected by the Permanent Central Opium Board (PCOB), another body of the
League of Nations.7 These data are more complete than the ones for 1920-1923 but do not
cover all manufacturing countries. For the years from 1929 onwards the PCOB published
annually its “Statistics”, covering opium and other dangerous drugs. In these publications the
PCOB summarized the extensive data it had received from Governments worldwide. The
“Statistics” contain a wealth of detailed quantitative information on the production and
consumption of dangerous drugs and of their raw materials, by country.8
General notes on the trade in coca leaf during the period 1890-1930
The world-wide trade in coca leaf during the period 1890 to 1930 was complex, with Peru
and Java (Dutch East Indies) as the main exporting countries, and many importing countries,
among which the USA and Germany were the most important. Not all coca leaf was shipped
directly from the producing country to the country where it was utilized; Java coca was
mainly shipped to the Netherlands where it was traded and forwarded to its final destinations.
4
A full list of abbreviations and letter symbols is provided the end of this chapter.
William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (London 2000) 47.
6
Société des Nations, Deuxième Conférenence de l’Opium, Partie I, Tableaux Statistiques 1920-1923, O.D.C.1.
(C.656.M.234.1924.XI) Geneva 1924, 46-50.
7
Permanent Central Opium Board, Advisory committee on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs. Report
on the 13th Session, Geneva 1930, Annex 3, Document C.121.M.39.1930.XI (Geneva 1930).
8
Permanent Central Opium Board, Report to the Council on the Work of the Central Board and on the Statistics
for the Year 1929, Geneva, XI. Series Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs C.629.M.250.1930.XI. (1930) and
subsequent annual publications in the same series.
The OAC and PCOB data on production of cocaine during the period 1920-1939 are included in Table COC 2
(Part IV, Source Data).
5
345
A simplified schematic representation of the world-wide coca trade around 1910 is provided
with table 16.1 below.
Table 16.1 Table representing the Worldwide Trade in Coca Leaf around 1910
Exporting Countries
Importing
Countries
PERU
JAVA
NETHERLANDS
BOLIVIA
xxx
xx
xx
0
Germany
x
x
xxx
x
Netherlands
0
xxx
n/a
0
x
x
x
x
x
0
0
xxx
USA
Other
European
South
American
Sources: Government and Trade Statistics
Relative Quantities: xxx Large, xx Average, x Small, 0 Negligible and n/a Not Applicable
The table shows that Peru coca went mainly to the USA while Java coca was traded to a large
extent via the Netherlands with Germany as its final destination. Coca from Bolivia was
primarily exported to other South American countries (Argentina and Chile) for chewing.
For a complete quantitative picture of the trade one would need such a table for each
year showing the exact amounts of coca leaf shipped to and received by every country
involved (two numbers in each cell of the table). For the years from 1929 onwards such
tables have been compiled and published by the international narcotics control organizations
(PCOB/INCB). Even these tables are not fully internally reconcilable as a result of the
incompleteness of the data submitted by the participating countries and the fact that some of
the product shipped towards the end of the year did not reach its destination before the
following year.
For the years before 1929 such detailed information is not available. For the estimates
we have used import and export statistics published by government departments of Peru, the
Dutch East Indies and the USA and data on German imports contained in trade publications.
This information is not comprehensive; generally only totals of exports and imports are
published, and not all years are covered.
346
Musto’s publication is an extensive “compilation of data on international traffic in coca
through the early 20th century” which comprises the export of coca leaf from Peru, Java,
Bolivia and Formosa, and crude cocaine from Peru.9 For the USA, Spillane has made
estimates of coca leaf imported into the USA for the years until 1906.10 The following table
13.2 provides an index for this statistical information.
Table 16.2 Statistical Information on the Export and Import of Coca Leaf
Contained in the tables of the PCL and JCL series (Part IV, Source Data)
Country
Statistics (Source)
Period Covered
Table
PERU
Export Peru Coca
(Musto)
1890-1933
PCL 1
PERU
Export Peru Coca by Destination
(Korte Berichten, Walger, de Jong)
1911-1913
Table 16.3
PERU
Export Peru Coca to the USA
(Gootenberg, Bües, Pilli)
1910-1933
PCL 4
USA
Import (Peru+Java) Coca
(Foreign Commerce & Navigation)
1905/06-1917/18
1918-1933
PCL 2
USA
Import Peru Coca
New York (Spillane)
1891/92-1904/05
PCL 3
USA
Import (Peru+Java) Coca
(New York) (Reens, Walger, de Jong)
1905/06-1915/16
PCL 4
GERMANY
Import Peru Coca (Hamburg)
(Gehe Handelsbericht, Reens etc.)
1890-1913
PCL 5-7
JAVA
Export Java Coca by Destination
(Statistics Dutch East Indies)
1908-1938
JCL 3
NETHERLANDS
Export Java Coca by Destination
(Coca Producers Association)
1922-1932
JCL 4
As the first step in our attempt to estimate how much coca leaf exported from Peru was used
for the production of cocaine all available statistics on the trade in Peruvian coca leaf are
brought together to establish how much Peruvian coca leaf went to the USA, Germany and
“Other Countries“.11 The quantities which were imported into Other Countries (as a total) are
9
D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca through the early 20th Century’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 49
[2] (1998) 145-156.
10
Joseph F. Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: the legal use and distribution of cocaine in the United
States, 1880-1920. Dissertation Carnegie Mellon University (1994). Statistical information that was found
during the research on this subject has been summarized in a series of tables PCL (Peru Coca Leaf) and JCL
(Java Coca Leaf) which appear in Part IV, Source Data, of this dissertation.
11
Before 1900 small quantities of coca leaf from Bolivia went to Germany; they are included in the data
reported by Gehe under imports Hamburg. They were mainly used for tonics and other preparations.
347
calculated as the difference between the quantities exported from Peru and the quantities
imported into the USA and Germany. Thereafter ballpark estimates are made of which
percentage of the exports to Other Countries went to specific destinations e.g. to Chile for
chewing. These quantities and also those used for the manufacture of coca containing
beverages such as Coca-Cola have to be excluded from the total of coca leaf exported from
Peru to arrive at the quantities that were used for the manufacture of cocaine.
The principle on which these calculations are based is that over time the quantities
exported are equal to the sum of the quantities imported. However, the published data relate
to years of exports and years of imports respectively and it is well possible, and even likely,
that not all coca leaf arrived in the same year as it was exported. A method that accounts for
the effects of goods in transit at year end was developed. That method is described in detail in
Appendix 2.
Other countries where coca leaf was cultivated were Bolivia, Ceylon and Formosa.
Bolivian coca was exported mainly to Argentine and Chile for chewing purposes. Gootenberg
mentions that in 1885 22 t went to France for Vin Mariani and that during the 1890s Bolivia
supplied less than 10% of Europe’s leaf imports.12 In the 1920s exports to maximum of 40 t
p.a of Bolivian coca went to France for beverages. Soininen notes that for 1906-1907 exports
from Bolivia to Europe became erratic and negligible and were largely confined to France13.
From “Handelsberichten” we learn that in 1912, of the 300 t leaf exported, 295 t went to
Argentina and 4 t to Germany.14 League of Nations statistics for 1921-1923 show that
virtually all Bolivian exports totalling ca 350 t p.a. went to Argentina and Chile.15
From the above information it is concluded that coca exports from Bolivia during the
period 1892-1930 were not used to an appreciable extent as a raw material for the
manufacture of cocaine. Ceylon exported an average of 24 t coca p.a. during 1906-1912 and
the production ceased thereafter.16 This small quantity has been disregarded for our
calculations. Exports from Formosa were exclusively to Japan. During the period 1926-1930
these amounted to an average of 118 t p.a.17 The relatively small quantities are not included
in the initial calculations but are taken into account in Chapter 17.
Note on the accuracy of the values calculated in this chapter.
The accuracy of the trade data used as input is variable. Some of the data are estimates
themselves and are of unknown precision. This lack of precision, together with the problems
resulting from goods in transit at year end, make that some of the results of the calculations
appearing in this chapter are numbers which are not significant up to the last digit. Because
the results of the initial calculations are often used for further calculations it is not well
possible to round off the figures before presenting the final figures. Rounding off the figures
in an early stage would interfere with the arithmetical integrity and make checking of the
figures impossible. An unavoidable consequence is that some of the figures presented in this
chapter suggest a greater accuracy than justified. The accuracy of the final figures is
discussed when these figures are presented.
12
Paul Gootenberg, Andean Cocaine, the making of a global drug (North Carolina, 2008) 115.
Soininen. Jyri, Industrial Geographies of Cocaine, Master’s Thesis Geography, University of Helsinki (2008),
167.
14
Handelsberichten (Serial), Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel, The Hague, (1914) 1065.
Library Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.
15
League of Nations, Deuxième Conférence de l’Opium, (Geneva 1924) C.656.M.234.1924.XI, p 42.
16
Handelsberichten (1916) 689.
17
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ (1998) 154.
13
348
16.2 Discussion of the Statistics on the Trade in Coca Leaf 18
In this section the provenance of the statistics and their merits are discussed.
Table PCL 1: Export coca leaf from Peru.
Musto has compiled excellent statistics on the total annual exports of coca leaf from Peru.19
His main source is the statistics published by the Peruvian Customs. For the years before
1907 Musto has included in his compilation also data from other sources. He shows his
selection out of the multiple data in a separate table. In our table PCL 1 Musto’s selection is
presented, together with data from Gehe and data from secondary sources. The data from the
secondary sources are largely identical with or close to Musto’s. A set of data, headed
“Musto’s Selection Augmented”, Figure 16.1, representing the author’s choice out of the
available statistics is included as column [10] in table PCL 1. The figures of column [10] are
used for table 16.4 in this chapter.
Figure 16.1 Graph of the Export of Coca Leaf from Peru 1890-1933
Based on “Musto’s Selection Augmented”.
Export of Coca Leaf from Peru
1,600
1,400
Tonnes
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
0
Source: Table PCL 1, Column [10]
For the period 1911 to 1913 data have been published on exports of coca leaf from Peru by
country of destination. The data are summarized in table 16.3 below. Similar data for other
periods are not available.
18
19
All Tables from the PCL and JCL series are included in Part IV, Source Data.
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ (1998) 145-156.
349
Table 16.3 Export Peru Coca Leaf by Destination 1911-1913 (tonnes)
Country of
Destination
1911
[1]
1912
[2]
1913
[3]
USA
Germany
UK
France
Chile
Other
456
67
25
55
149
16
424
76
64
26
175
5
144
50
14
9
175
1
Total
768
770
393
Sources:
[1] Export 1911 to Chile, Die Coca 71,
Export to European counties, de Jong, Teysmannia (1912) 674
[2] and [3] Handelsberichten, The Hague (1914) 327
The totals for 1912 and 1913 in the above table (ex Handelsberichten, The Hague) are equal
to those reported by Musto for exports Peru (Table PCL 1).20 The quantities included in the
above table for exports to the USA are identical to those presented by Reens as imports into
New York (Ref. column [11] of Table PCL 4). We assume that all these data refer to exports
from Peru to the USA as a whole. Reens has sourced the data from a report by the CocaSyndicate.
The exports from Peru to Chile during 1911-1913 are surprisingly large; such large exports to
Chile are not mentioned for any other period in the literature. Walger comments that Chile’s
coca requirements were largely supplied by Bolivia but that in 1898 20 metric tonnes came
from Peru.21
The data for US imports appearing for the years 1910-1933 in column [8] of table PCL 4 are
considerably larger than the export data from Peru to the USA column [14] of that table and
in the above table 16.3. This indicates that during the period additional quantities of coca leaf
were imported from other countries (Java). This subject is discussed further later in this
chapter.
20
Handelsberichten (1914) 327.
T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung,
Dissertation University of Giessen (Berlin 1917) 71.
21
350
Table PCL 2: Import coca leaf into the USA - 1 (1900-1933)
FC&N data; comparison with Spillane's graphs (digitalized)
Note: Import statistics for the USA do not distinguish between the countries of origin of the
coca leaf. The data represent total imports; for practical purposes this means until ca 1910
imports from Peru only and thereafter the sum of imports from Peru and imports from Java
Compiled in this table are data on the imports of coca leaf into the USA sourced from
Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States (FC&N), an annual publication by
the US Department of Commerce. Up to volume 1917/18 FC&N covers fiscal years and from
1918 onwards calendar years. Quantities of coca leaf imported are reported from 1905/06
onwards, the USD values of the imports are included from 1900/01 but appear realistic from
1902/03 onwards only. Duty rates and amounts of duty paid are also included. We consider
the FC&N data on US imports as authoritative.
FC&N data on coca leaf imports into the USA are compared with those obtained from
Spillane’s graphs, which graphs are discussed in detail in the next section on Table PCL 3.
The calculated ratio (column [9]) of the data from FC&N and from Spillane shows that there
is good agreement between these data for the fiscal years 1905/06 to 1917/18 if we assume
that the category of the x-axis of Spillane’s graphs is fiscal years e.g. 1906 is 1905/06 etc.
The minor differences from the ratio 1.00 are the result of the plotting and digitizing of the
data.
For the calendar years from 1919 onwards the data from FC&N and from Spillane are
not in good agreement (column [9]). The source of Spillane’s data for the years after 1918 is
not known. Spillane’s data for these years are disregarded here.22 The values mentioned by
Spillane for imports USA 1892-1905 refer presumably to the fiscal years 1891/92 to 1904/05.
These values are estimates derived from information on imports of coca leaf into the port of
New York. These estimates are discussed in the section on table 13.2.
Table PCL 3: Import coca leaf into the USA - 2 (1892-1931)
Spillane's graphs (digitized)
Spillane in both his dissertation and his book presents statistics on importation of cocaine and
coca leaf into the USA in graphical form only.23,24 These graphs were digitized by the author
to enable comparison with the FC&N figures. The results of the digitizing are reported in
table PCL 3 in thousands of pounds (lbs 000) and in metric tonnes (kg 000); for imports into
New York in columns [2] and [3] and for imports into the USA total in columns [5] and [6].
For the period 1891/92 to 1915/16 Spillane estimated the weight of the annual
quantities of coca leaf imported into New York from the number of bales that were imported
multiplied by their average weight.25 These estimates appear in columns [2] and [3] of table
PCL 3. When Spillane compared his estimates of coca imports into New York with the
FC&N data for the imports into the USA total for the period 1904/05 to 1915/16 he found
that the ratio of imports into the USA (total 6,695 metric tonnes) and imports into New York
22
Remarkably, Spillane refers to Commerce Department reports on coca leaf and cocaine for the import
statistics but does not mention specifically the publication Foreign Commerce and Trade of the United States as
his source, neither in his dissertation of 1994 nor in his book Cocaine published in 2000.
23
J.F. Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The legal use and distribution of Cocaine in the United States,
1880-1920, Dissertation Carnegie Mellon University (1994), figures 3.3 and 3.5, pages 163, 172.
24
J. F. Spillane, Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United States (Baltimore 2000),
figures 3.5 and 3.7, pages 61, 64.
25
The data were sourced by Spillane from the weekly trade publication Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter.
351
(total 3,297 metric tonnes) was 2.03 (calculations HHB).26 That ratio was for Spillane the
justification for estimating the imports of coca leaf into the USA as two times imports New
York also for the years prior to 1904/05, which is an extrapolation.27 The ratios of the imports
USA/NY calculated for the period 1891/92-1903/04 appearing in column [7] are very close to
2.00 for each year; this is according to expectation because the imports USA total were
calculated in that way by Spillane.
Spillane considers the ratio 2.00 as a conservative estimate for the years before
1904/05. His rationale is that it had been reported that in 1897 the value of coca leaf imports
plus cocaine imports into New York was half of that compared with at all other ports.28 That
seems a weak argument for Spillane’s claim of “that coca imports through New York
represented one third to a half of the entire United States consumption” [for the years before
1904/05]. 1897 is only one year out of the period 1891/92 to 1903/04 and the value referred
to is the value of “coca and cocaine imports”, while the ratio is applied by Spillane to coca
leaf imports only.
Soininen mentions that Spillane in a private communication from 2004 had stated that
New Orleans was the number two port [for entry of coca leaf] into the United States.29 The
proportion of coca leaf imported into New York and New Orleans will have been different
for the years before and after 1904/05. Imports of coca leaf through the port of New Orleans
will have included those for Mallinckrodt (St. Louis) and as a result of that these imports will
have been larger after 1904/05 indicating a factor below 2.00 for the ratio USA/NY for the
years before 1904/05.30
Table PCL 4: Import coca leaf into the USA – 3
Summary table imports by fiscal and by calendar year (1892-1933)
Table PCL 4 provides a summary of imports into the USA by fiscal and by calendar year. In
this table FC&N data (in lbs) are converted into metric tonnes which are presented together
with data from other sources. Data for fiscal years are converted into approximate values for
calendar years by calculating the averages of consecutive fiscal years. The figures in the table
show that for the fiscal years from 1905/06 to 1917/18 there is good agreement on the data as
reported by various the sources.
26
We note that although the average ratio USA/NY for the period 1904/05 to 1915/16 is close to 2, the ratios for
individual years as calculated in column [7] show a considerable variation around that number.
27
Spillane, Cocaine, 61. Note: Spillane regards also imports for the year 1904/05 as published in FC&N.
However, the author could find imports (as weights) in FC&N only for the years from 1905/06 onwards, not for
the year 1904/05 for which year only the dollar value is mentioned. But Spillane’s position is supported by
Reens and by de Jong (Ref. Table 13.3) who mention virtually identical weights for 1905/06 imports.
28
Spillane, Cocaine, 60 mentions to a report by T.D. Crothers (no reference provided).
29
J. Soininen, Industrial Geographies of Cocaine, Thesis University of Helsinki (2008), 127.
30
A leaflet titled ‘Mallinckrodt’, published by “Tyco, Healthcare, Mallinckrodt”, undated, mentions in the
section “Mallinckrodt’s St. Louis Plant” that morphine and codeine were the first medicinal narcotics
manufactured by the company in 1898. Cocaine manufacture commenced within a few years thereafter. As
Mallinckrodt had become a major US cocaine manufacturer already in 1904 (Cf. Spillane, Cocaine, 65-66) this
will have resulted in increased imports of coca leaf into New Orleans (for supply to St Louis) at the time.
352
Figure 16.2 Graph of the Imports of Coca Leaf into the United States during the
Calendar Years 1906-1933.
1932
1930
1928
1926
1924
1922
1920
1918
1916
1914
1912
1910
1908
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1906
Tonnes
Imports Coca leaf into the USA
Calendar Years 1906-1933
Source: Table PCL 4, Column [8]
The data on the importation of coca leaf into the USA (columns [4], [5] and [6] of PCL 4)
taken from publications by Reens, Walger and de Jong are identical for the years from
1905/06 to 1910/11; for each year they are consistently 1.7% lower than the FC&N data and
refer to imports into New York rather than to the USA as a whole. Reens and Walger refer to
a report by the “cocasyndicaat” as the source of the data; de Jong does not provide a
reference for his source.31 Spillane has argued that imports into New York represent on
average only about 50% of the total imports into the USA during this period. From the above
we conclude that the data presented by Reens, Walger and de Jong were ultimately sourced
from FC&N via the report by the “cocasyndicaat” and that the authors of that report had
assumed that all imports into the USA came in through the port of New York. Furthermore it
appears that the authors of that report have applied a slightly incorrect factor for the
conversion of lbs into metric tonnes. The data for 1925-1933 reported by the US Treasury
Department (column [12]) are mostly in good agreement with those from FC&N (column
[8]). Data on quantities of Coca leaf exported from Peru to the USA during the period 19101933 were taken from Gootenberg who refers to publication by Bües and Pilli as the source.32
31
E. Reens, La Coca de Java. Monographie historique, botanique et pharmacologique. Dissertation University
of Paris (Lons-le-Saunier 1919) 18. T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und
wirtschaftliche Bedeutung, Dissertation University of Giessen (Berlin 1917) 69. A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter
‘Coca’ in: H.C. Prinsen Geerligs, editor, K.W. Van Gorkom’s Oost-Indische Cultures 2nd Ed [3] (Amsterdam
1919) 299. Anonymous, Verslag van de Commissie tot oprichting van het cocasyndicaat, (Batavia 1912).
32
Paul Gootenberg, Andean Cocaine, the making of a global drug (North Carolina, 2008) 158 (Table 4.1) and
333. For 1910-1923: Bües, La coca en al Peru and for 1925-1942: Pilli, Coca Industry.
353
Table PCL 5: Import coca leaf into Hamburg (1890-1913)33
Statistics on imports of Peru coca leaf into Hamburg are compiled in tables PCL 5-7. For the
period 1890-1903 the amounts are calculated from the number of bales imported as reported
by Gehe34. The weight of one bale Peruvian coca is usually between 120 and 135 pounds35.
This corresponds with an average weight of 58 kg per bale. This average weight was used to
calculate the quantity of imported coca leaf (column [5]).
For the period 1904-1913 data on exports of Peru coca to Hamburg were found in
Korte Berichten vor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (The Hague).36 Data on imports of
Peruvian coca leaf into Hamburg over the same period have been included in publications by
Reens, Walger and de Jong.37 All these data have been included in table PCL 6. They are
very similar for these four sources except for Reens’ data for 1905 and 1906, which are
assumed to be erroneous. The amounts included in column [5] are those selected by the
author. The imports reported for Germany for the period 1905-1908 are very high in
comparison with those for the years before and thereafter.
Tables JCL 3 and 4: Export of coca leaf from Java.
Import statistics for the USA do not distinguish between the countries of origin of the coca
leaf. The FC&N data represent the total imports. Statistical information on the export of coca
leaf from Java to the USA contained in tables JCL 3 and 4 is used in this chapter to calculate
the quantities of coca leaf imported into the USA from Peru by deducting the amounts
imported from Java from the total imports.
From 1908 onwards statistics on the exports of coca leaf from Java (including
Madoera) by country of destination have been published by the Department of Finance of the
Dutch East Indies.38 These statistics have been compiled by the author in table JCL 3. The
table shows that except for direct exports to the USA and Japan most of the coca leaf went to
the Netherlands from where it was largely re-exported. Data on the break-up of the re-exports
of Java coca from the Netherlands over countries of destination are available from 1922
onwards. These data reported by the Coca Producers Association are included in Table JCL 4
showing that during the period 1922-1932 the largest part by far of the exports went to
Germany.39
33
In publications on the trade in Peruvian coca leaf it is are tacitly assumed that imports into the port of
Hamburg are equal to imports into Germany as a whole.
34
Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsbericht 1893-1904.
35
Spillane, Cocaine, Table 3.3 page 53.
36
Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (Batavia. Dutch East Indies), (1911) 157.
37
For references see ‘Sources and Notes’ of Table PCL 6 (Part III).
38
Statistiek van Den Handel en de In-en Uitvoerrechten (Statistics Dutch East Indies), Deel IIa (Java en
Madoera) Weltevreden 1874-1923, Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam.
39
Coca-Producenten Vereniging (Coca Producers Association), Annual Reports 1926, 1927 and 1932,
Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No. 2.20.04 Item 1643.
354
16.3 Bringing it All Together
For the calendar years 1892-1930 statistical information on the exports and imports of coca
leaf contained in tables PCL 1 to 5, tables JCL 3 and 4, and in table 16.3 are brought together
in tables 16.4 and 16.5 in the way as depicted in figure 16.3 below. (The numbers in square
brackets refer to the columns of the respective tables).
Figure 16.3 The Trade in Coca Leaf – Sources of Statistical Information
Table PCL 3
Import NY / USA
Spillane
1891/92-1931
Table PCL 2
Import USA
FC & N
1905/06-1933
Spillane
1900/01-1931
[5]
Table PCL 4
[6]
[2]
Import USA
Spillane 1892-1904
FC&N 1905-1933
Export Peru to USA
1910-1933
[9],[13],[14]
Table PCL 1
Export Peru
1890-1933
Tables 16.4 - 16.8
[11]
Export Peru
Import USA
Import Germany
Import Other
European
Countries
Table PCL 5
[5]
Import Germany
1890-1913
[1], [2],[3]
[4] [3]
Table 16.3
Tables JCL 3 and 4
Table 16.9
Export Peru
1911 - 1913
Export Java
1915-1930
Export Peru
Import USA
Import Germany
Import Other
European
Countries
REVISED
355
Table 16.4 Coca Leaf from Peru – Export and Import 1892-1930 (tonnes) – Part 1
Calendar
Year of
Export/
Import
Export
Peru
Total
P
[1]
Import
USA total
Until 1904:
Spillane
for k = 2.00
From 1905:
FC & N
U
[2]
Export
Peru to USA
Until 1909:
U*=U
From 1910:
Bües/Pilli
Export
Peru to Chile,
Germany and
Other Europe
Export
Peru
to Chile
Import
Germany
(Hamburg)
Export
Peru to
Other Europe
(k = 2.00)
U*
[3]
P-U*
[4]
C
[5]
G
[6]
O = P-U*-C-G
[7]
1892
1893
1894
388
391
372
209
224
182
209
224
182
179
167
190
123
100
85
57
66
104
AVG 1892-1894
384
205
205
179
103
76
1895
1896
n/a
n/a
297
407
297
407
n/a
n/a
152
290
n/a
n/a
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
494
407
312
566
610
933
1,026
328
188
323
516
673
855
761
328
188
323
516
673
855
761
166
219
-11
50
-63
78
265
106
77
125
107
203
108
116
60
122
-136
-57
-266
-31
149
AVG 1897-1903
621
521
521
101
120
-20
1904
911
735
735
176
n/a
n/a
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1,490
1,211
654
404
496
496
1,027
945
487
393
410
439
1,027
945
487
393
410
277
463
266
167
11
86
219
619
578
355
237
47
20
-156
-312
-188
-226
39
199
AVG 1904-1910
809
634
611
198
309
-107
1911
1912
1913
768
770
393
546
534
428
456
424
144
312
346
249
149
175
175
67
76
50
96
95
24
AVG 1911-1913
644
503
341
302
166
64
72
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
478
393
266
307
167
386
453
88
124
190
170
217
204
143
150
101
192
399
453
359
384
611
361
288
47
67
157
59
72
132
130
96
55
90
330
274
99
153
135
176
198
10
44
94
0
42
61
84
56
52
68
148
119
167
154
32
210
255
78
80
96
170
175
143
59
94
49
124
AVG 1914-1930
237
221
110
127
20
356
The following data and considerations were used as input for the calculations in Table 16.4:
Column [1]
Exports of coca leaf from Peru as the yearly totals taken from the
column [11] “Musto’s selection augmented” of table PCL 1.
Column [2]
Coca leaf imports into the USA for the calendar years
1892-1904 are taken from table PCL 4, column [9].
For the years from 1905 the data are taken from table PCL 4, column [13]
Column [3]
Until 1909 all USA coca leaf imports are assumed to be from Peru. For years from 1910
exports from Peru to the USA are those from Bües/Pilli ( table PCL 4, column [14])
Column [4]
[4] = [1] – [3]
Column [5]
The years 1911-1913 are the only for which the amounts exported from Peru to all
destinations (USA, Chile, Germany and Other) are known. They are taken from table 16.3
Column [6]
Imports of Peru coca into the port of Hamburg for the period 1892-1903 are taken from table
PCL 5, column [3] and for the period 1904-1913 from table PCL 6 column [5]. These amounts
are considered to be the total quantities imported into Germany.
Column [7]
[7] = [4] – [5] – [6]
With respect to the calculations we note:
Column [3]
For the years 1892 to1904 the imports of coca leaf into the USA
are calculated as 2.00 times the import into the port of New York
as estimated by Spillane. All the coca imported during this period is
assumed to be all of Peruvian origin. For the period 1905-1909
the FC&N import statistics are used. For the period 1910-1930
imports of Peru coca leaf into the USA are known from Bües and Pilli.
Column [7]
Except for the period 1911-1913, these are calculated amounts. They are the
quantities of Peru coca leaf that were exported to “Other Countries”
i.e. countries for which no imports statistics are available to us.
Averages of the various statistics are calculated over periods representing series of
consecutive years for which these statistics are complete.
16.4 Evaluation of the Results of Table 16.4 - The period 1897-1903
The most striking feature of table 16.4 is the strongly negative numbers appearing column [7]
for exports to Other Countries during the periods 1897-1903 and 1905-1910. The effect of
goods shipped in one year and arriving in the next may result occasionally in a relatively
small negative number when the imports into Germany and the USA are deducted from the
exports Peru. However, these numbers should not be strongly negative for individual years
and their average over a series of consecutive years should be not less than a quite small
negative number. For the periods 1897-1903 and 1905-1910, the strongly negative numbers
for consecutive years in column [7] indicate that some of the figures used as input for the
calculations must be erroneous. A method to investigate the compatibility of trade data
contained in time series was developed by the author; that is the GIT-method described in
detail in Appendix 2. We will consider the two periods separately in an attempt to find
explanations.
The assumption that the export statistics for Peru and the import statistics for
Germany are correct leads to the conclusion that the values in column [7] of Table 16.4 are so
strongly negative because the imports into the USA appearing in column [5] are too large.
357
The values in column [2] for the years 1892-1904 are sourced from Spillane who had
calculated them on the basis of the assumption that imports into the USA as a whole were
twice as large as the coca imports into New York. Earlier in this chapter we have reasoned
that Spillane’s arguments for the use of a factor 2.00 outside the period 1904/05-1915/16 are
weak; it is likely that the ratio USA/NY (the factor k) was below 2.00 for the earlier years.
Use of a smaller factor will have the effect that the US imports as calculated become smaller,
and consequently the figures appearing in column [9] will be less negative.
A method was developed for estimating the maximum value of the factor k, which,
when applied to the US imports into New York, results in positive values for the quantities of
Peruvian coca leaf supplied to Other Countries. That method is an application of the GITmethod of Appendix 3. A parameter used in the calculations is the average quantity of coca
leaf in transit at year end as a fraction (p) of the total quantity exported during that year. That
fraction (p) is equal to the average shipping time expressed in years.40 Assuming that Peru
coca leaf was shipped to the USA and to Europe by sea using the Panama railroad to cross the
isthmus, the average shipping time (transit time) is estimated at 5.2 weeks (p = 0.10).41
We applied this method for the period 1897-1903 to the data of table 16.4 for export
Peru (E), import Hamburg (G) and import New York (NY) using a series of factors (k) from
2.00 downwards. We found strongly negative values for coca leaf in transit for k = 2.00 and
that using the factor 1.60 still shows a negative value for goods in transit at the end of year
1901. However, if the factor 1.38 was used all values for coca in transit at year end became
zero or positive (Table and Graph 16.5, below).
40
Alternatively the shipping time can be expressed in weeks (w), in which case p = w/52.
This estimate is based on current shipping times (via the Panama Canal) from Peru (Callao) to New York and
to Hamburg (www.searates.com) multiplied by a factor 2, adding one week for the transfer of the goods by rail
over the isthmus. As a comparison, in 1855 a cargo of ice was sent from Boston to Aspinwall (now Colon) in
Panama from where it was transported by the Panama Railway to Panama (the town) in a total of 30 days (New
York Times Archives, November 6, 1855). Shipping times reported for 1887 are Aspinwall – New York ca 1
week and Hamburg – New York ca 2 weeks (New York Times, as quoted by www.theshipslist.com).
41
358
Table 16.5 Quantities of Peru Coca Leaf in Transit (tonnes)
at Year End 1896-1903 as a function of k
(p =0.10)
k
Year
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.38
1.20
1.00
45
49
41
-96
-158
-424
-454
-305
45
49
41
-63
-74
-272
-217
8
45
49
41
-31
10
-121
19
103
45
49
41
5
57
0
93
103
45
49
41
31
57
60
93
103
45
49
41
31
57
61
93
103
k = Ratio Import Coca USA / New York
p = Fraction of the total quantity of coca exported during a year in transit at year end
Figure 16.4 Graph of Peru Coca Leaf in Transit at Year End 1896-1903
S end of the year (kg 000)
Quantity of Peru Coca Leaf
in Transit at Year End 1896-1903 for p = 0.10
200
100
0
-100
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
-200
-300
-400
-500
k=2.00
k=1.80
k=1.60
k=1.38
k=1.20
From the table and graph we see that the factor 1.38 is the maximum value for the ratio
imports USA/ New York to yield positive figures for coca leaf in transit at year end for all
years. We have used the value k = 1.38 for further calculations; the results are shown in table
16.6 (below) for the period 1897-1903. The average imports into the USA for 1897-1903
amount to 359 metric tonnes (t) per annum and the average imports into Other Countries to
133 t per annum, a figure in line with that for the previous period.
359
Table 16.6 Trade in Peru Coca Leaf 1897-1903 (tonnes)
Goods in Transit and Delivered (Shipping Time: 5.2 weeks)
(p = 0.10)
Year
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
Peru
Export
P
450
494
407
312
566
610
933
1,026
Germany New York
USA
Import
Import
Import
G
NY
U = k*NY
106
77
125
107
203
108
116
164
94
162
258
336
428
381
k
1.38
P-G-U
T
T*
w
5.2
S avg
161
200
-36
103
-57
235
385
45
206
407
371
474
417
651
1,036
45
206
250
5
107
-0
234
478
45
49
41
31
57
61
93
103
227
130
223
356
464
590
525
Other
Countries
Delivered
D
Goods
in Transit
at Year End
S end
157
209
0
51
0
141
375
45
49
41
5
57
-0
93
103
Table 16.6 is an application of the GIT-method (Appendix 2)
T = Quantity of coca in transit at year end assuming that no coca is delivered during the period
T* = Auxiliary variable equal to T minus the quantities delivered during the period
D = Quantity of coca delivered
S end = Quantity of coca in transit at the end of a period
The value k = 1.38 was established by making the quantity in Goods in Transit zero, which
occurred at year end 1901. As a consequence this ratio is valid for the period 1897-1901. For
the years 1902 and 1903 the value for k is undetermined. However, on the basis of a k-value
of 1.49, calculated from Spillane’s graphs for the year 1904/05 (Table PCL 3, column [7]), it
is considered justified to apply the k-value of 1.38 for total period 1897-1903.
Table 16.6 was also run for p = 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 to find the values for k for
which Send for 1901 is 0. The resulting values for k and D average are contained in the
following table:
Table 16.7 The factor k and D avg as a function of the average transit time w (in weeks)
p
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
w
2.6
5.2
7.8
10.4
k
1.28
1.38
1.46
1.50
D avg
163
133
106
94
k = Ratio Import Coca USA / New York
p = Fraction of the total quantity of coca exported during a year in transit at year end
w = p expressed in weeks (w = 52p)
D avg = Quantity of coca delivered
The figures of the table provide insight in the accuracy of the method. No information is
available on actual shipping times of coca from Peru at the time but based on other relevant
shipping times discussed above, the author is of the opinion that p = 0.10 is a reasonable
360
estimate of the average transit time and that a range for p from 0.05 to 0.15 represents a fair
guess of the confidence interval.
16.5 Table 16.8 and its Evaluation
Table 16.8 is the continuation of Table 16.4. The quantities of the total imports of coca leaf
into the USA for the period 1892-1904 are calculated (column [10]) from the imports into
New York (Spillane) by applying the factor k = 1.38, as derived in the previous section.
Assuming that during the period all coca imported into the USA originated from Peru, the
quantities of Peru coca exported to Chile, Germany and other “European countries” were
calculated (column [13]) and deducting the exports to Germany and Chile resulted in the total
of the quantities of coca exported to “Other European countries (column [14]). The
calculated figures for exports to “Other Europe” for the period 1897-1903 are now in line
with the values for the previous period and the strong negative values of Table 16.4 have
disappeared. For the period 1904-1909 the values in column [14] for export to “Other
Europe” remained strongly negative, unchanged from column [7] in Table 16.4. That
problem is dealt with in subsequent sections.
With Table 16.8 it is attempted to split the total US imports of coca over the countries of
origin of the leaf. For the period 1892-1909 it is assumed in the first instance that all coca
came from Peru. Towards the end of that period that will have changed, however. Merck
Darmstadt began to use Java coca as its main raw material for cocaine manufacture in 1907.42
Around that time Merck started cocaine manufacture in the USA and it is reasonable to
assume that Java coca became the raw material also there. Statistics on the export from Java
are available for the years from 1908. Because Java coca was not shipped from Java to the
USA until 1916, it will have been imported from the Netherlands until that time. For the
period 1910-1915 these quantities are calculated (in blue, column [11]) as the differences
between total coca imports into the USA and imports from Peru. From 1916 onwards the
figures in column [11] (in black) represent the sum of export statistics of Java coca from Java
and the Netherlands to the USA (until 1922 incomplete for the Netherlands).
Deducting the exports of coca from Peru and from Java from the US total coca imports
results in the values contained in column [12], representing coca leaf imports into the USA
from countries other than Peru and Java (total). We see that for 1918-1921 these quantities
are in the order of 60 t p.a. These quantities could represent Java coca imports and because
the average of column [12] for the period 1914-1930 is only 16 t coca leaf p.a, it is concluded
that it is sufficiently accurate to continue making the estimates assuming that coca imports
into the USA comprised Peru and Java coca only.
42
A. Hirschmüller, ‘E. Merck und das Kokain’, Gesnerus 52 (1995) 120.
361
Calendar
Year of
Export/
Import
Import
New York
Estimates
Spillane
NY
[8]
Import
USA total
Until 1904:
Spillane
for k = 1.38
From 1905:
FC & N
U
[9]
Export
Peru to USA
Until 1909:
U*=U
From 1910:
Bües/Pilli
Export
Java coca
to USA
Netherlands
plus Java
(incomplete)
Import USA
from
Other
Countries
Export
Peru to Chile,
Germany and
Other Europe
(k = 1.38)
Export
Peru to
Other Europe
(k = 1.38)
U*
[10]
J
[11]
U-U*-J
[12]
P-U*
[13]
O = P-U*-G-C
[14]
1892
1893
1894
104
112
91
144
155
126
144
155
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
244
236
246
122
136
161
AVG 1892-1894
103
142
142
0
0
242
139
1895
1896
149
203
205
281
205
281
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
164
94
162
258
336
428
381
227
130
223
356
464
590
525
227
130
223
356
464
590
525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
267
277
89
210
146
343
501
161
180
-36
103
-57
84
73
AVG 1897-1903
260
359
359
0
0
262
73
1904
368
507
507
0
0
404
n/a
1,027
945
487
393
410
439
1,027
945
487
393
410
277
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
463
266
167
11
86
219
-156
-312
-188
-226
39
199
AVG 1904-1910
601
578
231
-79
1911
1912
1913
546
534
428
456
424
144
90
110
284
0
0
0
312
346
249
96
95
24
AVG 1911-1913
503
341
161
0
302
72
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
399
453
359
384
611
361
288
47
67
157
59
72
132
130
96
55
90
330
274
99
153
135
176
198
10
44
94
0
42
61
84
56
52
68
69
179
273
235
408
125
11
0
32
60
0
31
74
44
43
11
24
0
0
-13
-4
68
60
79
37
-9
3
59
-1
-3
2
-3
-8
-2
148
119
167
154
32
210
255
78
80
96
170
175
143
59
94
49
124
69
179
260
231
476
185
90
37
23
63
59
30
71
46
40
3
22
AVG 1914-1930
221
110
95
16
127
111
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
362
The following data and considerations were used as input for the calculations in Table 16.5:
Column [8]
Imports of coca leaf into New York are those by Spillane. Calculated from
Table PCL 4, column [9] / 2.
Column [9]
1892-1904: [8] * 1.38
For the years 1905-1930 the data are taken from table PCL 4, column [13]
Column [10]
Until 1909 all USA coca leaf imports are assumed to be from Peru; hence [10] = [11].
For the years from 1910 exports from Peru to the USA are those reported by Bües/Pilli,
(Table PCL 4, column [14])
Column [11]
Until 1909 imports of Java coca into the USA are assumed to be nil.
From 1910 to 1915: [11] = [9] – [10]. From 1916-1930 total exports from Java are calculated
as the sum of exports from Java and exports from the Netherlands. Note: Data on coca exports
from the Netherlands are not available for the years 1916-1921.
Column [12]
[12] = [9] – [10] – [11]
Column [13]
[13] = [1] (Table 16.4) – [10]
Column [14]
[14] = [13] – [5] (Table 16.4) – [6] (Table 16.4)
The reported large importations of Peruvian coca into Germany
The imports of coca leaf reported for Germany for the period 1905-1908 (table 16.4 column
[6], are more than three times as large as those for the previous period and fall back very
sharply thereafter. The statistics available for this period originate from a single secondary
source.43 It is a reputable source and the figures are repeated in various other publications but
the primary source of the information is unknown.44 For the period 1890-1903 imports of
Peruvian coca into Hamburg are reported annually (in bales) in Gehe’s Handelsbericht, but
for the years 1904-1909 these statistics are discontinued.45
Total coca exports from Peru over the period 1904-1907 as appearing in Musto’s
Table 6 do not show an appreciable increase over those of the previous period, and US
imports for 1904-1907 are somewhat higher than earlier.46 These two statistics combined
with the large German imports result in the large negative values appearing in column [7] of
Table 16.4 indicating serious incompatibilities of the trade statistics. Assuming that the
FC&N data for the US imports are correct, the error must be either in the data for the imports
Germany or the exports Peru, or both.
In search for an explanation, looking again at the export statistics Peru it was found
that Musto, in his table 2, has included two entirely different figures for the export of coca
leaf during 1906. One, sourced from the Peruvian Departemento de estadistica general de
aduanas is 1,211 mt, while the other, from the Great Britain Foreign Office (marked “total”)
amounts to 3,224 mt.
43
Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (Departement van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel,
Batavia, Dutch East Indies) No 12 (1911) 157.
44
Table PCL 6.
45
In Gehe’ Handelsbericht (1907) 26 it is mentioned that in 1906 large quantities of South American coca were
exported and that in Europe and North America considerable stocks accumulated, resulting in a price decline of
one-third, but specific countries and numerical data are not included.
46
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ (1998) 150. Cf. Table PCL 1, column [2].
363
Musto includes only the lower figure from the Peruvian customs department in his summary
table 6.47
To evaluate the scenario if the large export of ca 3,200 mt from Peru could solve the
problem of the large negative values, the GIT-method was applied to the data for 1905-1910
from Table 13.4 but using the value of 3,224 mt for exports Peru during 1906. It was found
that a shipping time of 18 weeks (4 months) is the minimum for 1907 in order to achieve that
goods in transfer (GIT) at year end 1908 (the critical year) becomes ≥ 0. This average
shipping time of 18 weeks for 1907 is very much larger than the 5.2 weeks which were
estimated for the period 1897-1903. The US led construction of the Panama Canal which
started in 1904 will have seriously impaired transport of commercial cargo by the Panama
Railroad via the isthmus, especially during the relocations of the railroad of 1907, and must
therefore have extended the shipping time of coca leaf from Peru to the USA and Europe
considerably, but a three months increase seems excessive.
Another consequence of the large imports into Germany of ca 1,800 mt for the four
years 1905-1908 is that this quantity would have to be sold during that period and there are
no indications in trade publications or elsewhere in the literature that the market for Peruvian
coca leaf in Germany or Other European Countries had expanded to such extent. Only for
1906 are there reports of large quantities of Peru coca reaching Europe, which remained
largely unsold.48 From the above considerations it is concluded that the scenario under which
the large GBFO export figure for 1906 provides the explanation of reported large German
47
Included in our table PLC 1 are the exports of coca leaf from Peru for 1905 and 1906 reported by Walger, Die
Coca (1917), who refers to the Journal of the Ceylon Agricultural Society 13 (1912) 398 as the source. These
quantities are different from those appearing in Musto’s publication. All these quantities are included in the
following table:
Coca Leaf Export Peru 1905-1906
Source
1905
1906
3,284,563
0.4536
1,489,878
1,490
7,107,290
0.4536
3,223,867
3,224
Musto's Table 2
GBFO
Conversion Factor
GBFO
Rounded
lbs
lbs>kg
kg
kg 000
Peru Customs
kg
Musto's Table 6
Rounded
Conversion Factor
kg
kg 000
lbs>kg
1,489,598
1,490
0
1,210,652
1,211
n/a
Walger (Ceylon)
Conversion Factor
at 1 lb = 0.400000
kg
lbs>kg
kg
1,315,825
0.400609
1,313,825
2,842,916
0.400000
n/a
1,210,652
When looking at Walger’s figures we noted that the ratio GBFO / Walger (both in kg) was similar for 1905 and
1906. Further calculations showed that the ratio Walger (kg) and GBFO (lbs) for 1906 is exactly 0.400000 and
for 1905 0.400609. Calculating the weight in kg for 1905 from the weight in lbs sourced from the GBFO using
the conversion factor 0.400000, we found a figure differing by only one digit from Walger’s (see table 13.6,
above); a printing error (a 5 instead of a 3) must have occurred in the Ceylonese publication. It appears that
someone has used the entirely wrong factor of 0.400000 to convert the weight in lbs reported by the GBFO into
kg and that Walger’s figures are ultimately from the same source as Musto’s.
48
Ref. footnote [37].
364
imports over the period 1905-1908 is not tenable. No fact-based explanation can be provided
for the provenance of these large figures.49
16.6 The Remaining Scenario
The remaining scenario is that the export figure Peru for 1906 of 1,211 mt reported by the
Peruvian Customs is correct, and to assume that the actual average annual German imports
during 1905-1908 were in fact much smaller than the ones reported and were in line with
those of the years before and thereafter. As mentioned in Section 16.5, the source of the
challenged data is a secondary and the primary source of the data is not known. Although
unsatisfactory, for the subsequent calculations we have disregarded the reported German
import figures and have estimated these imports in an alternative way.
Table 16.9 and the Regression Line
The next step in evaluating the scenario was to prepare Table 16.9 as the sequential of Tables
16.4 and 16.8. To facilitate understanding of the calculations involved the following flow
chart was prepared (Figure 16.5). The chart provides the definitions of the letter symbols used
and formulas that follow from the flowchart. The black lines represent flows of Peru coca, the
green lines flows of Java coca.
Figure 16.5 Flow Chart of the Trade in Peru Coca
FLOW CHART OF THE TRADE IN PERU COCA
EXPORT
JAVA COCA
USA
TOTAL
Deduct J
Net Imports
Peru Coca
(approximately)
USA
U*= U - J
J
U
U*
G
COCA LEAF
EXPORT
PERU
GERMANY
P
O
C
OTHER EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES
CHILE
Letter Symbols for the flows
P
U
U*
J
G
O
49
Total Export Peru
Total Import Coca USA
Export Peru Coca to USA
Total Export Java Coca USA (Java + Netherlands)
Import Peru Coca Germany
Import Peru Coca Other European Countries
Formulas following from the flowchart
U = U*+ J (approx.)
P = U*+ G + O + C
Note:
"Deduct J(ava)" is used to arrive
at net imports Peru coca USA
A pure speculative explanation is that the amounts refer to exports to a South American country (Chile) by a
German trader, which has confused the statisticians.
365
Data used as input for Table 16.9 were the values for P-U* calculated from P, the total
exports of coca from Peru and U*, the exports from Peru to the USA. Because Java coca is
the main other coca imported into the USA, U* is on average approximately equal to U-J
(Section 16.5). The values for P-U* represent the total export of Peru coca to Chile, Germany
and Other European Countries (C + G + O). The (few) data available for the export to Chile
(C) were used to calculate values for P-U*-C representing the sum of exports of Peru coca to
Germany and Other European Countries (G + O).
The values for P, P-U* and P-U*-C were plotted against time for the period 1892-1930 as
shown in the graph below (Figure 16.6)
Figure 16.6 Graph of Peru Coca Export & Import 1892-1930 No 1
Peru Coca Export & Import 1892-1930
1,600
1,400
Tonnes
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
0
P Export Peru Total
P - U*
P - U* - C
The line for P-U* (the brown line) represents the total of the exports of Peru coca to all
countries outside the USA, which is equal to G+O+C. The line for P-U* shows a trend of a
gradual reduction of the values over time, with periods of substantial deviations
superimposed thereupon. That the deviations occurred over distinct periods and not as
random fluctuations for individual years indicates common causes.
Data for the export of Peru coca to Chile are available only for the years 1898 and
1911-1913. Plotting the calculated values of P-U*-C (the green triangles) for these years
shows that for the period 1911-1913 these values are roughly in line with the trend of P-U*.
To investigate this phenomenon further the regression-line for P-U* versus time (the yellow
line in Figure 16.7) was determined using the values for P-U* with the exception of the
values for 1902-1906 and 1908-1910, which were omitted, because of the large deviations
from the trend and the values for 1898 and 1911-1913, for which the P-U*-C values were
substituted.50 This resulted in the graph below (Figure 16.7)
50
Excel Data Analysis Regression function (Least Squares method) was used.
366
Figure 16.7 Graph of Peru Coca Export & Import 1892-1930 No 2
P = Export Peru Total
P - U*
P - U*- C
1930
1928
1926
1924
1922
1920
1918
1916
1914
1912
1910
1908
1906
1904
1902
1900
1898
1896
1894
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1892
Tonnes
Peru Coca Export & Import 1892-1930
and Regression Line
Regression
On the basis of the graph it is postulated that over the period 1892-1930 there is an
approximately linear relationship between the values for P-U*-C = G + O and time. This
assumption implies that, except for the periods 1902-1906 and 1911-1913, exports of Peru
coca to Chile were negligible and that exports of coca to Chile for the period 1902-1906 can
be calculated as the difference between P-U* and the regression line value. The gradual
decrease of G + O over the period represents the replacement of Peru coca by cheaper Java
coca as a raw material for cocaine manufacture in Europe.
For the years 1908-1910 and 1918 the P-U* values are substantially below the
regression line. For the period 1911-1913 we have argued (vide supra) that this is caused by
substantial quantities of Java coca which were imported into the USA from the Netherlands.
For the years 1908-1910 we assume the same which provides an explanation for the low
values for P-U*. The explanation is that the values for U* were too high as a result of the
original assumption that the import of Java coca into the USA was zero during these years.
For Table 16.9 the imports of Java coca into the USA for 1908-1910 were calculated as the
difference between the regression line values and the values for P-U*.51
51
The low figure for 1918 is considered to be an anomaly probably related to delays in shipment as a result of
the First World War.
367
Calendar
Year of
Export/
Import
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
Averages
Export
Peru
to Chile,
Germany and
Other Europe
(k = 1.38)
P-U*
[15]
Export
Peru
to
Germany and
Other Europe
P-U*-C
[16]
244
236
246
267
277
89
210
146
343
501
404
463
266
167
11
86
219
312
346
249
148
119
167
154
32
210
255
78
80
96
170
175
143
59
94
49
124
P-U*
Data
Selected for
Regression
Calculation
Regression
Line
a = -3.521
b = 6,890
Difference
Regression
Line and
P-U*
Export
Peru
to Chile,
(Estimates
in blue)
Export
Java coca
to the USA
(Estimates
in blue)
P-U* or
P-U*-C
[17]
R
[18]
(P-U*)-R
[19]
C
[20]
J*= U-U*
[21]
244
236
246
257
267
257
89
210
146
167
163
171
74
163
171
74
148
119
167
154
32
210
255
78
80
96
170
175
143
59
94
49
124
228
224
221
217
214
210
207
203
200
196
193
189
186
182
179
175
172
168
165
161
158
154
151
147
144
140
137
133
130
126
123
119
116
112
109
105
102
98
95
16
12
25
57
71
-114
10
-50
150
311
218
281
87
-8
-161
-82
54
151
188
95
-3
-28
23
14
-105
77
125
-48
-43
-23
54
63
34
-46
-8
-49
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
150
311
218
281
87
0
0
0
0
149
175
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
161
82
162
90
110
284
69
179
260
231
476
185
90
37
23
63
59
30
71
46
40
3
22
C
J*
Import
Peru Coca
Germany and
Other Europe
Best
Estimate
G+O
[22]
244
236
246
217
214
267
257
89
210
146
193
189
186
182
179
167
172
168
165
163
171
74
148
119
167
154
32
210
255
78
80
96
170
175
143
59
94
49
124
G+O
1892-1894
242
0
0
242
1897-1903
262
69
0
193
1904-1910
231
84
58
174
1911-1913
302
166
161
136
1914-1930
127
0
111
127
368
The following data were used as input for the calculations in Table 16.9:
Column [15]
[15] = [1] Table 16.4 – [10] Table 16.8
Column [16]
[16] = [15] - [5] Table 16.4
Only if [5] Table 16.4 > 0, otherwise [16] = 0
Column [17]
Data selected for the regression calculation on the basis of visual inspection of Figure 16.6
(Ref. text above)
Column [18]
The regression line corresponding with the data in column [17] was calculated with the
Intercept and Slope functions in Excel.
Column [19]
[19] = [17] – [18]
Column [20]
1902-1908: Differences with regression line interpreted as exports from Peru to Chile.
Column [21]
1908-1909: Differences with regression line interpreted as exports Java coca to the USA
1910-1915: [21] = [11] Table 16.8
Column [22]
Equal to [17] except for the years 1895-1896, 1902-1906 and 1908-1910 where regression line
values (column [18]) are used.
Summarizing the average values of the key parameters by period results in the following
table:
Table 16.10 Peru Coca Export and Import 1892-1930
Summary of the Average Quantities by Period (tonnes per annum))
Period
Export
Peru
Total
P
[1]
Import
Coca USA
Total
U
[2]
Export
Java coca
to USA
J
[3]
Export
Export to
Peru coca Rest of the
to USA
World
U*
P - U*
[4]
[5]
Export
Peru to
Chile
C
[6]
Export
Peru To
Europe
G+O
[7]
Import
Germany
G
[8]
Import
Other
Europe
O
[9]
1892-1894
384
142
0
142
242
0
242
103
139
1897-1903
621
359
0
359
262
69
193
120
71
1904-1910
809
601
58
578
231
84
174
n/a
n/a
1911-1913
644
503
161
341
302
166
136
64
72
1914-1930
237
221
95
110
127
0
127
n/a
n/a
287
282
TOTAL
1892-1930
Sources: Columns [1] and [8]: Table 16.4; Columns [2] and [4]: Table 16.8;
Columns [3], [5], [6] and [7]: Table 16.9; Column [9]: [9] = [7] - [8]; n/a = not available
The values in column [8] and [9] suggest that the amounts of Peru coca imported into
Germany over the years 1892-1930 are roughly equal to the amounts imported into Other
European Countries. Values of G and O for 1904-1910 and 1914-1930 are therefore
estimated at 50% of G+O each, i.e. 87 respectively 64 t p.a.
369
On the Accuracy of the Values in Table 16.10.
The way how the values are presented i.e. non-rounded, suggest a greater accuracy than
justified for some of the values. Several of the figures have been obtained by using
approximate methods such as the GIT-method for estimating the factor k and the regression
line for estimating values for the imports into Germany plus Other European Countries. The
use of such approximate methods may result in systematic errors. However, in the opinion of
the author the assumptions on which the methods are based are realistic and thereby the
likelihood of large systematic errors occurring is small.
An assessment by the author of the accuracy of the values in Table 16.10 by column
is the following:
[1] Export Peru: Mainly government statistics, accuracy should be reasonably good.
[2] Import USA total: 1892-1904, ex Spillane, applying factor k =1.38, accuracy
somewhat uncertain; 1905-1930, FN&C data, good.
[3] Export Java coca to the USA: 1908-1909, from regression line; 1910-1915, difference U
and U*(Bües/Pilli); 1916-1930 Java and Dutch statistics, incomplete. Overall accuracy
should be reasonable.
[4] Export Peru coca to the USA: 1892-1909, based on Spillane ;1910-1930, Bües/Pilli the
latter appear to be realistic.
[5] Difference of [1] and [4].
[6] Export Peru to Chile: 1911-1913, Handelsberichten, 1902-1906, from regression line. The
accuracy should be reasonable.
[7] Difference of [5] and [6].
[8] and [9] End results of the calculations. Ballpark estimates. The uncertainty could not be
estimated but is believed to be in the order of 20%.
16.7 Summary and Conclusion
Statistics on exports and imports of Peru coca leaf were compiled and critically reviewed by
comparing the data from various sources using the principle that, measured over longer
periods, total imports must equal total imports. The analysis resulted in a search for
explanations of a number of anomalies and the development of mathematical methods (the
GIT-method and the application of a regression line) to explain the anomalies and to make
estimates of exports/imports of which no data were available.
The figures in Table 16.10 are the end result of our attempt to extract the maximum amount
of information from published statistics on the trade in Peru coca with respect to the
quantities that went to the various destinations during the period ca 1890-1930. The methods
used generate approximate values of the desired numbers. It is considered unlikely that this
has resulted in large systematic errors. A guesstimate of the accuracy of the averages by
period is ±20%.
The results of Chapter 16 are used in Chapter 17 as the basis for the estimates of the
manufacture of cocaine worldwide.
370
I
The index i attached to any letter symbol means
that the value refers to year i.
GIT Method (Appendix 3)
GIT
k
p
w
T
T*
D
S
So
Sn
S end
Goods In Transit
Ratio Import Coca leaf USA / New York
Fraction of the total quantity of coca exported
during a year in transit at year end
expressed in weeks (w = 52p)
Quantity of coca in transit at year end assuming
that no coca is delivered during the period
Auxiliary variable equal to T minus the
quantities delivered during the period
Quantity of coca delivered
Quantity of coca in transit at end of a year
Quantity of coca in transit at the beginning
of a period
Quantity of coca in transit at end of year n
Quantity of coca in transit at end of a period
Flowchart and Export/Import Tables
P
U
J
U*
NY
G
O
C
Total Export Peru Coca from Peru
Import Java Coca USA
Import Peru Coca USA
Total Import Coca New York
Import Peru Coca Chile
Statistical
Avg
Std
Average
Standard Deviation
Rel Std
Var
Std Avg
df
R
Relative Standard Deviation
Variance
Standard Deviation of the Average
Degrees of Freedom
Regression coefficient
371
CHAPTER 17
ESTIMATES OF COCAINE MANUFACTURED WORLDWIDE (1892-1930)
PART II
TRADE IN CRUDE COCAINE – COCA LEAF FOR BEVERAGES – THE ESTIMATES
Chapter 17 is the continuation of Chapter 16 in which the exports and imports of cocaine raw
materials are critically reviewed with the ultimate objective to make estimates of the
quantities of cocaine manufactured from these raw materials. Chapter 16 deals mainly with
coca leaf from Peru, while in Chapter 17 exports and imports of crude cocaine and coca leaf
from Java are reviewed and estimates are made of coca leaf used for beverages. The actual
estimates of cocaine manufactured worldwide is the subject of the last two sections of this
chapter.
This chapter is to be read in conjunction with the relevant Tables PCL, PCC and JCL
of Part IV, Source Data.1
17.1 Discussion of the Statistics on the Trade in Crude Cocaine from Peru
Table PCC 1: Export crude cocaine from Peru
A comprehensive compilation of the total annual exports of Crude Cocaine from Peru has
been published by Musto.2 Musto’s data are mainly sourced from statistics published by the
Peruvian customs department. A summary of the data is included as “Musto’s Selection” as
column [2] in Table PCC 1 (Part IV) together with data from other sources. Column [8] of
Table PCC 1, headed “Musto’s Selection Augmented”, represents the author’s choice from
all data. The main difference between the figures in column [8] and those in column [2] is
that in column [8] for 1903-1904 Walger’s data are used and that for 1893-1894 and 1908 /
1930 additional data are included.
Figure 17.1 Graph of the Export of Crude Cocaine from Peru 1888-1933
“Musto’s Selection Augmented”
Export Crude Cocaine from Peru 1888-1933
12,000
10,000
kg
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1932
1930
1928
1926
1924
1922
1920
1918
1916
1914
1912
1910
1908
1906
1904
1902
1900
1898
1896
1894
1892
1890
1888
0
Source: Table PCC 1, column [8]
1
2
A list of abbreviations and letter symbols is included at the end of this chapter.
D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 49 [2] (1998) 145-156.
372
The graph shows the rapid growth of the exports of crude cocaine from Peru from the late
1880s to 1901 followed by a steady decline and becoming unimportant after 1918.
Exports by Country of Destination
For the periods 1903-1906 and 1911-1913 a break-up of the exports of crude cocaine from
Peru by country of destination is available. The data are included in the following table:
Table 17.1 Export of Crude Cocaine from Peru by Country of Destination
for the Periods 1903-1906 and 1911-1913 (kg)
Year
of
Export
1903
1904
1905
1906
Average
1903-1906
kg
percent
1911
1912
1913
Average
1911-1913
kg
percent
Export
Peru to
Germany
Export
Peru to
the UK
Export
Peru to
the USA
Export
Peru to
France
Export
Peru to
Other
Countries
[5]
Export
Peru
Total
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
6,770
6,156
6,313
5,184
553
959
330
424
58
284
134
0
414
128
0
305
5
0
1
1
7,800
7,527
6,778
5,914
6,106
87
567
8
119
2
212
3
2
0
7,005
100
5,073
2,729
2,449
68
94
694
261
118
124
0
0
0
0
3
0
5,402
2,944
3,267
3,417
88
285
7
168
4
0
0
1
0
3,871
100
[6]
Sources:
1903-1906 Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (Batavia) 1911, 157.
de Jong, Teysmannia 1912, 674, referring to an unspecified report by
1911
the Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (the Hague)
1912-1913 Handelsberichten, Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (The Hague) 1914, 326.
Germany was the largest consumer of crude cocaine by far. The UK occupied the second
place and the USA imported modest quantities. The USA used coca leaf rather than crude
cocaine as the principal raw material for cocaine manufacture because until 1910 the import
duty on coca leaf was nil while all cocaine imports including crude attracted duty at a rate of
25% ad valorem. The duty rates favoured the use of coca leaf as raw material for cocaine
manufacture in the USA also after 1910. There was only one US cocaine manufacturer,
Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten, using crude cocaine as the raw material.3
3
Spillane, Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United States (Baltimore 2000) 63.
373
Table PCC 4: Import crude cocaine into Germany.
Statistics on imports of crude cocaine are available for Germany only and cover a limited
period. For the years 1895-1913 import statistics appear in Handelsbericht, a (bi-)annual
publication by the well-known firm Gehe & Co.4 These statistics refer to supplies to
Hamburg’s crude cocaine market. It is tacitly assumed in all publications on the subject that
all cocaine imports into Germany went through Hamburg but no direct statements to that
effect were encountered.
The imports of Crude Cocaine into Hamburg are compiled in Table PCC 4 (Part IV). Next to
the data from Gehe, three largely identical sets of statistics from secondary sources are
included. For the same years the latter amounts are substantially higher than those reported
by Gehe. The source for the data (mentioned by Walger) is a publication by the “CocaSyndicate” of 1912.5
Notes on the data published by Gehe:
For the period 1897-1901 the data published in earlier issues of Gehe’s Handelsbericht are
substantially smaller than those appearing for the same years in later issues. The latter seem
to be corrections of the earlier but are not identified as such.
For the period 1903-1906 Gehe presents its crude cocaine import statistics Hamburg in small
tables including an entry Goods in Transit (“unter Contract weitergehend”). For the years
before 1903 and after 1907 goods in transit are not mentioned.
The principal data on the export of Peruvian crude cocaine and the import thereof in
Germany are shown in Table 17.2
4
Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsbericht 1896-1914.
T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftlische Bedeutung, Dissertation
Berlin 1917, 70, referring to Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat, Batavia 1912.
.
5
374
Table 17.2 Crude Cocaine Export Peru and Import Germany (kg)
Year
of
Export/
Import
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Export Peru
Musto's
Selection
Augmented
[1]
Import
into
Hamburg
Gehe
[2]
Import
into
Hamburg
Walger
[3]
Export
Peru to
Germany
[4]
4,550
2,357
4,716
2,382
4,200
4,346
4,500
7,745
10,688
8,268
7,800
7,527
6,778
5,914
6,057
5,175
5,266
5,524
5,434
2,944
3,267
979
1,353
1,576
1,896
2,967
596
1,637
157
778
192
967
621
1,048
980
625
236
20
246
420
918
2,407
1,067
3,280
4,210
4,595
5,817
5,642
6,443
6,178
5,230
5,143
4,132
3,835
3,717
3,980
2,502
2,405
6,770
6,156
6,313
5,184
6,201
4,552
4,977
4,944
3,980
5,073
2,729
2,449
Sources and Notes
Column
[1]
Taken from Table PCC 1, column [8]
[2]
Taken from Table PCC 4, column [1]
T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftlische Bedeutung 1917, 70.
[3]
Source: Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat , Batavia 1912
[4]
1903-1906 Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (Batavia) 1911, 157.
de Jong, Teysmannia 1912, 674, referring to an unspecified report by
1911
the Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (the Hague)
1912-1913 Handelsberichten, Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (The Hague) 1914, 326.
375
Averages of the data contained in Table 17.2 were calculated by the relevant periods and
appear together with the percentages of the total exports from Peru in Table 17.3
Table 17.3 Crude Cocaine Trade - Export Peru and Import Germany
Annual Averages by Period
Period
Export
Peru
Total
kg
Import
Germany
(Gehe)
Import
Germany
(Walger)
kg
%
kg
%
Export
Peru
to Germany
kg
%
1897-1902
6,625
3,563
54
--
--
--
--
1903-1906
7,005
5,873
84
--
--
6,106
87
1907-1910
5,506
4,207
76
5,169
94
--
--
1911-1913
3,882
3,151
81
--
--
3,417
88
Source:
Table 17.2
The differences between the data from the various sources are quite large and no explanation
is available for this, but the general picture is that for the years 1903-1913 Germany imported
80-90% of the total exports of crude cocaine from Peru while the UK, the USA and France
shared the remaining ca 15%.
For the earlier period 1897-1902 Germany’s share of crude cocaine exports was reportedly
only 54%. This figure would imply that the other manufacturing countries imported ca 3000
kg p.a. at the time. This seems improbable; no other countries can be identified with a
demand for such a large quantity. The USA imported during 1901-1903 an average of ca
2,000 kg cocaine HCl plus crude cocaine but that was largely cocaine HCl (ref Table 17.4).
From 1896 making cocaine HCl from crude was a less economic option for the USA anyhow,
because of the import duty imposed on crude from that date (Chapter 5). For want of more
firm data, we assume for further calculations that, as was the case during later periods, as
well as during the period 1892-1902, 87% of the crude cocaine went to Germany, 2% to the
USA and 11% to Other Countries (ref. Table 17.1).
Table PCC 2: Import of cocaine into the USA-1
The official import statistics for the USA do not distinguish between crude cocaine and (pure)
cocaine salts; the annually published data refer to the total weight and value of these
products. Consequently, data on the importation of crude cocaine alone are not available from
the statistics. The reason for evaluating the official import statistics was to compare the data
with import statistics presented in the form of graphs by Spillane and for comparison with the
imports of crude cocaine into New York mentioned for the period 1907/08 to 1910/11 in
three European publications.
376
FC&N data: comparison with Spillane’s graphs (digitalized).
Compiled in table PCC 2 are data on the imports of cocaine into the USA sourced from
Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States (FC&N), an annual publication by
the US Department of Commerce.6 Up to 1917/18 FC&N covers fiscal years and from 1918
onwards calendar years. Quantities of cocaine imported are reported from 1907/08 onwards;
the USD values of the imports are included from 1900/01. Duty rates and amounts of duty
paid are also included. We consider the FC&N data on US imports as authoritative.
Crude cocaine and (pure) cocaine salts attracted the same rate of duty. Until 1910 the
name of the product category (“articles”) was “cocaine” (duty: 25% ad valorem), which was
then changed into “cocaine, ecgonine and salts of” (duty: $1.50/oz) and in 1914 into
“cocaine, ecgonine and salts and derivatives of same” (duty: $2.00/oz).
Also included in Table PCC 2 are (estimates of) imports of cocaine (crude plus pure
salts) appearing in publications by Joseph Spillane.7 Spillane, in both his dissertation and his
book, presents statistics on the importation of cocaine and coca leaf into the USA in graphical
form only. These graphs were digitized by the author to enable comparison of Spillane’s data
with the FC&N figures. For the evaluation of Spillane’s data we distinguish three periods.
These are:
1891/92 to 1899/00 (Spillane’s graph years 1892 to 1900)
FC&N data are not available for this period. Spillane bases his estimates of cocaine imported
during these years on the number of cases of cocaine arriving in New York City as reported
weekly in the trade journal Oil, Paint & Drug Reporter. The weight of the product in the
cases was reported only occasionally and varied considerably from case to case, the reason
why Spillane qualifies his estimates of the average weight of cocaine per case as
“problematic”. However, he has used such “averages” for the calculation of the quantities of
cocaine imported into New York, which quantities he multiplied by a factor 2 to obtain his
estimates of the annual quantities imported into the USA as a whole.8 These quantities must
be considered as ballpark estimates only.
For these years FC&N reports the value of the imports in US dollars but not the weight.
Spillane has estimated the weight of these imports using unspecified price information.
Approximate values of the prices used by Spillane are calculated in column [4] of Table PCC
2; these values represent on average ca 60% of the then prevailing wholesale prices of
cocaine hydrochloride in the USA (Table COC 4). The prices used by Spillane appear to be a
reasonable assumption as an import duty of 25% was levied and some of the imported
cocaine will have been (cheaper) crude.
For these years FC&N reports both the value of the imports in US dollars and the weights,
allowing for a direct comparison with Spillane’s data. This comparison is made in column
[10] of Table PCC 2 by calculating the ratio between Spillane’s figures and those from
FC&N. For most years in the period the ratio is close to 1.0, indicating that the values used
6
Department of Commerce, United States of America, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States,
Government Printing Office , Washington, an annual publication from 1890 onwards.
7
J. F. Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The legal use and distribution of Cocaine in the United States,
1880-1920, Dissertation Carnegie Mellon University (1994), figures 3.3 and 3.5, pages 163, 172 and
J. F. Spillane, Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United States (Baltimore 2000),
figures 3.5 and 3.7, pages 61, 64.
8
For comments on the use of the factor 2 in the estimates ref. Chapter 16.
377
by Spillane for his graphs will have been taken from the FC&N publication.9 An exception is
Spillane’s value for the 1909/10 import according to his graph amounting to ca 173,000 oz,
which is very large in comparison to the FN&C value of ca 55,000 oz. Further analysis
showed that Spillane’s large value must be considered erroneous.10
Table PCC 3: Import cocaine into the USA-2
Table of Imports by Fiscal and by Calendar Year.
The import statistics FC&N and Spillane from Table PCC 1 for the fiscal years 1900/01 to
1917/18 (in oz) are repeated in Table PCC 2 and converted into kilograms. Also included in
Table PCC 2 are three very similar sets of statistics titled “Imports of crude cocaine into New
York” obtained from secondary sources (Reens, Walger and de Jong).11 When comparing the
FC&N data with those from the secondary sources for the period 1907/08 to 1911/12 it was
found that those from the secondary sources are derived from the FC&N data but with errors.
The conversion factor used was incorrect and the figure for 1909/10 is incorrect.12 Because
the data from the secondary sources are essentially the same as the FC&N data, the quantities
refer to the total of crude cocaine plus pure cocaine salts rather than to crude cocaine alone
and they represent imports into the USA as a whole rather than just into New York. The data
from the secondary sources should therefore be disregarded.
For the sake of comparison with other data, the data for the period 1900/01 to 1917/18 were
converted into approximate values for calendar years by calculating the averages of
subsequent fiscal years. Added were the FN&N data for the period 1918 to 1930.
The best values for the imports of crude plus pure cocaine together with the available export
data for crude are presented with Table 17.4.
9
Spillane refers to the (US) Commerce Department as the source of his data but he does not mention the FN&C
publication specifically. The category used for the x-axis of Spillane’s graphs appears to be fiscal years e.g.
1908 is 1907/08 etc.
10
A closer look at the FC&N publication for 1909/10 revealed that Spillane’s large value probably was arrived
at by mistakenly adding the value for the Cochineal import of 150,811 lbs, appearing in the FC&N table just
below the import of 24,928 oz Cocaine to that figure resulting in an amount of ca 176,000 (oz).
11
E. Reens, ‘Java Coca’, dissertation University of Paris (Lons-le-Saunier 1919), Chapter 5 in S.B. Karch A
History of Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew Plant (London 2003) 72.
T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftlische Bedeutung,
Dissertation University of Giessen (Berlin 1917) 70 and A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: H.C. Prinsen
Geerligs, editor, K.W. Van Gorkom’s Oost-Indische Cultures 2nd Ed [3] (Amsterdam 1919) 299, all referring
to: Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat, Batavia 1912.
12
Except for the year 1909/10, all data from the secondary sources were exactly equal to the FC&N data, in
ounces, multiplied by the factor 0.030. For the year 1909/10 the import of 889 kg appearing in the secondary
sources is equal to 29,632 oz, imported during the first part of the period (FC&N) multiplied by 0.030. It is
concluded that the data from the secondary sources were calculated from the FC&N data by using a wrong
conversion factor (1 oz = 30.00 gram instead of 28.35 gram) and omitting a quantity of 24,948 oz imported
during the second part of the period 1909/10.
378
Table 17.4 Imports Cocaine into the USA and Exports of Crude Cocaine to the USA
Approximate Quantities by Calendar Year (kg)
Calendar
Year of
Import
Import
USA
Crude +
Pure
Cocaine
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924-1931
2,041
2,268
1,503
510
142
439
422
511
1,231
831
86
81
99
49
63
335
397
521
352
245
200
213
3
0
Export
Peru
to USA
Crude
Cocaine
58
284
134
0
261
118
124
Sources: Tables PCC 3 and 17.1
The values for imports USA 1901-1907 are calculated from
Spillane's data; those for 1908-1931 are from FN&C data
The export data are taken from Table 17.1
For the period 1903-1906 the difference between imports and exports represent the imports of
cocaine hydrochloride (from Germany). When comparing the import and export values for
the period 1911 to 1913 we note that the exports are considerably higher than the imports.
Spillane provides the general comment that “… although there is no hard evidence, the
existence of an import duty would likely have encouraged underreporting on the part of
manufacturers and importers.”13 The US imports diminished strongly from 1903, probably
the result of Merck commencing production in the USA. After 1909 we see a further
reduction of cocaine imports after the increase of the import duty to USD 1.50/oz. (NLG
132/kg). From 1923 onwards no imports of cocaine were allowed into the USA (Section
19.3).
13
Spillane, Cocaine (2000) 65.
379
17.2 Coca Leaf used for Beverages
Substantial quantities of coca leaf from Peru were used as an ingredient in beverages such as
Coca-Cola and Vin Mariani. Export and import statistics for the period do not provide
information on the utilisation of the coca leaf. In this chapter the quantities of coca leaf used
in the USA for Coca-Cola have been estimated on the basis of production figures for CocaCola syrup and considerations pertaining to the effects of emerging narcotics control
measures.
The main variety of coca leaf used for beverages came from the Truxillo region of
Peru. It is the most ‘flavourful’.14 Java coca was not used for this purpose.15 To make an
estimate of the quantity of cocaine produced worldwide from Peruvian coca leaf on the basis
of export statistics it is necessary to know, at least approximately, how much of the leaf was
used in the production of coca-containing beverages such as Coca-Cola and Vin Mariani, and
in the many imitation colas and coca wines. There is no specific information available on
how much coca leaf was exported or imported for use in these beverages. Therefore, the
problem was approached from the other end i.e. by estimating the quantities of Peruvian coca
leaf that were used for making the beverages. For Coca-Cola it was possible to make such
estimate on the basis of data available of the quantities of Coca-Cola syrup (concentrate)
sold. For the use of coca leaf in other beverages it was necessary to make a number of
assumptions to arrive at the estimates. As a result the uncertainty of the estimates of coca
used for beverages is rather large. The first step for making the estimates was to look at the
European and the US markets separately.
Europe
In chapter 16 it was calculated by deducting USA imports from the total exports of coca leaf
from Peru that over the period 1892-1930 the quantities imported into Europe gradually
diminished from ca 240 to ca 130 tonnes of coca p.a. Information on quantities of coca leaf
used for beverages (coca teas, coca wines) in Europe is sparse. During the late 1800’s in the
order of 23 % of the coca leaf imported into Hamburg was of the Truxillo variety, the variety
which was mainly used for beverages.16 Around 1910 that percentage was in the order of 80
%. Peru coca was also exported to France; a quantity of 55 tonnes is reported for 1911, which
was presumably used for Vin Mariani.17 From this information it is concluded that during the
period 1892-1930 the quantities of imported Peruvian coca leaf used for beverages gradually
increased from 20 to 100 %. Peru coca had become too expensive a raw material for making
cocaine in Europe (cf. Figure 5.8).
The estimated percentages appear in column [6] of Table 17.8. Because of the uncertainties
attached to these estimates, a large variance is allocated to the figures used for the calculation
of the confidence interval of the cocaine manufactured in Section 17.5.
H.L. Schlesinger, ‘Topics in the Chemistry of Cocaine’, Bulletin on Narcotics 37 [1] (1985) 64.
Paul Gootenberg, ‘Secret Ingredients: The Politics of Coca in US-Peruvian Relations, 1915-65’,
Journal of Latin American Studies 36 (2004) 237.
15
De Jong, ‘Coca’, 298.
16
Table PCL 7 (Part IV).
17
A.W.K. de Jong, ‘Het Cocavraagstuk’, Teysmannia (1912) 674.
14
380
U S A - Coca-Cola
In the USA, Vin Mariani and other coca wines were popular tonics already in the 1880s.
Coca-Cola was an alcohol free version of the coca wines, invented in 1886 by John
Pemberton; it was promoted on the basis of the therapeutic properties of the coca it contained.
From 1890 Coca-Cola was skilfully marketed by Asa Candler and the sales experienced
strong growth. Up to 1904 one of the ingredients of Coca-Cola was coca leaf extract and as a
result the beverage contained cocaine but from 1904 onwards the product was made with a
‘de-cocainized’ extract of coca leaf and consequently the Coca-Cola did not contained any
cocaine but retained its specific coca flavour.18 The actual formula for Coca-Cola was
surrounded with much secrecy but it is most likely that until 1904 the product was made in
accordance with the original Pemberton formula which required that 4 oz of “F.E. Coco”
(Fluid Extract of Coca) was utilized for the manufacture of 5 US gallons of the syrup.19
Published data of quantities of Coca-Cola syrup (a concentrate) sold/manufactured during the
period 1892 -1939 are compiled in Table 17.5.20
Paul Gootenberg, ‘Secret Ingredients: The Politics of Coca in US-Peruvian Relations, 1915-65’, Journal of
Latin American Studies 36 (2004) 233-265.
19
Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York 2000) 456-460, Appendix 1, ‘The Sacred
Formula’.
20
Ibidem, 53, 54, 59, 67, 104, 128 and Andrew Young and Daniel Levy. Explicit Evidence on an Implicit
Contract MPRA Paper No. 926 (2006) <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/926/>, 27.
18
381
Table 17.5 Coca-Cola Syrup Sold 1892-1939
Year
Syrup Sales G
in US Gallons
000
log G
1892
1893
1894
1895
1899
1900
1904
1905
1910
35.4
48.4
64.3
76.2
280
519
1,100
1,500
5,506
1.549
1.685
1.808
1.882
2.447
2.715
3.041
3.176
3.741
1910
1916
1917
1918
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
5,506
10,000
12,000
10,000
23,226
25,705
26,323
25,101
20,552
19,377
24,101
27,482
34,798
40,653
44,023
50,910
3.741
4.000
4.079
4.000
4.366
4.410
4.420
4.400
4.313
4.287
4.382
4.439
4.542
4.609
4.644
4.707
regression
slope
R
squared
0.1235
0.993
= 32.9%
0.0282
0.914
= 6.7%
Sources for data on syrup sales:
1892-99, 1904-05, 1916-18, Pendergrast, Coca-Cola , 59,67,104,128
1900 and 1910, Spillane, Cocaine , 76 (at USD 1.00 per US Gallon)
1918-1939, Young and Levy, Explicit Evidence, Table 1, 27
The logarithms of the volumes of Coca-Cola syrup sales appearing in Table 17.5 were plotted
against time and a linear relationship with excellent correlation (R2 = 0.993) was found for
the period 1892-1910, and a second linear relationship with a high degree of correlation (R2 =
0.914) was found for the period 1910-1939.
382
Figure 17.2 Coca-Cola Syrup Sales 1892-1939
Regression Line of the Logarithm
Coca-Cola Syrup Sales 1892-1939
Regression
5.000
Log US Gallons 000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
Regression
1937
1934
1931
1928
1925
1922
1919
1916
1913
1910
1907
1904
1901
1898
1895
1892
0.000
Actual
Figure 17.3 Coca-Cola Syrup Sales 1892-1939
Regression versus Actual
Coca-Cola Syrup Sales 1892-1939
60000
US Gallons 000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
Regression
1937
1934
1931
1928
1925
1922
1919
1916
1913
1910
1907
1904
1901
1898
1895
1892
0
Actual
The graphs show that the sales of coca-cola increased exponentially over the periods.
The break-point for 1910, when the increase in sales suddenly reduced from 33% to 7 % per
annum, coincided with the court case of 1911 against the Coca-Cola Company on the alleged
harmfulness of the caffeine the drink contained. Although Coca-Cola eventually won the
383
case, the publicity around it caused an immediate change in advertising policy, the Company
refraining from targeting children under the age of twelve thereafter.21
Table 17.6 Estimate of Quantities of Coca Leaf used for Coca-Cola
In Table 17.6 annual quantities of syrup manufactured were calculated on the basis of the
regression lines and in column [7], using the ratio coca leaf to syrup as per the Pemberton
formula (24 kg coca leaf per 1000 US gallons), the average annual coca leaf requirements
were computed for the five periods identified in Chapter 16.22 From the figures obtained it
was obvious that the ratio coca leaf to syrup must have been considerably reduced over time
as the calculated requirements for the years after 1915 became larger than the total of
Peruvian coca imported into the USA. From a number of years after 1930 data were found on
quantities of syrup actually manufactured and on annual quantities of coca leaf specifically
imported into the USA for “non-medicinal” use (i.e. for Coca Cola).23 From these data it
follows that the amount of coca leaf used in Cola-Cola was reduced to a fraction (ca 10%) of
the original.24
How fast the reduction took place is not exactly known but a sliding scale was
developed assuming that the reduction took place gradually from 1904. The sliding scale,
appearing in column [8], starts at 100% in 1904 and that the percentage comes down to 20%
for the period 1915-1930, in line with the actual figures of 16% in 1931 and 10% over the
period 1936-1939. Using the sliding scale the quantities of coca leaf used for Coca-Cola by
period were estimated in column [9]; they are used as input in Table 17.8.
21
Pendergrast, Coca-Cola, 119.
800 fl oz (ca 24 litres) Fluid Extract of Coca was required for 1000 US gallons of syrup. 24 litres of Fluid
Extract of Coca (USP 1880) is made from 24 kg coca leaf. Ref: British Pharmaceutical Codex 1911, which
refers to the USP. www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclectic/kings/erythroxylon.html.
23
These figures are shown in pink in Table 17.6.
24
In 1931 98,487 kg de-cocainized coca leaf was imported into the USA for the manufacture of non-narcotic
flavouring extracts (Coca-Cola). In that year 25.1 million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup was sold. Hence ca
3.92 kg coca leaf was used for 1000 gallons of syrup. This equates to ca one sixth, 17%, of the original amount.
During the years 1936-1939 the use of coca leaf was reduced further to ca 10% of the original amount. See: Paul
Gootenberg, The rise and demise of Coca and Cocaine as licit global 'Commodity Chains', 1860-1960
Preliminary conference paper Stanford University Stony Brook (2001); US Department of Treasury, Traffic in
Opium and Other Danger Drugs in the year 1960 (Washington D.C. 1960) Table 10 and Andrew Young and
Daniel Levy. Explicit Evidence on an Implicit Contract MPRA Paper No. 926 (2006) <http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/926/>, 27.
22
384
Table 17.6 Coca-Cola Syrup Sold and Estimate of Coca Leaf used for Coca-Cola
Year
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[6]
G
US Gallons
000
[1]
35.4
48.4
64.3
76.2
log G
log G
regression
G
regresssion
Period
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
1.549
1.685
1.808
1.882
1.555
1.679
1.802
1.926
2.049
2.173
2.296
2.420
2.543
2.667
2.790
2.914
3.037
3.161
3.284
3.408
3.532
3.655
3.779
3.807
3.835
3.863
3.891
3.920
3.948
3.976
4.004
4.032
4.061
4.089
4.117
4.145
4.174
4.202
4.230
4.258
4.286
4.315
4.343
4.371
4.399
4.427
4.456
4.484
4.512
4.540
4.569
4.597
280
519
2.447
2.715
1,100
1,500
3.041
3.176
5,506
3.741
10,000
12,000
10,000
4.000
4.079
4.000
23,226
25,705
26,323
25,101
20,552
19,377
24,101
27,482
34,798
40,653
44,023
50,910
4.366
4.410
4.420
4.400
4.313
4.287
4.382
4.439
4.542
4.609
4.644
4.707
Table 17.5, first column
[2] = log [1]
[3] = 0.1235*[year] - 232.15 until 1909
[3] = 0.0282*[year] - 50.09 from 1910
[4] = [3]^10
averages of [4] over [5]
36
48
63
84
112
149
198
263
349
464
617
820
1,090
1,449
1,925
2,558
3,400
4,519
6,006
6,409
6,839
7,298
7,788
8,311
8,869
9,464
10,099
10,777
11,500
12,272
13,096
13,975
14,913
15,914
16,982
18,122
19,338
20,636
22,021
23,500
25,077
26,760
28,556
30,473
32,518
34,701
37,030
39,515
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Average G
US Gallons
000
[6]
Coca Leaf
Coca Leaf
"Pemberton" percent of
tonnes
"Pemberton"
[7]
[8]
Coca Leaf
utilised
tonnes
[9]
regression
slope
[10]
0.1235
1892-1896
69
2
100
2
1897-1903
409
10
100
10
1904-1910
2,992
72
70
50
1911-1913
6,849
164
50
82
1915-1930
13,769
330
602
20
16.4
66
98.5
835
976
1,057
1,222
8.3
9.0
10.2
11.5
69.5
88.2
107.6
140.7
[7] = 0.024 x [6]
Estimated sliding scale until 1930
[8] = [9]/[7]*100 from 1931
[9] =[7]*[8]/100 until 1930 actual from 1931
Table 17.5, third column
0.0282
figues
in pink
represent
quantities
coca leaf
specifically
imported for
Coca-Cola
385
Coca Leaf used for beverages other than Coca-Cola
Vin Mariani and Coca-Cola were imitated by a large number of small producers. Spillane
mentions that about twenty brands of coca wine and ten different coca soft drinks were
available in the US market in the 1890s but these numbers declined in the 1900s.25 For this
estimate it has been assumed that until 1894 the quantity of coca leaf used in these imitations
was ca 10 tonnes p.a. and for the period 1897-1903 ca 20 tonnes p.a. From 1905 onwards
increasing controls of cocaine containing products by the Federal and State governments in
the USA resulted in the disappearance of a large number of these products from the market
and a gradual elimination of cocaine from the remaining ones.26 In view of these
developments, the average annual quantities of coca leaf used for these beverages have been
set for the period 1904-1910 at 10 tonnes and at zero thereafter.
De-cocainized Coca Leaf
From 1904, Coca-Cola was made using leaf that was “de-cocainized” by Schaefer Alkaloid
Works.27 The cocaine extracted by the ‘de-cocainizing’ process was sold by Schaefer as the
pharmaceutical product. The yield was ca 0.4%.28 A consequence of selling the cocaine HCl
produced by the de-cocainizing process is that for the calculation of the quantities of cocaine
produced from exported Peru coca leaf only one third of the quantity coca leaf used for CocaCola has to be deducted from the export from Peru to arrive at the net quantity of coca leaf
used for cocaine manufacture. The reason for this is that the normal yield of manufacturing
cocaine from Peru coca is 0.6% and the 0.4% yield obtained when using the de-cocainizing
process is 0.2% or one third less.
17.3 Estimate of Cocaine Manufactured Worldwide
Introduction
In this chapter the amounts of cocaine manufactured world-wide from raw material exported
during the period 1890-1930 are estimated from statistics on the exports of the main raw
materials viz. coca leaf and crude cocaine from Peru and coca leaf from the former Dutch
East Indies (Java).
The method used for making the estimate was to multiply the exported quantities with
yield factors, practical average yields of pure cocaine hydrochloride (cocaine HCl) that were
achieved by manufacturers worldwide over the period. Because a part of the coca leaf
exported from Peru was exported to Chile for chewing and another part was used for
beverages such as Coca-Cola, it was necessary to deduct these quantities of coca leaf from
the total coca leaf exports, to arrive at the net amounts of coca leaf used for the manufacture
of cocaine.
25
Spillane, Cocaine, 75-85.
The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was instrumental in achieving this. Dale Gieringer, ‘Centennial of an
Unnatural Disaster’, Liberty 20[6] (2006), www.libertybound.com/archive/2006_06/gieringer-centennial.html;
Spillane, Cocaine, 125-137.
27
Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola, 88.
28
P. Gootenberg, Secets ingredients, J. Lat. Am. Studies Vol 36 (2004) 248.
Calculation HHB: 0.42% and 0.36%.
26
386
The model, the formula used for the calculation Q, the annual quantities of cocaine HCl
produced, is
Q = a(x1 - B - C) + bx2 + cx3
in which formula a, b and c represent the yield factors for the three raw materials Peru coca,
Crude cocaine and Java coca, and x1, x2 and x3 are the respective quantities of the raw
materials exported. B is the quantity of Peru coca used for beverages and C is the amount of
Peru coca exported to Chile (for chewing).
The yield factors and the quantities of coca used for beverages are estimated on the basis of
data available from various publications and a number of suppositions. As a consequence the
estimates of cocaine manufactured are approximations, which have an amount of uncertainty
connected to them. Ballpark estimates of these uncertainties are made which are presented
together with the estimates of cocaine manufactured as the confidence interval.
In summary, the estimates of cocaine produced are approximations. However, the
values obtained are considered adequate for our purpose.
During the period 1890-1930 manufacture of cocaine took place primarily in Germany and to
a lesser extent in the USA. Cocaine was traded almost exclusively in the form of cocaine
hydrochloride (cocaine HCl). With the notable exception of those for Merck Darmstadt and
some for Mallinckrodt (USA), no data on the quantities of cocaine produced at factory scale
have been published.29 Peruvian export statistics do not specify the destination of the raw
materials shipped and import statistics on the raw materials from Peru pertain largely to the
ports of Hamburg and New York. Java coca was shipped mainly to the Netherlands from
where a large part was re-exported, predominantly to Germany. It is reasoned in Section 17.2
that in Europe the fraction of imported Peruvian coca leaf which was used for beverages
gradually increased from 20% in the 1890s to 100% in 1930.
Using export and import statistics of the raw materials as the basic input for making
estimates of cocaine manufactured has the consequence that the calculated amounts refer to
the time that the raw materials were imported rather than to the time that the cocaine was
actually produced. The manufacture of the cocaine will have been completed at a time
considerably later, say 6-12 months, after the date of shipment of the raw material. This effect
will have been exacerbated when raw materials were bought and shipped in quantities
additional to the production requirements at the time. For example because of the political
situation (e.g. war), the building of stocks at trading houses (Java coca in the Netherlands) or
the availability of the raw material at relatively low prices.
Purchasing practices will have had the effect that the calculated amounts of cocaine
that could be produced from the raw materials exported annually fluctuated more strongly
than the annual amounts that were actually produced. Over time, the averages of both would
be the same and the average of the amounts that can be produced from the imported raw
materials over a number of consecutive years provides a good estimate of the average
quantity actually produced.
Musto’s Estimate of Cocaine in Raw Materials Exported
An estimate of cocaine contained in raw materials exported during late 19th and early 20th
century has been made by Musto. Musto (1998) has compiled excellent, well documented
statistics of exports of coca leaf and crude cocaine from Peru, and coca leaf from Java,
A. Hirschmüller, ‘E. Merck und das Kokain’, Gesnerus 52 (1995) 116-132.
and J. Spilane, Cocaine, 62.
29
387
Bolivia and Formosa over a period for which such data are not easily available. His objective
was to provide a record of the crop that was legally produced at the time.30
From the annual amounts exported, Musto calculated what he called ‘the cocaine equivalent’
of the raw materials by multiplying the exported quantities by the cocaine content of the
various raw materials. These cocaine contents were set by Musto as follows:
Coca leaf from Peru, Bolivia and Formosa
Coca leaf from Java
Crude cocaine from Peru
1.0%
1.5%
100%
Musto added up ‘the cocaine equivalent’ of the various raw materials to arrive at what he
called the ‘Export Totals’ for each year. The calculated ‘cocaine equivalents’ are used in
Musto’s publication as an estimate of cocaine actually produced from the raw materials. This
is, however, too broad an approximation. The reasons for this statement are contained in the
following three points:

The values for the cocaine content of the various raw materials used by Musto
result in an estimate of the total coca alkaloids contained in the raw materials,
rather than an estimate of the quantities of pure cocaine hydrochloride (the
common product of trade) that can be produced from these raw materials.
Realistic estimates of the quantities of pure cocaine HCl that can be produced
from the raw materials can be made by using the following approximate yield
factors:
Java coca
Peru coca
Bolivia coca
Formosa coca
Crude cocaine
ca 1.0 %
ca 0.6 %
ca 0.5 %
ca 0.7 %
ca 85 %
31
32
The yield factors for Java coca, Peru coca and crude cocaine are discussed in
detail later in this chapter;

The exports of coca leaf from Bolivia went largely to neighbouring South
American countries (Chile and Argentina) for consumption by local coca chewers.
Small exports to Europe went almost exclusively to France, most likely for use in
making Vin Mariani.33, 34 Inclusion of the exports from Bolivia in the ‘Export
Totals’ as done by Musto results in a serious over-estimate of cocaine produced;
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’, 145.
E.R. Squibb, ‘Hydrochlorate of cocaine’ The Pharmaceutical Journal (1885) July 18, 67-69.
32
HHB estimate from data in: Permanent Central Opium Board, Annual Reports to the Council on the Work of
the Board and Statistics 1929-1938.
33
T. Walger, ‘Coca: Its history, geographic distribution and economic significance’, Dissertation University of
Giessen (Berlin 1917). Chapter 7 in S.B. Karch, A History of Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew
Plant (London 2003) 154.
34
A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: H.C. Prinsen Geerligs, editor, K.W. Van Gorkom’s Oost-Indische
Cultures Volume 3 (2nd Ed. Amsterdam 1919) 298-299.
30
31
388

That coca leaf used for making beverages is not taken into account. Considerable
quantities of leaf were used for that purpose in the USA and in Europe. The
quantities would have to be deducted from the South American exports to arrive at
a net quantity of coca leaf used for the manufacture of cocaine hydrochloride.
The three factors above make that the actual amounts of cocaine produced from the raw
materials were substantially smaller than Musto’s ‘Export Totals’.
The Current Estimate - Raw Materials Exported
For cocaine made from Peruvian raw materials the estimate is to a large extent based on the
export statistics compiled by Musto.35 In tables PCL 1 and PCC 1 of Part IV Musto’s
statistics for coca leaf from Peru and crude cocaine from Peru are shown next to data from
other sources. For both PCL and PCC selections are made by the author from all data; these
selections are shown in the columns “Musto’s Selection Augmented” of the tables. The
available data on export statistics of Java coca are summarised in table JCL 2 (Part IV). The
column “Author’s Selection” of JCL 2 is for the years 1892-1905 based on quantities of coca
leaf sold in consignment by the Koloniale Bank and for the years from 1908 onwards on
statistics published by Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade of the Dutch East
Indies.36
In the current estimate, for exports from Peru the columns “Musto’s Selection
Augmented” of tables PCL 1 and PCC 1 are used. For exports from Java the values appearing
in the column “Author’s Selection” of JCL 2 are augmented with estimates of the exports by
the plantation “Soekamadjoe” to the NCF for the years 1900-1904.
Statistics from Bolivia are not included in the current estimate. The reason is that
Bolivian exports were almost exclusively to neighbouring countries for chewing. Statistics
for Formosa are not included because they pertain to the years 1926-1930 only and represent
on average for the period 1914-1930 less than 200 kg p.a.37 Statistics on coca leaf exports
from Ceylon show that, between 1906 and 1911, these amounted to an average quantity of 33
tonnes p.a.38 Being only small and pertaining to a brief period these statistics have not been
included in the current estimate.
Yield Factors
The yield factors required for the calculations in this chapter are the average yields realised
by the collective of all cocaine manufacturers world-wide under factory conditions over a
long period. Only for Merck Darmstadt, yields from Peru crude and from Java coca achieved
under factory conditions are known for a series of consecutive years. For Mallinckrodt (USA)
yields from Peru coca are available for a few years but no quantities are mentioned. For the
rest of the cocaine manufacturers the yields have been estimated from miscellaneous
information such as incidental reports on yields, assay figures and general information on
yields of the various process steps involved. The yields reported by Merck and Mallinckrodt
are the best information available. These yields have been arbitrarily given a weight of 50%
for the estimates of the yield factors. The other 50% is made up by the average of the yields
derived from all other information. The differences between the yields by
35
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ 145-156.
Koloniale Bank, ‘Jaarverslagen’ (Annual Reports) (1892-1905). Nationaal Archief, Access No. 2.20.04,
Items 4-7. Statistiek van Den Handel en de In-en Uitvoerrechten (Statistics Dutch East Indies), Deel IIa (Java en
Madoera) Weltevreden 1874-1923.
37
Based on statistics by Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’, 154.
38
E. Reens, Java Coca, dissertation University of Paris (Lons-le-Saunier 1919), Chapter 5 in S.B. Karch A
History of Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew Plant (London 2003) 72.
36
389
Merck/Mallinckrodt and the average yields calculated from other information are used for the
calculation of ballpark estimates of the variance of the estimates of the cocaine manufactured.
A problem that is encountered often in estimating the yield factors is that in
publications the word “cocaine” can mean (pure) cocaine hydrochloride, crude cocaine (of
variable quality) or cocaine base (isolated or as measured by assay). This is confusing and it
is quite often not possible to deduct from the context with certainty the exact meaning
attached to the word. As a result some arbitrary decisions are made.
The results of the yield estimates described above are summarized in Table 17.7.
Justification of the individual yields used as input for the calculations is provided in the notes
that follow the table.
Table 17.7 Estimates of practical Cocaine Yields from Peru Coca Leaf,
Peru Crude Cocaine and Java Coca Leaf (kg Cocaine HCl per tonne of leaf or kg crude)
Note
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7}
Peru Coca Leaf
Source
Spillane (Sch #1)
de Jong
Tromp de Haas
Gootenberg
Mortimer
Spillane (Sch #2)
Yield ex
Peru Coca
7.0
6.4
5.5
5.4
5.0
5.0
Average
5.72
Mallinckrodt
6.25
Total average a
Standard Deviation
Relative Std %
6.0
0.61
10
Peru Crude Cocaine
Yield ex
Source
Peru Crude
Note
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
de Jong
van Wettum
Reens
Tromp de Haas
Mortimer
0.92
0.88
0.87
0.77
0.69
Note
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
Java Coca Leaf
Source
de Jong
van Wettum
Gootenberg
NCF (HHB)
Yield ex
Java Coca
12
10
10
10.5
Average
0.825
Merck
0.864
Total average b
0.845
Total average c
10.9
Standard Deviation
Relative Std %
0.065
8
Standard Deviation
Relative Std %
0.71
6
[18]
Average
10.63
Merck
11.26
Notes on the calculations:
a. Total averages are calculated as the average of the yields achieved by the leading manufacturer (Mallickrodt, Merck)
and the average of yield information contained in publications from various sources
b. The Standard Deviations are calculated from the list of values comprising the yields mentioned as the various sources and
the yield achieved by the leading manufacturer repeated as many times as there are "various sources", each arbitrarily
counted as an independend piece of information. The average degrees of freedom (df) is 9.
Notes to Table 17.7 Peru Coca Leaf (PCL)
[1] and [6] Spillane, Cocaine (2000), 61-62.
Spillane mentions two “schools of thought “. School #1 reports an average yield of 1 lb of cocaine from 116 lbs
of coca leaf. That must have been to crude cocaine. At 80.62% yield from crude to cocaine HCl, 116 lbs of leaf
corresponds with a yield of 6.95 kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf.
School #2 reports an average yield of 1 lb of cocaine from ca 200 lbs of coca leaf. This must have been to
cocaine HCl. This corresponds with a yield of 5.0 kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf.
[2] de Jong, Teysmannia (1911) 310 and (1912) 673
In 1911 de Jong wrote that the alkaloid content of Peru coca was ca 50 % of that of Java coca. On the basis of
1.6 % alkaloid content of Java coca, 50 % equates to an alkaloid content of 0.8 % in Peru coca. Multiplied by a
yield of 80 % (Mallinckrodt), that figure of 0.8 % results in a yield to cocaine HCl of 6.4 kg per metric tonne of
Peru coca leaf (HHB calculation). This is an acceptable figure.
In his publication of 1912 de Jong mentions, without any justification, a yield of 1.0% from Peru coca. Even if
this were the yield to crude cocaine, it is unacceptably high.
[3] Tromp de Haas, Teysmannia (1903) 302-303
Tromp de Haas mentions Peru leaf containing 0.5 % crystallisable cocaine for export to Europe in general and
containing 0.6 % for export to Germany. Interpreting this as yields to cocaine HCl, the average yield is 5.5 kg
per tonne leaf.
390
[4] Gootenberg, Coca and Cocaine (2002) 9
Gootenberg mentions that in 1901 Peru produced 10,700 kg crude cocaine from 160 metric tonnes of coca leaf
(reported by German consuls). The 160 tonnes is obviously an error caused by the omission of a 0. The revised
amount is 1,600 tonnes. The crude cocaine yield is 0.67 %. Equivalent yield 6.7 x 80 % = 5.4 kg cocaine HCl
per tonne of leaf (HHB).
[5] Mortimer, History of Coca (1901) 311
Mortimer reports on assay figures of 24 lots of Peru coca by Parke, Davies & Co. Average content 0.627%
(base). Equivalent yield 6.27 x 80% = 5.0 kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf.
[7] Mallinckrodt, ex Spillane, Cocaine (2000), 62
Records kept from 1905 to 1909 show that an average of 129 lbs of coca leaf was used for 1 lb of (crude)
cocaine, yielding 1 lb x 80.62% = 0.8062 lb cocaine HCl. This is equivalent to a yield of 6.25 kg cocaine HCl
per tonne leaf.
This is the best information available on the yield achieved from Peru Coca Leaf under factory conditions.
Peru Crude Cocaine (PCC)
[8] de Jong, Coca (1948) 869
Yield from Peru crude to cocaine HCl: 78-89%, plus secondary alkaloids. Assuming an additional 10% over the
direct yield from the secondary alkaloids, the total yield is 1.1 x 83.5% = 92%
[9] van Wettum, Note (13 December 1923) [5] 5
Yield from Peru crude to cocaine HCl: 85-90%; total average yield is 88%
[10] Reens, La Coca de Java (2003) 76
Yield from Peru crude to cocaine HCl: 78-80%; total average yield is 79% x 1.1 = 87%
[11] Tromp de Haas, Teysmannia (1903) 302
Tromp de Haas mentions crude cocaine from Peru containing 70% of crystallisable cocaine. Total yield is 70%
x 1.1 = 77 %.
[12] Mortimer, History of Coca (1901)
Mortimer reports yields of 50-75 %; total yield is 62.5% x 1.1 = 69 %
[13] Merck, ex Hirschmueller, Gesnerus (1915) 121
During the period 1886-1914 Merck processed 39,413 kg Crude Cocaine obtaining 34,043 kg cocaine HCl,
representing a yield of 86.32 %.
This is the best information available on the yield achieved from Peru Crude Cocaine under factory conditions.
Java Coca Leaf (JCL)
[14] de Jong, Teysmannia (1910) 203
De Jong estimates that 500 kg Java coca with an average alkaloid content of 1.5 % results in 6 kg pure cocaine
(HCl). This is equivalent with a yield of 12 kg cocaine HCl per tonne Java coca leaf.
[15] van Wettum, Note (13 December 1923) [5] 7
Van Wettum mentions an estimated yield of 1 % (10 kg per tonne) cocaine (HCl) from Java coca obtained by
Japanese manufacturers.
[16] Gootenberg, Cocaine (1999) 50
Gootenberg mentions 1 million kg Java coca equaling 10 metric tonnes of cocaine (HCl).
[17] NCF (HHB)
The author’s estimate of the yield achieved by NCF calculated on the basis of estimated yields of the five
process steps involved is 1.57 % assay x 67% = 10.5 kg cocaine HCL per tonne of Java coca leaf
[18] Merck, ex Hirschmueller, Gesnerus (1995) 120
During the period 1906-1918 Merck extracted 2,972 tonnes of Java coca leaf to obtain 33,473 kg cocaine HCl,
representing a yield of 11.26 kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf.
This is the best information available on the yield achieved from Java Coca Leaf under factory conditions.
Peru coca leaf used for Beverages
The average annual amounts of coca leaf used for beverages during each of the periods are
calculated in the following table 17.8. The figures appearing in column [1] are the amounts of
coca leaf used for Coca-Cola (CC) (Table 17.6, column [9]). As stated earlier, from 1904
onwards the coca leaf used for Coca-Cola was de-cocainized and the cocaine extracted during
the process was sold as the pharmaceutical product. The yield was ca. 4 kg cocaine HCl per
tonne of leaf, two-thirds of the yield of the yield of 6 kg per tonne obtained by other
391
manufacturers. The net effect is that for the calculation of the quantity of cocaine produced
from Peru coca, from 1904 onwards, coca leaf used for Coca-Cola should be counted as onethird i.e. CC* = CC/3. That is net amount appears in column [2].
The quantities of coca estimated for use in the USA in beverages other than CocaCola, appear in column [3]. The rationale for these quantities is provided in the Section 17.2,
Coca Leaf used for beverages other than Coca-Cola (above).
The quantities of coca leaf used in beverages in Europe of column [6] are calculated
from total imports Europe, multiplied by a sliding scale of fractions as established for the
various periods. The basis for the sliding scale is set out in the Section 17.2, Europe (above).
Table 17.8 Peru Coca to Beverages – Annual Averages by Period (tonnes)
Period
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
Total to
Coca-Cola
CC
[1]
2
10
50
82
66
Net to
Coca-Cola
CC*
[2]
USA to
Other
Beverages
[3]
2
10
17
27
22
10
20
10
0
0
1892-1903 [3] = [2]
1904-1930 [3] = [2] / 3
Ref. text
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Europe
Import
t
[4]
242
193
174
136
127
Europe to
Beverages
%
[5]
Europe to
Beverages
t
[6]
Total Net to
Beverages
B
[7]
20
40
60
80
100
48
77
104
109
127
60
107
128
136
149
Ref. Table 16.9
Sliding scale, ref. text
[6] = [4] * [5] %
[7] = [2] + [3] + [6]
Estimates of Cocaine Manufactured World-wide from Raw Materials Exported during the
Period 1892-1930
To achieve optimal accuracy, averages of cocaine manufactured are calculated using the
periods identified in Chapter 16. The estimates are made using three spreadsheets: Tables
17.9, 17.10 and 17.11. These tables are mutually dependent. In Table 17.9 yield factors for
Peru Coca are calculated. The yield factors represent kg of cocaine HCl manufactured from 1
tonne of Peru coca exported. If all exported Peru coca was processed to cocaine HCl, the
yield would be 6.0 kg. Because some of the exported Peru coca went to Chile for chewing
and part was used for beverages, the yield factors are less than 6 kg/t and differ for each
period. They are computed in Table 17.9 and are used in Table 17.11 to calculate the
quantities of cocaine manufactured from the amounts of Peru coca exported annually.
Yields used for calculation of cocaine manufactured from the other raw materials are
those derived in Table 17.7; they are for crude cocaine from Peru 84.5% and for Java coca
leaf 10.9 kg cocaine HCl per tonne of leaf. The averages of crude cocaine exported from Peru
and of coca leaf exported from Java are calculated by period in Table 17.11 from the annual
data; the averages are used in Table 17.9. In Table 17.9 amounts of cocaine HCl
manufactured in Germany, in the USA and in Other European countries are estimated by
period. These estimates are less accurate than the estimates of the quantities manufactured
from the various raw materials. They provide however valuable insight in the structure of the
cocaine market worldwide. The estimates by country are included in Chapters 3, 5 and 7.
392
Figure 17.4 Cocaine HCl manufactured from Raw Materials
Exported to various Countries (Annual Averages)
Cocaine Manufacture by Country
Annual Averages by Period
kg Cocaine HCl p.a.
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1892-1896
Germany
1897-1903
USA
1904-1910
Other Europe
1911-1913
Japan
1914-1930
x3
x2
(x1-B-C)/
x1*6
Java coca to the USA
Java coca to Germany
Java coca to NCF
Java coca to Other Europe
Java coca to Japan
TOTAL EXPORT JAVA COCA LEAF
JAVA COCA LEAF (JCL)
Peru crude to the USA
Peru crude to Germany
Peru crude to Other Europe
TOTAL EXPORT PERU CRUDE COCAINE
PERU CRUDE COCAINE (PCC)
Yield Factor Peru Coca
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg per tonne
tonnes
B
TOTAL PERU COCA TO COCAINE
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
Peru coca to beverages USA
Peru coca to beverages Germany
Peru coca to beverages Other Europe
TOTAL PERU COCA TO BEVERAGES
x1-B-C
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
Peru coca to the USA
Peru coca to Germany
Peru coca to Other Europe
EXPORT PERU COCA (EXCL CHILE)
EXPORT PERU COCA TO CHILE
tonnes
Units
TOTAL EXPORT PERU COCA
PERU COCA LEAF (PCL)
RAW MATERIALS
C
x1-C
x1
Symbol
0
61
0
0
0
61
82
3,573
452
4,107
5.099
342
12
24
24
60
0
148
108
146
402
402
1892-1896
0
50
7
0
0
57
136
5,909
747
6,792
4.300
445
30
39
38
107
69
359
120
73
552
621
1897-1903
58
143
30
10
0
241
121
5,251
664
6,036
4.405
594
27
52
52
131
84
551
87
87
725
809
1904-1910
161
772
46
70
0
1,049
168
3,417
286
3,871
3.186
342
27
55
54
136
166
342
64
72
478
644
1911-1913
111
488
76
30
172
877
100
790
88
978
2.228
88
22
64
63
149
0
110
64
63
237
237
1914-1930
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[12]
[11]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[6]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[1]
Row
393
Table 17.9 Estimate of Cocaine HCl manufactured from Raw Materials
Exported during the Period 1892-1930 – Part 1
394
Sources and Notes to Table 17.9
General comment: The available data on the trade in coca leaf and crude cocaine pertain either to imports or to
exports. No cases were encountered where both statistics were published allowing for a direct comparison. For
our purposes it has been assumed that averages for exports and imports to and from pairs of countries for longer
periods are the same. Hence, we have used both import and export statistics in the tables for the same year,
knowing that calculations with the figures may show rather large fluctuations in the results by year but that the
fluctuations become much smaller when averages over longer periods are considered.
The following data were used as input for the calculations in Table 17.9 (Averages by period):
Row [1]
Rows [2]-[4]
Row [6]
Rows [7]-[9]
Row [11]
Row [12]
Row [16]
Rows [13]-[15]
Row [17]
Row [18]
Row [19]
Row [20]
Row [21]
Row [22]
Total exports of coca leaf from Peru, taken from Table 17.11 column [1].
Export Peru coca to various countries, taken from Table 16.9 with the following adjustments:
 for the period 1892-1896: All countries, column [4]( = 1892-1894)*402/384.
402/384 is the ratio average total exports Peru coca 1892-1896 and 1892-1894.
The average of 402 for 1892-1896 is calculated after inclusion of estimates for the missing
figures for 1895 and 1896 obtained by interpolation.
 for the periods 1904-1910 and 1914-1930: Germany and Other Countries, column
[7]/2.
Rationale for the 50/50 split of the imports Europe (column [7]) over Germany and Other
Countries is the approx. 50/50 ratio of the total Peru coca imports into Germany and Other
Countries over the period 1892-1930 as shown in Table 16.10 columns [8] and [9] and
accompanying note..
Export Peru coca to Chile, taken from Table 16.9 column [20]
Peru coca to beverages by country, taken from Table 17.8 with the following comments:
 USA: Columns [2] + [3]
 Germany and Other Europe: Column [6]/2 each.
Rationale for the broad 50/50 split of the imports Europe (column [6]) over Germany and
Other Countries (France) is that France imported regularly quantities in the order of 50 t coca
leaf for the manufacture of Vin Mariani and Germany was the country where coca teas were
popular. Hamburg was a major port of entry for coca in Europe and some of the imported coca
could have been re-exported. (See also Section 17.2).
The difference between Lines [5] and [10]
The yield factor for Peru coca is the estimated yield of kg cocaine HCl from 1 tonne
of coca leaf exported. It is calculated from Rows [11]/[1]*6. The yield is 6 kg/t if all coca is
used for cocaine manufacture. [11]/[1] is the ratio coca to cocaine and total coca exported. The
calculated yield factors are used for the calculations in Table 17.11.
Total exports of crude cocaine from Peru, taken from Table 17.11, column [3].
Exports of rude cocaine from Peru by country are calculated as follows:
 For the period 1892-1910:
Export crude cocaine to various countries, was calculated from the total export from Peru
(Line [16]) by multiplication with the average percentages of 87% to Germany, 11% to
Europe and 2% to the USA. The percentages are based on the figures appearing in Table 17.1
 For the period 1911-1913: The data from Table 17.1
 For the period 1914-1930: 100 kg for USA, estimated from 168 kg p.a.
1911-1913 (Table 17.1) and 0 kg p.a. after 1923 (no imports allowed)
For Germany and Other Countries: Total export of 978 kg p.a.
less 100 kg p.a. USA, split in a 9:1 ratio (unchanged).
to USA: Table 16.8, column [10]
to Germany: by difference [18] = [22]-[17]-[19]-[20]-[21]
to NCF: Table 18.16, rounded averages
to Other Countries: ballpark estimates by the author
to Japan: Table JCL 3, column [5] average
Total exports of Java coca, taken from Table 17.10, column [5].
TOTAL WORLD MANUFACTURE COCAINE
Q
[23] to [25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
Cocaine HCl manufactured from Peru coca
Cocaine HCl manufactured from Peru crude
Cocaine HCl manufactured from Java coca
Cocaine HCl manufactured from Formosa coca
a(x1-B-C)
bx2
cx3
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg per tonne
percent
kg per tonne
Units
6,185
2,050
3,470
665
0
6,185
887
4,187
1,111
0
6.0
84.5
10.9
1892-1896
Table 17.7 Yields, Total Averages
Sum of USA Net Raw Materials (Table 17.9) * respective yields
Sum of Germany Net Raw Materials (Table 17.9) * respective yields
Sum of Other Europe Net Raw Materials (Table 17.9) * respective yields
Sum of Japan Net Raw Materials (Table 17.9) * respective yields
Sources and Notes
TOTAL WORLD MANUFACTURE COCAINE
Cocaine HCl manufactured in the USA
Cocaine HCl manufactured in Germany
Cocaine HCl manufactured in Other Europe
Cocaine HCl manufactured in Japan
Yield Peru coca
Yield Peru crude
Yield Java coca
TOTAL ALL RAW MATERIALS
RAW MATERIALS
Q
a
b
c
Symbol
9,031
2,670
5,739
621
0
9,031
2,089
6,024
918
0
6.0
84.5
10.9
1897-1903
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
11,291
3,564
5,100
2,627
0
11,291
3,878
6,206
1,207
0
6.0
84.5
10.9
1904-1910
11,157
528
826
9,559
243
11,157
1,822
5,987
1,230
2,118
6.0
84.5
10.9
1914-1930
Total Peru Coca * PCL yield
Total Peru Crude * PCC yield
Total Java Coca * JCL yield
Total Formosa coca * 7.0
16,757
2,052
3,271
11,434
0
16,757
3,787
11,356
1,614
0
6.0
84.5
10.9
1911-1913
[35]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[30]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[23]
[24]
[25]
Row
395
Table 17.10 Estimate of Cocaine HCl manufactured from Raw Materials
396
Table 17.11 Estimate of Cocaine HCl manufactured worldwide from Raw Materials
Year
of
Coca Leaf
Export
from Peru
Export
tonnes
[1]
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
388
391
372
410
450
494
407
312
566
610
933
1,026
911
1,490
1,211
654
404
496
496
768
770
393
478
393
266
307
167
386
453
88
124
190
170
217
204
143
150
101
192
Cocaine HCl
Production
from Peru
Coca
kg
[2]
1,978
1,994
1,897
2,091
2,295
2,124
1,750
1,341
2,434
2,623
4,011
4,411
4,013
6,564
5,335
2,881
1,780
2,185
2,185
2,447
2,453
1,252
1,065
876
593
684
372
860
1,009
196
276
423
379
483
454
319
334
225
428
Period
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
Crude Cocaine
Export
from Peru
kg
[3]
4,550
2,357
4,716
4,540
4,370
4,200
4,346
4,500
7,745
10,688
8,268
7,800
7,527
6,788
5,914
6,057
5,175
5,266
5,524
5,402
2,944
3,267
979
1,353
1,576
1,896
2,967
596
1,637
157
778
192
967
621
1,048
980
625
236
20
Cocaine HCl
Production
from Peru
Crude
kg
[4]
3,845
1,992
3,985
3,836
3,693
3,549
3,672
3,803
6,545
9,031
6,986
6,591
6,360
5,736
4,997
5,118
4,373
4,450
4,668
4,565
2,488
2,761
827
1,143
1,332
1,602
2,507
504
1,383
133
657
162
817
525
886
828
528
199
17
Coca Leaf
Export
from Java
tonnes
[5]
51
52
47
80
76
81
77
49
30
70
72
77
77
67
122
200
417
373
430
741
1,075
1,332
1,353
1,089
408
273
662
994
1,677
1,137
1,269
907
1,118
997
1,020
678
385
585
354
Cocaine HCl
Production
from Java
Coca
kg
[6]
556
567
512
872
828
883
839
534
327
763
785
839
839
730
1,330
2,180
4,545
4,066
4,687
8,077
11,718
14,519
14,748
11,870
4,447
2,976
7,216
10,835
18,279
12,393
13,832
9,886
12,186
10,867
11,118
7,390
4,197
6,377
3,859
Cocaine HCl
Production
from Formosa
Coca
kg
[7]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
483
903
1,148
1,253
A V E R A G E S
402
621
809
644
237
2,051
2,671
3,563
2,051
528
4,107
6,792
6,036
3,871
978
3,470
5,740
5,100
3,271
827
61
65
241
1,049
877
667
710
2,625
11,438
9,557
Sources and Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Table PCL 1 incl. interpolations 1895-96
[2] = [1] * PCL yield factor
Table PCL 1 incl. interpolations 1895-96
[4] = [3] * 0.845 (yield factor)
Table JCL 2 column [13]
[6] = [5] * 10.9 (yield factor)
[7] = Table 8 (Musto, l.c) * 7.0
[8] = [2] + [4] + [6] + [7]
Period
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
PCL yield factor
5.099
4.300
4.405
3.186
2.228
243
Cocaine HCl
Production
Total
Year
of
kg
[8]
Export
6,379
4,552
6,394
6,799
6,816
6,556
6,262
5,678
9,305
12,417
11,783
11,842
11,213
13,030
11,662
10,179
10,698
10,701
11,540
15,089
16,659
18,532
16,640
13,889
6,372
5,262
10,095
12,198
20,672
12,722
14,766
10,472
13,382
11,875
12,808
9,020
5,962
7,949
5,556
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
Total
Period
6,188
9,120
11,289
16,760
11,155
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
397
Figure 17.5, the graph corresponding to Table 17.11, shows clearly distinct periods of various
manufacturing levels and a shift in raw materials used from those of Peruvian origin to Java
coca.
Figure 17.5 Estimate of Cocaine HCl Manufactured from Raw Materials
Exported during the Period 1892-1930
Cocaine manufactured from Raw Materials
Exported during the Period 1892-1930
kg Cocaine HCl
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
From Peru Coca
From Peru Crude
From Java Coca
1930
1928
1926
1924
1922
1920
1918
1916
1914
1912
1910
1908
1906
1904
1902
1900
1898
1896
1894
1892
0
From Formosa Coca
From the graph we identify the following periods:
1892-1899
1900-1910
1911-1915
1916-1920
1921-1930
a period of more or less constant export equivalent to ca 6 t cocaine
p.a.
a higher quite stable export level representing ca 12 t cocaine p.a.
increased exports from Java pushing the level to over 16 t p.a.
a strong decline followed by a recovery after World War I
a gradual decline from 14 to 6 t p.a., the effect of
international narcotics control.
An important point is that the annual amounts calculated in Table 17.11 represent the
quantities of cocaine HCl which have been be manufactured from the raw materials exported
during a particular year. The actual manufacture of the cocaine from these raw materials took
place at a later point in time. Over long periods the average quantities in raw materials
exported will have been equal to the quantities manufactured. Over shorter periods with a
reasonably constant production level, the quantities exported will mimic the quantities
manufactured in a particular year reasonably accurately.
However, under less stable market conditions the difference between the quantities of cocaine
exported in the raw materials and the quantities of cocaine actually manufactured can be quite
large. The latter was the case during the periods around World War I and during the 1920s.
Building stocks of considerable size occurred under the then prevailing conditions. The result
was that during these periods the exports represent substantially larger quantities of cocaine
than were manufactured during those years. To get a feeling of the quantities of cocaine
actually manufactured during the years represented by the x-axis of the graph, one has to
imagine somewhat reduced maxima and a corresponding increase of the low values during
later years.
398
17.4 Estimate of the Accuracy of the Estimates.
The uncertainty of the estimates follows from the accuracy of the model used to calculate the
estimates and from the accuracy of the inputs. The model, the formula used for the
calculation Q, the annual quantity of cocaine HCl produced, introduced in section 17.3, is:
Q = a(x1-B-C) + bx2 + cx3
The model is correct if we assume that all raw materials exported from Peru and Java were
used for either cocaine manufacture or in beverages and that no appreciable quantities of the
raw materials from other sources were used.
The accuracy of the input is the main issue under consideration here. It is assumed
that the exported amounts (x1, x2 and x3) when measured as averages over the periods used in
this chapter are approximately correct i.e. that they are not subject to major systematic errors.
The quantities x1 and x2 (raw materials from Peru) used for the calculations are mainly
sourced from Musto’s publication of 1998.39 Musto’s figures for Peruvian coca and crude
cocaine are principally based on publications by the Peruvian Customs Office
(Superintendencia general de aduanas and other government offices 1890-1902,
Departemento de estadistica general de aduanas 1904-1931). For years that more than one
statistic is available (for coca leaf), there is reasonable agreement except for the year 1906.
Musto’s selection out of these statistics is in Table PCL 1 column [7] (Part IV) augmented
with data sourced from Gehe’s Handelsbericht. These augmented figures are used as input for
Table 17.5.
For Java coca, the exported quantities x3 are sourced from publications by the Dutch
East Indies Customs Department (Dienst der in- en uitvoerrechten 1908-1921, Centraal
kantoor voor de statistiek 1923-1936). For exports of Java coca for the years before 1908
these figures are augmented with statistics from the Koloniale Bank and other sources (Part
IV Table JCL 2) and exports to the NCF (1900-1904). These augmented figures are used as
input for Table 17.5.
To estimate the uncertainty in the calculated values of Q, the variance of Q as a function of
the variances of the variables x1, x2 and x3, a, b, and c, and B and C is derived using the
following formula for the variance of a general function (f):
2
 f 
 Var (i)
Var (f )   
 i 
in which equation i represent the individual variables.40
The variance calculations pertain to the averages of Q over the periods as used in this chapter.
The average values for x1, x2 and x3 measured over the periods are considered approximately
correct, hence Var(xi) is assumed to be 0. Therefore, the uncertainty of Q is a function of the
other variables viz. the uncertainty of the yields a, b and c, the uncertainty in the quantities B,
the quantity of Peruvian coca used for beverages, and in C, the quantity exported to Chile.41
It is assumed that the inputs are approximately normally distributed around their
respective averages.
39
Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ (1998).
Harri Lapplainen, www.cis.hut.fi/harri/ijcnn98/node8.html.
41
“Best current practice is to speak in terms of uncertainty”. John S. Denker, Item 21, “A discussion of how to
report measurement uncertainties”, Section 2.2 www.av8n.com/physics/uncertainty.htm.
40
399
Applying the equation for the variance to the formula for Q we find:
Var(Q) = (x1-B-C)2Var(a) + x22Var(b) + x33Var(c) + a2[Var(B) + Var(C)] and
Q2 RelVar(Q) = a2(x1-B-C)2 RelVar(a) + b2x22 RelVar(b) + c2x33 RelVar(c)
+ a2B2 RelVar(B) + a2C2 RelVar(C)
A spreadsheet was constructed to calculate RelVar(Q) by period from the values
appearing in Table 17.10, rows [31] to [33]. The relative standard deviations of a, b and c
estimated in Table 17.7 at 10, 8 and 6% respectively were used. Variances for B and C cannot
be directly estimated. The spreadsheet was run for a series of combinations of values for
RelStd(B) and RelStd(C) (equal to the square roots of the corresponding relative variances).
The spreadsheet shows next to RelVar(Q): RelStd(Q) in per cent, the 90% confidence interval
in per cent (= RelStd(Q)*1.833 at df=9) and in kg cocaine HCl, rounded to the nearest 10 kg.
The spreadsheet also shows the values for Q rounded to the nearest 100 kg.
Table 17.12, below, displays the spreadsheet run for RelStd(B) = 30% and RelStd(C) = 20%,
representing the authors choice of a realistic pair of values for these parameters.
Table 17.12 Estimate of 90% Confidence Intervals of
Cocaine Manufactured, by Period
RelStd(B) = 30% and
RelStd'(C) = 20%
Relative Variance of Q
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
0.0035
0.0040
0.0030
0.0024
0.0033
Relative Std Deviation of Q in %
5.9
6.3
5.5
4.9
5.7
90% Confidence Interval in % ±
11
12
10
9
10
6,200
9,000
11,300
16,800
11,200
700
1,000
1,100
1,500
1,200
Q rounded (kg)
90% Confidence Interval in kg ±
(rounded)
The spreadsheet was also run for other pairs of RelStd(B) and RelStd(C) to investigate the
effect of the values for the confidence interval. The results are presented with the following
table:
400
Table 17.13 90% Confidence Intervals (in %) of Cocaine Manufactured
as a function of the Relative Standard Deviation (RelStd) of B and C
RelStd(C)
in %
RelStd (B)
in %
0
0
10
11
9
8
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
10
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
12
12
13
9
9
10
10
11
11
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
1892-1896
1897-1903
1904-1910
1911-1913
1914-1930
The table shows that the effect of RelStd(B) and RelStd(C) on the confidence interval is quite
small. For both RelStd(B) and RelStd(C) equal to zero, the confidence interval represents the
effect of the variances in a, b and c only. An increase of RelStd(C) to 20% makes hardly any
difference and the effect of increasing RelStd(B) to the large value of 50% is only minor.
This implies that any errors in the estimates of B and C will not have resulted in significant
errors in the estimates of total cocaine manufactured worldwide during the period 1892-1930.
17.5 Summary and Conclusions
An estimate was made of the quantities of cocaine hydrochloride manufactured worldwide
from the raw materials coca leaf and crude cocaine from Peru and coca leaf from Java
exported during the period 1892-1930. The graph of the annual quantities manufactured from
exported raw materials (Figure 17.5) shows distinct periods: a stable level of exports
equivalent to ca 6 t p.a. before 1900, increasing to ca. 12 t p.a. thereafter, peaking at ca. 18 t
in 1913 and falling off sharply during the War. After the War exports recovered initially but
gradually declined to 6 t in 1930 as a result of international narcotics control.
The graph also shows clearly a shift in the use of crude cocaine and coca leaf from
Peru as the principal raw materials to the use of coca leaf from Java, which began in 1906
and became pronounced from 1908.
The estimates are based on the export statistics from Peru and from Java combined with
estimates of the yield factors for the various raw materials and estimates of coca leaf used for
beverages. These estimates have a certain amounts of uncertainty attached to them which
were quantified. The uncertainty of the estimates of the cocaine manufactured worldwide by
period was calculated from the variances. The 90% confidence interval of the estimates does
not fluctuate much over the periods, averaging ca 10%.
In summary, the estimates of cocaine manufactured worldwide are approximations. However,
the values obtained are considered sufficiently precise for our purpose. In making the
estimates of quantities of cocaine manufactured worldwide estimates of amounts produced in
the USA, Germany, in Other European Countries and in Japan were part of the calculations.
The uncertainty of these estimates has not been analysed but is believed to be in the order of
20%.
401
Coca-Cola
G
Volume of Coca-Cola syrup sold (US gallons)
R
Regression coefficient
Estimates of Cocaine HCl produced
Q
Quantity of Cocaine HCl produced (kg)
B
C
Quantity of Peru coca leaf used for beverages (tonnes)
Quantity of Peru coca leaf exported to Chile (tonnes)
CC
CC*
Total Quantity of Peru coca leaf used for Coca-Cola (tonnes)
Net Quantity of Peru coca leaf used for beverages (tonnes)
a
b
c
Yield factor for Peru coca leaf (kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf)
Yield factor for Peru Crude (kg cocaine HCl per kg crude)
Yield factor for Java coca leaf (kg cocaine HCl per tonne leaf)
x1
x2
x3
Quantity of Peru coca exported (tonnes)
Quantity of Crude Cocaine exported (kg)
Quantity of Java coca exported (tonnes)
Statistical
Std
Rel Std
Var
Rel Var
df
Standard Deviation
Relative Standard Deviation
Variance
Relative Variance
Degrees of Freedom
402
403
CHAPTER 18
ESTIMATES OF QUANTITIES OF COCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE
SOLD BY THE NCF DURING THE PERIOD 1902-1930 AND PRICES THEREOF.
18.1 Introduction
Sales volume and selling prices are important parameters for judging the functioning of a
bulk pharmaceutical company such as NCF and its position in the market. For the period
1902-1930 there is only limited information available on quantities of cocaine manufactured
and sold by NCF and of the prices thereof. In this chapter a method is developed to make
estimates of these parameters on the basis of financial information available for the company.
The method is an approximate one because the estimated values of sales volume (V)
and price (P) are the outcome of calculations that use as input cost factors several of which
are estimates themselves. The calculations take the form of solving an equation which is a
function of both V and P. If P is known the equation can be solved for V and vice versa. For
the practical application of the method average values of the volume V or the price P are
calculated for six distinct periods covering the years 1902-1930.
Despite the approximate character of the estimates, the values for V and P obtained
are appropriately accurate for showing the position of NCF in the market over time. Annual
average sales volume and price of cocaine achieved by NCF, by period together with the
various cost factors, provide us with a better understanding of NCF’s position in the market
during the various periods. The compilation and analysis of the data that were used for the
estimates are helpful in gaining insight in the cost structure of the company.
The periods for which estimates of V and P are made together with key characteristics of the
periods are:
1902-1908
Establishment of the business. Production of cocaine in a small factory in
Amsterdam. Marketing arrangement with the German cocaine convention.
Good profitability until 1906;
1909
Year of change-over to the new production facilities. No dividend was paid
1910-1914
Production in the new factory outside Amsterdam. Difficult market conditions.
Substantially lower earnings;
1915-1920
World War I and its aftermath. Expansion of the business. Excellent
profitability;
1921-1924
Return of the competition. Marginal financial performance. Narcotics control
issues begin to play a role;
1925-1930
NCF participates in the new Convention of cocaine manufacturers. Control
measures resulting from the Geneva Convention of 1925
affecting the industry. Large profits towards the end of the period.
404
The basis for making of the estimates.
Accounting principles define the arithmetical relationships between the various elements of
the annual Profit & Loss Account (income statement) of a commercial enterprise. In the
following the method of variable costing is used whereby as a first step in the calculation of
the profit the contribution margin, the difference between sales revenue and variable
production cost, is determined.1
Until 1921 NCF manufactured and sold a single product, cocaine hydrochloride.2
Therefore, during the period 1902-1920, annual sales / production volume V, the price P and
the variable production cost (C) of cocaine hydrochloride determined the contribution margin
(T).3 In formula form:
Contribution Margin = V*(P – C) = T
The variable production cost C comprise the cost of the raw material, coca leaf from Java,
and the cost of chemicals, solvents and energy.
The cost of factory labour and overheads are considered to be constant during each
period and are therefore included in the fixed costs (F). Other fixed costs are the cost of the
technical director and staff, administration costs (Koloniale Bank), selling cost and
depreciation. For the total fixed cost the symbol F is used.
Gross Profit is equal to the contribution margin less the fixed cost. To arrive at the
Net Profit other costs such as interest, taxes and sundry items have to be deducted from the
gross profit. However, during the periods under consideration NCF was not subject to income
tax, and the amount of net interest and sundry items was quite small.4 As a result for NCF net
profit was approximately equal to gross profit. Hence:
Gross Profit = Net Profit W = V*(P-C) - F
At NCF the annual net profit (W) was distributed over dividends (D), profit sharing (PS),
bonuses (B) and retained earnings (R). Hence
W = V*(P-C) – F = D + PS + B + R
This equation can be solved for V or P if all other elements are known.
1
See e.g C.L. Moore and R.K. Jeadicke, Managerial Accounting (4th Ed. Cincinnati 1976) 381-409.
During the period 1921-1930 NCF manufactured a second product, Ethocaine. The effect thereof on the
calculations for V and P are discussed in the section on Ethocaine in this chapter.
3
When measured over an extended period, averages of sales volume and production volume become equal.
4
Early in 1901 NCF had a NLG 50,000 debt with the Koloniale Bank and it was expected that this debt would
be repaid by the end of the year. Koloniale Bank, Notulen Commissarissen Vergaderingen (Minutes of Board
Meetings) 21 January 1902, Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No. 2.20.04, Items 13-19.
All expansions of the manufacturing facilities were financed from profit generated by the company. Koloniale
Bank, ‘Rapport inzake N.V. Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek’ (1945) November 26, Nationaal Archief, The
Hague, Access No. 2.20.04 Item 928.
In the 1930s NCF received a few thousand guilders of interest income annually. Nederlandsche Cocaine
Fabriek, ‘Notulenboek, Commissaris vergaderingen 23 February 1934 - 15 May 1950’. (Minutes of Board
Meetings 23 February 1934 - 15 May 1950). Minutes from the Meetings of 24 February 1934, 6 July 1936 and
14 May 1937.
2
405
In the following sections of this chapter all the elements of the above equation are dealt with
separately and estimates of the various costs are made. In the final section the equation is
solved for V or P for the various periods, using the costs as estimated
18.2 Net Profit.
Dividends, profit sharing, bonuses and retained earnings.
All dividends paid to NCF shareholders over the years 1902-1943 have been included in a
report on the NCF of 1945 as a percentage of the nominal share capital.5 The actual amounts
paid as dividends were calculated therefrom by the author and appear in Table FIN 1 of Part
III, Source Data. They are used in this section for further calculations. In the original
Memorandum of Association of the NCF and subsequent amendments it is specified how the
annual profit was distributed over dividends, amounts paid to the holders of profit sharing
notes (until 1910) and as bonuses to Board members and Directors (from 1910). From the
Articles of Association we know that in 1906 a Reserve Fund was established, funded from
profit.
Distribution of profit 1902 – 1905
The Memorandum of Association (“Acte van Oprichting”) of the Company dated 14 March
1900 specifies that: of the annual profit (W) 75% will be paid as dividend (D) to shareholders
and 25% is paid to the holders of the profit-sharing notes (PS).6
In formula form:
Dividend
Profit Sharing
D = 0.75 W and W = 4D/3
PS = 0.25 W and PS = D/3
Distribution of profit 1906-1909
According to a change in the Articles of Association (“Statuten”) of the company dated 29
May 1906 the rules for the distribution of profit changed into:7
 From the annual profit W 15% is allocated to a Reserve Fund until the amount
accumulated in the Fund reaches NLG 50,000;
 The remaining amount (0.85 W) is distributed as follows: 75% is paid as dividend D
to shareholders and 25% is paid to the holders of the profit-sharing notes;
 Once the amount in the Reserve Fund reaches NLG 50,000 the total amount W is
distributed as specified for the period 1902-1905.
In formula form:
Dividend
= 0.75 x 0.85 W
= 0.6375 W and
W = 1.5686 D
Profit Sharing
PS = 0.25 x 0.85 W
= 0.2125 W and
PS = D/3
Once the amount in the Fund has reached NLG 50,000 the formulas revert to
Dividend
D = 0.75 W and W = 4D/3
Profit Sharing
PS = 0.25 W and PS = D/3
5
D
Koloniale Bank, Rapport inzake N.V. Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek (1945).
Nederlandsche Staatscourant: ‘Naamloze Vennootschap: Nederlandsche Cocaine-fabriek, te Amsterdam’
(No. 222) (1900) June 1.
7
Bijvoegsel, Nederlandsche Staatscourant (1906) Juni 19, No. 338.
6
406
Distribution of profit 1910-1930
According to a change in the Articles of Association (“Statuten”) of the Company dated 27
December 1910, Clause 15, the distribution of profit from that date was as follows: 8
 From the annual profit an amount as will be determined by the Board is deducted for
depreciation.9 Of the remaining profit W, 15% is allocated to a Reserve Fund until the
amount accumulated in the Fund reaches NLG 50,000;
 Of the then remaining amount (0.85 W) NLG 1,944 (6% of the share capital) is set
aside as the first portion of dividend payable to shareholders;
 90% of the then remaining amount (0.85 W – 1,944) is the second portion of dividend
for shareholders and 10% goes to Directors and Board members as a bonus (B;.
 Once the amount in the Reserve Fund reaches NLG 50,000 the total amount W is
distributed as specified above.
Expressed as mathematical formulas:
Dividend
D = 1,944 + 0.90 (0.85 W – 1,944)
= 0.765 W + 194.40
Bonus
B = 0.10 (0.85 W – 1,944)
= 0.085 W – 194.40
D + B = 0.85 W
To calculate W and B from D:
W = (D – 194.40)/0.765
B = 0.85 W – D = D/9 – 216
Once the amount in the Fund has reached NLG 50,000 the formulas revert to
D = 0.90 W + 194.40 and W = (D – 194.40)/0.90
B = 0.10 W – 194.40 and B = D/9 – 216
The above formulas are used to calculate the annual amounts for gross profit, profit sharing,
bonuses and the contributions to the reserve fund, from the amounts of dividend paid. These
amounts are shown in Table 15.1 together with the averages calculated for the periods as
defined. Also the amounts accumulated in the reserve fund are calculated and they appear in
the table. In 1910 the amount accumulated in the reserve fund was utilized when the nominal
capital of the NCF was increased from NLG 12,000 to NLG 32,400. Accumulation of the
reserve fund recommenced at the end of 1910 and reached the statutory maximum in 1917.
No information is available on the utilization of this amount.
8
Bijvoegsel, Nederlandsche Staatscourant (1911) January 21, No. 110.
The Articles of Association of 1910 specify that an amount for depreciation will be deducted from the annual
profit to arrive at the amount of Profit for Distribution (W). This must be interpreted as a clarification of the
administrative procedure, rather than a fundamental change from method used prior to that date. Also before
1910 the cost of depreciation of assets must have been taken into account in one way or another. Accounting
rules were not strict in those days and that could have taken the form of writing off the value of fixed assets in
an accelerated way. Therefore we consider annual profit W as calculated form D, PS/B and R, both before and
after 1910, as representing net profit after depreciation.
9
407
Table 18.1 NCF Distribution of Net Profit1902-1930
Dividend, Profit-sharing, Bonuses and Reserve Fund (NLG)
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Notes
Profit
Sharing
PS
[2]
Reserve
Fund
R
[3]
Reserve
Fund
Cumulative
[4]
Net
Profit
W
[5]
Year
Dividend
D
[1]
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
24,000
36,000
43,200
27,000
9,600
6,600
16,800
8,000
12,000
14,400
9,000
3,200
2,200
5,600
0
0
0
0
2,259
1,553
3,953
1902-1908
23,314
7,771
1,109
1909
0
0
0
Year
Dividend
D
Bonuses
B
Reserve
Fund
R
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
16,200
24,300
11,664
0
6,480
1,584
2,484
1,080
0
504
3,138
4,727
2,249
0
1,232
1910-1914
11,729
1,130
2,269
Year
Dividend
D
Bonuses
B
Reserve
Fund
R
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
42,120
90,720
94,284
97,200
97,200
113,400
4,464
9,864
10,260
10,584
10,584
12,384
8,221
17,750
12,683
0
0
0
1915-1920
89,154
9,690
6,442
Year
Dividend
D
Bonuses
B
1921
1922
1923
1924
11,340
16,200
16,200
16,200
1,044
1,584
1,584
1,584
1921-1924
14,985
1,449
Year
Dividend
D
Bonuses
B
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
48,600
81,000
48,600
162,000
40,500
48,600
5,184
8,784
5,184
17,784
4,284
5,184
53,784
89,784
53,784
179,784
44,784
53,784
71,550
7,734
79,284
1925-1930
0
0
0
0
2,259
3,812
7,765
32,000
48,000
57,600
36,000
15,059
10,353
26,353
32,195
7,765
Reserve
Fund
Cumulative
3,138
7,865
10,114
10,114
11,346
0
Net
Profit
W
20,922
31,511
14,993
0
8,216
15,128
Reserve
Fund
Cumulative
19,567
37,317
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Net
Profit
W
54,805
118,334
117,227
107,784
107,784
125,784
105,286
Net
Profit
W
See note [3] and [4]
The figures in Blue are calculated by the author
[1]
Part IV, Source Data, FIN 1
[2],[3],[4]
Ref. Preceeding text
[5]
[5] = [1]+[2]+[3]
[3] and [4] No information is available regarding the utilisation of the
NLG 50,000 accumulated in the Reserve Fund at year end 1920..
12,384
17,784
17,784
17,784
16,434
Net
Profit
W
408
18.3 Fixed Cost.
Factory Labour and Overheads
Within each period we have considered the number of people employed as factory labour and
in supervisory and service positions as constant. The reason is that the annual production
volume was approximately constant within the periods. To estimate the costs of factory
labour and overheads two cost factors have to be considered. These factors are: the number of
people involved and their wages. The number of people employed varied over the different
periods that the (V,P)-estimates pertain to. These periods are:
1902 - 1908
1910 - 1917
1918 - 1930
Small scale production at the Schinkelkade, Amsterdam. Output less than 500
kg cocaine p.a.
Production in the new factory at the Duivendrechtsekade. Single extraction
battery, single shift. Maximum capacity ca 750 kg p.a.
From 1918, the second extraction battery was operational. Expansion design
capacity to 1,500 kg cocaine HCl p.a.10 Ethocaine production.
Estimates of the factory capacity and direct and indirect labour required for the various
operations and supervision are based on the experience of the author when employed at the
NCF as chief chemist and factory manager in the 1960s. The estimates for the period 19211930 are supported by statements by NCF to a government body over the years 1938-1940
when a comparable output (but mainly as opiates) was achieved.11 The estimates also tie in
with the number of people involved in the extraction of poppy straw at NCF during 19431944.12 The estimated number of people employed in each function in each period, together
with the estimated labour cost, appears in Table 15.3.
The estimates of the labour cost at NCF are based on information on average weekly wages
paid for industrial labour in the Netherlands. This information is available from the literature
for certain years during the period 1900-1930.13 These data are included in Table 15.2
together with the average weekly industrial wages calculated for the periods under
consideration. A cost factor was established for the various periods on the basis of these
weekly averages using the factor 1.00 for the base period 1902-1908.
Cf. Section 8.3 ‘Operating and Expanding the NCF Factory’ and E.D. van Walree, W.G. van Wettum and
J.B.M. Coebergh,’ Report on the International conference on the restriction of manufacture of narcotic drugs’,
London, 9 December (1930) Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No. 2.05.21 Item 1468, 12.
11
‘NCF Opgave van Bedrijfsgegevens’ (Annual Statements on the Business) to the Bedrijfsgroep Chemische
Industrie (Section Chemical Industry) over 1938-1940, VNCI-Archief, SHCL Maastricht, EAN 1057, Box 27).
Total number of employees NCF as at 1st January 1939 was 27 versus 26 during the period 1921-1930 in this
estimate.
12
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, ‘Finale Afrekening betreffende de verwerking van papaverbolkaf’ (Final
Statement of Account on the extraction of poppy straw) dated 19 March 1945, Nationaal Archief, The
Hague, Access No 2.06.076.07 Item 389.
13
F. Groot, Roomsen, rechtzinnigen en nieuwlichters, Dissertation University of Amsterdam
(1992) Appendix IX, Ref. Van der Spek, Een Eeuw Lonen en Prijzen (1870-1970) 82.
10
409
Table 18.2 Industrial Wages paid in the Netherlands 1900-1930
Year
NLG
per week
[1]
1900
1907
1914
1920
1923
1926
1930
9.75
10.00
12.00
29.00
26.75
26.00
27.50
Period
NLG
per week
[2]
NLG
per annum
[3]
Cost
Factor
[4]
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
10.00
11.00
22.00
27.00
27.00
520
572
1,144
1,404
1,404
1.00
1.10
2.20
2.70
2.70
1943-1944
37.50
1,950
3.75
Sources
1900-1930
1943-1944
Notes
[2]
[3]
[4]
F. Groot, Roomsen, rechtzinnigen en nieuwlichters , Dissertation Univ. of Amsterdam
(1992) Appendix IX, Ref. Van der Spek, Een Eeuw Lonen en Prijzen (1870-1970) 82.
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, Finale Afrekening (Final Statement) 19 March 1945
Total wages for 6 direct labour NLG 11,701 / 6 = NLG 1,950 p.a. = NLG 37.50 per week
Averages 1900-1930 are calculated from column [1] For 1943-1944 see NCF (1945)
[3] = [2] * 52
[4] = [2] / 10
For the category supervisory, laboratory and other employees the estimates for the wages are
calculated from actual wages paid at NCF during 1943-1944 applying the cost factors
appearing in the table to arrive at those paid during the various period.14 Following NCF’s
cost calculations for 1943-1944, in table 18.3 an amount equal to 20% of the total labour
costs was added for general factory expenses.15
All calculations for the estimate of Labour Cost at NCF are presented with the following
Table 18.3
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, ‘Finale Afrekening’ (1945) page 1. For the period 1902-1908 Supervisor
(Weidema) NLG 7,693 / 3.75 = NLG 2,051 and Chief Engineer (Brunner) NLG 4,237 / 3.75 = NLG 1,130.
15
Ibidem, page 2.
14
9
1
1
1
1
4
13
20%
Sub-Total
Supervisory and
Laboratory
Chief Chemist
Chief Engineer
Laboratory
Clerk
Sub-Total
Total Labour
General Factory
Expenses
TOTAL COST
2,000
1,200
800
800
520
520
520
11,376
1,896
9,480
4,800
2,000
1,200
800
800
4,680
2,080
1,560
1,040
20%
17
5
1
1
2
1
12
6
4
2
2,200
1,320
880
880
572
572
572
15,629
2,605
13,024
6,160
2,200
1,320
1,760
880
6,864
3,432
2,288
1,144
Wages
Total
NLG p.a.
The figures in blue are estimated / calculated by the author
4
3
2
Direct Labour
Extraction
Conversion
Engineering
Number of
Employees
Wages
Each
NLG p.a.
Wages
Total
NLG p.a.
Wages
Each
NLG p.a.
Number of
Employees
1.10
1.00
Cost Factor
Duivendrechtsche kade
1910-1914
Schinkelkade
1902-1908
Period
20%
17
5
1
1
2
1
12
6
4
2
4,400
2,640
1,760
1,760
1,144
1,144
1,144
Wages
Each
NLG p.a.
2.20
31,258
5,210
26,048
12,320
4,400
2,640
3,520
1,760
13,728
6,864
4,576
2,288
Wages
Total
NLG p.a.
1915-1920
Number of
Employees
TABLE 18.3 ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND LABOUR COST AT NCF (1902-1930)
20%
26
7
1
1
3
2
19
10
6
3
Number of
Employees
5,400
3,240
2,160
2,160
1,404
1,404
1,404
Wages
Each
NLG p.a.
2.70
55,339
9,223
46,116
19,440
5,400
3,240
6,480
4,320
26,676
14,040
8,424
4,212
Wages
Total
NLG p.a.
1921-1930
410
Table 18.3 Estimates of Number of Factory Employees and Labour Costs
at NCF (1902-1930)
411
Technical Director and Staff. Administration Cost.
The salary of Dr Kramers in 1943-1944 was NLG 13,173 p.a.16 For the estimates it is
assumed that Dr Kramers had one assistant for secretarial duties and sales activities, who was
earning a wage of NLG 2,250 in 1943-1944. Overhead cost, amounting to 20% of the income
of Dr Kramers plus assistant was added to obtain the total cost.17
The Koloniale Bank charged NCF for administrative cost. The amounts charged
during the years 1921-1944 are known.18 For the years prior to 1921 the administrative costs
were calculated using the factors for labour costs specified in Table 15.2 above. The amounts
are included in the table below.
Table 18.4. Cost Technical Director and Staff, Overheads and Administration (NLG p.a.)
Period
Cost factor
[1]
Dr. Kramers
Salary
[2]
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
1943-1944
1.00
1.10
2.20
2.70
2.70
3.75
3,513
3,864
7,728
9,485
9,485
13,173
Notes
Assistant
Wages
[3]
Overhead
Cost (20%)
[4]
600
660
1,320
1,620
1,620
2,250
823
905
1,810
2,221
2,221
3,085
Total
[2]+[3]+[4]=
[5]
Admin
Cost (KB)
[6]
4,935
5,429
10,858
13,325
13,325
18,508
1,000
1,100
2,200
2,550
2,400
2,400
The figures in Blue are estimated / calculated by the author
[1]
Ref. Table 18.3
[2]
Basis 1943-44 x cost factor / 3.75. Ref.Part IV, Source Data, FIN 3
[3]
Basis 1943-44 x cost factor / 3.75
[4]
[4] = ([2] + [3]) x 20%
[5]
[5] = [2] +[3]+ [4]
[6]
Koloniale Bank, Report on the NCF (1945) Appendix 1
Depreciation
From the Minutes of Board meetings of NCF in the 1930s we learn that assets were
depreciated as soon as possible, sometimes even before the year the assets were actually
acquired.19 At NCF over the period from 1900-1939 a total of NLG 590,000 was invested in
land, buildings and equipment, and the assets were fully depreciated by 1939.20 Over the
same period NCF paid an amount of NLG 1,502,000 as dividend to shareholders. Hence,
average depreciation amounted to 40% of dividend paid. Because good profits resulted in
good dividends we have assumed for the calculations that for each year the amount of
depreciation was proportional to dividend paid.
16
Ibidem, page 1.
Ibidem, page 2.
18
Koloniale Bank,’ Rapport inzake N.V. Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek ‘(1945). Appendix 1.
19
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, ‘Minutes of Board Meetings 1934 -1950’, Minutes of the Meetings of
24 February 1934, 6 July 1936 and 14 May 1937.
20
Ibidem, Minutes of the Meeting of 8 October 1940.
17
412
18.4 Variable Cost - Coca Leaf Supplies
The cost of coca is the main component of the variable manufacturing cost of cocaine
hydrochloride. NCF’s major coca supplier was Soekamadjoe. The conditions of supply were
governed by a series of contracts between the companies, the principal conditions of which
are summarised in the following table. Prices for Java coca leaf were commonly quoted either
as Dutch (NL) cents per half kg (irrespective of the alkaloid content) or as NL cents per half
kg per % of total alkaloid present in the leaf (according to assay). The latter price quotation
was indicated as the price per “Unit” (the price in NL cents of half a kg of coca leaf at 1%
total alkaloid content). The letter p will be used in this text to represent the Unit Cost.
Table 18.5 Soekamadjoe Supply Contracts with NCF
Contract
Period
Contract Price
Terms
Freight
cts/hkg
Total
cts/hkg
Unit Cost
cts/hkg
1900-1909
1910-1913
1914-1916
1917-1919
1920-1922
1923-1927
20 NL cts per half kg
20 NL cts per unit
ca NL 29.50 cts per unit
c.i.f.
c.i.f.
c.i.f.
c.i.f.
f.o.b.
c.i.f.
--2.32
-2.50
--
20.00
20.00
22.32
20.00
---
20/A
20/A
22.32/A
20/A
20+2.50/A
ca 29.50
A=
c.i.f. =
f.o.b. =
the total alkaloid content in %
cost, insurance and freight are included in the price
the coca is supplied free on board
Source: Soekamadjoe, Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports) 1909-1927, National Archief,
The Hague, Access No 2.20.04 Items 1477 and 1478.
Note 1: Freight 1914-1916 reflects additional payment by NCF
Note 2: The unit price 1923-1927 was dependent on the alkaloid content.
29.50 cts per unit was the average price over the period.
The first contract ran from 1900-1910 and the second from 1910-1920. The first contract had
almost certainly the same conditions as the second viz. the price was NLG 0.40 per kg c.i.f.
irrespective of the alkaloid content. Under the later contracts the coca was supplied at a price
varying with the alkaloid content as was usual in the coca trade at the time.
Supplies of coca leaf from Soekamadjoe to NCF by period have been summarised in
Table 18.6 together with their alkaloid content and average weighed unit price for each
period for which the (V,P)-estimates are calculated.
413
Table 18.6 Soekamadjoe Coca Shipments to NCF (1892-1930)
Year
of
Shipment
estimate
estimate
Total
Total
Total
Total
1902-1908
Shipped
to NCF
kg
25,000
Alkaloid
assay
percent
Cocaine
Alkaloid
Content
kg
Estimated
Cocaine HCl
Prod. at NCF
kg
1.50
375
250
1909
0
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
20,000
7,850
23,230
31,410
32,850
1.50
1.52
1.52
1.59
1.75
300
119
353
499
575
200
80
235
333
383
1910-1914
115,340
1.60
1,847
1,231
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
49,990
50,045
0
33,550
65,460
39,380
1.30
1.39
1.55
0.70
1.24
1.62
650
696
0
235
812
638
433
464
0
157
541
425
1915-1920
238,425
1.27
3,030
2,020
1921
1922
1923
1924
40,413
29,396
21,774
30,210
1.93
1.97
1.83
1.91
780
579
398
577
520
386
266
385
1921-1924
121,793
1.92
2,335
1,556
1925
1926
1927
26,925
37,785
41,800
1.76
1.86
1.75
474
703
732
316
469
488
1925-1927
106,510
1.79
1,908
1,272
Estimated
Cocaine HCl
Prod. Average
kg p.a.
Soeka
Price
cts/hkg
Soeka
Price
p(s)
cts / unit
250
20.00
13.33
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
22.32
13.33
13.16
13.16
12.58
12.75
246
337
12.90
22.32
22.32
17.17
16.06
20.00
20.00
28.57
16.13
21.37
18.40
21.37
21.37
30.00
30.00
389
24.98
29.50
30.00
29.50
424
29.68
Notes
Source: Soekamadjoe, Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports) 1909-1927, National Archief, The Hague, Access No 2.20.04 Items 1477 and
1478. The data are summarized in Part IV, Source Data, JCL 7.The contact prices are specified in Table 18.5. The prices in NLcents
per Unit in the last column of the above table are calculated using the contract prices and the alkaloid assay figures. The contract
prices by period are assay weighted averages. Cocaine yield at NCF is 2/3 of the content as per assay.
No direct information is available of the quantities of coca supplied by Soekamadjoe to NCF
during the period 1900-1910. In the early years Soekamadjoe supplied probably the total
requirements of ca 30,000 kg p.a. but in a report of 1909 by F.G.H. van Houtum, the new
superintendent (“administrateur”) of the Soekamadjoe plantation, it is noted that the condition
of the coca cultivation was very poor. The estimate of the 1910 harvest was ca 20,000 kg of
leaf and only 7,850 kg was shipped in 191121. On the basis of the above we assume that the
average quantity of coca supplied by Soekamadjoe during the period 1902-1908 was ca
25,000 kg p.a. The average assay of the coca leaf supplied during the period 1902-1908 is
assumed to be 1.50 %, equal to the assay for the year 1910. For various reasons Soekamadjoe
was not able, after 1910, to supply the total coca requirements of NCF. Additional quantities
must have been bought on the open market and/or through the Koloniale Bank presumably at
open market prices. From 1905 to 1921 Java coca was extensively traded at auctions in
Amsterdam; thereafter the prices were set by a combination of producers and traders, which
21
Soekamadjoe, Annual Reports (1909) 8 and (1911) 5.
414
formed a formal association, the “Coca-Producenten Vereniging” (Coca Producers
Association) in 1925. The broker P. Brusse played an important role in the Amsterdam coca
trade. His statistics on the trade in Java coca cover the years from 1905 onwards.22 These
statistics have been used as the source for Table JCL 5 (Part III, Source Data). Averages
pertaining to the periods specified in this chapter are calculated by the author and are
summarised in the following table. The prices for the period 1927-1930 are those published
by the Coca Producers Association. Averages for the various periods are calculated from the
source data; they appear in Table 18.7.
Table 18.7 Coca Leaf sales Amsterdam (1905-1929)
Year
Coca Leaf
Sold
At auction
kg
[1]
Coca Leaf
Sold
Directly
kg
[2]
Coca Leaf
Sold
Total
kg
[3]
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
At auction
kg
[4]
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
Directly
kg
[5]
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
Total
kg
[6]
Assay
Calculated
HHB
%
[7]
Unit
Price
NL cts
[8]
1905-1908
110,709
0
110,709
1,752
0
1,752
1.58
21.44
1910-1914
2,921,440
87,674
3,009,114
46,730
1,455
48,185
1.60
22.27
1915-1920
970,436
1,457,537
2,427,973
13,590
21,856
35,446
1.46
28.90
1921-1924
27,626
1,881,381
1,909,007
403
28,520
28,923
1.52
51.33
1925-1930
0
2,061,384
2,061,384
0
30,315
30,315
1.47
33.40
Sources
P. Brusse, Jaarverslagen voor kinabast en Coca (Annual Reports on Cinchona bark and Coca), 1910-1933
Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam. For a summary ref. Part III, Source Data, JCL 5
Unit Prices 1927-1929 are calculated from prices reported by the
Coca-Producenten Vereniging (Coca Producers Association), Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports), 1926-1950
Notes
All figures in Blue are calculated by the author
[3] = [1]+[2] and [6] =[4] +[5]
Assay: [7] = [6]/[3]*100; Brusse's annual assay figures are apparently averages of monthly sales.
Average Unit Prices and Average Assays by period are weighted averages
The prices appearing in column [8] of the above table are an estimate of what NCF will have
paid for the additional quantities. These prices are considerably higher than the Soekamadjoe
contract price as is shown in the under following Table 18.8.
22
P. Brusse, Jaarverslagen voor kinabast en coca (Annual Reports on Cinchona bark and Coca) 1910-1933.
415
Table 18.8 Prices Java Coca Soekamadjoe compared to Open Market prices (Brusse)
Period
p1
Soekamadjoe
NLcents/Unit
p
Open Market
NLcents/Unit
p2/p1
Price
Ratio
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
13.33
12.90
18.40
24.98
29.68
21.44
22.27
28.90
51.33
33.40
1.61
1.73
1.57
2.05
1.13
Notes
The prices are the assay weighted averages
for each period.
For the first period the average open market price
is calculated over the years 1905-1908
The unit coca prices from Soekamadjoe and other suppliers are p1 and p2 respectively. The
price p1 is known from the supply contracts between NCF and Soekamadjoe and p2 is the
price that was paid for additional quantities. That price is assumed to be equal to the average
coca price paid at auctions and direct sales at Amsterdam (1905-1926) and from those set by
the Coca Producers Association (CPV) (1927-1930). They are summarised in Table 18.8.
Chemicals, Solvents and Energy.
The costs of chemicals, solvents and energy (CSE) incurred in the extraction of poppy straw
at NCF in 1943-1944 are known. These costs amounted to NLG 53 per tonne of poppy
straw.23 The costs of CSE in the extraction of coca leaf will have been very similar, and
therefore we estimate the extraction cost at NLG 5 per kg cocaine HCl for 1943-1944.24 The
cost of CSE for the conversion of the total alkaloids into cocaine HCl (cost level 1943-1944)
has been estimated by the author on the basis of the approximate quantities of the chemicals
and solvents used for each process step and using prices for these chemicals and solvents
obtained from the literature.25 The results are presented with Table 18.9.
The cost of CSE during the various periods pertaining to the (V,P)-calculations have
been estimated by using the Index of Wholesale Price of Chemicals and Drugs published by
the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.26 These costs are shown in Table 18.10. Any errors in the
estimate of the costs of CSE will affect the calculated values for V and P only slightly
because the amounts involved are relatively small.
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, ‘Final Statement of Account on the extraction of poppy straw’ (1945).
Experience of the author when working at the NCF in the 1960s.Yield of cocaine HCl from Java coca was ca
10.7 kg/t (1.60% total alkaloid * 66.7% yield). NLG 53/10.7 = NLG 5.
25
Cf. J. Schwyzer, Die Fabrikation der Alkaloide, Berlin 1927.
26
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, Index of Wholesale Price of Chemicals and Drugs.
www.nber.org/databases/macrohistory/rectdata/04/docs/m040969.txt.
23
24
416
Tables 18.9 and 18.10 Estimated cost of Chemicals, Solvents and Energy for producing
1 kg cocaine HCl from Java coca leaf.
.
Table 18.9
Table 18.10
Unit
Operation
Hydrolysis
Esterification
Benzoylation
Purification
Extraction
Total
Notes
Cost 1943-44
NLG / kg
Period
US Price
Index
Total Cost
NLG / kg
1
3
5
3
5
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
81.5
82.2
158.8
103.4
95.7
15
15
28
19
17
17
1943-1944
94.9
17
The figures in Blue are estimated by the author
CSE cost by unit operation based on NCF cost for poppy extraction
during 1943-1944. Total CSE cost by period estimated using the
US Price Index for Chemicals and Drugs
18.5 Other Factors.
Ethocaine.
Until 1921 cocaine was NCF’s only product and therefore the formula for the contribution
margin V(P-C) = W + F = T can be used as the relationship between the sales volume V, the
price P and the variable cost C of that single product. In 1921 NCF commenced the
manufacture of the synthetic local anaesthetic Ethocaine (Novocaine).27 As a result, from
1921 onwards the formula for the contribution margin becomes VC(PC-CC) + VE(PE-CE) =
TC + TE = T, in which formula VC etc. represents cocaine and VE etc. ethocaine. The
contribution margin of cocaine TC can be calculated from T if the contribution margin for
ethocaine TE is known.
No direct information is available for quantities, prices and manufacturing cost of
ethocaine during the 1920s. However, we know that in the years 1933-1934 ca 3,000 kg
ethocaine p.a. was manufactured and sold by NCF at a price of ca NLG 30 per kg28. The
margin over cost was ca 10%.29 On the basis of these figures we estimate that during the
periods 1921-1924 and 1925-1930 quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 kg respectively were
manufactured and sold by NCF at the unchanged price of NLG 30 per kg. The variable costs
(chemicals, solvents and energy) are estimated to be in the order of two-thirds of the selling
price. For the period 1921-1930 the fixed costs as estimated for cocaine were hardly affected
by the ethocaine production. This includes the cost of factory labour, because the estimate of
labour requirements was based on full capacity cocaine production over the total period while
the cocaine production came down substantially over the second half of that period.
Therefore labour as estimated for cocaine is assumed sufficient for the production of
ethocaine in the quantities as estimated.
27
NCF, Minutes of Board Meetings, Meeting of 1 June 1948.
Ibidem, Meeting of 10 December 1934.
29
Ibidem, Meeting of 23 February 1934.
28
417
These approximations result in a contribution margin for ethocaine of NLG 10,000
and 20,000 over the periods 1921-1924 and 1925-1930 respectively. These estimations are
rather broad but the effect of any errors in the contribution margin of ethocaine (TE) on the
contribution margin of cocaine (TC) is relatively small because of the quite large values of
total T over these periods.
The average cost of the coca leaf used as raw material by NCF
In Table 18.6 the amounts of cocaine HCl produced from the quantities of coca leaf supplied
by Soekamadjoe (V1) have been estimated.30 Additional amounts of cocaine (V2) were
produced by NCF from Java coca leaf bought from suppliers other than Soekamadjoe.
Because of the different raw material cost, cocaine made from Soekamadjoe coca leaf had a
different production cost than cocaine made from coca from other sources. Consequently, the
average variable production cost C in the equation V (P – C) = TC becomes a function of V
and the equation is re-arranged as follows:
V (P – C) = V1 (P – C1) + V2 (P – C2) = TC
in which equation V1, C1, and V2, C2 represent the volume and variable cost of cocaine made
from Soekamadjoe coca and from coca bought on the open market respectively and V = V1 +
V2.
The average cost of the coca leaf per unit is:
p(avg) 
p1V1  p 2 V2 p1V1  p 2 (V  V1 )

V
V
The variable cost for the manufacture of 1 kg cocaine HCl at NCF is C = 3p + q, the sum of
the cost of the raw material coca leaf (3p) and the cost of chemicals, solvents and energy (q).
The derivation of the term 3p for the cost of coca leaf from Java in 1 kg cocaine HCl
produced at NCF is provided with the following table:
Soekamadjoe,’ Jaarverslagen’ (Annual Reports) (1909-1927), National Archief, The Hague, Access No
2.20.04 Items 1477 and 1478.
30
418
Table 18.11 The cost of the raw material Java coca in 1 kg cocaine HCl at NCF
Worked Example for
p = 30 NL cents and
A = 1.6% alkaloid
Formula
Price of ½kg of coca leaf at 1% total alkaloid (in NL cents)
Price of ½kg of coca leaf at A% total alkaloid (in NL cents)
Price of 1 metric tonne of coca leaf at A% total alkaloid (in NLG)
kg Alkaloid present in 1 metric tonne of coca leaf at A% total alkaloid
kg Cocaine HCl produced from 1 metric tonne of coca leaf
at A% total alkaloid at a yield of 2/3 (66.7%)
Cost of coca leaf in 1 kg of cocaine HCl produced (20pA) / (20A/3) (in NLG)
Note
p
pA
20pA
10A
30
48
960
16
20A/3
3p
10.67
90
NL cents
NL cents
NLG
kg
kg
NLG
At NCF the yield of cocaine HCl from total alkaloids
contained in the Java coca leaf was ca 66.7% Ref. Chapter 6.
Price Information
Table 18.12 European Prices Cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Year
Price
Year
Price
Year
Price
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
338
295
256
249
230
183
146
1910
1911
1912
1913
162
177
148
122
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
354
409
338
295
295
418
Average
1902-1908
242
Average
1910-1913
152
Average
1925-1930
352
Sources
1902-1913 Part IV, Souce Data, COC 4 and 5
1925-1930 Calculated from Convention prices
(Table 7.7)
The price for 1914 is assumed to be equal to the average price 1910-1913, because the low
prices in the first half of 1914 were compensated by the high prices achieved during the
second half of that year.31 This results in an estimate of average price for 1910-1914 of NLG
152.
For the period 1915-1920 European prices are not known. US prices in 1915-1916 were in
the range of NLG 340-390 and rising sharply. In annual reports by directors to the board of
the Koloniale Bank it is mentioned that the cocaine price increased very considerable after
31
Koloniale Bank, Reports by the Directors to the Board (1914-1916), Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access
No 2.20.04, Item 58.
419
the start of the war in 1914.32 We estimate the average price for the period 1915-1920 at NLG
360, which figure is to be considered as a ballpark estimate.
No price information is available for the period 1921-1924.
During the period 1925-1930 NCF sold not only cocaine HCl but also crude cocaine base.
The price at which the base was sold is not documented but historical price records for Peru
crude cocaine (Part IV, Source Data, Table PCC 3) in comparison to pure cocaine HCl (Table
COC 5) show an average ratio of 79%. This percentage is used to estimate the average price
of crude cocaine sold by NCF during the period 1925-1930. (Table 18.14, below). This
average price of NLG 333 per kg is of limited accuracy and is only used for a comparison
with the value for P resulting from solving the [P,V]-equation.
Volume Information
For the period 1902-1908 we know that the agreed quota with the German Cocaine
Convention was 300 kg p.a. and that monthly 30-35 kg was supplied to Gehe & Co. mid
1902. These amounts have not been used as input for the calculations but they are used for a
comparison with the value for V resulting from solving the [P,V]-equation.
For the years 1910-1920 no information is available on the quantities sold/manufactured by
NCF. During the period 1921-1924 an average quantity of 1,050 kg p.a. was manufactured
(Part IV, Source Data, COC 3). Quantities of cocaine HCl and cocaine base produced during
1925-1930 are contained in Table 18.13.
Although Chemische Fabriek “Naarden” obtained a manufacturing license for cocaine in
1926 it is unlikely that this Dutch company actually manufactured the product. “Naarden” is
known to have traded in cocaine, especially during the years 1927-1928, but according to a
document on the history of the company, “Naarden” often traded products (including
cocaine) bought from other companies labelled as its own.33 There is no information available
that “Naarden” actually manufactured cocaine. We conclude that NCF was the only cocaine
manufacturer in the Netherlands during the periods 1921-1914 and 1925-1930.
32
Ibidem.
W.A. van Dorp, De Geschiedenis van de N.V. Chemische Fabriek “Naarden” 1905-1945, preliminary
document (1998) 14-15.
33
420
Table 18.13 NCF Cocaine Production 1925-1930
Year
kg HCl
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
977
775
692
668
281
135
0
232
244
141
284
325
977
1,007
936
809
565
460
Average
588
204
792
Sources
kg Base
kg Total
Part IV, Source Data, COC 2 and 6
Table 18.14 Average Price Cocaine HCl and Cocaine Base NCF 1925-1930
Production
kg
Price
NLG/kg
HCl
Base
588
204
352
278
Total
1925-1930
792
333
Average
Sources Tables 18.11 and 18.12
Base Price = 79% of cocaine HCl price
18.6 Solving the Equation for V and P respectively.
The average values of P and V calculated in the previous section, which are used as input for
solving the [P,V]-equation for each period are summarized in the following table. When P is
known the equation is solved for V and vice versa.
Table 18.15 Average selling prices and volumes used for solving the [P,V]-equation
Period
1902 - 1908
1910 - 1914
1915 - 1920
1921 - 1924
1925 - 1930
Average
Price
P
Average
Annual
Volume V
242
152
360
---
---1,051
792
421
The actual calculations are performed with the spreadsheet presented with Table 15.15 in
which all cost factors estimated in the previous sections of this chapter are brought together.
As shown in the previous section on the cost of coca leaf, the original simple equation for
[P,V]:
V (P – C) = TC
changes because Soekamadjoe could not supply all the coca leaf required by NCF and NCF
had to buy additional quantities at the open market at a higher cost. The equation becomes:
V1 (P – C1) + V2 (P – C2) = TC
In this equation the volume V1 represents the quantity of cocaine HCl manufactured from
coca leaf sourced from Soekamadjoe (at cost p1) and V2 is the quantity manufactured from
coca leaf bought on the open market (at cost p2).
By substituting (V – V1) for V2 in the above formula for V (P-C) and rearranging, we find
V (P - C) = V (P – C2) + V1 (C2 – C1) = TC and V = (TC – V1 (C2 – C1)) / (P-C2)
Substituting 3p2 + q for C2, 3p1 + q for C1 and Δp for (p2 – p1) results in:
V
TC  3V1p
P  (3p 2  q)
This is the equation used for the calculation of the unknown volume V from the price P.
Alternatively, the unknown price P can be calculated from the volume V by using the
equation:
P
TC  3V1p
 (3p 2  q)
V
Table 15.6
Table 15.7
Coca price Soekamadjoe p1
Coca price Other suppliers p2
Price Difference Δp
Note
Table 15.6
Cocaine from Soekamadjoe V1
Variable cost 3*p(avg) + q
NLG / kg Cocaine HCl
Table 15.10
Chemicals, Solvents, Energy q
242
P
NLG / kg
324
V
kg p.a.
61
13.33
21.44
8.11
250
15
58,831
152
P
NLG / kg
499
V
kg p.a.
68
12.90
22.27
9.37
246
15
41,978
0
15,629
5,429
1,100
4,692
26,850
11,376
4,935
1,000
9,326
26,637
0
11,729
1,130
2,269
15,128
1910-1914
23,314
7,771
1,109
32,194
1902-1908
The values in blue are estimated / calculated by the author
Output of the spreadsheet in orange
NLG / kg Cocaine HCl
NLcents / Unit
NLcents / Unit
NLcents / Unit
kg Cocaine HCl
NLG
Cocaine Contribution Margin T C
NLG
NLG
NLG
NLG
NLG
NLG
Table 15.3
Table 15.4
Table 15.4
(Table 15.1)
Factory Labour
Technical Director and Staff
Administration (KB)
Depreciation 0.4*D
Sub-Total Fixed Costs F
NLG
NLG
NLG
NLG
Unit
Ethocaine Contribution Margin T E
Table 15.1
Table 15.1
Table 15.1
Source
Dividend
Profit-Sharing / Bonuses
Reserve Fund
Sub-Total Net Profit W
Period
Table 18.16 Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek
Estimates of Sales Volumes and Prices by application of the (V,P)-equation
360
P
NLG / kg
712
V
kg p.a.
100
18.40
28.90
10.50
337
28
185,264
0
31,258
10,858
2,200
35,662
79,978
89,154
9,690
6,442
105,286
1915-1920
223
P
NLG / kg
1,051
V
kg p.a.
144
24.98
51.33
26.35
389
19
83,642
10,000
55,339
13,325
2,550
5,994
77,208
14,985
1,449
0
16,434
1921-1924
312
P
NLG / kg
792
V
kg p.a.
111
29.68
33.40
3.72
424
17
158,968
20,000
55,339
13,325
2,400
28,620
99,684
71,550
7,734
0
79,284
1925-1930
All values are averages over the periods
422
Table 18.16 NCF Estimates of Sales Volume and Prices 1902-1930
423
18.7. The Accuracy of the Estimates
The accuracy of the estimates follows from the accuracy of the model used to calculate the
estimates and the accuracy of the inputs. The model is the Profit and Loss Account for the
NCF, and the formula used from the calculation of the annual quantity V of cocaine HCl
produced from the average price P is
V
TC  3V1p
P  (3p 2  q)
The model is considered as representing the actual situation correctly but the accuracy of the
calculated values for V depends on the accuracy of the input. The uncertainty of V is a
function of the uncertainty of the other variables used to calculate V.
The variance of a function (f) is
2
 f 
 Var (i)
Var (f )   
 i 
in which formula i represent the various variables.34
In our case these variables are the contribution margin TC, the amount of cocaine produced
from coca leaf supplied by Soekamadjoe V1, the price P and the cost of chemicals, solvents
and energy q.
Applying the formula for the variance to the formula for V we find
Var (V) 
Var (TC )
(3p) 2 Var (V1 ) (TC  3V1p) 2
Var (P)  9Var (p 2 )  Var (q)


(P  3p 2 q) 2 (P  3p 2  q) 2
(P  3p 2  q) 4
The formula to calculate the price P from the volume V is
P
TC  3V1p
 (3p 2  q)
V
Applying the formula for the variance we find
Var (P) 
Var (TC )  (3p) 2 Var (V1 )
V2

(TC  3pV1 ) 2
V4
.Var (V)  9Var (p 2 )  Var (q)
Because in general insufficient data are available to calculate the variances in the normal way
it was necessary to make estimates of these variances. That was done by the author by
making “educated’ guesses of the standard deviations of the parameters. The process used
therefore is that of imagining the maximum and minimum values that the parameters could
take under “normal” circumstances. The difference between the maximum and the minimum
34
Harri Lapplainen, www.cis.hut.fi/harri/ijcnn98/node8.html.
424
value represents 4 times the standard deviation. It is a subjective process and checking is not
easily possible. The author, when in doubt, has opted for making the estimate rather too large
than too small. The values chosen for the relative standard deviations were restricted to the
values 2, 5, 10 and 20%.
The resulting estimates of the standard deviations of the parameters are summarized in the
following table:
Table 18.17 Estimates of Standard Deviations
Variance in
W
F
TE
V
V1
P
p2
q
Main factor determining Uncertainty
no uncertainty all amounts known
inexact estimates of the costs
volume of ethocaine manufactured
accuracy PCOB statistics
quantity of coca leaf supplied
uncertainty of price information
purchase price coca leaf in the open market
cost of chemicals used
Period
Rel Std %
all
all
1921-1930
1921-1930
1902-1908
1902-1920
all
all
0
10
20
5
10
2-10
5
10
Notes on the variances:
Var(V) and Var(P) determine the uncertainty in the calculated values for V and P
respectively. Var(V) and Var(P) are calculated from the estimated variances of the variables
(cost factors) appearing in the formulas. The accuracy of these variances cannot be estimated.
However, because of the applied “to err on the side of the larger estimate” method, the author
is of the opinion that V ± 1.65 Std(V) and P ± 1.65 Std(P) are conservative estimates of the
90% confidence intervals.
W
Net profit is calculated from the known amounts of dividend paid, using the
relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association of the company. These
amounts are exact.
F
The variance of the estimated fixed costs is the result of uncertainties in the
number of employees and their salaries and wages. The estimated relative standard
deviation of 10%, results in a range of 80-120% (±2s) which is
considered by the
author to represent the maximum error.
TE
The quantities of Ethocaine manufactured in the 1920s and the selling price thereof
have been estimated on the basis of the sales and cost figures for this product during
the early 1930s. Because this is a rather broad estimate, a range of of 60-140% is
postulated for the maximum error.
V
The production volumes for the Netherlands 1921-1928 have been calculated from
export and import statistics published by the PCOB (League of Nations)
(Part III, Source Data, COC 3). Because of the unavailability of data for year-end
425
stocks, a relative standard deviation of 5% has been assumed for the average cocaine
production over the periods 1921-1924 and 1925-1930.
V1
No exact data are available for the quantity of coca leaf shipped by Soekamadjoe to
NCF during the period 1902-1908, therefore a range of 200-300 metric tonnes has
been used for the variance calculations.
P
The accuracy of the calculated average prices depends on the number of data available
over each period. Reflecting the amount of information available we have estimated
the standard deviation of the average price for the periods 1902-1908, 1910-1914 and
1915-1930 at 2, 5 and 10% respectively (Part IV, Source Data, COC 5 and 6).
p2
It is not certain that NCF could buy coca leaf on the open market at exactly the
average price. Therefore, we have assumed a maximum range for the average price of
90-110%.
q
The cost of Chemicals, Solvents and Energy has been estimated on the basis of rather
broad information on prices and quantities. To reflect this a relative standard deviation
of 10% has been used. The influence of any variance in q on the end result of the
calculations is very small anyhow.
The calculations resulting in the variances are made using the spreadsheet in Table 18.18 and
the resulting values if the variances are presented together with 90% confidence intervals.
426
Table 18.18 Calculation of Variances and Confidence Intervals for P and V
Period
1902-1908
V calculated from P
1910-1914
1915-1920
P calculated from V
1921-1924
1925-1930
Net Profit W
Rel Std (W) %
Var (W)
32,194
0
0
15,128
0
0
105,256
0
0
16,434
0
0
79,284
0
0
Fixed Costs F
Rel Std (F) %
Var(F)
26,637
10
7,095,298
26,850
10
7,209,225
79,978
10
63,964,805
77,208
10
59,610,753
99,684
10
99,368,999
0
0
0
10,000
20,000
Ethocaine Margin TE
Rel Std (TE) %
Var(TE)
0
TC = W + F - TE
0
20
4,000,000
16,000,000
58,831
41,978
185,234
83,642
158,968
7,095,298
2,664
7,209,225
2,685
63,964,805
7,998
63,610,753
7,976
115,368,999
10,741
4.5
6.4
4.3
9.5
6.8
21.44
13.33
8.11
22.27
12.90
9.37
28.90
18.40
10.5
51.33
24.98
26.35
33.40
29.51
3.89
Rel Std(p2) %
5
5
5
5
5
Var(p2)
1
1
2
7
3
q
Rel Std(q) %
Var(q)
15
10
2
15
10
2
28
10
8
19
10
4
17
10
3
3*p2+q
79
82
115
173
117
250
10
625
246
2
24
337
2
45
389
2
61
424
2
72
52,749
163
4
35,063
70
51
174,619
245
8
52,892
50
154,020
194
Var(P) * [1]^2 / [2]^4
9*Var(p2) * [1]^2 / [2]^4
Var(q) * [1]^2 / [2]^4
SUM = Var(V)
268
14
93
41
9
425
1,463
4
2,926
565
114
5,072
1,063
1
10,914
158
66
12,202
V = [1] / [2] Output
Rel Std(V) %
Var(V)
Std(V)
1.65*Std(V)
324
6.4
425
21
34
499
14.3
5,072
71
118
712
15.5
12,202
110
182
Input
Note 1
1,051
5
2,762
53
87
792
5
1,568
40
65
P = Input
Rel Std(P) %
Var(P)
Std(P)
1.65*Std(P)
242
2
23
5
8
152
5
58
8
13
360
10
1,296
36
59
Output
Note 2
Note 3
223
5.0
127
11
19
312
5.6
306
18
29
Var(TC)
Std(TC)
Rel Std(TC) %
p2
p1
Δp
V1
Rel Std(V1) %
Var(V1)
[1]
[2]
0
20
TC-3Δp*V1
P-3p2-q
[1]^2 / [2]^4
Var(TC) / [2]^2
(3Δp)^2*Var(V1) / [2]^2
Note
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
All values in Blue are calculated by the author
All values im Orange are the output of this spreadsheet
For 1921-1930 V = Input and P = Output
For 1921-1930 P = [1] / V + 3*p2 + q
For 1921-1930 Var(P) = Var(TC)/V^2+(T-3ΔpV1)^2/V^4*Var(V)+9*Var(p2)+Var(q)
427
Table 18.19 Summary of the Estimates values for Average Prices and Volumes by Period and
90% Confidence Intervals thereof.
Period
V
± 1.65 Std
P
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
324
499
712
1,051
792
34
118
182
87
65
242
152
360
223
312
Period
V
± 1.65 Std
P
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
320
500
710
1,050
790
30
120
180
90
70
240
150
360
220
310
± 1.65 Std
8
13
59
19
29
Rounded
Note
± 1.65 Std
10
10
60
20
30
All values in Blue are calculated by the author
All values im Orange are the output of the spreadsheet
Discussion of the results
1902-1908
V = 324 (290-350) kg
P = NLG 242 (230-250)
The estimated average volume of 324 kg cocaine HCl fits well with the
quota of 300 kg p.a. which NCF had agreed with the German Cocaine
Convention and the 30-35 kg supplied monthly to Gehe & Co. mid 1903.35
Another figure supporting the volume estimate is the production cost
(without depreciation and interest) of 1 kg cocaine HCl of ca NLG 100
reported for the NCF in 1902.36
From the figures in Table 15.16 we calculate that in 1902 the production
cost was 3 p + q + (Fixed Cost - salary Dr Kramers) / V =
NLG 3*13.33 + 15 + (17,311-3,513)/338 = NLG 96
which is in good agreement with the reported NLG 100.
Merck Darmstadt, ‘Conventionen und Vertretungen’, 1901/1902, 7; Koloniale Bank, Minutes of Board
Meetings, Meeting of 14 August 1903.
36
Koloniale Bank, Minutes of Board Meetings, Meeting of 2 January 1902.
35
428
1910-1914
V = 499 (380-620) kg
P = NLG 152 (140-160)
No specific information is available for the NCF production volume over
the period. The estimated value for V is in line with the design capacity of
the new NCF factory of 750 kg p.a. The rather wide confidence interval
for V results mathematically from the low price and the therefore small
contribution margin (P-C) in the denominator of the formulas for V and
Var(V).
1915-1920
V = 713 (530-890) kg
P = NLG 360 (300-420)
This is the least certain of the estimates for V. The large confidence interval
results from of the limited information on the price which resulted in an
estimated relative standard deviation of 10% of the price. As a result of the
installation of a second extractor in 1917 the design capacity of the factory
doubled to 1,500 kg p.a. from 1918 onwards.
1921-1924
V = 1,051 (960-1,120) kg
P = NLG 223 (200-240)
Estimate of the price from the volume. Despite the rather large estimate for the
standard deviation of the ethocaine contribution margin
(20% relative) the confidence interval of the price estimate is quite narrow (±
10%). This is due to the mathematics of the calculations.
1925-1930
V = 792 (710-860) kg
P = NLG 314 (280-340)
The average price for cocaine HCl and cocaine base of NLG 333 for the
period as calculated in Table 18.14. That is within the estimated 90%
confidence interval of NLG 280-340.
18.8 Summary and Conclusions
In summary the method of making estimates of V and P from the financial figures over the
various periods has produced satisfactory results. For the first and the last period the
calculated amounts agree well with the values we know from other sources which confirms
the in principle correctness of the method. The values of V provide us for the total period
1902-1930 with a picture of the size of NCF as cocaine producer which is compared with the
total output of cocaine manufacturers worldwide in the following table and graph:
429
Table 18.20 and Graph - Cocaine Manufacture 1902-1930
NCF versus Total World (Annual averages, kg Cocaine HCl p.a.)
Period
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
Notes
World
Total
NCF
320
500
710
1,050
790
Percent
NCF
11,500
15,700
11,400
12,800
8,900
90 % Conf
Interval
3
3
6
8
9
± 0.3
± 0.7
± 1.5
± 0.8
± 1.0
World Totals calculated from
data contained in Table 17.11
Ca 200 kg of NCF's production
1925-1930 was as cocaine base
Manufacture of Cocaine
NCF versus Total World 1902-1930
kg Cocaine HCl p.a.
20,000
15,700
15,000
11,500
11,400
12,800
8,900
10,000
5,000
320
500
710
1,050
790
1902-1908
1910-1914
1915-1920
1921-1924
1925-1930
0
NCF
Total World
The above table and graph are the copestone of the calculations in chapters 16, 17 and 18.
They show the NCF as a relatively small company with a modest but continually increasing
market share. The figures prove the incorrectness of exaggerated statements on the size and
the relative importance of the NCF as a cocaine manufacturer.37
In Table 18.16 estimates of the average annual values of all major commercial, financial and
production parameters are brought together in the form of condensed Profit & Loss Accounts
for each of the periods. The estimates provide valuable insight in the performance of the NCF
as a commercial organisation during the period 1902-1930.
For example: M. de Kort in P.l Gootenberg (Ed.) Cocaine, Global Histories (1999) 132: “In 1910 [NCF]
could claim to be largest single cocaine manufacturer in the world” and P. Gootenberg, in Ibidem, page 11:
“ …with Amsterdam’s giant monopoly NCF factory, by 1910 the Dutch came to dominate (for a decade) world
cocaine and coca commerce”.
37
430
Profit Estimates
V
P
C
T
W
Volume (quantity) of cocaine HCl sold / produced (kg)
Average net selling price cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Variable production cost cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Total contribution margin NCF (NLG)
Net profit NCF (NLG)
D
F
PS
B
R
Dividend paid to NCF shareholders (NLG)
Fixed cost (NLG)
Amount paid to holders of profit-sharing notes NCF (NLG)
Bonuses paid to NCF directors (NLG)
Retained earnings (NLG)
Variable Cost
A
c.i.f.
f.o.b.
Total alkaloid content of coca leaf (%)
cost, insurance and freight (included in the price)
free on board (insurance and freight not included in the price)
p
p1
p2
Unit cost Java coca leaf (NL cents per half kg per % total alkaloid)
Unit cost Java coca leaf NCF supplied by Soekamadjoe (NL cents)
Unit cost Java coca leaf NCF purchased on the open market (NL cents)
q
Cost of chemicals, solvents and energy in 1 kg cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Other Factors – Ethocaine
VC
VE
Volume of cocaine HCl produced (kg)
Volume of ethocaine produced (kg)
PC
PE
Average net selling price cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Average net selling price ethocaine (NLG/kg)
CC
CE
Variable production cost cocaine HCl (NLG/kg)
Variable production cost Ethocaine (NLG/kg)
TC
TE
Contribution margin cocaine (NLG)
Contribution margin ethocaine (NLG)
V1
V2
Volume of cocaine HCl produced from coca leaf ex Soekamadjoe (kg)
Volume of cocaine HCl produced from coca leaf ex open market (kg)
C1
Variable production cost cocaine HCl (NLG/kg) made from coca
leaf sourced from Soekamadjoe
Variable production cost cocaine HCl (NLG/kg) made from coca
leaf bought at the open market from Soekamadjoe
C2
431
Solving the Equation and Statistical
Δp
p2 – p1
Std(x)
Rel Std
Var(x)
Standard deviation of x
Relative Standard deviation
Variance of x
Rel Var Relative variance
432
433
CHAPTER 19
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF PARTS I AND II
Part I – The History
The discovery by Koller in 1884 that cocaine is an effective local anaesthetic led to a surge in
the demand for the product and its raw materials. That kindled the fledgling industry of
cultivation of the coca plant on Java, and after the discovery that the alkaloids from Java coca
could be converted into cocaine with good yield, the future for this raw material was bright.
Because of the patent situation in Germany there were some initial hurdles but in the
Netherlands where there was no patent law at the time, the availability of cheap coca leaf
from Java led in 1900 to the establishment of the Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek by van
Hengst, a coca grower from Java, and the Koloniale Bank.
The building of the factory in Amsterdam and the start-up of the production proceeded
without problems and the cocaine was sold on contract to Gehe & Co, a member of the
German cocaine convention. This arrangement worked well for a number of years and NCF
made a good profit. However, cocaine is a commodity product sold in an inelastic market and
competition for sales volume results in a sharp price decline. High prices attract competition
and the cocaine market was intrinsically unstable. Cocaine conventions (cartels) were formed
by (larger) manufacturers to establish a minimum price and production quotas usually worked
for a number of years but collapsed when the price was set too high and outsiders entered the
market. When prices became rock-bottom again, the outsiders would leave the market and the
cycle would start again. It was the main reason that cocaine manufacturers and, in general,
any alkaloid manufacturer, experienced periods of variable profitability.
For NCF the first period of lean years lasted from 1906 to 1915 but the company survived on
the basis of low cost Java coca supplied by Soekamadjoe, originally owned by van Hengst
and later taken over by the Koloniale Bank. This was an important stabilizing factor for NCF.
It made the decision of 1908 to build a new and larger factory outside Amsterdam easier.
World War I opened-up the market for NCF and profitability was very good until 1920. Then
another swing in profit occurred, this time downwards, as a result of competition returning to
the market.
Another factor seriously affecting the market was international narcotics control that was
gradually implemented after the Geneva Convention of 1925. The trade became restricted to
the need for medical applications, resulting in a reduction in size of the cocaine world market
by more than 50%, cocaine thereby becoming an unimportant product. Also, movement of
the controlled substances became less free as a result of the provisions of the Convention. In
the Netherlands the terms of the Convention came into force in 1928; the export market for
NCF shrank but prices went up and the income was not immediately unduly affected.
It was, however, clear that longer term finding of new products which could be manufactured
in the existing facilities was essential for NCFs continued existence. NCF took the logical
step to build on its existing experience as an alkaloid manufacturer and entered the opiate
business by the production of morphine and codeine from opium after having developed the
necessary processes.
434
Profitability of NCF during the 1930s was quite stable as cocaine production and sales were
gradually replaced by those of opiates, and payments by the Cocaine Cartel continued.
During World War II production at NCF and Bonnema, a second manufacturer, which started
producing opiates in the 1920s, came to a virtual halt and profits disappeared accordingly.
After the war business returned slowly to normal but the opium price, which had increased
substantially during the war, stayed high, causing NCF and Bonnema to explore the use of
poppy straw as an alternative raw material. Initially Dutch poppy straw was used but this was
not an economical option. However, the extraction of poppy straw imported from Turkey and
Yugoslavia turned out to be feasible and during the 1950s morphine production was based on
the use of these raw materials.
The poppy straw process yields as the main product Concentrate of Poppy Straw (CPS), a
crude morphine which is used as the raw material for the making of codeine, the principal
opium alkaloid of the trade. The production cost of CPS was low as a result of the low cost of
the poppy straw and a new market opened up: selling CPS in competition with opium to
codeine manufacturers. Bonnema, renamed Verenigde Pharmaceutisch Fabrieken (VPF) in
1948, took the lead and invested in modern extractors. NCF followed at a distance. Morphine
(CPS) production in the Netherlands increased from ca 2 t p.a. during the first half of the
1950s to ca 5 t p.a. (5% of the total world production) during the second half. Most of the
production was exported either in the form of CPS or, after conversion, as codeine.
The 1960s was a period of major change in the Dutch opiate industry. In 1962, NCF was
acquired by Koninklijke Zwanenberg Organon (KZO), and the take-over of VPF followed in
1964. The NCF production facilities in Amsterdam were closed and all operations were
merged with those of the VPF at Apeldoorn. Average morphine production in the
Netherlands was ca 10 t p.a. during the 1960s. The production costs of CPS and codeine at
Apeldoorn were low, but world market prices were depressed because of overproduction.
In 1971 a sea change occurred for the opiate industry in general and for VPF in particular: as
a result of an agreement with the USA the Turkish government decided to ban poppy
cultivation in Turkey completely. VPF was able to organise procurement of poppy straw from
India as the alternative raw material but the average morphine production fell back to 6.5 t
p.a. during the period 1971-1975. Turkey resumed poppy cultivation in 1975 and supplied
VPF with poppy straw from 1976, but it was clear that supplies would cease once the Turkish
poppy extraction plant, which was under construction, became operational. That was a few
years away and in the meantime the VPF, now as part of Diosynth, processed large quantities
of Turkish poppy straw and supplied US codeine manufacturers with considerable quantities
of CPS. Prices were high and profit soared accordingly. It was, however, clear that future
supplies of poppy straw to Diosynth were most uncertain.
From 1980, a number of unfavourable developments for Diosynth came to the fore: the
Turkish poppy extraction plant came on stream; the US government ruled that at least 80% of
all opiate raw materials imported into the USA would be sourced from India and Turkey; and
prices came down because of increased production of opiate raw materials in India, Australia
and Hungary. Diosynth sought to solve the raw material supply problem by imports of poppy
straw from India and Poland, and by growing poppies in the Netherlands. None of these
provided an economically viable solution. The ultimate result was that in 1988 the poppy
extraction facility in Apeldoorn was decommissioned.
435
Codeine manufacture from purchased CPS continued until 1993 but was then shut down
because of insufficient profitability of the business. This was the end of the manufacture of
narcotic drugs in the Netherlands. It was caused by Diosynth’s incapacity to find a solution
for the raw material problem and the lack of a sufficiently large accessible market. Diosynth
continued to manufacture nal-compounds, which are non-controlled opiates, but also this
business was abandoned, in 2005.
*
*
*
In conclusion, we can say that the legal narcotics business is complex and challenging.
Consumption of the products is determined by the needs for them as essential medicinal
products, and the demand cannot be stimulated by lowering the price. As a result, the market
for the bulk product has a tendency to be unstable because overproduction leads to strong
competition to gain a larger market share, and to price deterioration. Extended periods (years)
of low prices are common in this industry. On the other hand, raw material shortages have the
effect that prices for the end product go up very substantially. An example is the steep price
increase for opiates during the 1970s after Turkey stopped the production of opium and
poppy straw in 1972.
The products are commodities and competition for market share is on price only. In the open
world market a company with a lower production cost will long term displace a company
incurring higher cost. Because the cost of the plant raw material represents the major part of
the total production cost, access to an exclusive, reliable source of low cost raw material is
essential. NCF had such a reliable source for low cost Java coca in Soekamadjoe, and could
survive the low cocaine prices during the period 1906-1914 as a result.
After World War II when the price of opium had increased very substantially both NCF and
VPF changed over to poppy straw as the raw material. Access to low cost poppy straw from
Turkey and development of modern extraction technology was the basis for the expansion of
VPF as a morphine producer during the late 1950s. Morphine was sold as CPS which opened
up a new market, much less restricted by regulation than the codeine market. In the 1960s
VPF became the largest manufacturer of CPS in the world. In the second half of the 1970s,
after resumption of the poppy cultivation in Turkey, VPFs large extraction capacity and good
yields were the basis for the supply of large quantities of CPS to US codeine manufacturers,
thereby achieving very favourable financial results for Diosynth.
Being located in a protected home market of sufficient size for end products (codeine) is a
condition for success for an opiate manufacturer. Protected here means that imports are not
allowed and that domestic prices can be maintained at a profitable level on domestic sales
volume alone. Any additional export sales into the open world market (at lower prices) brings
additional profit. Examples of countries with quite large protected home markets for codeine
operating in the open world market are France and the UK. The smallness of the Dutch home
market limited the competitiveness of codeine produced in the Netherlands.
Raw material supply problems caused the eventual downfall of Diosynth as a morphine
manufacturer after no viable alternative could be found when the supply of Turkish poppy
straw came to a halt in the early 1980s. The lack of a suitable low cost raw material resulted
in the shutting down of the extraction facilities in 1988. The Netherlands’ home market was
small and not protected, a factor that contributed to Diosynth ultimately also ceasing codeine
production.
436
Part II – Estimates and Models
Quantitative information on the production of cocaine for the years before 1930 is scarce. For
a good understanding of the industry and the place of NCF therein it is considered important
to know, at least approximately, the quantities that were manufactured annually. The method
chosen in chapters 16-17 to make estimates of cocaine manufactured was to multiply
quantities of cocaine raw materials exported from the countries of origin to the manufacturing
countries by yield factors i.e. the amounts of cocaine that could be produced from a standard
weight of the raw material. For each of the raw materials: Peru coca, Java coca and Crude
Cocaine from Peru, export and import statistics were collected and analysed and checked for
compatibility using the principle that over time total quantities exported should be equal to
total quantities imported. For Peru coca this turned out not to be the case over certain periods
and the most likely cause of one of the discrepancies was found to be Spillane’s estimate of
coca leaf imported into the USA. For further analysis the Goods-In-Transit (GIT) method
(Appendix 3) was developed which showed that these estimates were too high and which
correction factor should be applied.
Another discrepancy in the Peru coca statistics showed up and three different
scenarios for an explanation were postulated. From the most likely scenario it was concluded
that the German import statistics must have been erroneous.
Finally, when studying the graph of Peru coca exported to other countries than the
USA versus time, it was found that, ignoring certain deviations, an approximate straight line
appeared representing the amounts of Peru coca exported to Europe. The corresponding
regression line representing the amounts was used to make estimates of the quantities of Peru
coca exported to Europe, while the deviations were interpreted as exports from Peru to Chile
and imports of Java coca into the USA.
Some Peru coca was used in the production of Coca-cola, Vin Mariani and other beverages.
To find at the quantity of coca leaf used for making cocaine, the quantities of coca leaf used
for beverages had to be deducted from the total import. Estimates of the amount of Peru coca
used for making a “de-cocainised” coca extract for Coca-cola were made on the basis of
Coca-cola sales statistics. Further estimates were made of the amounts Peru coca used for
other beverages. These estimates are rather broad and the uncertainty of the amounts
calculated is quite large. It was shown, however, that because of the relative smallness of the
quantities of coca leaf used for beverages, the accuracy of the estimates of the total amounts
of cocaine manufactured was not unduly affected.
No records are available of quantities of cocaine manufactured by NCF during the period
1900-1924. To put to rest the persistent statements in various publications that in or around
1910 the NCF was the largest cocaine manufacturer in the world, a method was devised to
make estimates of quantities of cocaine sold by NCF for the period 1902-1930. The principle
of that method was that sales volume (V) and prices (P), together with the manufacturing
costs and overheads, determine the profit made by the company. On that basis the product P
times V, the sales revenue for the period, was calculated from data available from NCF’s
financial administration and from factory costs. Sales volume V in kg cocaine was calculated
subsequently using the average selling price P derived from market information.
The accuracy of the various estimates was assessed by calculating the variances thereof in
some cases using ‘educated guesses’ of the standard deviations of the parameters by the
437
author. This introduces a subjective element in the calculations and challenges the correctness
of the application of the statistical methods used. It is, however, believed that the calculated
confidence intervals provide a useful indication of the uncertainty of the estimates, assuming
correctness of the model.
Drawing conclusions from historical information by means of calculations and the
application of statistical methods is known as “cliometrics” or “historiometrics”. Not all
historians support the use of such methods; the positions of those in favour and those against
are well stated in a booklet by Fogel and Elton, Which Road to the Past? 1 In the opinion of
the author of this dissertation application of cliometric methods can lead to “discovering”
insights into historical situations not attainable by traditional methods. The calculations in
Part II are an example thereof.
However, the value of the results obtained depends on the appropriateness of the
mathematical model used, the quality of the input and how statistical methods are applied.
Strict rules cannot be provided; the choice of the model is determined by the views of the
historian responsible for the study, the data used as input are “non-repeatable” facts, often
limited in number, and the application of certain statistical procedures were applied may from
a strict mathematical point of view not always be entirely justified.
Notwithstanding the above, the author is of the opinion that cliometric methods are
valuable for interpretation of data series and may lead to new insights. The bottom line is in
the interpretation of the results; the results are necessarily approximations and should, as far
as possible, be accompanied by “guesstimates” of the uncertainty thereof. There is always a
subjective element involved and the validity of the conclusions depends on the expertise of
the historian responsible. But the calculations derive their value from the demonstration that
no plausible error in the numbers used as input, will make the accuracy of the final result
unacceptable.
It is the experience of the author of this dissertation that careful analysis of complex
quantitative data, while trying to construct a fitting model, forces one to work very carefully,
taking into account all available data, thereby avoiding unfounded interpretations which may
result from an inclination to keep the reader’s attention.2
1
R.W. Fogel, and G.R. Elton, Which Road to the Past? Two Views of History, New Haven and London 1983.
D.K. Simonton, Psychology, Science and History. An introduction to Historiometry, New Haven and London
(1990) 17.
2
438
439
PART III
APPENDICES, ARCHIVES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY,
SUMMARY IN DUTCH, CURRICULUM VITAE
440
441
APPENDIX 1
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE FAMILIES VAN HENGST AND HUYGEN DE RAAT
TH
TH
IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES (JAVA) DURING THE 19 AND THE EARLY 20
CENTURY
PEOPLE AT THE OUTSET OF THE CULTIVATION OF COCA ON JAVA
Introduction
The families Van Hengst and Huygen de Raat were related by marriage and several members
were involved in the cocaine business through ownership/management of the Soekamadjoe
plantation on Java and the Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek in Amsterdam. Knowledge of the
relationships between and within the families Van Hengst and Huygen de Raat provides an
insight into how ownership of the cocaine business arose and developed over time.
Key person of the early cocaine business on Java was Johannes Van Hengst who was
married to Jenny Huygen de Raat. Johannes Van Hengst was the principal owner of the
Soekamadjoe estate at Tjibadak, the largest plantation of coca on Java during 1890-1900, and
the major shareholder of the NCF at its inception in 1900.
The wealth of the Huygen de Raat family was created by Willem Karel Eduard
Huygen de Raat who amassed a fortune during his working life of 50 years by the
establishment and exploitation of plantations for rice, coffee and cinchona on Java. Shortly
before his passing, his assets were placed in a limited liability company (NV) with a capital
stock of 2,100,000 guilders, the shares of which were distributed among his heirs (mainly his
children and grandchildren) upon his death in 1887. 1 From 1881 to 1887 Johannes van
Hengst managed the estates of father-in-law W.K.E. Huygen de Raat, first as manager
(administrateur), and later as director.
The genealogy of the families Van Hengst and Huygen de Raat was put together by
researching family documents at the Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde
(KITLV), Leiden, the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie (CBG) and the Koninklijke
Bibliotheek (KB), The Hague, in conjunction with publications on the cocaine industry. The
result of the research is depicted in the genealogical chart appearing on the next page.
1
Collectie Huygen de Raat, KITLV-inventaris No 58 (H970), Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- Land- en
Volkenkunde, Leiden: Toelichting (explanation) and Item 14
Jan Hendrik
DE GROOT
DE GROOT
DE GROOT
3
2
1
Cientje
VAN DER SPEK
Robbert
HUYGEN DE RAAT
Mathijs N.
WIJT
?-1913
Charlotte Henrietta
HUYGEN DE RAAT
1854-1876
Michael Theophile H.
PERELAER
1831-1901
Amelie Wilhelmina A.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1880
G.C.R.R.
DE GRAEFF
?-1923
Angeline
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1934
Willem Karel E.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1887
Hendrik
(HUYGEN) DE RAAT
1789-1841
Johannes
DE RAAT
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Jenny
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1935
Henrietta Elize E.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
1830-1876
Margrita
HUYGEN
1795-1840
Maria Johanna
VAN RIJN
two
children
seven
children
HUYGEN DE RAAT
16
15
14
13
18
17
Johannes
VAN HENGST
ca 1848-1910
20
19
Fredericus Ferdinandus J.
VAN HENGST
1816-1883
Johannus Baptist P.
(VAN) HENGST
1791-1863
Gradus Antonius
HENGST
VAN HENGST
Wijnand Adolf
VAN WEELDEREN
1845-1898
Maria Johanna.
VAN HENGST
ca 1850-1920
Antoine
MASSINK
1851-1911
Henrietta Fredrica
VAN HENGST
1855-1937
Frederik Hendrik J.
VAN HENGST
?-1891
Johanna Catharina
PROHN
1791-1840
Anna Catharina K.
CONINX
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
Dossier Van Hengst (Indië) at the
CBG, the Hague, including
notices of death and a letter from
W van der Lee dated 10 July 1972
Collectie Huygen de Raat, Leiden.
KITLV-Inventaris 58 (H 970)
Research by the CBG, the Hague,
Report contained in a letter dated
30 October 1972
Dossier Van Hengst (Indië)
PRINCIPAL SOURCES
442
Figure 1 Genealogical Chart of the families Huygen de Raat and Van Hengst
Principal Sources
443
Principal Sources of information for the Genealogical Chart of the
Families Huygen de Raat en Van Hengst
(1) Report on the research by the CBG on the parentage of Mrs H.P. van de LeeMassink. 2
This report provides genealogical information on the great-grandparents of Mrs H.P. van der
Lee: Fredericus F.J. van Hengst and Henrietta E.E. Huygen de Raat and their forbears.3 The
family relationships of these people are depicted (yellow rectangles) in the Chart on page 3. It
shows the pedigree starting with Johannes de Raat and Gradus A. Hengst as the male
ancestors, living in the second half if the 18th century. The surnames of both families changed
in the next generation. Hendrik, the son of Johannes de Raat called himself Hendrik Huygen
the Raat some time after his marriage to Margrita Huygen, and Johannes B.P. the son of
Gradus Hengst became Johnannes B.P. van Hengst. The marriage between Fredericus F.J.
van Hengst and Henrietta E.E. Huygen de Raat was the first matrimonial link between the
families. The second was established in the next generation when Johannnes van Hengst (a
son of Fredericus F.J. van Hengst) married Jenny Huygen de Raat (a niece of Henrietta E.E.
Huygen de Raat).
(2) Death notices present in the Dossier Van Hengst (Indië). 4
A death notice (1891) shows the names of the children of Fredericus F.J. van Hengst and
Henrietta E.E. Huygen de Raat viz. Johannes van Hengst, Frederik Hendrik J. van Hengst,
Henrietta Fredrica van Hengst (married to Antoine Massink) and Marie Johanna van Hengst
(married to Wijnand Adolf van Weelderen). This confirms that Johannes van Hengst was the
brother of Henrietta Fredrica van Hengst, the grandmother of Mrs H.P. van der Lee-Massink.
The death notice of Henrietta Fredrica van Hengst (1937) is also present in the dossier. These
names are entered in the Chart (Figure 1) in the blue rectangles.
(3) Collection Huygen de Raat. 5
This collection is held at the Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde (KITLV),
Leiden, and contains 54 documents pertaining to the N.V. Handel- en Landbouw
Maatschappij Huygen de Raat, the limited liability company, in which, shortly before his
death, the assets of Willem Karel Eduard Huygen de Raat were placed, allowing for a
convenient transfer of his considerable wealth to his heirs. The documents also provide
detailed information about individual members of the family over the period 1874-1917.
2
The report is contained in a letter by W. Wijnaends van Resant (conservator CBG) to W. van der Lee dated
30 October 1972. Dossier Van Hengst (Indië), Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie, The Hague.
3
Research leading to the report was instigated by Ir. W. van der Lee, the husband of Mrs H.P. van der LeeMassink. Letter to the CBG dated 10 July 1972. Dossier Van Hengst (Indië), CBG, The Hague
4
Dossier Van Hengst (Indië), CBG, The Hague.
5
Collectie Huygen de Raat, KITLV-inventaris No 58.
444
W.K.E. Huygen de Raat had four daughters and one (natural) son.6 All four daughters were
married, Angelina to G.C.R.R. de Graeff, Amelie W.A. to M.T.H. Perelaer, Charlotte H. to
M.N. Wijt and Jenny to J. van Hengst.7 At the time of the passing of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat
(1887) Amelie and Charlotte were already deceased and the son, Robbert, was still under age.
W.K.E. Huygen de Raat had eleven grandchildren, seven from Amelie Perelaer and two from
Charlotte Wijt. J.H. de Groot is mentioned as maternal great-uncle of the grandchildren; he
was appointed as their co-guardian.8 From this information it is concluded that J.H. de Groot
was the brother of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat’s late wife. No further information was found,
however, on the late wife. W.K.E. Huygen de Raat was born around 1820 and belonged to
the generation of Henriette E.E. Huygen de Raat.9 Because of this and the uncommon
surname it is almost certain that he was a brother of Henriettte and a son of Hendrik. W.K.E.
Huygen de Raat and relatives are placed accordingly in the Chart (Figure 1) in the pink
rectangles.
(4) A sequence of booklets (marked ‘confidential’) written by J. van Hengst , H.T.M.
Perelear, J.E Gimberg and Robbert Huygen de Raat respectively; mainly on the financial
disputes that arose about the settlement of the estate of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat.10
After the death of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat in 1887 a feud developed within the family as a
result of disagreements on matters related to the inheritance. Parties were J. van Hengst, his
wife Jenny and J.H. de Groot on one side and M.T.H. Perelaer, M.N. Wijt and G.C.R.R. de
Graeff, later supported by J.E. Gimberg, director of the N.V. Handel- en Landbouw
Maatschappij Huygen de Raat, on the other. These disagreements led to a worsening of the
relationships within the family and ultimately to a feud that continued well after the
settlement of the estate and after Van Hengst and Jenny had sold their shares in the company
to Perelaer and Wijt in 1890. Van Hengst and Perelaer started a polemic which took the form
of the writing of a sequence of booklets between 1890 and 1895 by which parties accused
each other of lying, dishonesty etc. Matters were so complicated and involved so much detail
that, for an outsider, it is difficult to arrive at an opinion of who was right and who was
wrong. The booklets contain, however, a wealth of information on family matters and family
members and are therefore useful for our purpose.
At a later stage a dispute developed between Robbert Huygen de Raat and J.E.
Gimberg on the management of the company which led to two booklets written by Robbert in
1902. Also these booklets are full of details on complex matters which make them also
difficult for an outsider to read. The copies of these booklets available at the KITLV, Leiden,
do, however, contain extensive comments written in the margin by an insider.
6
Collectie Huygen de Raat, Items 32, 38, 41 and 43.
J. van Hengst, Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s. (1893) 2. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The
Hague.
8
Collectie Huygen de Raat, Items 42 and 44.
9
W.K.E. Huygen de Raat died in 1887 after a working life of 50 years. Collectie Huygen de Raat, Item 14.
10
J. van Hengst, Laatste woord van J. van Hengst: contra Perelaer c.s. (1890), J. van Hengst, Verdediging van
J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s. (1893), H.T.M. Perelear, Beantwoording van de Verdediging van J.van
Hengst contra Perelaer c.s.(1894) J.E. Gimberg, Toelichting op de Verdediging van J.van Hengst (1894),
H.T.M. Perelaer, Mijn laatste woord op het Laatste woord van J.van Hengst (1895), R.Huygen de Raat, R.
Huygen de Raat contra J.E. Gimberg (1902) (two different booklets under the same main title).
7
Jan Hendrik
DE GROOT
DE GROOT
DE GROOT
3
2
1
Cientje
VAN DER SPEK
Robbert
HUYGEN DE RAAT
Mathijs N.
WIJT
?-1913
Charlotte Henrietta
HUYGEN DE RAAT
1854-1876
Michael Theophile H.
PERELAER
1831-1901
Amelie Wilhelmina A.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1880
G.C.R.R.
DE GRAEFF
?-1923
Angeline
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1934
Willem Karel E.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1887
Hendrik
(HUYGEN) DE RAAT
1789-1841
Johannes
DE RAAT
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Jenny
HUYGEN DE RAAT
?-1935
Henrietta Elize E.
HUYGEN DE RAAT
1830-1876
Margrita
HUYGEN
1795-1840
Maria Johanna
VAN RIJN
two
children
seven
children
HUYGEN DE RAAT
16
15
14
13
18
Johannes
VAN HENGST
1848-1910
20
19
Fredericus Ferdinandus J.
VAN HENGST
1816-1883
Johannus Baptist P.
(VAN) HENGST
1791-1863
Gradus Antonius
HENGST
17
VAN HENGST
Wijnand Adolf
VAN WEELDEREN
1845-1898
Maria Johanna.
VAN HENGST
ca 1850-1920
Antoine
MASSINK
1851-1911
Henrietta Fredrica
VAN HENGST
1855-1937
Frederik Hendrik J.
VAN HENGST
?-1891
Johanna Catharina
PROHN
1791-1840
Anna Catharina K.
CONINX
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
key people with respect
to the establishment of
the commercial cultivation
of coca on Java during
the 1890's.
married to
LEGEND
445
Figure 2 Genealogical Chart of the families Huygen de Raat and
Van Hengst (uncoloured). Key People at the Outset of the Cultivation of Coca on Java
446
Information on J. van Hengst and others involved in the cocaine industry
From information contained in documents mentioned in section 2 the following
Curriculum Vitae of Johannes van Hengst has been constructed:
1848
1866
1867-1872
1872
1872
1875
1881-1886
1887-1889
ca 1886
1890
1890-1900
1893
1900
1909
1910
Born as a son of Fredericus F.J. van Hengst, warehouse-keeper at Tjikao
(Preanger, Java), and Henrietta E.E. Huygen de Raat.11
Enters Government service.
Custom-house Officer/Duty Collector (‘Commies/Algemeen Ontvanger’).12
Examination Higher Civil Servant (‘Groot Ambtenaarsexamen’).13
Senior Custom-house Officer at the Department of Civil Public Works.14
Marriage to Jenny Huygen de Raat.15
Manager of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat’s estates.16
Director of N.V. Handel- en Landbouw Maatschappij Huygen de Raat.17
Owner of the Soekamadjoe plantation.18
Sells his and Jenny’s shares in N.V. Handel- en Landbouw Maatschappij
Huygen de Raat to Perelaer en Wijt for an amount of 345,000 Guilders.19
Soekamadjoe becomes the first major producer of coca on Java.20
Owner of four profitable unencumbered plantations for coffee, tea, indigo and
tobacco respectively.21
Major shareholder of the Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek at its inception.22
Sells 84% of the Soekamadjoe shares to the Koloniale Bank.23
Year of his death.24
Summary of the involvement of certain family members in the cocaine industry:
Johannes van Hengst after his training and career as a public servant became manager of the
extensive estates of his very wealthy father-in-law W.K.E. Huygen de Raat. Van Hengst was
successful and he accumulated sufficient capital himself to become the owner of the
plantation Soekamadjoe which in the 1890s became the first large producer of Java coca.
After the death of his father-in-law in1887, Johannes and his wife Jenny inherited one fifth of
the estate, mainly in the form of shares in the N.V. Handel- en Landbouw Maatschappij
Huygen de Raat which they sold to the brothers-in-law Perelaer and Wijt shortly thereafter.
Van Hengst also invested in other plantations and was quite successful in his ventures.
Through the Koloniale Bank, Van Hengst participated in establishment of the Nederlansche
Cocaine Fabriek of which he became the major shareholder at its inception. Shortly before
11
Letter by W. Wijnaends van Resant (conservator CBG) to W. van der Lee dated 30 October 1972.
J. van Hengst, Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s. (1893) 27.
13
14
15
H.T.M. Perelear, Beantwoording van de Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s.(1894) 91.
16
J. van Hengst, Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s. (1893) 6, 71.
17
Collectie Huygen de Raat, Item 14.
18
J. van Hengst, Laatste woord van J. van Hengst: contra Perelaer c.s. (1890) 12.
19
J. van Hengst, Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s. (1893) 58, 81.
20
This dissertation Chapter 4.
21
22
This dissertation Chapter 4.
23
Koloniale Bank, Minutes of Board Meetings, Meeting of 16 November 1909;
Soekamadjoe, Minutes of Shareholders Meetings, Meeting of 12 August 1910.
24
Soekamadjoe, Minutes of Shareholders Meetings, Meeting of 12 June 1911.
12
447
his death in 1910, the majority of the shares in N.V. Landbouwmaatschappij “Soekamadjoe”
were sold to the Koloniale Bank.
His widow, Jenny van Hengst-Huygen de Raat, inherited the majority of the retained
shareholdings in Soekamadjoe and the NCF shares.
Frederik Hendrik J. van Hengst, the brother of Johannes, died in 1891. He was involved in a
number of his brother’s ventures. He was manager of Soekamadjoe and as such he will have
been for a short time involved in the cultivation of coca. He also was superintendent of
Pandan Aroem, one of the ventures of Handel- en Landbouw Maatschappij Huygen de
Raat.25
Antoine Massink was married to Henrietta Fredrica, one of Johannes van Hengst’s sisters. He
was acting manager (‘administrateur titulair’) of the experimental garden and the
agricultural/chemical laboratory of the Botanical Gardens at Buitenzorg and, as such, he will
have had knowledge of the coca cultivation on Java.26 He was involved in the Soekamadjoe
plantation. A.W.K. de Jong writes that in the 1890s Massing at Tjibadak was the owner of the
largest coca plantation on Java.27 Soekamadjoe was located at Tjibadak and de Jong must
have mistakenly assumed that Massink (not Massing) was the owner; it appears that Massink
was the man with knowledge of coca cultivation rather than the owner of the plantation,
which was J. van Hengst. It is likely that Antoine Massink was the person who suggested
coca growing to Van Hengst. In 1910 Antoine Massink was Board member (‘commissaris’)
of Soekamadjoe and minority shareholder (2%).28
Jan Hendrik de Groot was the brother-in-law of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat. In the family feud
he took the side of Johannes van Hengst. From 1900 to 1908 J.H. de Groot is mentioned as a
Board member (‘commissaris’) van de Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek.29 It is virtually
certain that J.H. de Groot, the Board member, is the same person as Jan Hendrik de Groot, the
brother-in-law of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat and that he was appointed to the Board to look
after the interests of J. van Hengst.
Willem Karel Eduard Huygen de Raat can be considered, in an indirect way, to be at the
origin of the coca industry on Java. The example set by him of successful pioneering in
establishing plantations on Java and his working relationship with his son-in-law Johannes
Van Hengst will have opened the way for the latter to acquire the Soekamadjoe estate where
the commercial cultivation of coca on Java started. Financial and other support by W.K.E.
Huygen de Raat may well have contributed to the success of Soekamadjoe.
25
J. van Hengst, Laatste woord van J. van Hengst: contra Perelaer c.s. (1890) 13, H.T.M. Perelear,
Beantwoording van de Verdediging van J.van Hengst contra Perelaer c.s.(1894), 23.
26
Dossier Van Hengst (Indië), CBG, the Hague. Note: Antoine Massink is not be confused with his cousin Aart
Massink (deceased in 1899) who was involved in the management in one of W.K.E. Huygen de Raat’s estates.
27
A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: C.J.J. van Hall and C. van de Koppel, editors, De Landbouw in de
Indische Archipel Vol II A (The Hague 1948) 873.
28
Soekamadjoe, Minutes of Shareholders Meetings, Meeting of 12 August 1910. Nationaal Archief, The Hague,
Access No. 2.20.04 (Koloniale Bank).
29
Van Nierop & Baak, Naamlooze Vennootschappen, (1900-1908).
448
449
APPENDIX 2
SOME ADVERSE PUBLICITY ON NCF
Unfortunate opinions on the NCF have been expressed by Ger Harmsen in his book
Herfsttijloos (1993), by Dirk Kolf and Marcel de Kort in a newspaper article ‘NV De Witte
Waan’ (1989), by Jeanette Groenendaal in a video documentary ‘Dutch Cocaine Factory’
(2007) and by Conny Braam in her book De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaïne
Fabriek (2008).
All four opinions are quite different, but one thing they have in common is the view that NCF
made, inappropriately, exorbitant profits from making and selling cocaine. Harmsen’s basis
for this criticism of the company is that in his opinion large profits were made while the
health of factory workers was endangered by exposure to toxic substances. In Kolf and de
Kort’s article the blame is laid in a much less explicit way, more by means of innuendo. It is
in the title: ‘NV De Witte Waan’, translating as ‘The White Delusion Ltd’, and in statements
such as: ‘…. “the Dutch cocaine barons could call themselves the largest manufacturers in the
world” and “the boasting at the beginning of the century that the Netherlands was the largest
and best cocaine manufacturer in the world would be better forgotten in 1975”.1 Jeanette
Groenendaal’s documentary cannot be taken seriously (see below); it is only included here
because of the title. Finally, Braams book is a novel but based on ‘true facts’ according to the
website of the author. It is, however, a totally unfounded story of hundreds of thousand
British and German soldiers who, stirred up by NCF cocaine, became “killing machines” and,
if surviving, ended up as cocaine addicts.
Ger Harmsen, “De natuur en de fabriek”
Chapter 5 of Herfsttijloos (Colchicum autumnale): Een levensverhaal”
In 1993 Ger Harmsen published his autobiography Herfsttijloos in which he describes his
experiences when he, from 1938 at the age of sixteen, was employed at the NCF as a cleaner
2
of laboratory glassware for a few years. Ger Harmsen was a strongly left leaning intellectual
who later in life was appointed as professor in dialectic philosophy at the University of
Groningen (the Netherlands).
Harmsen depicts the NCF at the time as a company that made extraordinary profits at
the cost of the health of its factory workers. He writes: “possibly we received good wages
because of the dangers and the very harmful vapours to which we were exposed” and “… a
human life did not count here”. “We worked with the awful compounds and the probability
of getting old in good health at the company was small.” (Translation HHB)
As mentioned before in this study, some of the chemicals used at NCF at the time
were certainly toxic, but procedures, instructions and supervision were such that related risks
were reduced to acceptable levels. The situation at NCF was certainly not worse than that
considered as normal in the fine chemical industry at the time. There was no oral history of
deaths or serious work related health problems at the NCF in 1960, when the author
commenced working there. In 2003, Mr. A. Kramer, former production manager at the NCF,
aged ninety, expressed to the author his pleasure about the fact that so many former
1
2
1975 was the year that the official name of the company was changed into ‘NCF Holding BV’.
G.Harmsen, Herfsttijloos (Colchicum autumnale): een levensverhaal (Nijmegen 1993).
450
employees of the NCF had long careers with the company until retirement and enjoyed life
beyond.3 There is certainly no justification for Harmsen’s statements.
The concern of the NCF Board for the well-being of the employees is reflected in statements
on the NCF pension fund during Board meetings. NCF had, for the time, an advanced
pension fund, fully funded by the company. Whenever necessary, substantial amounts were
allocated from company profit to the fund.
Harmsen is of the opinion that an additional week of wages paid to the workers at
Christmas 1939 was the result of “exorbitant profits”. From the dividend paid over 1939 we
see that profits were not exorbitant. In the Minutes of the NCF Board meeting of 28
December 1939 we read that the justification for the Board to approve the bonus was the wish
to reduce hardship of the employees resulting from the increased cost of living.
In his own words, work at the NCF was Harmsen’s first exposure to “capitalism in practice”.
He writes that “an elementary sense of justice” made him condemn this experience. As an
example he writes with a sneer about the big car of the director, who used to arrive late at the
factory.
Jeanette Groenendaal
Video Documentary “Dutch Cocaine Factory”
This video was presented at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in
2007. The video is not available in its totality on the Internet, but a presentation by
Groenendaal, and a ‘trailer’ and fragments are.4 Her presentation is chaotic, the main theme
appears to be that early in the 20th century enormous profits were made by the Koloniale
Bank on cocaine made from Java coca. These profits are demonstrated by her quoting current
black market selling prices for cocaine (Euro 25,000 to 30,000 per kg), and calculating that
the cost of making cocaine was then 0.006 Eurocent per gram (Euro 0.06 per kg). It seems
that she believes that the current black market prices were also obtainable on the early 1900s.
The basis for her cost calculation (cost equal to the price of coffee) comes out of thin air and
is further corrupted by an arithmetical error, making the calculated value 100 times too low.
The ‘trailer’ includes pictures of a factory incorrectly marked as representing the
NCF. The available fragments of the video show people happily buying a white powder in
bulk (cocaine?) and contain seemingly unrelated images related to eavesdropping on phone
conversations. One cannot make head or tail of it.
Dirk Korf and Marcel de Kort
Various publications
From 1989, in several joint publications by the authors and by de Kort individually, it has
been stated (erroneously) that around 1910 NCF was in ‘the position to call itself the largest
cocaine factory in the world’.5 This statement has been uncritically repeated in serious
publications on the cocaine industry and later in the popular press. The statement and its
ramifications are discussed in some detail in this dissertation, in an extensive footnote to
section 6.4., where it is shown that the statement cannot be correct.
3
Interview Mr A.Kramer, De Roekenhof Apeldoorn, 14 August 2003.
YouTube video clips: ‘Dutch Cocaine factory’, a film by Jeanette Groenendaal. Premiere IDFA festival 2007
and ‘Nederlandse Cocaine Fabriek’ Parool TV, Jeanette Groenendaal presents her documentary ‘Dutch Cocaine
Factory’; Review of the video-documentary: ‘De Nederlandse Cocaïne fabriek’ by Jeanette Groenendaal (2007)
in Filmbanktour # 18, containing a brief outline of the content, www.filmbank.nl/artikel/373/
5
See footnote [83] in section 6.4.
4
451
Another piece of (incorrect) information dessiminated by Kolf and de Kort on the NCF is that
the company commenced the manufacture of amphetamine (speed) in 1941, “presumably for
German soldiers”.6 No evidence for any involvement of the NCF in amphetamine production
could be found in the literature and the product is not included in a list of NCF products
developed from 1900 onwards, contained in the minutes of an NCF Board meeting of 1948.7
The information on NCF making amphetamine in 1941 is therefore incorrect.
The amphetamine story was picked up by Braam and was subsequently devoured by
the media with the unfortunate effect that the allegation: “... in 40-45 they started to make
speed for Hitler and his cronies ...” (Du: “... in 40-45 gingen ze speed maken voor Hitler en
zijn mannen ...”) appeared on the Internet after the appearance of Braam in the Vara talkshow
“Pauw and Witteman” (see next section).8
Conny Braam
De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek
In a recently published novel titled De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaïnefabriek
the author, Conny Braam, presents a story about the experiences of a travelling salesman of
the NCF during the latter part of the First World War.9 On Braam’s website, the book is
presented as fiction based on “true facts” discovered by Braam during her research on the
history of the NCF and the use of cocaine at that time.10 The reason that the book is discussed
here is that a story is told which is totally at odds with the historical situation as emerging
from the research for this dissertation. If there had been no claim that the novel was based on
true facts, the book would have been ignored here. The claim exists however and has been
strongly emphasized by Braam in subsequent interviews where many more additional “true
facts” resulting from her “research” were disclosed. This compels to a critical evaluation of
the text and the statements. In a review of the book by Ir. E. R. J. Wils it is stated that the
problem with a novel is that true facts can transform seamlessly into actual untruths and
fabrications.11
The story is built around conjectured very large supplies of cocaine by the NCF to
both Germany and the United Kingdom where it allegedly was distributed by the army
commanders to their own soldiers at the front during the First World War. According to
Braam, the objective of the administration of cocaine was to make the soldiers fearless, to
transform them into fierce combatants (“killing-machines”). As a result of the soldiers
receiving cocaine, the likelihood of their being killed or maimed increased, and they became
addicted. In the book it is stated that in this way in the order of a hundred thousand soldiers
became cocaine addicts. The book suggests that the NCF was fully aware of these effects but
did not care how its cocaine was used because profit making was more important.
D. Korf and M. de Kort, ‘NV De Witte Waan. De geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Cocaïnefabriek’ NRC
Handelsblad (Newspaper) (1989) May 13 and Interview of M.de Kort by Sybilla Claus, in‘Nederland wist de
weg met drugs’, De Telegraaf (Newspaper) (1994) May 14.
7
NCF Minutes of Board Meetings, Meeting of 1 June 1948.
8
www.ZapLog.nl
9
C. Braam, De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek (Nieuw Amsterdam Uitgevers 2009).
10
http://www.connybraam.nl/
11
E. R. J. Wils, Nederlandse cocaine aan het oorlogsfront, http://ssew.nl/nederlandse-cocaine-oorlogsfront
(November 2009).
6
452
In interviews and promotional readings of the book, Braam has substantially enlarged
on the story, mentioning even greater quantities of cocaine supplied by NCF than in the book,
and making explicit and implicit accusations of immoral behavior by management and
employees of the NCF, the Koloniale Bank and even the Dutch government.12
The misrepresentations by Braam of the historical situation include the following:
(1) Cocaine was systematically and in substantial doses supplied to soldiers of the British
and German armies by their own commanders during World War I to make them
fearless fighters.
Comments: Reports on systematic supplies of cocaine to British and German soldiers to make
them fearless have not been encountered in any publications found during the research for
this dissertation.13 Recreative cocaine use by soldiers on leave in London did occur but it was
feared that this would “render them worthless as soldiers” and in 1916 the Defense of the
Realm Act (DORA) was passed making it unlawful to supply cocaine and opium-based
products to the military without a prescription.14 In 1917, in Germany the War Ministry’s
Health Department started to control stocks of drugs including cocaine to suppress abuse.
Braam mentions in an interview that Theodor Aschenbrandt, a German army
physician, had found that tests on German soldiers with cocaine had shown that their
endurance increased while hunger and fear diminished. She adds that the soldiers
overestimated themselves as a result of taking cocaine and that they were more easily incited.
Braam concludes: “In short, cocaine made good ’fighting-machines’ of them”.15
Aschenbrandt, in his publication of 1883 describes the reaction of the soldiers on
taking cocaine as positive, especially on endurance; they did not feel hunger and were able to
continue the long marches in full marching-kit without too many problems after consuming
the cocaine. He summarises his experiences with cocaine as: “the effect of cocaine on the
human body is more stimulating than that of alcoholic drinks and of cold coffee”. ‘Fear’,
‘overestimation of themselves’, ‘easy incitement’ and’ fighting-machines’ are not mentioned
at all by Aschenbrandt.16 It appears that Braam took some liberties with her quotes from
Aschenbrandt.
That cocaine is an effective remedy for fear is challenged by Steven Karch M.D. He
writes that “This claim [that it is an effective remedy for nervousness and stage-fright] is
particularly strange because the symptoms of stage-fright are the result of high blood levels of
stress hormones [….]. Coca[ine] actually increases the blood levels of such hormones”.17
It is concluded that Braam does not provide any evidence for large scale systematic
supplies of cocaine to the British and German soldiers and that large numbers of cocaine
addicts were created in that way.
A good example of such an interview is that by Jan van Tienen: “Holland was the world’s biggest coke
manufacturer”, www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2009/10/28; in Dutch: www.viceland.com/blogs/nl/2009/09/29.
13
Reports on distributions of unspecified quantities of cocaine to Australian troops at Gallipoli and to the
Canadian army have appeared: Dominic Streatfeild, Cocaine (London 2007) 158-159.
14
Ibidem, 160.
15
Interview with Jan van Tienen, www.viceland.com/blogs/nl/2009/09/29
16
T. Aschenbrandt, ‘Die physiologische Wirkung und Bedeutung des Cocain. muriat. auf den menschlichen
Organismus’, Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 50 (1883) 730-732.
17
S.B. Karch, A Brief History of Cocaine (2nd Ed. Boca Raton 2006) 46.
12
453
(2) Sales of 13,941 kg of cocaine by NCF during 1919, mentioned in the book, and a
production of 20,000 to 30,000 kg per annum after 1914, mentioned in an interview.18
Comments: The production capacity of the NCF for the period 1910-1917 was 750 kg cocaine
p.a. and from 1918 onwards 1,500 kg. (Chapters 6 and 7 of this dissertation). The actual
average annual production for the period 1915-1920 has been estimated at of the order of 700
kg cocaine (Chapter 15). Hence, Braam’s figures are a factor 20-40 times too large. At a daily
required quantity to maintain an addiction of, say, 500 mg, 700 kg p.a. would be sufficient for
only about 4,000 soldiers if all cocaine produced by NCF would have been used for that
purpose. To keep 100,000 soldiers permanently addicted annual quantities of cocaine in the
order of those estimated by Braam for the NCF production would be required. Braam’s
“estimates” are possibly the result of such a calculation.
The related “discovery” by Braam that the NCF was the largest cocaine manufacturer in the
world at the time is equally unfounded. Merck, Darmstadt, produced an average of almost
7,000 kg p.a. during the period 1912-1914 and even 1,700 kg in 1918, and was thereby a much
larger a cocaine producer than NCF (Section 5.3).
(3) NCF supplied cocaine to all warring countries; supplies to the UK, Germany,
France and Canada are mentioned specifically.
Comments: The only countries the NCF supplied with cocaine during World War I mentioned in
the article in the Pharmaceutisch Weekblad of 1939 quoted by Braam are the UK and Japan. In
the UK and Japan no cocaine was produced at the time and supplies by the German
manufacturers were cut off as a result of the War.19 This provided the NCF with the opportunity
to supply the regular cocaine requirements of these markets. NCF will have supplied (smaller)
quantities also to other markets but we are not aware of any publication in which the names of
such countries appear. The Germans seem to have had ample cocaine from their own production
during World War I; they put an embargo on the export in 1914 and diversions of cocaine from
military stockpiles have been reported for 1920.20
(4) In 1942, the NCF manufactured amphetamine which it supplied to Germany
.
Comments: The NCF never manufactured amphetamine and consequently it did not supply this
product to Germany. From 1937 NCF produced and sold racemic ephedrine, a nasal
decongestant and cough medicine.21 Amphetamine and ephedrine are chemically related
compounds but are not identical products.
Braam will have found the erroneous information on NCF manufacturing amphetamine
and supplying it to Germany in the newspaper article by Kolf and de Kort (1989) and in the
interview of de Kort by Sybille Claus (1994).22
“Dutch Cocaine – the ultimate weapon”, Interview Braam by Marijke Peters for Radio Netherlands
Worldwide. www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-cocaine-ultimate-weapon. (17 October 2009)
19
Japan commenced cocaine manufacture on a commercial scale in 1918 (Table 7.3)
20
H.R. Friman, ‘Germany and the transformations of cocaine, 1860-1920’ Chapter 4 in: P. Gootenberg, editor.
Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999) 96.
21
Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek Notulenboek, Commissaris vergaderingen 23 Februari 1934 - 15 May 1950.
(Minutes of Board Meetings 23 February 1934 - 15 May 1950). Meeting of 14 May 1937.
22
Korf and M. de Kort, ‘NV De Witte Waan, NRC Handelsblad (Newspaper) (1989) May 13 and Interview of
M.de Kort by Sybilla Claus, in‘Nederland wist de weg met drugs’, De Telegraaf (Newspaper) (1994) May 14.
18
454
(5) The unhealthy situation in the NCF factory resulting in the death of an employee and the
entirely heartless and irresponsible reaction by Ir. Cremers, the technical director of the
NCF as described in the book on page 205.
Comments: There are no reports of the death of an employee at the NCF as a result of exposure
to “chemical vapours” or any other unhealthy situation in the factory. The reaction by the
technical director as described in the book is an entirely baseless attempt to defame Dr G.H.
Kramers, the technical director of the NCF at the time.
As mentioned above, Braams has promoted the sales her book strongly by appearances on
television e.g. on the talk shows ‘Paul en Witteman’ and ‘Phara’, by radio interviews and by
book readings.23 Book reviews have been mostly favourable. It is of concern that, except for Ir.
Wils, none of the book reviewers and none of the talk show hosts challenged the veracity of the
under laying “facts”. These “facts” were passed on to viewers of the TV programs and readers
of the reviews often in strong words. For example: ‘the abuses around cocaine which are
brought to light’ (Du: “de wantoestanden rondom cocaïne die aan het licht worden gebracht”)
(www.recensieweb.nl) and ‘a novel that opens the eyes for the double-dealing role which a
Dutch company, with consent of the government, played during the war,’ (Du: “een roman die
de ogen opent over de dubbelhartige rol die een Nederlands bedrijf met medeweten van de
overheid speelde in de oorlogsgeschiedenis” (de Telegraaf). Such comments will influence the
public opinion on the NCF much more than any serious publication on the subject will be able
to do.
In summary, the book by Braam is not based on “true facts” but is the result of a prejudiced
interpretation of some publications supplemented with fabrications to arrive at a sensational
story. That as a consequence an entirely untrue and detrimental picture of the Dutch cocaine
industry was created and spread whereby the reputation of the NCF, the Koloniale Bank and
their employees has been groundlessly besmirched, seems not to have bothered the author.
Braam even qualifies the supply of cocaine by the NCF during World War I as a dirty episode
in the Dutch history (“een smerig stuk Nederlandse geschiedenis”).
Video clips (YouTube): De Nederlandse Cocaïne Fabriek deel 1’ Conny Braam guest at ‘Paul en Witteman’
(Vara TV talk show), 2 October 2009, ‘Paul en Witteman – 2 oktober 2009’ (Vara TV talk show), Appearance
Conny Braam; ‘De handelsreiziger van de Nederlansche Cocaïne Fabriek’, Interview Conny Braam,
“nwamsterdam” (publisher of the book), 8 October 2009 and
‘Conny Braam te gast bij Phara: Cocaïnefabriek’, 3 December 2009.
23
455
APPENDIX 3
THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS OF THE
GOODS-IN-TRANSIT METHOD
A3.1 Introduction
Statistics on the trade in coca leaf are available for the years from ca 1890 onwards.
These statistics mainly cover exports from Peru and Java and imports into Germany
and the USA. Coca leaf was also exported to other countries but data on imports into
these “Other Countries” are scarce. Assuming that the available statistics are correct
and that no coca leaf was lost in transport, it is possible to calculate imports into Other
Countries as the difference between the total quantities of leaf exported and the total
quantities imported into the USA and Germany.
For the calculation of the quantities of coca leaf imported into Other Countries
we start with the simplest model for the trade in Peruvian coca using the annual
quantities exported from Peru and the annual quantities imported into Germany and
the USA. We assume that all goods arrived in the same year as they were exported. In
this appendix we will make this model gradually more complex to reflect the real
situation.1
For the simplest model, the mathematical relationship between the exports
from Peru (P) and imports of Peruvian coca leaf into Germany, the USA and “Other
Countries” (G, U and O respectively) is
P=G+U+O
(1)
Hence the quantity imported into “other countries” can be calculated from
O=P–G–U
(2)
In practice not all goods shipped in a particular year (i) arrive in that very
same year at their destination. Shipping of coca leaves by sea from Peru to Europe
and to the USA takes a fair amount of time and the result is that although most of the
goods will arrive at their destination in the same year as exported, the remainder will
arrive early in the following year. To take this into account we include the quantity of
goods in transit at year end (GIT or Send) in the calculations. That year end quantity is
equal to the quantity in transit at the beginning of the year plus the quantity exported
less the total of the quantities imported during the year. The exports and imports as
flows of goods the trade process can be represented graphically by:
1
Note: The model developed here for making these calculations can, with appropriate modifications, be
used for the analysis of trade statistics in general.
456
Figure A3.1 Flow Chart Peruvian Coca
S
GOODS
IN TRANSIT
P
Export
G
U
O
Imports
P = Export Peru Coca; G, U and O are Imports Germany, the USA and Other Countries, respectively.
S represents the level of goods in the box and is a function of time.
If S1 is the quantity of goods in transit (at sea) at by the end of year 1 and S0 is that
quantity at the beginning of that year, the following the mathematical relationship
holds:
S1  S0  P  G  U  O
(3)
For a series of consecutive years (1 to n) this equation can be written as:
O1  P1  G1  U1  (S1  S0 )
O2 = P2 – G2 – U2 – (S2 – S0)
etc.
On = Pn – Gn – Un – (Sn – S0)
(4)
Adding all these equations results in:
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
1
 O i   Pi   G i   U i  (Sn  S0 )
(5)
Assuming a steady stream of goods being shipped during the year, Si will be roughly
proportional with Pi, which can be expressed as Si = fPi in which formula f represents
the fraction of the total quantity exported during the year, in transit at year end.
The fraction f is equal to the shipping time in years; if the average shipping time is w
weeks, then f = w/52.
Assuming that for the period under consideration all f values being approximately
equal to the average value f, the average value of O over a period of n years can be
calculated using the following formula:
O avg = P avg – G avg –U avg – f(Pn-Po)/n
(6)
From formula (6) it is concluded that if the average imports into Other
Countries are calculated as the difference between exports from Peru and imports into
Germany and the USA, an error is introduced amounting to f(Pn-Po)/n. The error
depends on the difference between the quantities of goods in transit at the beginning
and the end of the period and not on the amount of goods in transit in any year in
between. The error is proportional to the shipping time and it becomes smaller when
the period over which the averages are calculated increases. For a shipping time of 5.2
457
weeks and a period of 5 years the error becomes (Pn – Po)/50, which is negligible for
practical purposes unless O average is very small in comparison with P.
A3.2 Goods-in-Transit at Year End
The considerations in section 15.1 above presume that the statistical data are correct
i.e. without systematic errors, in other words that the relationship P = G + U + O holds
when measured over a long period. In the real world that is not always the case. In
chapter 16 when calculating O using the formula O = P – G – U, for a certain periods
it was found that P < (G + U) resulting in negative figures for O, indicating possible
incompatibility of the various statistics.
For a closer analysis of this problem we consider to which extent negative
values for O can be caused by variations in goods in transit (S) at year end. For that
purpose the characteristics of the cumulative time series of annual values of T,
“Goods in Transit at Year End Disregarding O”, is evaluated. The time series is
represented by:
Ti  Ti1  Pi  G i  U i
(T0 = S0)
(7)
A graph of T plotted against time gives a first clue for the evaluation. An example of
three cases is presented with the following graph. The blue line, showing a gradual
increase of the values of T with time indicates exports from Peru were greater than the
sum of imports into Germany and the USA, or, in algebraic notation: P > (G + U).
Such a line indicates positive values of O, implying that Peru coca was exported to
Other Countries. Variations around a more or less horizontal line (the brown line)
imply that virtually all coca was exported to Germany and the USA, P = G + U, and
no coca going to Other Countries. Negative values of T (the green line) imply P < (G
+ U) and point to incompatibility of the statistics from year 4 onwards.
Figure A3.2 Goods in Transit at Year End (Three Cases)
T - values (tonnes)
Goods in Transit at Year End
Three Cases
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Years
P > (G + U)
P=G+U
P < (G + U) incompatibilities
This approach is especially valuable for analyzing time series which contain
retrograde steps. In such case the graph for T shows one or more maxima i.e. the
amount of goods in transit at year end becomes smaller with time, in which case a
458
more detailed investigation is required. The principle of the method of investigation is
that at any time the quantity of goods in transit should be positive or zero. A
retrograde step, implying Pi – Gi – Ui < 0, will result in a reduction of GIT at year end
but should not be so large that GIT becomes negative. We recall that Ti = Ti-1 + Pi – Gi
– Ui. If this calculation results in Ti < 0, it is a sign that either the average shipping
time f used in the calculations is too low or that the sets data are incompatible. If Ti <
0, the value of the shipping time f used in the initial estimation of Ti-1 = S0 should be
reconsidered. S0 = fP0 and a larger value for f will make all T values larger thereby
reducing the likelihood that T values become negative. It is a matter of judgment for
the case under consideration if the value for f that makes all Ti values positive
represents a realistic shipping time. If the answer to that question is negative then the
conclusion must be that the sets of data are incompatible.
The procedure for the above investigation is the following:
 Estimate average shipping time (w weeks) and calculate the quantity of goods
in transit at the end of each year as Si = fPi, using the factor p = w/52.
 Subsequently calculate for each year (i) the value of Ti using formula (6)
commencing the series with To = So = fPo
 Next, starting with year 1, proceed sequentially as follows: If Ti > fPi we
define the quantity of Di = Ti-fPi as delivered to Other Countries in that year.2
In other words, we assume that the quantity in transit at year end is equal to
the average value of Si = fPi.
 Subsequently calculate an auxiliary variable T* which is defined as T less the
quantities delivered. In mathematical terms:
T*i+1 = Ti+1 – (Ti –fPi) = Ti+1 - Di

(8)
For any year (j) for which Tj* < fPj we assume that no goods were delivered to
Other Countries; hence Dj = 0 and S at year end is equal to Tj*. This means
that we keep Si as close as possible to the average value fPi.
If the above results in a negative value for S at any year end, the procedure
should be repeated with larger values for f until all values for Send are ≥0.
The above procedure is best elucidated with the help of a worked example which is
provided with the following table and graph. The table was constructed as an Excel
spreadsheet using the “IF”-function to calculate the values for D and for Send.3
2
The symbol D(elivered) is used for the estimated quantity actually delivered to Other Countries as
determined by the here described method to distinguish it from O as defined in equation (4) and from
P-G-U.
3
D = IF((T*-fP)>0, (T*-fP), 0) and S end = IF(D>0, fP, T*)
459
Table A3.1 and Figure A3.3 Goods in Transit at Year End – Worked Example
(f = 0.10; w = 5.2 weeks; kg 000)
Year
P
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
G+U
300
500
400
300
600
400
500
400
P-G-U
510
340
250
420
460
340
430
-10
60
50
180
-60
160
-30
T
T*
30
20
80
130
310
250
410
380
30
20
80
90
210
0
160
20
S=fP
D
30
50
40
30
60
40
50
40
30
0
40
60
150
0
110
0
kg 000
Good in Transit at Year End
Worked Example
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
T
T*
S avg =fP
S end
S end
Note: In the graph the distances between T*(brown) and
S at year end (violet) represent D, the delivered quantity.
7
20
40
30
60
0
50
20
460
The table and graph show that using f = 0.10 (5.2 weeks shipping time):
 For all years Send ≥ 0, implying no incompatibilities of the statistics;
 P – G – U, as a first estimate for the quantities exported to Other Countries
shows negative values for three of the seven years. For these three years the
calculations result in D = 0, meaning no imports into Other Countries. Positive
values for D are generated by the spreadsheet for all other years;
 The difference between the sum of D and the sum of P-G-U over the period is
360 - 350 = 10, representing the reduction in S at year end from the beginning
to the end of the period, viz. 30 -20 = 10.
Running the spreadsheet for various values of f in the range 0.05-0.30 resulted in
negative values for GIT at the end of year 5 if f < 0.10. This implies a minimum
average shipping time of 5.2 weeks. For all values of f the value of D remained 0 for
the years 1, 5 and 7 and the distribution of the D’s over the other years changed only
marginally (See the table below). This indicates that the method is not overly sensitive
for inaccuracies in the estimates of f and that, if we run similar spreadsheets using an
estimated value of the shipping time f, the outcome is still a good approximation.
Table A3.2 Goods Delivered (D) as a function of
the average shipping time f (years) (kg 000)
f (years)
Year
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
45
55
165
0
105
0
0
42
58
156
0
108
0
0
40
60
150
0
110
0
0
35
65
135
0
115
0
0
30
70
120
0
120
0
0
20
80
90
0
130
0
Sum of D
370
364
360
350
340
320
S end
year 5
-30
-12
0
30
60
120
461
Note on the values of D, the quantities delivered.
Once the calculations using the spreadsheet are completed it is possible to determine
to which extent the actual quantities delivered in particular years are allowed to differ
from the calculated D’s while still complying with the boundary conditions 0 < Send <
2fP set by the GIT-method.4 These modifications are allowed, with the proviso that
the new D’s do not affect the already established minimum value for Send for the total
period under consideration.
Note on the use of the GIT-method
It is the experience of the author with the GIT-method that the use of a hand-drawn
graph of T, T*, Savg and Send against time in conjunction with a spreadsheet for
making the calculations is very helpful for the interpretation of the figures. This
applies in particular for the auxiliary parameter T* and the understanding of how
quantities actually delivered are allowed to differ from the calculated D’s while still
satisfying the boundary conditions When working purely numerically it is much
harder to see how the various parameters interrelate.
A3.3 Summary and Conclusions
The “Goods-in-Transit” method (GIT-method) was developed for use in Chapter 16
for analyzing the problem posed by the negative values for imports into Other
Countries, which were the outcome of initial calculations. For the period 1897-1903
application of the method resulted in elimination of the negative values by reassessment of earlier estimates of US coca imports by Spillane, resulting in an
improved estimate of the ratio of the coca imports into the USA as a whole and those
into New York.
4
For shipments of Java coca arriving at the auctions at Amsterdam during the period 1910-1915 we
calculated for each year the ratio maximum/average of the monthly arrivals. We found an average of
1.9 (range 1.7-2.2), while months with zero arrivals occurred in each year. This indicates a range for
Send of 0< Send <2pP, for a shipping time of one month. This range provides the boundary conditions for
Send for our calculations. The import data were taken from P. Brusse, Jaarverslag voor Kinabast en
Coca (1910-1915).
462
LIST OF LETTER-SYMBOLS USED IN APPENDIX 3
i
The index i attached to any letter symbol means
that the value refers to year i.
Flowchart
P
G
Total Export Peru Coca from Peru
U
O
GIT Method
GIT
k
p
w
T
T*
D
S
So
Sn
S end
Goods In Transit
Ratio Import Coca leaf USA / New York
expressed in weeks (w = 52p)
Quantity of coca in transit at year end assuming
that no coca is delivered during the period
Auxiliary variable equal to T minus the
quantities delivered during the period
Quantity of coca delivered
Quantity of coca in transit at end of a year
Quantity of coca in transit at the beginning
of a period
Quantity of coca in transit at end of year n
Quantity of coca in transit at end of a period
463
ARCHIVES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARCHIVES
Nationaal Archief (National Archive), The Hague
2.20.04/05 Koloniale Bank (from1957 Cultuurbank)
Minutes Board Meetings, Reports by Management,
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, Soekamadjoe,
Coca Producenten Vereniging
2.05.21 Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
Volkenbondzaken. Beperking van de productie van verdovende
middelen
2.07.076.07 Rijksbureau voor Pharmaceutische en Chemische Producten
Project Bolkaf verwerking voor de Nederlandse overheid
2.15.39 Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport.
Archief Farmaceutische Hoofdinspectie,
Beperking van de produktie van opium
Ministerie van Buitenlanse Zaken (Foreign Affairs), The Hague
Code 421 Openbare zedelijkheid enz. waaronder verdovende middelen
Code 00.232.170 Verenigde Naties
Stadsarchief (Municipal Archive), Amsterdam
Gemeente Amsterdam, Hinderwetvergunningen
Publieke Werken (PW 5180),
Bouw-en Woningtoezicht (BWT 5221)
Dienst Milieu en Bouwtoezicht (Dossier 39188)
Brandweer (Dossier 29)
Gemeente Ouder-Amstel, Hinderwetvergunningen
Archief 5500, Inventaris Nr 690
Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis
(International Institute of Social History), Amsterdam
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek: Annual accounts, Photo book with index.
Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde (KITVL), Leiden
Inventaris 58: Collectie Huygen de Raat.
Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie, The Hague
Files on the families van Hengst and Huygen de Raat.
Akzo Parma / Organon, Oss
Collection Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek: Photos, ‘Bedrijfsregelment’,
‘Pensioenregelement’.
Sociaal Historisch Centrum voor Limburg, Maastricht
VNCI Archief: Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek
464
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Abteilung Firmengeschichte:
Manuscript: ‘Conventionen und Vertretungen, Bericht űber das Geschäftssjahr
[1902-1909]’. Merck brochure: ’1827-1927 Hundert Jahre MorphinFabrikation’ .
Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany
Firmen- und Familienarchiv von C.H. Boehringer Sohn , Ingelheim:
Manuscript: ‘Gründung der Firm und Weiterentwickling der Abteilung
Pharmazeutische Chemikalien’. (Sections on cocaine and opiates).
Macfarlan Smith, Edinburgh, UK
Manuscript: ‘The Macfarlan Smith company, a brief review of its origin’.
Mallinckrodt, Inc., St Louis, USA
Submissions to the US Government on the Licit Importation of Opiate Raw
Materials into the United States.
Private collection Hans Bosman, Launceston, Tasmania
Manuscript: ‘Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, Notulenboek commissaris
vergaderingen 23 Februari 1934 – 15 Mei 1950’ (NCF Minutes of Board
Meetings 23 Februaty 1934 – 15 May 1950).
Diary notes Hans Bosman (1962-1977)
Notes Hans Bosman on discussions with Diosynth on the supply of poppy
straw or CPS by Tasmanian Alkaloids (1984-1985)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OFFICIALDOCUMENTS
League of Nations
Submissions by Member Countries on controlled substances.
Permanent Central Opium Board (PCOB): Series XI Opium and other
Dangerous Drugs, including ‘Report to the Council on Statistics of Narcotics’.
(annual publication)
United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961,
Commission on Narcotic Drugs: records and reports (series E/CN.7/…)
Permanent Central Opium Board (PCOB) reports including ‘Report to the
Economic and Social Council’ and ‘Statistics on Narcotic Drugs’ (series
E/OB/…) (until 1966)
International Narcotics Control Board (INCB): reports including ‘Report of
the INCB‘ and ’Statistics on Narcotic Drugs’ (series E/INCB/…) annual
publications (from 1967)
Secretariat reports (Series ST/STO/SER…)
465
United States
Reports by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) and the Department of State on:
Limitations on Imports of Narcotic Raw Materials, Papaver bracteatum, Licit
Opium Review.
Department of Commerce: Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United
States (annual publication).
Former Dutch East Indies
Departement van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel:
Jaaroverzicht van den in- en uitvoer van Nederlandsch-Indië (annual
publication)
The Netherlands
Nederlandsche Staatscourant,
B O O K S (Including Dissertations and Theses)
AKZO NOBEL NV, Tomorrow’s Answers Today, De geschiedenis van AkzoNobel
(2008).
ALGERA, M.A.W., Dr Johan Eliza de Vrij, apotheker en kinoloog, Dissertation Leiden
(Alphen aan de Rijn 1994).
BADGER, W.L. and J.T. BANCHERO, Introduction to Chemical Engineering (New
York 1955).
BENSUSSAN, I.J., L'Opium. Considérations générales et études économiques, sociales
et legislatives (Paris 1946).
BERNSCHNEIDER, S., W.T. HUBER and I. POSSEHL, "Was der Mensch thun kann . . . ."
History of the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company Merck (3rd ed.
Darmstadt 2002).
BOEHINGER SOHN, C.H., 100 Years Boehringer Ingelheim 1885-1985 (Ingelheim
1985).
BOS, A., Legale Nederlanse cocaine, Master Thesis History, University of
Amsterdam (2006).
BOSMAN-JELGERSMA, H.A., Poeders, pillen en patiënten (Amsterdam 1983).
BRAAM, C., De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaïne fabriek (Amsterdam
2009)
BRUUN, K., L. PAN and I. REXED, The Gentlemen's Club - International Control of
Drugs and Alcohol (Chicago 1975).
BURKERT, K., Die deutsche “Pharmazeutische Interessengemeinschaft” (1906-1918)
(Stuttgart 1990).
466
DUMITRIU, H., Die wissenschaftlische Entwicklung der Alkaloidchemie am Beispiel
der Firma Merck in den Jahren 1886-1920, Inaugural Dissertation (Heidelberg
1993).
FISCHER, E.P., Wissenschaft für den Markt (München 1991).
FOGEL, R.W., AND G.R. ELTON, Which Road to the Past? Two Views of History (New
Haven and London 1983).
FRIMAN, H.R., ‘Germany and the Transformations of Cocaine, 1860-1920’ Chapter 4
in P. Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999).
GAVIT, J.P., Opium (New York 1927).
GOOTENBERG, P., ‘Introduction. Cocaine: The Hidden Histories, Chapter 1 in: P.
Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999).
GOOTENBERG, P., ‘Reluctance or Resistance? Constructing Cocaine (Prohibitions) in
Peru, 1910-50’ Chapter 3 in P. Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global Histories
(London 1999).
GOOTENBERG, P., Andean Cocaine, the Making of a Global Drug (North Carolina
2008).
GOOTENBERG, P., ‘Cocaine in Chains: The Rise and Demise of a Global Commodity,
1860-1950’, Chapter 12 in S.Topik, C. Marichal and Z. Frank (Editors),
From Silver to Cocaine (Durham and London 2006).
GROOT, F., Roomsen, rechtzinnigen en nieuwlichters, Dissertation University of
Amsterdam (1992).
HAMERSLAG, F.E., The Technology and Chemistry of Alkaloids (New York 1950).
HARMSEN, G., Herststijloos (Nijmegen 1993).
HARTWICH, C., Die menschliche Genuszmittel (Leipzig 1911).
HENGST, J. VAN, Laatste woord van J. van Hengst contra Perelaar c.s. (1890) 12.
HESSE, M., Alkaloide. Fluch oder Segen der Natur? (Weinheim 2000).
HEXNER, E., International Cartels (London 1946).
HOMBURG, E., Van beroep ‘Chemiker’, Dissertation University of Nijmegen (Delft
1993).
HOMBURG, E., and L. PALM editors, De geschiedenis van de scheikunde in Nederland,
Volume 3 (Delft 2004).
HOPPE, B., Aus der Frühzeit der chemischen Konstitutionsforschung: die
Tropanalkaloide Atropin und Cocain in Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft (München
1979).
HUHLE-KREUTZER, G., Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten aus
Apothekenlaboratorien (Stuttgart 1989).
INCARDIE, J.A., Handbook on Drug Control in the US (Conneticut 1990).
JONG, A.W.K. de, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: C.J.J. van Hall and C. van de Koppel, editors.
De landbouw in de Indische archipel. Vol II A (The Hague 1948).
JONG, A.W.K. de, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: H.C. Prinsen Geerligs, editor, K.W. Van
Gorkom’s Oost-indische cultures (2nd ed. Amsterdam 1919).
KABAY J.J., János Kabay, The Life of an Inventor (Harbord 1990).
KARCH, S.B., ‘Japan and the Cocaine Industry in Southeast Asia, 1864-1944’ Chapter
7 in P. Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999).
467
KARCH, S.B., A Brief History of Cocaine (2nd ed. Boca Raton 2006).
KARCH, S.B., A History of Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew Plant
(London 2003).
KNOLL AG, 100 Jahre im Dienst der Gesundheit 1886-1986 (Ludwigshafen 1986).
KOHN, M., ‘Cocaine Girls’ Chapter 5 in: P. Gootenberg, editor, Cocaine: Global
Histories (London 1999).
KOOPMAN, H., Vijftig jaar scheikundige nijverheid in Nederland (Delft 1967).
KORF, D.J., and M. de KORT, Drugshandel en drugsbestrijding (Amsterdam 1990).
KORT, M. de, ‘Doctors, Diplomats, and Businessmen: Conflicting Interests in the
Netherlands and Dutch East Indies, 1860-1950’ Chapter 6 in P. Gootenberg,
editor, Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999).
KORT, M. de, Tussen patiënt en delinquent, geschiedenis van het Nederlandse
drugsbeleid, Dissertation Erasmus University (Hilversum 1995).
KRUTCH, J.W., Herbal (Oxford 1976).
LIEBENAU, J., G.J. HIGBY, and E.C. STROUD, Pill Peddlers – Essays on the History of
the Pharmaceutical Industry (Madison Wisconsin 1990).
LIEBENAU, J., Medical Science and Medical Industry – The Formation of the
American Pharmaceutical Industry (Baltimore 1987).
MANSKE, R.H.F. AND H. L. HOLMES ed., The Alkaloids. Chemistry and Physiology
(New York 1950 - ongoimg).
MCALLISTER, W.B., Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (London 2000).
MOORE, C.L., and R.K. JEADICKE, Managerial Accounting (4th ed. Cincinnati 1976).
MORTIMER, W.G., History of Coca: “The Divine Plant" of the Incas (New York 1901,
reprinted 1974).
NOORDAM, A., Stereoselective Synthesis of (+)-Pilocarpine, Dissertation
Technische Hogeschool Delft (1979).
PARISH, P., Medical Treatments - The Benefits and Risks (London 1991).
PENDERGRAST, M., For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York 2000).
REENS, E., La coca de Java, Dissertation University of Paris (Lons-le-Saunier 1919).
RICHMOND, L., J. STEVENSON AND A. TURTON, The Pharmaceutical Industry: A Guide
to Historical Records (Hampshire 2003).
RINSEMA, T.J., De natuur voorbij. Het begin van de productie van synthetische
geneesmiddelen, Dissertation University of Leiden (2000).
SCHWYZER, J., Die Fabrikation der Alkaloide. (Berlin 1927).
SEEFELDER, M., Opium, eine Kulturgeschichte (3rd ed. Hamburg 1996).
SIMONTON, D.K., Psychology, Science and History. An Introduction to Historiometry
(New Haven and London 1990).
SLUYTERMAN, K.E., Kerende kansen Het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven in de twintigste
eeuw (Amsterdam 2003).
SMALL, L.F., Chemistry of the Opium Alkaloids (Washington 1932).
SNELDERS, H.A.M., De geschiedenis van de scheikunde in Nederland,
Volumes 1 and 2 (Delft 1993, 1997).
468
SOININEN, J., Industrial Geographies of Cocaine, Masters Thesis Geography,
University of Helsinki (2008).
SPILLANE, J.F., Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United
States, 1884-1920 (Baltimore 2000).
SPILLANE, J.F., Making a Modern Drug: The Manufacture, Sale, and Control of
Cocaine in the United States, 1880-1920 Chapter 2 in P. Gootenberg, editor,
Cocaine: Global Histories (London 1999).
SPILLANE, J.F., Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The Legal Use and Distribution of
Cocaine in the United States, 1880-1920., Dissertation Carnegie Mellon
University (1994).
STREATFEILD, D., Cocaine (London 2007)
TAUSK, M., Organon. De geschiedenis van een bijzondere Nederlandse onderneming
(Nijmegen 1978).
TAYLOR, A.H., American Diplomacy and the Narcotics Traffic, 1900-1939 (Durham
1969).
UNITED NATIONS, Multiligual List of Narcotic Drugs under International Control,
E/CN.7/513 (New York 1968).
VAN NIEROP, A.H. AND E. BAAK, Naamlooze vennootschappen, Annual publication
(1882-1948)
VANVUGT, E., Wetting opium (Amsterdam 1995).
VILBRANDT, F.C., Chemical Engineering Plant Design (3rd ed. New York 1949).
WALGER, T., Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und
wirtschaftlische Bedeutung, Dissertation (Berlin 1917).
WITTOP KONING, D. A., N.V. Koninklijke Pharmaceutische Fabrieken v/h BrocadesStheeman & Pharmacia 1800-1950 (Amsterdam 1950).
WOLPERT, L.S., Management van organisatievernieuwing, Dissertation University of
Groningen (2002).
WÜEST, H.M. AND A.J. FREY, ‘Opiate aus Mohnstroh’, in Festschrift Emil Christoph
Barell (Basel 1936)
ZEKERT, O., Opiologia (Wien 1956).
A R T I C L E S (Including Patents, and Press Releases)
‘De nieuwe opiumwet’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 65 (1928) 227-233.
‘
Fusie van Organon en de Verenigde Pharmaceutische Fabrieken’, NRC (Newspaper)
(1964) July 30.
‘Mededeling van het Rijks-Instutuut voor pharmaco-therapeutisch onderzoek’,
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (1943) 1611.
‘Miljoenen Nederlanders groeiden op met Zwitsal’, Nieuwe Apeldoornse Courant
(1974) July 20.
‘Naamloze vennootschap: Nederlandsche Cocaine-fabriek, te Amsterdam’,
Nederlandsche Staatscourant (No. 222), June 1 (1900) 365-366.
‘
Nederlandsche Cocainefabriek NV’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 76 (1939) 798.
469
‘Nederlandsche Cocainefabriek’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 62 (1925) 269.
‘Opiates’ Shifting Scene’, Chemical Business (1983) February 7.
‘Opium Alkaloids Project contracted to Knoll A.G. of Germany’, EBA - Economic
Press Agency (Turkey), Chemical Industry (KI-120/G) (1975) Nov 24.
‘Statistiek van den handel en de in-en uitvoerrechten’ (Statistics Dutch East Indies),
Deel IIa (Java en Madoera) (Weltevreden 1874-1923).
‘Van Zwitserse balsem en papaverbollen’. An article written at the occasion of the 40
year jubilee of Jansen’s businesses in Apeldoorn, Nieuwe Apeldoornse
Courant (1960) January 9
‘VN gekant tegen papaverteelt in Flevopolder’, De Volkskrant (1985) January 25.
ABRAHAMSON, S.S., ‘Het cocavraagstuk’, Tijdschrift voor nijverheid en landbouw in
Nederlandsch- Indië (1912) ,101-110, 132-153 and 234-241.
AGASI, C.J., and H.H. BOSMAN, ‘Determination of Thebaine in Papaver bracteatum’,
United Nations Secretariat; ST/SOA/SER.J/16 (1974) Nov 27.
AKZO PHARMA (DIOSYNTH), ‘Announcement of Termination of the Production of
Certain Opiates’, Company Publication (1993) March.
AKZO PHARMA, ‘Geen illegale opium van eigen velden’, NRC/Handelsblad (1984)
October 11.
AKZONA, ‘3-Alkoxy-14-acyloxydihydromorphinone Derivatives’, Inventors:
W.R. Buckett and H.H. Bosman, US Patent 3,828,050 (1974) Aug 6.
AKZO-NOBEL, ‘ C-14 Oxidation of morphine derivatives’, Inventors: Linders J.T.M.
and Vrijhof P. (Diosynth), International Patent Application WO 03/018588 A2
(2003).
ASCHENBRANDT, T., ‘Die physiologische Wirkung und Bedeutung des Cocain.muriat.
auf den menschlichen Organimus’, Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift 50
(1883) 730-732.
BARBIER, A., ‘The Extraction of Opium Alkaloids’, Bulletin on Narcotics 2 [3] (1950)
22-29.
BARBIER, A., Ann. Pharm. Franc. 5 (1947).
BAYER & CO., A Method for Manufacturing Codeine from Morphine, German Patents
Nos. 92,789 (1897), 95,644 (1897), 96,145 (1898), 189,843 (1907) and
224,388 (1909).
BECKER, W.R. and A.W.M. INDEMANS, ‘Het gehalte aan morphine en bij-alkaloiden
in het bolkaf van blauwmaanzaadrassen’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 84 (1949)
669-675.
BERKHOUT, A.H., ‘De coca, cuca, Erythroxylon coca, Een nieuw landbouwproduct
voor Nederlandsch-Indië’, Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw in
Nederlandsch Indië 31 (1885) 251-265.
BEYERMAN, H.C., J. VAN BERKEL, T.S. LIE, L. MAAT and J.C.M. WESSELS (TH Delft) and
BOSMAN, H.H., E. BUURMAN, E.J.M. BIJSTERVELD and H.J.M. SINNIGE (VPF),
‘Synthesis of Racemic and Optically Active Codeine and Morphine via N-formylnordihydrothebainones’, Receuil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas 97 (1978)
127-130.
BEYERMAN, H.C., L. MAAT and A. SINNEMA, ‘The Structure of Willstätter's
Compound: ‘3-Benzoyloxy-2-methoxycarbonyl-2-tropene’, Receuil des
Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas 89 (1970) 257-260.
470
BEYERMAN, H.C., T.S. LIE and L. MAAT (TH Delft), and
A Convenient Synthesis of Codeine and Morphine’, Receuil des Travaux
Chimiques des Pays-Bas 95 (1976) 24-25.
BIERLING, E., K. PAPE and A. VIEHÖVER, ‘Wertbestimmung der Cocablätter’, Archiv
der Pharmacie 248 (1910) 303-336.
BOEHINGER SOHN, C.H., Patent on the Conversion of Morphine into Codeine using
Trimethylphenylammonium chloride, German Patent No 247,180 (1909).
BOEHRINGER & SÖHNE, C.F., Verfahren zur Darstellung von Alkaloiden aus den
Estern des Ecgonins durch Einführung von Säureradicalen in die letzteren,
German Patent No. 47,713 (1889) July 9.
BOLTON, D., ‘The Development of Alkaloid Manufacture in Edinburgh 1832-1939’,
Chemistry and Industry (1976) 701-708.
BOS, A., The History of Licit Cocaine in the Netherlands, De Economist 154 (2006)
581-586.
BOSMAN, H.H., ‘How are We all Affected by what is Happening Internationally’,
Poppy Growers Bulletin 20 (1984) June.
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB-COMMITTEE (BIOS), Trip 1155, Report No.
766, ‘Dolantin, I.G. Farbenindustrie – Hoechst’ (1947) 60-66.
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB-COMMITTEE (BIOS), Trip 1155, Report No.
766, ‘Cocaine, E. Merck, Darmstadt’ (1947) 209.
BRUSSE, P., ‘Jaarverslag voor kinabast en coca’ (Annual Report for Cinchona Bark
and Coca), Serial (1911- ca 1933) Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT)
Amsterdam.
BRYANT, R.J., ‘The Manufacture of Medicinal Alkaloids from the Opium Poppy’,
Chemistry and Industry (1988) 146-153.
BURCK, W., ‘Opmerkingen over de onder de naam Erythroxylon coca in
Nederlandsch-Indië gecultiveerde gewassen’, Teysmannia 1 (1890) 385-398
and 449-464.
BUSHBY, H.H., ‘The Botanical Origin of Coca Leaves’ in: S. B. Karch A History of
Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew Plant (2003) 205-218.
CALATAYUD, J., and A. GONZÁLEZ, ‘History of the Development and Evolution of
Local Anesthesia since the Coca Leaf’, Anesthesiology 98 [6] (2003) 15031508.
CLAUS, SYBILLE, ‘Nederland wist de weg met drugs’, De Telegraaf (Newspaper)
(1994) May 14.
COCA-PRODUCENTEN VERENIGING (Coca Producers Association), Jaarverslagen
(Annual Reports) 1926-1950
COCHIN, J., ‘The Opium Shortage: Politics and Health’, The New England Journal of
Medicine (1975) 990-991.
COMAR, Y., ‘Des alcaloides de l’opium aux alcaloides du Pavot français’, Ann.
Pharm. Franç. (1943) [2] 89-91.
EINHORN, A., and O. KLEIN, ‘Ueber die Einwirkung von Säurechloriden auf den
salzsauren Ecgoninmethylester’, Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen
Gesellschaft 21 (1888) 3335-3338.
471
EINHORN, A., and R. WILLSTÄTTER, ‘Ueber die technische Darstellung des Cocaïns
aus seinen Nebenalkaloïden’, Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen
Gesellschaft 27 (1894) 1523-1524.
FARBWERKE VORMALS MEISTER LUCIUS & BRÜNING, ‘Verfahren zur Darstellung von
Ecgoninalkylester’, German Patent No. 76,433 (1894) July 16.
FARBWERKE VORMALS MEISTER, LUCIUS UND BRÜNING, ‘Verfahren zur Darstellung
von p-Aminobenzoësäurealkylaminester’, German Patent No. 179,627 (1904)
November 27.
GATES M. and G. TSCHUDI, Journal of the American Chemical Society 74 (1952) 1109.
GOERIG, M., and J. SCHULTE AM ESCH, ‘Friedrich Wilhelm Adam Sertürner - dem
Entdecker des Morphins zum 150. Todestag’, Anasthesiol. Intensivmed.
Notfallmed. Schmerzther 26 (1991) 492-498.
GOOTENBERG, P., ‘A Forgotten Case of “Scientific Excellence on the Periphery”: The
Nationalist Cocaine Science of Alfredo Bignon, 1884-1887’, Comparative
Studies in Science and History 49[1] (2007) 202-232.
GOOTENBERG, P., The Rise and Demise of Coca and Cocaine as Licit Global
'Commodity Chains', 1860-1960 Preliminary Conference Paper Stanford
University, Stony Brook (2001).
GREENTREE L.B., ‘No Opium for Pain - A Threatening Medical Crisis’, New England
Journal of Medicine 291 (1974), 1411-1412.
HAGEN, V.W. VON, ‘The Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf’, Bulletin on
Narcotics 1 (1949) 20-41.
HIRSCHMÜLLER, A., ‘E. Merck und das Kokain’, Gesnerus 52 (1995) 122.
HOMBURG, E., De ‘Gouden Eeuw’ van de Nederlandsche chemische indusrtrie’, ‘De
moeizame weg van extractive naar synthese (1) and (2)’, and ‘De overgang
naar een moderne chemische industrie’ (1) and (2), Chemisch Magazine
(1989) 311-314, 444-446, 508-510, 741-743 (1990) 31-34.
HOMBURG, E., Review of: Ziegler, V., ‘Die Familie Jobst und das Chinin’, Ambix 54
(2007) 102-103.
HONEGGER, H., and H. HESSLER, ‘Die Entdeckung der Lokalanästhesie durch Karl
Koller’, Pharmazeutische Zeitung 117 (1972) 1153-1159.
JANOT et al., Comptes rendus, Vol. 246 (1958) 3076.
JOHNSON, E.L., Dapeng Zhang and Stephen D Emchie, ‘Inter- and Intra-specific
Variation among Five Erthyroxylum Taxa Assessed by AFLP’, Annals of
Botany 95[4] (2005) 601-608.
JOHNSON, E.L., J.A. SAUNDERS and OTHERS, ‘Identification of Erythroxylon Taxa by
AFLP DNA analysis’ Phytochemistry 64 [1] (2003) 187-197.
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘Coca en de extractie der alkaloiden’, Lecture given at the "Koffie
congres", Soerabaja (1907). Library of the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT),
Amsterdam. Cat # BrG 86-124.
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘Conversion of l-ecgonine into l-cocaine’, Recueil des Travaux
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘De cocaplanten’, Teysmannia 19 (1908) 419-421.
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘Extractie van cocablad’, Teysmannia 17 (1906) 176-187.
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘Het cocavraagstuk’, Teysmannia 23 (1912) 669-681.
472
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘Les alcaloïdes du coca’, Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des PaysBas et de la Belgique 23 (1906) 229-237.
JONG, A.W.K. DE, ‘L'extraction des feuilles de coca’, Recueil des Travaux Chimiques
des Pays-Bas et de la Belgique 23 (1906) 311-329.
KEMP, P.H. VAN DER, and A.H. BERKHOUT, ‘Dr Hasskarl’s mislukte poging tot
invoering der coca-cultuur op Java: officiële stukken, wedergegeven door de
redactie’, Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw in Nederlandsch Indië 32
(1886) 413-459.
KING, H., ‘Curare Alkaloids - Part 1: Tubocurarine’ Journal of the Chemical Society
(1935) 1381-1389.
KNOLL, A., ‘Verfahren zur Darstellung von Methylmorphin (Codein) und
Ethylmorphin’, German Patent No. 39,887 (1886) August 7.
KOLLER, K., ‘Ueber die Verwendung des Cocaïns zur Anästhesirung am Auge’,
Wien. Med. Wochenschrift 34 (1884) 1276-1278 and 1309-1311.
KORF, D., and M. DE KORT, ‘ “NV De Witte Waan.” De geschiedenis van de
Nederlandsche Cocaïnefabriek’, NRC Handelsblad (1989) May 13.
KOPPES, D., ‘Cocaine in de loopgraven’, De Pers, (2009) October 6.
KRITIKOS P.G. and PAPADAKI S.P., ‘The History of the Poppy and of Opium and Their
Expansion in Antiquity in the Eastern Mediterranean Area’, Bulletin on
Narcotics 19[3] (1967) 17-38 and 19[4] (1967) 5-10.
KÜSSNER, W., ‘Poppy Straw: A Problem of International Narcotics Control’, Bulletin
on Narcotics, (1961) [2] 1-6.
LABOHM, W., ‘Uitbreiding cocacultuur’, Mededeelingen van het NederlandschIndisch Landbouw Syndicaat 26 (1922), 91-94.
LAPHAM, L.H., ‘A Political Opiate. The War on Drugs is a Folly and a Menace’,
Harper's Magazine (1989) December, 43-48.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS, ‘Production et distribution des stupéfiants et de leurs matières
premières avant la guerre’, PCOB, C.24.M.24 (1944) XI.
LEE, M.R., ‘Curare: the South American Arrow Poison’ Journal of the Royal College
of Physicians: Edinburgh (2005) Vol 35:83-92.
LIEBERMANN, C., ‘Ueber die isomeren Truxillsäuren’, Berichte der Deutschen
Chemischen Gesellschaft 22 (1889) 2240-2256.
LIEBERMANN, C., ‘Zur Abhandlung von Einhorn und Willstätter über die technische
Darstellung von Cocaïn aus seinen Nebenalkaloïden’, Berichte der Deutschen
Chemischen Gesellschaft 27 (1894) 2051-2053.
LIEBERMANN, C., and F. GIESEL, ‘Über eine neue technische Darstellungsart und
theilweise Synthese des Cocains’ Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen
Gesellschaft 21 (1888) 3196-3202.
LIEBERMANN,C., AND F. GIESEL, ‘Verfahren zur Ueberführung der amorphen Basen
der Cocablätter in Ecgonin und Benzoylecgonin’, German Patent No. 47,602
(1888) August 14.
LOSSEN, W., ‘Ueber das Cocain’, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 133 (1865)
351-371.
MELZACK, R., ‘The Tragedy of Needless Pain’, Scientific American 262 [2] (1990)
19-25.
473
MORRISON G.C., R.O. WAITE and J. SHAVEL, Tetrahedron Letters, (1967) 4055
MUSTO, D.F., ‘International Traffic in Coca Through the Early 20th Century’, Drug
and Alcohol Dependence 49 [2] (1998) 151.
MUSTO, D.F., ‘Opium, Cocaine and Marijuana in American History’, Scientific
American 265[1] (1991) 20-27.
NADELMANN, E.A., ‘Drug Prohibition in the United States. Costs, Consequences and
Alternatives’, Science 245 (1989) 939-942.
NEDERLANDSCHE COCAINE FABRIEK, ‘A Process of Preparing Substituted Amides and
Intermediates therefor’. Inventor: Weidema M.J. Great Britain Patent 792,791
(1958) July 16.
NIEMANN, A., ‘Ueber eine neue organische Base in den Cocablättern’, Achiv der
Pharmacie 153 (1860) 129-55 and 291-308.
NYMAN, U., and J.G. BRUHN, ‘Papaver Bracteatum, a Summary of Current
Knowledge’, Planta Medica 35 (1979) 97-117
OLIEMAN C, L. MAAT and H.C. BEYERMAN, ‘Analysis of Cocaine, Pseudococaine,
Allocaine and Allopseudococaine by Ion-pair Reverse Phase HighPerformance Liquid Chromotography’, Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des
Pays-Bas 108 (1979) 501-502.
PAERELS, J.J., ‘Cocacultuur op Java’, Cultura 34 (1922) 328-330.
PLOWMAN, T., ‘The Identification of Coca (Erythroxylum species): 1860-1910’,
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 84 (1982) 329-353.
REITH, J.F., A.W.M. INDEMANS and W.R. BECKER, ‘Het gehalte aan morphine en
bijalkaloiden in het bolkaf van blauwmaanzaadrassen’, Pharmaceutisch
Weekblad 83 (1948) 449-459.
REITH, J.F., A.W.M. INDEMANS and W.R. BECKER, ‘Over het voorkomen van
morphine en nevenalkaloiden in blauwmaanzaadrassen van Nederlandse
proefvelden’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 82 (1947) 581-591.
RIP, A., ‘Vastleggen geschiedenis van de chemische industrie broodnodig’, NCIInterview (1996) 4-5.
ROOIJEN, L. VAN, ‘Dokter Akzo zaait papavers’, Panorama (1984) September 21.
ROSSUM, V. VAN, Binnenstad (2008) 226 February issue.
SCHLESINGER, H.L., ‘Topics in the Chemistry of Cocaine’, Bulletin on Narcotics 37
[1] (1985) 64.
SCHULTZ, O.E., ‘Erythoxylaceae’ in A. Engler (Ed.) Das Planzenreich 4[134] (1907)
1-64.
SEMPA CHIMIE, ‘Method for the Preparation of Codeinone from Thebaine’, Inventor:
François Krausz, U S Patent No. 3,112,323 (1963).
SERTÜRNER, F.W.A., ‘Darstellung der reinen Mohnsäure (Opiumsäure) nebst einer
chemischen Untersuchung des Opiums mit vorzüglicher Hinsicht auf einen
darin neu entdeckten Stoff und die dahin gehörigen Bemerkungen’,
Trommsdorff’s Journal der Pharmacie 25 (1806), Reprint Springer-Verlag
1983, 33-57
SERTÜRNER, F.W.A., ‘Säure im Opium’, Trommsdorff’s Journal der Pharmacie
13 (1805), Reprint Springer-Verlag 1983, 29-32.
474
SERTÜRNER, F.W.A., ‘Ueber das Morphium, eine neue salzfähige Grundlage, und die
Mekonsäre, als Hauptbestandtheile des Opiums’, Gilbert’s Annalen de Physik
25 (1817) ), Reprint Springer-Verlag 1983, 61-81 and 82-93
SERTÜRNER, F.W.A., ‘Ueber das Opium und dessen krystallisirbare Substanz’,
Trommsdorff’s Journal der Pharmacie 20 (1811), Reprint Springer-Verlag
1983, 58-60.
SHIRREFF, D., ‘Opium Poppy Growing Thrives but Marketing Proves Difficult’,
Middle East Economic Digest (1977) September 23.
SHULJGIN, G., ‘Cultivating the Opium Poppy and the Oil Poppy in the Soviet Union’,
Bulletin on Narcotics, 1969[4] 1-8.
SINNEMA A., et al, ‘Configuration and Confirmation of All Four Cocaines from NMRspectra’, Receuil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas 87 (1968) 1027-1041.
SLEEN, G. VAN DER, ‘Over Java-coca’, De Indische Mercuur (1908) February 25, 127.
SLOT, E., ‘Legaal snuiven, slikken en spuiten. De Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek
(1900-1962)’, Ons Amsterdam: 46 [3] (1994) March 70-74.
TROMP DE HAAS, W.R., ‘De coca-cultuur’, Teysmannia 14 (1903) 296-297.
UNITED NATIONS, ‘The Movement of Opium Prices During the Years 1930-1939 and
1946-1949’. Commission on Narcotic Drugs - E/CN.7/AC.4/2/Add.2 (Geneva
1950).
UNITED NATIONS, The Movement of Opium Prices During the Years 1930-1939 and
1946-1949. Commission on Narcotic Drugs - E/CN.7/AC.4/2/Add.2 (Geneva
1950).
VAUPEL, E., ‘Arthur Eichengrün – Hommage an eienen vergessenen Chemiker,
Unternehmer und deutschen Juden, Angewandte Chemie 117 (2005) 34083419.
VERENIGDE PHARMACEUTISCHE FABRIEKEN, ‘Verslag over het boekjaar …. ‘
(Annual Report) (1956-1963).
VERKERK, CONNY, ‘Toen cocaine nog een gewoon geneesmiddel was’ Het Parool
(1994) March 12.
VERKERK, CONNY, ‘Coke van dienstwege verstrekt aan soldaten’, Het Parool (2009)
October 17.
WALKER, A., ‘The Pain and Pleasure Principle’, Chemistry in Britain (2002) 24-27.
WETTUM, W.G. VAN, ‘The Opium Question’, Vragen des Tijds (Haarlem) (1927)
May.
WHITE, P.T., ‘Coca - An Ancient Herb Turns Deadly’, National Geographic 175 [1]
(1989) 2-47.
WIELEN, P. VAN DER, ‘Geneesmiddelen in oorlogstijd’, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad
(1940) 921.
WIELEN, P. VAN DER, Articles on the “Opiumwet”, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad (1919)
1496-1505 and 1529-1539.
WŐHLER, F., ‘Fortsetsung der Untersuchungen űber das Coca und das Cocain’,
Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 121 (1862) 372-375.
WÜEST, H.M., ‘A Hundred Years of Alkaloid Industry’, Chemistry and Industry
(1937) Dec 4.
475
ZIMMER & CO, ‘Java-coca in 1888 en in 1889’, Teysmannia, 1 (1890) 174-175 and
189-190.
MISCELLANEOUS
Internet
Akzo-Nobel. ’Announcement of the Integration of Organon and Diosynth’
www2.akzonobel.nl/nl/pharma/index.asp [2005].
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, ‘Historie inkomen, vermogen en
consumptie 1900-1998’. www.cbs.nl
De handelsreiziger van de Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek,
www.connybraam.nl
Denker, John S. ‘A Discussion of How to Report Measurement Uncertainties’,
Section 2.2 www.av8n.com/physics/uncertainty.htm
Dutch Cocaine - The Ultimate Weapon, Interview with Conny Braam on
‘Radio Netherlands Worldwide’ by Marijke Peters, 17 October 2009,
www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-cocaine-ultimate-weapon
Epstein, Edward J., ‘Agency of Fear’ Part III: The Nixon Crusades, Chapter 8,
‘The War on Poppies’, www.edwardjayepstein.com.
Gibson, A.G., ‘Freud's Magical Drug (Erythroxylon Coca)’ From: Course on
Economic Botany at the UCLA (1984 -...). www.botgard.ucla.edu/. [2004].
Gieringer, D., ‘Centennial of an Unnatural Diaster’, Liberty 20[6] (2006),
www.libertybound.com/archive/2006_06/gieringer-centennial.html.
Interview with Conny Braam by Jan van Tienen,
www.viceland.com/blogs/nl/2009/09/29/ een-fraai-stukje-geschiedenisnederland- was-de-grootste-cocaineproducent- ter-wereld/ [2009]
English version titled: ‘Holland was the World’s Biggest Coke Manufacturer’
(Viceland today) www.viceland.com/blogs/nl/2009/10/28 [2011]
Lapplainen, Harri , www.cis.hut.fi/harri/ijcnn98/node8.html
General formula for the calculation of the variance of a function
McCoy, Alfred W., ‘Opium History 1940 to 1979’,
www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi 011.htm.
Musto, D.F., ‘The History of Legislative Control over Opium, Cocaine and
Their Derivatives’, DRCNet Library, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.
www.druglibrary.org
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek, Wikipedia article (Google NL) [2012]
Officer, L.H., Exchange Rate between the United States Dollar and Forty
Other Countries, 1913-1999, www.eh.net/hmit/exchange rates [2002].
Review of the video-documentary (54’): ‘De Nederlandse Cocaine Fabriek’ by
Jeanette Groenendaal (2007) in Filmbanktour #18, containing brief outline of
the content. www.filmbank.nl/artikel/373/
Shipping times from Peru (Callao) to New York and to Hamburg (via the
Panama Canal) www.searates.com
476
Shipping times reported for 1887 Aspinwall – New York and Hamburg – New
York New York Times, www.theshipslist.com.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, ‘Index of Wholesale
Price of Chemicals and Drugs’.
www.nber.org/databases/macrohistory/rectdata/04/docs/m040969.txt
Wils, E.R.J.,’ Nederlandsche cocaine aan het oorlogsfront’
http://ssew.nl/nederlandse-cocaine-oorlogsfront, November 2009.
Young, Andrew, and Daniel Levy. Explicit Evidence on an Implicit Contract
MPRA Paper No. 926 (2006) <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/926/>, 27
Interviews
Interview with Mr Jack Nijssen, Marketing manager product group C,
Diosynth , Oss, 27 August 2002.
Interview with Mr A. Kramer, former production manager at the NCF and
VPF, ‘Roekenhof’ Apeldoorn, 14 August 2003.
Interview with Mr C.W.D. van Gruting, former Public Health Inspector
(Inspecteur van de Volksgezondheid) of the Netherlands with special
responsibilities regarding narcotic drugs, Aerdenhout, 21 July 2006.
Video clips (“YouTube”)
‘Dutch Cocaine Factory – trailer’, “idfa”, on ‘Dutch Cocaine Factory, a film
by Jeanette Groenendaal, premiere IDFA festival 2007, 2 April 2008.
‘Nederlandse Cocaine Fabriek’, Parool TV (‘hetparool’), Jeanette Groenendaal
presents her documentary (“docutective”): ‘Dutch Cocaine Factory’,
2 September 2008 (updated 12 January 2010).
De Nederlandse Cocaine Fabriek deel 1’ Conny Braam guest at ‘Paul en
Witteman’ (Vara TV talk show), 2 October 2009, updated 12 May 2010.
‘Paul en Witteman – 2 oktober 2009’ (Vara TV talk show)
Appearance Conny Braam.
‘De handelsreiziger van de Nederlansche Cocaine Fabriek’, Interview
Conny Braam, “nwamsterdam” (publisher of the book), 8 October 2009.
‘Conny Braam te gast bij Phara: Cocainefabriek’, 3 December 2009.
477
DE GESCHIEDENIS VAN DE NEDERLANDSCHE COCAÏNE FABRIEK
EN HAAR OPVOLGERS
ALS FABRIKANTEN VAN VERDOVENDE MIDDELEN
GEANALYSEERD VANUIT EEN INTERNATIONAAL GEZICHTSPUNT
SAMENVATTING
(Summary in Dutch)
Deel I – De Geschiedenis van de NCF en haar opvolgers
De oprichting van de NCF
In 1900, toen de Nederlandsche Cocaïne-Fabriek (NCF) werd opgericht was cocaïne nog
geen beladen woord. Cocaïne was een nieuw, hoog gewaardeerd plaatselijk
verdovingsmiddel, speciaal geschikt voor toepassing bij operaties aan het oog en in de
tandheelkunde. Er waren al eerste tekenen dat het product verslavend kon werken maar de
productie en handel waren volledig vrij. Duitse fabrikanten, speciaal Merck, Darmstadt,
beheersten de markt en waren verenigd in een kartel dat de prijs controleerde.
De grondstof voor de cocaïnefabricage was voornamelijk cocablad uit Peru waaruit
het door extractie werd gewonnen. Die extractie vond plaats zowel in Peru als in Duitsland;
het ruwe extract gemaakt in Peru werd ge-exporteerd voor verdere zuivering in Duitsland en
andere landen. Vanaf 1890 kwam er echter ook cocablad beschikbaar uit Java maar de
kwaliteit daarvan werd in eerste aanleg als inferieur beschouwd omdat het gehalte aan
cocaïne gering was. Java-coca bevatte echter ook andere, met cocaïne verwante verbindingen
(secundaire alkaloiden), welke door middel van een door Duitse chemici juist ontdekt en
geoctrooieerd proces in cocaïne konden worden omgezet. Bij toepassing van dat proces op
Java-coca was de opbrengst aan cocaïne juist veel hoger dan uit Peru-coca.
De cocaplant was rond 1875 vanuit Zuid-Amerika via België op Java terecht gekomen
en bleek daar goed te gedijen. Ruim tien jaar later begon men met de kultuur en gedurende de
jaren-90 werd Java-coca in betrekkelijk kleine hoeveelheden ge-exporteerd en verwerkt door
een waarschijnlijk Duitse fabrikant. In Nederlands-Indië was inmiddels een stroom van
ontwikkelingen op gang gekomen doordat de kolonie open gesteld was voor particuliere
ondernemers, hetgeen leidde tot samenwerkingen tussen banken, planters, mijnbouwers en
handelaren. In dat kader zag Georg Boldemann, een Duitse zakenman met relaties op Java en
in Duitsland, de mogelijkheid om door het samenbrengen van (a) een cocablad-teler op Java
met (b) Duitse chemici die het fabricage process van cocaïne kenden, en (c) de Koloniale
Bank, die deel uit maakte van het zakelijk netwerk op Java, te komen tot de oprichting van
een fabriek die in Nederland Java-coca zou extraheren en verwerken tot zuiver cocaïne
hydrochloride (cocaïne.HCl) voor de Europese markt. Een belangrijk punt was dat het in
Duitsland geoctrooieerde proces voor het omzetten van de secundaire alkaloïden in cocaïne in
Nederland zonder inbreuk te maken op de Duitse octrooien kon worden gevolgd aangezien in
Nederland pas in 1912 een octrooiwet zou worden ingevoerd.
De bovengeschetste ontwikkeling leidde tot de oprichting van de NCF en de bouw
van een productiebedrijf te Amsterdam. Aandeelhouders werden cocablad-producent J. van
Hengst (eigenaar van de landbouwonderneming ‘Soekamadjoe’) en de Koloniale Bank;
initiatiefnemers G. Boldemann en Dr.O. Eberhard werden directieleden en kregen een
478
aandeel in de winst. De Koloniale Bank vormde de Directie en Dr. F. Loth, een Duits
chemicus, werd de eerste technisch directeur. De fabriek werd gebouwd aan de Schinkelkade
en het eerste product werd afgeleverd in 1901. In dat jaar ging NCF een overeenkomst aan
met het Duitse cocaïnekartel: het zou jaarlijks 300 kg gaan leveren aan de handelsfirma Gehe
te Dresden. Om aan die vraag te kunnen voldoen werd de fabriek reeds in 1902 uitgebreid
door de bouw een tweede verdieping op het pand aan de Schinkelkade en de installatie van
meer apparatuur.
De wereldmarkt in cocaïne 1900-1913: Schattingen van de cocaïneproductie op basis van
importen export statistieken
Om de relatieve positie van de NCF in de wereldmarkt voor cocaïne te kunnen beoordelen is
het nodig om informatie te hebben over de geproduceerde hoeveelheden, zowel voor de NCF
als voor het wereldtotaal. Deze informatie is voor de jaren vóór 1930 niet direct beschikbaar
en in dit proefschrift worden indirecte methoden ontwikkeld om tot redelijk betrouwbare
schattingen te komen. Daartoe is al het vindbare statistische materiaal verzameld over de
import en export van de grondstoffen voor cocaïne over de periode ca. 1890 tot ca. 1930 en
zijn schattingen gemaakt van de hoeveelheden cocaïne welke daaruit geproduceerd zouden
kunnen worden. Het omvangrijke statistisch materiaal is opgenomen in de
tabellenverzameling in ‘Part IV’ van dit proefschrift. Kritische analyse van dit cijfermateriaal
en het maken van de schattingen van de daaruit geproduceerde hoeveelheden cocaïne is het
onderwerp van hoofdstukken 15 t/m 17.
Deze berekeningen worden door de auteur gezien als een belangrijke bijdrage tot de
kennis van het wereldtotaal van de geproduceerde hoeveelheden cocaïne gedurende de
periode ca 1890-1930 en tot de oplossing van problemen met betrekking tot deze statistieken,
ook gesignaleerd door Gootenberg en Soininen. De ramingen van de hoeveelheden cocaïne
zijn meer accuraat van die van Musto. Deze ramingen zijn tevens gebruikt als uitgangspunt
voor verdere berekeningen van de cocaïneproductie per land of regio. Zij houden correcties in
van de waarden voor de USA zoals berekend door Spillane en zijn nieuw voor andere
productielanden. Voor de periode 1900-1913 zijn de resultaten van de berekeningen vermeld
in hoofdstuk 5 tesamen met informatie uit andere bronnen over de cocaïne-industrie, speciaal
in Duitsland en de USA.
Java-coca bleek uiteindelijk zowel in Europa als in de USA de meest economische
grondstof. Vanaf 1907 werd Java-coca steeds belangrijker, het aandeel daarvan in de totale
wereldproduktie nam toe tot ca. 80% in 1913. Merck, Darmstadt, produceerde ca. 40% of de
totale wereldproductie. Deze was gedurende 1911-1913 tot ca 17.000 kg cocaïne.HCl per jaar
toegenomen. Het is onduidelijk welk deel van die productie voor medisch gebruik bestemd
was en welk deel als genotmiddel werd gebruikt, doch het is aannemelijk te vooronderstellen
dat dit laatste deel niet onaanzienlijk was.
Het begin van internationale controle op verdovende middelen.
Tegen het eind van de 19e eeuw had roken van opium in China schrikbarende vormen
aangenomen en als een gevolg daarvan kwam er een internationale beweging op gang om het
gebruik van opium voor niet-medicinale doeleinden te beperken. De USA nam daarbij het
voortouw en in 1909 werd een internationale conferentie gehouden te Shanghai waaraan
dertien invloedrijke landen deelnamen om te trachten tot een samenwerking te komen.
Tegengestelde handelsbelangen maakten het moeilijk zich te verenigen op bindende
regelingen. Het resultaat van de conferentie was een reeks van vage, niet-bindende resoluties
over de productie en handel in opium en opiaten, maar dit leidde wel tot vervolg-conferenties
in Den Haag vanaf 1911 waar men trachtte om tot meer bindende afspraken te komen, die
479
zich ook uitstrekten tot de productie en handel in cocaïne. Door het uitbreken van de Eerste
Wereldoorlog werd de ratificatie van de opgestelde verdragen uitgesteld tot na 1918.
De NCF voor de Eerste Wereldoorlog
De eerste 14 jaar van het bestaan van de NCF kan als een succesvolle periode beschouwd
worden. De bouw van de fabriek en de aanvankelijke productie verliepen zonder problemen
en de productiekosten waren niet hoog als gevolg van de levering van cocablad door
Soekamadjoe tegen een lage prijs.
De overeenkomst met het Duitse cocaïnekartel over de levering van een redelijke
hoeveelheid product tegen de conventieprijs was een garantie voor een goede winst. In 1908
kwam daarin een verandering. Vanwege de steeds lager wordende cocaïneprijs werd het
kartel ontbonden en NCF nam de marketing in eigen hand. Winst en dividendbetalingen
werden duidelijk minder na 1905 maar bleven toch acceptabel.
Een probleem was echter dat de fabriek gelegen was in een woonwijk in Amsterdam,
en dat de brandweer, mede als gevolg van bezwaren van de omwonenden tegen de grote
hoeveelheden opgeslagen brandbare stoffen, er op ging aandringen dat de fabriek verplaatst
zou worden. Dit leidde er toe dat Dr. Kramers, die in 1907 Dr. Loth was opgevolgd als
technisch directeur, een plan indiende bij de directie om een nieuwe fabriek te bouwen in de
gemeente Ouder-Amstel, ca. 5 km ten zuiden van Amsterdam. Ondanks de heersende lage
cocaïneprijs werd het plan door aandeelhouders goedgekeurd. Het project werd gefinancierd
door de Koloniale Bank en de bouw begon in 1909. Vanaf 1910 vond de productie plaats in
de nieuwe fabriek. De gemiddelde hoeveelheid geproduceerd gedurende de periode 19101914 was ca. 500 kg cocaïne.HCl per jaar. Deze hoeveelheid is berekend in hoofdstuk 18
onder gebruikmaking van de verlies- en winstrekening van de onderneming, in de vorm van
een mathematisch model, waarbij schattingen van variabele en vaste kosten, en
prijsinformatie het mogelijk maakten het productievolume te ramen.
De Kort heeft in zijn proefschrift van 1995 gesteld dat: “in 1910 kon [de NCF] zich de
grootste cocaïne fabriek ter wereld noemen” en die bewering is door hem en anderen vele
malen herhaald. Dat deze stelling onjuist is volgt uit de vergelijking de nominale
productiecapaciteit van 750 kg cocaïne.HCl per jaar van de NCF-fabriek in 1910 en de
geraamde productie van 500 kg cocaïne.HCl per jaar over de periode 1910-1914, met de door
Merck, Darmstadt, in 1910 geproduceerde hoeveelheid cocaïne.HCl van 5.241 kg.
De wereldmarkt in cocaïne 1914-1930
Het uitbreken van de oorlog in 1914 leidde tot een embargo van Duitsland op de export van
cocaïne en andere essentieële producten. Dat resulteerde in het wegvallen van concurrentie en
opende nieuwe markten voor NCF en andere cocaïneproducenten. De verscheping van
grondstoffen uit Java en Peru nam af, vooral na 1915, maar vormde toch geen probleem voor
NCF vanwege de voorraden Java-coca bij Amsterdamse handelaren.
In hoofdstuk 7 staan de hoeveelheden cocaïne geproduceerd uit grondstoffen geexporteerd gedurende de periode 1915-1930 vermeld, berekend met de methoden uiteengezet
in de hoofdstukken 16 en 17. Deze tonen de sterke neergang in jaren 1916 en 1917, gevolgd
door een inhaalvraag vanaf 1918 tot 1920, en daarna een geleidelijke afname van de
productie tot het jaar 1930. Die teruggang moet worden toegeschreven aan het terugdringen
van het leveren van cocaïne voor recreatieve doelen door de gevestigde fabrikanten onder
invloed van plaatselijke en internationale verordeningen die van kracht werden.
Duitsland bleef de grootste cocaïnefabrikant doch ook de productie in dat land
verminderde gedurende de jaren-20 tot minder dan de helft van die van ca. 1913. De
teruggang in USA was nog veel sterker, waarschijnlijk onder invloed van de US Harrison
480
Narcotics Act van 1914 die de vrije verkoop van verdovende middelen tegenhield. Japan
daarentegen kwam sterk op als cocaïnefabrikant.
Internationale controle maatregelen na de Eerste Wereldoorlog
en de illegale productie en handel in verdovende middelen
Na de Eerste Wereldoorlog sloot een groot aantal landen zich aan bij de Conventie van Den
Haag. De implementatie werd in handen gelegd van de Volkenbond die daartoe het ‘Opium
Advisory Committee’ (OAC) in het leven riep. Het OAC organiseerde de internationale
conferenties van 1924/25 in Genève, die leidden tot de ‘Geneva Convention van 1925’, de
installatie van de ‘Permanent Central Opium Board’ (PCOB), en een systeem van
importcertificaten en uitvoervergunningen. Het duurde echter nog tot de ‘Limitation Treaty’
van 1931 voordat een international controle systeem werd gecreëerd van de produktie en
handel van verdovende middelen dat succesvol was. Na de implementatie daarvan werden
produkten van legale fabrikanten vrijwel nooit in de illegale handel aangetroffen. De vraag
naar deze producten voor recreatieve doeleinden bleef echter bestaan hetwelk leidde tot het
ontstaan van illegale productie en handel.
Pogingen om deze illegale produktie en handel te controleren hebben zeer weinig sukses
gehad. De hoeveelheden illegaal geproduceerde cocaïne en heroine zijn thans zeer groot. Er
is (tegenwoordig) geen directe relatie tussen de legale en illegale verdovende middelen
industrie. De hoeveelheden verdovende middelen van legale oorsprong welke in het illegale
circuit terecht komen zijn uiterst gering.
NCF gedurende de periode 1914-1930
Gedurende de eerste helft van 1914 waren de cocaïneprijzen nauwelijks voldoende om de
kosten te dekken. Dat veranderde geheel na het uitbreken van de Eerste Wereldoorlog toen
Duitsland wegviel als exporteur en de prijzen sterk omhoog gingen. De markt verruimde
zich, en England en Japan werden grotendeels door NCF beleverd. De productiecapaciteit
werd uitgebreid door de bouw van nieuwe werkruimten en een nieuw laboratorium, de
installatie van een tweede extractiebatterij, en uiteindelijk, in 1917, een nieuw ketelhuis.
Hierdoor verdubbelde de capacteit. De gemiddelde cocaïneproductie van de NCF over de
periode 1915-1920 wordt geraamd op ca. 700 kg cocaïne.HCl per jaar.
Na afloop van de oorlog kwam de competitie terug en Japan startte locale
cocaïneproductie om in de eigen behoefte te voorzien. De NCF trachtte daarop door lage
prijzen haar marktaandeel te vergroten. Dat resulteerde in de verkoop van meer product, maar
tevens een lagere winst (vanaf 1921), ondanks de introductie van ethocaine, een synthetisch
lokaal anestheticum.
De situatie verbeterde vanaf 1925 doordat de nieuw gevormde Europese
cocaïneconventie (kartel) in staat was de prijzen op een hoger nivo te handhaven. NCF ging
toen ook ruwe cocaïne verkopen aan andere fabrikanten; maar onder invloed van de
beperkende maatregelen van de Geneefse Conventie van 1925 liep de cocaïneverkoop vanaf
1928 toch aanzienlijk terug. Ook de export van Java-coca verminderde drastisch en het
levercontract tussen Soekamadjoe en NCF dat in 1927 afliep werd niet vernieuwd.
De winst van NCF leefde na 1924 op; het was echter duidelijk dat een verdere
verbreding van het productenpakket nodig was om winstgevend te blijven. Een logische stap
was om die uitbreiding te zoeken in opiaten omdat ook opium en morfine gecontroleerde
producten waren die onder een vergunning verwerkt of geproduceerd konden worden.
481
Opiatenfabricage in Nederland vanaf 1920 tot 1939
Gedurende de jaren-20 begonnen twee Nederlandse ondernemingen met de fabricage van
opiaten. Dat waren de Nederlandsche Fabriek voor Pharmaceutisch-Chemische Producten
handelende onder de naam ‘Bonnema’ en de Chemische Fabriek Naarden. Bonnema
produceerde morfine en codeïne op zeer kleine schaal, enige tientallen kilogrammen per jaar;
onvoldoende om de Nederlandse markt volledig te beleveren. ‘Naarden’ was hoofdzakelijk
handelaar, welke heroïne en cocaïne gefabriceerd door anderen onder eigen etiket
doorverkocht, zonder dat deze producten officieël in Nederland werden ingevoerd. Dit laatste
was mogelijk door een leemte in de Nederlandse wet, welke op grote schaal door ‘Naarden’
werd gebruikt om de bepalingen van de Geneefse Conventie te ontduiken. ‘Naarden’ trok
zich in 1928 terug van deze handel maar Nieuwenhuis, een voormalig werknemer van deze
onderneming, continueerde de semi-legale handel in verdovende middelen onder zijn eigen
naam, vanaf 1930 als vertegenwoordeiger van Bonnema. Deze activiteiten eindigden in 1934
en Bonnema behield zijn vergunning tot produceren.
NCF ontwikkelde in eigen laboratorium processen voor de fabricage van morfine en
codeïne uit opium die vanaf 1931 op kleine schaal in de fabriek werden toegepast. In 1934
werd de Nederlandse markt, groot ca 300 kg codeïne plus morfine, gesloten voor invoer en
werd deze voortaan uitsluitend beleverd door NCF en Bonnema. NCF ontwikkelde zich tot
een opiatenfabrikant van redelijke grootte, die in 1939 ca. 900 kg morfine produceerde,
terwijl Bonnema in 1938 ca. 200 kg maakte. De ontwikkeling van de NCF gedurende de
eerste negen jaar van haar bestaan als opiatenfabrikant moet zeker als een goede prestatie
worden gezien: de afgeschermdethuismarkt was klein, de NCF had geen bevoorrechte
grondstoffenpositie en zij was een nieuwkomer in de markt waarin concurrenten 100 jaar
ervaring hadden.
Opiatenfabricage in de wereld en export gedurende de periode 1930-1939
Vanaf 1929 werden door de PCOB jaarlijks gedetailleerde statistieken gepubliceerd over de
verdovende middelen, met betrekking tot fabricage, grondstoffen, tussenproducten,
consumptie, en in-en uitvoer. Deze zijn in dit proefschrift als uitgangspunt gebruikt voor het
samenstellen van tabellen en grafieken over de productie en handel van Nederlandse en
buitenlandse narcoticaproducenten.
De totale wereldproduktie van morfine gedurende 1930-1938 was gemiddeld in de
range van 30.000 tot 40.000 kg base per jaar. Ca. 75% daarvan werd omgezet in codeïne. De
voornaamste productielanden waren de USA, Duitsland, de USSR en Japan. Het grootste deel
van de opiatenproductie was bestemd voor lokale consumptie; slechts ca. 6,500 kg werd
jaarlijks als gereed product ge-exporteerd. Duitsland, Zwitserland en de UK waren de
belangrijkste opiaten-exporterende landen. Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck en Knoll in
Duitsland, Hoffmann La Roche in Zwitserland en Macfarlan en T. & H. Smith in de UK
waren de voornaamste concurrenten van de NCF. De Nederlandse export bedroeg ca. 500 kg
opiaten (als base) per jaar over 1934-1938, ofwel ca. 8% van de totale exportmarkt. In 1939
was de productie van de NCF aanzienlijk gegroeid; de export bedroeg toen ca. 700 kg.
NCF en Bonnema gedurende de Tweede Wereldoorlog
De Tweede Wereldoorlog leidde tot fundamentele veranderingen in de verdovende middelenindustrie. Opium en andere gronstoffen werden schaars en de internationale handel kwam
vrijwel tot stilstand. De voorraad opium bij de NCF was in mei 1941 vrijwel uitgeput en men
ging over tot het nogmaals verwerken van fabricage-residu’s met een laag alkaloidgehalte om
nog iets te kunnen produceren. Hiertoe behoorde ook dimethylmorfine, een tot dusver
482
waardeloos bijproduct van de codeïnefabricage, dat farmacologisch en klinisch werd getest
en een goed werkzaam anti-hoest middel bleek te zijn.Enige opleving kwam in 1943/45 toen
door NCF 340 kg morfine werd geproduceerd uit Nederlands bolkaf (droge lege zaaddozen
van voor het maanzaad verbouwde papavers) onder een contract met de Nederlandse
overheid. Ook Bonnema participeerde in dat contract. Het bolkaf werd door de overheid
aangeleverd en door genoemde firma’s verwerkt, waarvoor de kosten werden vergoed. De
morfine werd daarna overgedragen aan NCF en Bonnema voor verdere zuivering en
omzetting in codeïne. De ervaring opgedaan met bolkafverwerking was belangrijk want het
leidde tot het gebruik van deze grondstof op grotere schaal na de oorlog. De winst van de
NCF verminderde geleidelijk, en over 1945 werd geen dividend uitbetaald. Gelukkig hebben
werknemers en bedrijf de oorlog zonder al te grote directe schade overleefd. Directie en
management bleven onveranderd in functie.
Bonnema verplaatste de productie naar een nieuwe fabriek te Apeldoorn in 1941. In 1944
werd aldaar ook apparatuur geinstalleerd voor het verwerken van bolkaf onder het
bovengenoemd contract met de overheid.
Opleving van de opiaten productie na afloop van de Tweede Wereldoorlog
Vanaf 1946 kwam de wereldproductie van opiaten geleidelijk weer op gang en was snel
toenemend in jaren-50, van 72.000 kg morfine 1951 tot 120.000 kg in 1960. De grootste
productielanden waren de USA, de UK, de USSR en Duitsland. Opium bleef de belangrijkste
grondstof ondanks het feit dat de prijs verviervoudigd was tussen juist vóór de oorlog tot juist
daarna. Die prijsstijging had echter wel tot gevolg dat de interesse van fabrikanten in het
gebruik van bolkaf als grondstof groter werd, met name in Hongarije en Polen, en vanaf 1955
ook in Nederland. Het percentage morfine geproduceerd uit bolkaf nam toe van 18% van het
wereldtotaal in 1946 tot 25% in 1960.
Het verbruik van morfine als zodanig bleef vrij constant op ca. 5.000 kg per jaar van
1946 tot 1960. De toegenomen morfineproductie werd vrijwel geheel omgezet in codeïne. De
meeste codeïne werd geconsumeerd in de grote productielanden zoals in de USA en de
USSR. De exportmarkt voor codeïne werd voornamelijk beleverd door de UK en daarnast
door Duitsland en Hongarije. De prijs voor codeine was in the open exportmarkt belangrijk
lager dan in de thuismarkten van de fabrikanten, waarvoor geen invoervergunnungen werden
afgeven.
NCF en Bonnema (VPF) gedurende de periode tot 1960
De Nederlandse opiatenindustrie kwam na de oorlog slechts langzaam weer op gang. Het
duurde tot 1951 voordat het productie-niveau van 1939 was bereikt. NCF en Bonnema
trachtten aanvankelijk Nederlands bolkaf te gebruiken als grondstof maar het bleek dat het
morfine gehalte van de papaver-rassen geteeld voor het zaad in Nederland, te laag was om dit
economisch haalbaar te maken. Vanaf 1950 ging Bonnema aangesneden bolkaf (waaruit
reeds opium gewonnen was) importeren uit Turkije en NCF importeerde ook bolkaf,
hoofdzakelijk uit Joegoslavië. Dat waren voordelige grondstoffen en de daaruit
geproduceerde morfine en codeïne hadden een lage kostprijs en kon concurrerend worden
aangeboden; productie en verkoop namen daardoor snel toe. De grotere productie werd tot
1958 voornamelijk ge-exporteerd als codeïne maar daarna ook als EPC (Extractum Papaveris
Crudum), later genaamd CPS (Concentrate of Poppy Straw), een ruwe morfine, die geleverd
werd aan andere fabrikanten die het gebruikten als grondstof voor het maken van codeïne.
EPC, en ook technische morfine, werden verkocht in concurrentie met opium. De markt voor
deze produkten was veel groter dan die voor codeïne en er waren geen problemen met
483
invoervergunningen.
De morfine productie in Nederland nam toe van ca. 1.000 kg in 1951 tot ca. 5.800 kg
in 1959. Van deze totalen werd ongeveer tweederde geproduceerd door VPF, de rest door
NCF. De Nederlandse productie vertegenwoordigde in 1959 ruim 5% van de totale
wereldproductie.
NCF
Direct na de oorlog vonden er belangrijke veranderingen plaats bij de NCF met betrekking tot
aandeelhouders en management. Dr. Kramers ging met pensioen en werd als technisch
directeur opgevolgd door Ir. J.P.H. Nieukerke, daarvoor manager bij de Amsterdamsche
Chinine Fabriek. De heer W.C. Bonebakker, president commissaris der NCF, trok zich om
leeftijds redenen terug. Eveneens in 1946 overleed Mej. Maarschalk die in het bezit was van
60% van de NCF aandelen. Deze aandelen kwamen in handen van Ir. Harry Dénis, een
beroemd voetballer welke voor de oorlog vele jaren aanvoerder van het Nederlands elftal
was.
Dénis werd commissaris van de NCF en ging zich met details van de bedrijfsvoering
bemoeien. Hij verzocht om een accountants-onderzoek om te zien welke besparingen
gerealiseerd konden worden en suggereerde dat opiumaankopen gesplitst zouden moeten
worden over kleine partijen om het prijsrisico te verminderen. De Koloniale Bank en ook
Nieukerke waren niet gelukkig met deze ontwikkelingen. Veel tijd werd besteed aan dit soort
discussies in de commissarissenvergaderingen en de verhouding tussen Dénis en de
Cultuurbank (sinds 1949 de nieuwe naam van de Koloniale Bank) werd steeds slechter. In
1957 zegde de Cultuurbank de samenwerking op en Dénis nam de NCF aandelen van de
Cultuurbank over. Dénis gaf daarna toestemming om te investeren in capaciteitsvergroting
van de extractieafdeling welke werd geëffectueerd in 1958. De netto-winst van de NCF was
over de periode 1950-1959 nogal variabel, ze bedroeg gemiddeld ca. 10% van het
balanstotaal.
VPF
De heer C. J. Jansen, eigenaar en directeur van Bonnema, had meer zakelijke belangen in
Apeldoorn met name in de Zwitsal-fabriek welke door hem in de jaren-20 was gegrondvest.
In 1947 verenigde hij alle activiteiten onder de naam van Verenigde Pharmaceutische
Fabrieken NV (VPF) en begon met de bouw van een nieuw bedrijfs-complex. Het
maatschappelijke kapitaal bedroeg NLG 3 miljoen waarvan 2 miljoen was geplaatst. De
gewone VPF aandelen waren op de beurs genoteerd en de prioriteitsaandelen waren in
handen van Jansen.
Jansen was een bezielend en autocratisch leider. Er was nooit enige twijfel over wie er
aan het roer stond bij de VPF, van “de Zwitsal”, zoals de onderneming plaatselijk bekend
was. Het was zijn visie en doorzettingsvermogen dat resulteerde in de productie van morfine
uit Turks bolkaf. Vanaf 1954 werd in productieappartuur geinvesteerd en VPF nam vanaf
1957 een verdere voorsprong op de NCF door de installatie van een grote moderne continuextractor. Netto winst van de VPF, over de opiaten en de Zwitsal activiteiten samen,
ontwikkelde zich bevredigend. Dividend als een percentage van het geplaatste
aandelenkapitaal ging geleidelijk omhoog, van 5% in 1948 tot 10% in 1959. De winst van de
VPF was in 1959 ca. 3,5 keer zo groot als die van de NCF.
484
Acquisitie van NCF en VPF door Koninklijke Zwanenberg Organon (KZO)
NCF
Dénis bleek na de investeringen in extractie apparatuur van rond 1958 niet geinteresseerd in
verdere uitbreidingen van de NCF en Nieukerke ging met toestemming van Dénis contact
leggen met grotere Nederlandsche ondernemingen voor welke de acquisitie van NCF
aantrekkelijk zou kunnen zijn. Nieukerke vond in Koninklijke Zwanenberg Organon (KZO)
zo’n onderneming. Dit leidde tot de overname van NCF door KZO in 1962.
Management van NCF bleef onveranderd. Direect na de overname werden plannen
voor de uitbreiding en modernisering van de fabriek gerealiseerd, waaronder de installatie
van een nieuwe extractiebatterij. Ook het laboratorium werd verbouwd en NCF startte
research voor het produceren van andere alkaloiden. Dit alles veroorzaakte een algemeen
gevoel het begin van een nieuw leven van de ondenemening bij het personeel, en een
enthousiasme om dat waar te maken.
VPF
De sterke toename van de morfineproductie bij VPF gedurende de jaren-50 zette zich voort in
1960 en de jaren daarna. Doordat de vraag niet in dezelfde mate toenam leidde dat vanaf
1961 tot aanzienlijke voorraden in Nederland en een prijsdaling op de wereldmarkt. Zulke
voorraadvorming was in strijd met de bepalingen van de internationale verdragen inzake
verdovende middelen en er dreigde een productiestop.
Het bovenstaande en het feit dat Jansen op een leeftijd gekomen was dat hij ging
denken aan het zich terugtrekken uit het zakenleven, maakten dat hij begon open te staan
voor gesprekken over een acquisitie van VPF door KZO. Het was van het begin af duidelijk
dat zulk een overname aanzienlijke voordelen zou opleveren voor KZO. Combinatie van
NCF en VPF zou resulteren in het sluiten van de nu 50 jaar oude fabriek te Amsterdam en het
produceren van alle opiaten en andere alkaloiden in het moderne bedrijf te Apeldoorn. De
marketingactiviteten konden worden samengevoegd en zouden daardoor meer efficient
opereren.
Het resultaat van de gesprekken was dat KZO in 1964 de aandelen VPF overnam. De
heer Jansen trok zich terug uit de onderneming en het bestaande NCF management werd
benoemd als het nieuwe management van de gehele VPF met Ir. Nieukerke als algemeen
directeur. Enige productie-apparatuur werd over gebracht van Amsterdam naar Apeldoorn en
de fabricage bij NCF werd beëindigd. De morfineproductie te Apeldoorn werd vervolgens
tijdelijk sterk verminderd en de export-activiteiten werden gecombineerd onder de VPF naam
en geintensiveerd. Het resultaat was dat in 1964 de totale Nederlandse morfine productie 4
ton bedroeg en de export ruim 10 ton. Daarmee was de voorraad aan het eind van het jaar
teruggebracht tot een normaal niveau.
Opiaten fabricage en handel tot 1970 en de positie van VPF
De totale morfineproductie in de wereld nam toe van 115 ton in 1961 tot 176 ton in 1970 .
De voornaamste fabricagelanden bleven de USSR, de UK en de USA. Nederland (VPF)
vertegenwoordigde bijna 10% van het totaal in 1970 en was daarmee de grootste fabrikant
van morfine uit bolkaf geworden. Bolkaf werd steeds belangrijker als grondstof; in 1970
werd 33% van de totaal geproduceerde hoeveelheid morfine daaruit gewonnen.
De exportmarkt voor codeïne nam van 1964 tot 1970 toe van 20 tot 34 ton. Gedurende
het eerste deel van die periode exporteerde VPF slechts ca 2 ton per jaar. Vanaf 1968 groeide
VPF’s marktaandeel echter sterk, tot meer dan 8 ton in 1970. Door scherpe concurrentie bleef
de prijs voor codeïne echter laag gedurende het grootste deel van de jaren-60.
485
De integratie van NCF en VPF onder KZO verliep voorspoedig. De sterkte van de combinatie
VPF/NCF was gelegen in goede contacten in het grondstoffenland Turkije met een eigen
vestiging aldaar voor de inzameling en het transport van het bolkaf naar Nederland; verder in
goede extractie- en verwerkings technologie en uitstekende relaties met afnemers van CPS
o.a. in Zuid Afrika, België en Zwitserland. De concurrentie met CPS fabrikanten in OostEuropa was fors en leidde tot lage prijzen maar VPF was de grootste producent en beleverde
ruim eenderde van de wereldmarkt. VPF ging deel uitmaken van Akzo Pharma, de
pharmaceutische divisie van de sterk gegroeide moedermaatschappij (KZO), in 1969
opgegaan in Akzo na een fusie met AKU. Omzet en winstcijfers voor VPF en andere
dochterondernemingen werden niet gepubliceerd door KZO/Akzo; de omzet van morfine
(CPS) en codeine gecombineerd wordt geschat op NLG 6 miljoen per jaar voor de periode
1965-1970.
De overeenkomst tussen de USA en Turkije van 1971 en de gevolgen daarvan tot 1980
In de tweede helft van de jaren-60 was er een sterke toename van het illegale drugsgebruik in
de wereld, in het bijzonder in de USA. Dat leidde tot de theorie van de CIA dat de bron van
de heroïne verschijnend op de US zwarte markt uiteindelijk Turks opium was. Dat opium
werd gesmokkeld naar clandestiene laboratoria in Marseille, waar de daaruit gewonnen
morfine werd omgezet in heroïne hetwelk vervolgens via de zo genaamde French connection
in de USA terecht kwam. De remedie welke werd verzonnen in de USA was om Turkije te
bewegen de (legale) opium productie op te geven in ruil voor een geldsbedrag ineens en
verdere steun. President Nixon schaarde zich persoonlijk achter dit intiatief en diplomatieke
druk werd uitgeoefend op Turkije om het doel te bereiken.
De Turkse overheid liet zich overtuigen en ingaande 1972 werd de papaverteelt
verboden. Dat had grote gevolgen voor de opiatenproductie in de wereld. Turkije had
jaarlijks ca 33 ton morfine in opium en bolkaf geleverd aan de legale verdovende
middelenindustrie en dat deze niet meer beschikbaar kwamen betekende dat vraag naar
opiaten groter werd dan het aanbod en dat de prijzen snel stegen. De UN Division on
Narcotic Drugs reageerde op het dreigend tekort door gedurende de periode 1972-1975
conferenties to organiseren over de teelt van Papaver bracteatum en de omzetting van het
daaruit winbare thebaine in codeïne, waaraan de belangrijkste grondstoffenleveranciers,
opiatenfabrikanten en research-instituten deelnamen. Dit was om verschillende redenen geen
praktische oplossing voor het probleem.
Die oplossing werd gevonden door de industrie zelf, onder andere door het vergroten
van de opiumproductie in India, verder door uitbreiding van de papaverteelt in Frankrijk en
Australië, en tenslotte, in 1975, door hervatting van de papaverteelt in Turkije onder de
conditie dat er geen opium meer gewonnen zou worden, maar dat het bolkaf ongesneden zou
worden geëxtraheerd. Het was de bedoeling om het Turks bolkaf uiteindelijk ter plaatse te
gaan verwerken in een overheidsbedrijf en dat tot de tijd dat die fabriek gereed zou zijn, het
bolkaf aan bestaande buitenlandse narcoticabedrijven met extractiecapaciteit zou worden
geleverd.
De verbouw van Papaver somniferum in Australië als grondstof voor de productie
van morfine was gebaseerd op de ontwikkeling in Tasmanië, in the jaren-60, van varieteiten
met een hoog morfinegehalte door dochterondernemingen van Glaxo UK, met name
Macfarlan Smith en Glaxo Australia,. Vanaf 1972 werd het areaal van de teelt sterk
uitgebreid; het bolkaf werd in Australië geëxtraheerd en een deel van geproduceerde CPS
ging naar Macfarlan Smith in de UK voor verdere verwerking; de rest werd in Australië
omgezet in codeïne. In 1975 begon Tasmanian Alkaloids, een joint-venture van Abbott
Laboratories van Chicago en Ciech-Polfa van Polen, eveneens met de plaatselijke teelt van
486
papavers voor de productie van CPS. De totale morfineproductie in Australië groeide van ca
400 kg in 1971 tot 33.000 kg in 1979; in Frankrijk groeide Francopia’s morfineproductie over
dezelfde periode van ca 14.000 kg tot 25.000 kg door uitbreiding van de locale papaverteelt.
Het gevolg van de hervatting van de papaververbouw in Turkije, de uitbreiding
daarvan in Australië en Frankrijk en de sterk toegenomen productie van opium in India was
dat het aanvankelijk tekort aan grondstoffen voor de productie van opiaten na 1977 verdween
en omsloeg in overproductie daarna. Het resultaat was dat de prijs van codeine(fosfaat)
terugviel van USD 825 per kg in 1976 tot USD 400 in 1980.
Consequenties voor VPF/Diosynth van de hervatting van de papaverteelt in Turkije.
De bouw van het nieuwe papaverextractiebedrijf in Turkije begon met het uitschrijven van
een tender daarvoor in 1974. De geplande capaciteit was de productie van 60.000 kg morfine
per jaar. VPF en Knoll (Ludwigshafen) reageerden; het oogmerk van de VPF was om door
nauwe samenwerking met de Turkse overheid te komen tot een overeenkomst waarbij VPF
ook in de toekomst tegen gunstige voorwaarden bolkaf uit Turkije zou kunnen betrekken. Die
opzet slaagde niet. Knoll won de trender door gunstigere financieringsvoorwaarden. Het
duurde echter nog tot 1981voordat het bedrijf in Turkije begon met produceren.
Voor VPF, welke aanvankelijk bolfaf uit India had verwerkt om het grondstoftekort uit
Turkije op te vangen, bood het weer ter beschikking komen van Turks material de
mogelijkheid om haar grote extractie capaciteit ten volle te kunnen benutten. VPF, vanaf
1974 deel uitmakend van Diosynth (de bulk-producent van Akzo Pharma), ging een
overeenkomst aan met de grootste US codeïnefabrikant Mallinckrodt voor de verwerking van
Turks bolkaf en de levering van de daaruit geproduceerde CPS. CPS werd ook geleverd aan
andere codeïne producenten, zowel in de USA als in Zuid Afrika, België en Zwitserland.
Samenvattend, de jaren-70 waren voor de opiaten fabricage door VPF/Diosynth zeer gunstig.
VPF was succesvol met het verkijgen van bolkaf eerst uit India en later uit Turkije en kon
gebruik maken van haar grote capaciteit voor bolkafverwerking middels overeenkomsten met
alle drie grote US codeïnefabrikanten voor de levering van CPS. Al gevolg van het tekort aan
grondstoffen en de daarmee samenhangende hoge prijzen werden over het tweede deel van de
periode omzetten gehaald in de orde van NLG 30 miljoen per jaar. Het was de garantie voor
een zeer goede winst.
Het was echter van het begin af duidelijk dat Turkije in de toekomst alle grondstof zelf zou
gaan verwerken en dat Diosynth een alternatieve grondstoffenbron zou moeten vinden. Dat
was geen eenvoudige opgave. Een eis was dat de alternatieve grondstof in voldoende mate en
tegen een zodanige prijs beschikbaar zou zijn dat Diosynth op de wereldmarkt zou kunnen
blijven concurreren. Het morfinegehalte van bolkaf uit India was zo laag, dat de kosten
daarvan te hoog waren om bij een dalende markt acceptabel te zijn. VPF/Diosynth deed
research samen met Mommersteeg (een plantenveredelings bedrijf) over de verbouw van
Papaver bracteatum in Nederland maar kwam tot de conclusie dat die teelt niet tot het
gewenste resultaat zou leiden. Ook een ander project, de totaalsynthese van codeïne uit in de
handel verkrijgbare chemicaliën, hetwelk geëntameerd werd in samenwerking met Professor
Beijerman en Dr. Maat aan de TU te Delft, bleek, ondanks dat een goede synthese-route werd
gevonden, uiteindelijk niet concurrerend.
487
De gevolgen van de overproductie van grondstoffen vanaf 1975
De sterk toegenomen productie van opium en bolkaf leidde vanaf 1978 tot de vorming van
grote voorraden van deze grondstoffen, speciaal in India en Turkije. Deze landen trachtten
daarop door te lobbyen in de UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) voor het nemen van
maatregelen die er voor zouden moeten zorgen dat zij een bevoorrechte positie zouden
krijgen voor het leveren van hun producten. Dit zou dan ten koste moeten gaan van landen
die ‘recentelijk additionele productie capaciteit hebben geinstalleerd. Ondanks dat die
voorraadvorming voor verreweg het grootste deel het gevolg was van overprodutie in India
en Turkije slaagden deze landen er met de hulp van de USA in een resolutie van die strekking
in de 1979-vergadering van de CND aangenomen te krijgen. De resolutie (nr 471) was
hoofdzakelijk gericht tegen Australië en Frankrijk, er werd op aangedrongen dat
‘nieuwkomers’ hun productie zouden beperken. Het had ook nadelige gevolgen voor de VPF.
Het enige importerend land dat maatregelen nam om inderdaad India en Turkije een
bevoorrechte positie te geven bij het leveren van de grondstoffen was de USA. Dit land
kondigde in 1981 maatregelen af waarbij ten minste 80% van de geimporteerde grondstoffen
voor opiatenfabricage uit India en Turkije afkomstig moesten zijn. Oppositie van Australië,
Frankrijk en enige andere partijen had geen success.
De Turkse opiatenfabriek begon te produceren in 1982. Door een probleem met de kwaliteit
en de behoefte aan thebaine, dat niet in Turks CPS voorkwam, waren de verkopen veel lager
dan voorzien en aangezien de productie niet werd aangepast liep de voorraad snel op, tot
meer dan 80 ton morfine in 1986. De prijs op de wereldmarkt bleef laag omdat Turkije tegen
extreem lage prijzen aanbood. Pas vanaf 1987 werd Turkish CPS in aanzienlijke
hoeveelheden naar de USA verkocht.
Door het aanbod van goedkope CPS uit Turkije en ook uit Australië, bleef de prijs van
codeïne onder druk. De prijs van codeïnefosfaat welke in 1981 in de open wereldmarkt USD
350 per kg bedroeg zonk tot ca USD 200 gedurende 1987-1989. Het waren moeilijke jaren
voor allen in de opiatenindustrie, speciaal voor VPF die niet de beschikking had over de
grondstof tegen een voldoend lage prijs. VPF probeerde hierin op diverse manieren
verandering te brengen: door het gebruik van locaal verbouwde papavers van een speciaal ras
als grondstof, door het importeren van bolkaf uit Polen en door een poging om tot een
samenwerking te komen met Tasmanian Alkaloids, maar alles zonder blijvend resultaat. Deze
negatieve uitkomsten leidden uiteindelijk tot het sluiten van de extractiebedrijf te Apeldoorn
in 1988. Diosynth bleef nog codeïne maken uit aangekochte CPS/morfine, maar ondanks het
aantrekken van de codeïne prijs vanaf 1990 bleek dat ook dat geen economische optie en in
1993 werd de productie stilgelegd en werd een contract aangegaan met Macfarlan waarbij
deze onderneming Diosynth’s leveringsverplichtingen overnam. Dit was het einde van bijna
70 jaar codeïne fabricage in Nederland.
De enige morfinederivaten welke Diosynth bleef maken waren nal-compounds zoals
naloxone en naltrexone, welke opiaatantagonisten zijn en niet vallen onder de bepalingen van
de verdovende middelen wetgeving. Diosynth had een eigen, gepatenteerd, process
ontwikkeld voor het maken van deze stoffen uit morfine. Deze productie werd in 2005 om
onbekende redenen gestaakt.
488
Deel II – Ramingen en Modellen
Kwantitatieve informatie over de productie van cocaïne vóór 1930 is schaars. Voor een goed
begrip van de industrie en de plaats welke de NCF daarin innam is het belangrijk te weten, op
zijn minst bij benadering, hoeveel cocaïne jaarlijks was geproduceerd. De methode gebruikt
in het proefschrift om schattingen te maken van deze hoeveelheden is door de jaarlijks in- en
uitgevoerde hoeveelheden van de grondstoffen, waar wel statististische gegevens van bekend
zijn, te vermenigvuldigen met opbrengst-factoren, de hoeveelheden cocaïne welke onder
fabrieksomstandigheden geproduceerd kunnen worden per gewichtseenheid van elk der
grondstoffen.
Voor elke grondstof: Peru-coca, Java-coca en ruwe cocaïne uit Peru werden import en
export statistieken verzameld en gechecked voor verenigbaarheid. Voor Peru-coca bleken de
statistieken over zekere perioden discrepancies te vertonen. Voor een verdere analyse werd
de Goods-In-Transit (GIT) methode ontwikkeld (Appendix 3) waarmee aannemelijk gemaakt
kon worden dat de schattingen van Spillane inzake imports in de USA te hoog zijn.
Voor een andere periode werd aangetoond dat de Duitse importstatistieken zeer
waarschijnlijk onjuist zijn. Door analyse van de grafiek van de export van Peru-coca naar
andere landen dan de USA tegen de tijd, werd gevonden dat deze geinterpreteerd kan worden
als een rechte lijn die exporten naar Europa voorstelt met daarop gesuperponeerd exporten
naar Chili en correcties voor de importen van Java-coca in de USA.
Een gedeelte van het cocablad geëxporteerd vanuit Peru was bestemd voor de productie van
Coca-cola, Vin Mariani en andere dranken. Om de hoeveelheid cocablad dat gebruikt werd
om cocaïne te maken was het nodig om de hoeveelheid bestemd voor de dranken daarvan af
te trekken. Schattingen van de hoeveelheid cocablad gebruikt van de bereiding van Coca-cola
werden gemaakt op basis van Coca-cola verkoop statistieken. De waarden daarvan leverden
dan weer ramingen op van de hoeveelheden gebruikt voor andere dranken. Deze schattingen
zijn vrij ruw en de onzekerheid van de berekende waarden is derhalve vrij groot. Het kon
echter worden aangetoond dat vanwege de relatieve kleinheid van de hoeveelheden cocablad
gebruikt voor dranken, de naukeurigheid van de uiteindelijke schatting van de gefabriceerde
hoeveeheden cocaïne slechts in geringe mate werd beïnvloed.
Er is geen documentatie beschikbaar van de hoeveelheden cocaïne gefabriceerd door de NCF
gedurende de periode 1900-1924. Daarom werd een methode ontwikkeld om schattingen te
maken van de geproduceerd hoeveelheden over de periode 1902 tot 1930. Het principe van
die methode was dat de verkochte hoeveelheden, te samen met de gemiddelde prijs,
fabricagekosten en overheads de winst bepalen van de onderneming. Voldoende gegevens
waren bekend om de verkochte hoeveelheden te kunnen ramen op basis van de beschikbare
financiele informatie.
De nauwkeurigheid van bovenomschreven ramingen werd geschat door de variantie daarvan
te berekenen uit die van de onderliggende parameters welke in sommige gevallen door
middel van educated guesses waren bepaald. Dit introduceert een subjectief element in de
berekeningen en roept daarbij de vraag op aangaande de correctheid van de statistische
berekeningen in strikt mathematische zin. Het is echter de mening van de auteur dat de
berekende betrouwbaarheidsintervallen goede indicaties zijn voor de nauwkeurigheid van de
schattingen, er van uitgaand dat de gebruikte modellen correct zijn.
Het trekken van conclusies uit historische data door middel van statistische methoden is
bekend als cliometrics of historiometrics. Niet alle historici zijn voorstanders van het gebruik
van deze methoden; de stellingname van voor- en tegenstanders zijn duidelijk uiteengezet in
489
het boekje van Fogel en Elton, Which Road to the Past? (1983). De auteur behoort tot de
voorstanders en is van mening dat de toepassing van cliometrische methoden in bepaalde
gevallen kan leiden tot inzicht in historische situaties niet bereikbaar met de traditionele
methoden. De berekeningen in Deel II zijn een voorbeeld daarvan.
De waarde van de resultaten van de berekeningen hangt af van de geschiktheid van
het mathematisch model, de kwaliteit van de gebruikte data en hoe de statistische methoden
zijn aangewend. Algemene regels zijn moeilijk te geven; de keuze van het model volgt uit de
mening van de historicus verantwoordelijk voor de studie, de gebruikte data zijn eenmalig
(kunnen niet herhaald worden) en vaak gering in aantal, en de toepassing van zekere
statistische berekeningen kan vanuit een strikt mathematisch standpunt bezien aan enige
twijfel onderhevig zijn. Maar de waarde van de berekeningen is gelegen in het demonstreren
dat geen geloofwaardige fout in de als input gebruikte waarden, de nauwkeurigheid van het
berekende eindantwoord onaanvaardbaar zal maken.
Deel III - Appendices
Appendix 1 beschrijft de relaties tussen de families van Hengst en Huygen de Raat op Java
gedurende de 19e en het begin van de 20e eeuw. Johannes van Hengst was de eigenaar van de
‘Soekamadjoe, de plantage waar in 1890 Java-coca voor het eerst op grote schaal verbouwd
werd. Hij was gehuwd met Jenny van Huygen de Raat, een dochter van de zeer gefortuneerde
Willem Karel Eduard Huygen de Raat. J. van Hengst werd de grootste aandeelhouder van de
NCF bij de oprichting in 1900. Verschillende andere familieleden waren eveneens betrokken
bij de cocateelt op Java, Soekamadjoe en de NCF. Antoine Massink, een zwager van J. van
Hengst, had als administrateur-titulair bij ‘s Lands Plantentuin te Buitenzorg kennis van de
experimentele kweek aldaar en Jan Hendrik de Groot, zwager van W.K.E. Huygen de Raat,
was commissaris bij de NCF in 1908.
Appendix 2 heeft betrekking op een aantal ongunstige uitlatingen over de NCF voorkomend
in publicaties van Ger Harmsen, Dirk Kolf en Marcel de Kort, Jeanette Groenendaal en
Conny Braam. Die uitlatingen worden van onjuist tot kwaadwillend gekwalificeerd. Ze
berusten op bevooroordeelde interpretaties van situaties en gegevens. Al deze publicaties
hebben gemeen dat NCF beschouwd wordt als een onderneming welke, onterecht, zeer grote
winst maakte door het fabriceren en verkopen van cocaïne.
Harmsen’s kritiek is gebaseerd op zijn (onterechte) mening dat de NCF grote winst
maakte terwijl de gezondheid van de arbeiders in gevaar werd gebracht door deze bloot te
stellen aan zeer schadelijke dampen (“een menseleven telde hier […] niet”).
Kolf en de Kort’s uitlatingen zijn minder direct, ze berusten meer op insinuaties. Zij
spreken (volslagen ten onrechte) van: “Tot in de jaren dertig was het vooral Nederland dat de
wereld van het geestverruimende middel [cocaïne] voorzag” en “De trots waarmee aan het
begin van de eeuw werd uitgeroepen dat Nederland de grootste en beste cocaïne producent ter
wereld was kon in 1975 maar beter vergeten worden”. Zij komen ook met de totaal
ongefundeerde bewering dat NCF in 1941 amphetamine geproduceerd zou hebben, volgens
een later interview met de Kort: vermoedelijk voor Duitse soldaten.
Groenendaal’s video documentaire kan niet serieus genomen worden.
Braam gaat het verst met haar beschuldigingen. In haar boek, De handelsreiziger van de
Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek, hetwelk gepresenteerd wordt als zijnde gebaseerd op ware
feiten en research, wordt gesteld dat honderduizenden Britse en Duitse soldaten, opgehitst
door NCF cocaïne, vechtmachines werden welke, als ze overleefden, tenslotte verslaafd
waren. Deze beweringen werden in daaropvolgende TV- en radio-interviews herhaald en
490
aangevuld met uit de lucht gegrepen getallen voor zeer grote hoeveelheden cocaïne welke
door de NCF geproduceerd zouden zijn. Braam kwalificeert leveringen van de NCF
gedurende de Eerste Wereldoorlog als: “een smerig stuk Nederlandse geschiedenis [welke is]
helemaal weggewerkt uit de geschiedenisboeken”. Er geen enkele feitenlijke basis voor
Braam’s beweringen. In het boek en de daaropvolgende interviews worden de reputatie van
de NCF, de Koloniale Bank en hun bestuurders en employé’s volslagen ongegrond door het
slijk gehaald.
Appendix 3 handelt over de ontwikkeling en toepassing van de Goods-in-Transit (goederen in
transito) methode welke gebruikt wordt om te beoordelen of in- en uitvoer statistieken
verenigbaar zijn.
Deel IV – Source Data
Deel IV omvat tabellen waarin de verzamelde kwantitative gegevens over Peru-coca, ruwe
cocaïne uit Peru, Java-coca, opiaten en financiële waarden worden gepresenteerd op
jaarbasis. Voor de samenstelling daarvan werd een groot aantal bronnen gebruikt.
Waarden van verschillende bronnen zijn afzonderlijk vermeld en in een aantal gevallen wordt
een kolom met een keuze daaruit opgenomen. Data in niet-metrische eenheden worden als
zodanig en ook omgerekend in metrische eenheden opgenomen. Financiële waarden zijn
vermeld in de oorspronkelijke munteenheid en ook omgerekend in Nederlandse guldens. In
een aantal gevallen zijn ook gemiddelden, totalen, verschillen en ratio’s berekend door de
auteur en in afzonderlijke kolommen opgenomen.
Voor de jaren vanaf 1930 zijn de tabellen over opiaten grotendeels gebaseerd op Statistics on
Narcotics Drugs, gepubliceerd door de PCOB en de INCB. De financiële tabellen met
betrekking tot de balansen en verlies- en winstrekeningen van NCF (1950-1960) en VPF
(1948-1963) zijn door de auteur geconstrueerd op basis van de jaarverslagen van de
ondernemigen. De getallen zijn afgerond tot de naaste duizend Nederlandse guldens en zo
gearrangeerd dat ze een vergelijking van de resultaten van NCF en VPF op betrekkelijk
eenvoudige wijze mogelijk maken.
491
CURRICULUM VITAE
Hans Harold Bosman
Date and place of Birth
13 October 1930, Bloemendaal, the Netherlands
Education
Kennemer Lyceum, Overveen, from 1942
Diploma HBS-B 1948
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, from 1948
Faculty Wis- en Natuurkunde (Natural Sciences and Mathematics)
Candidaats Examination (e) (Chemistry and Physics) 1953
Doctoraal Examination (Major: Organic Chemistry) 1957
Military Service Royal Dutch Artillery 1957-1959 (final rank First Lieutenant)
Employment History
Laboratorium voor Scheikundig Onderzoek “Haarlem”,
Part time employment; synthesis of organic compounds 1953-1957
Heineken Breweries, Rotterdam,
Operations Manager (trainee) 1959-1960
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek N.V., Amsterdam,
Chief Chemist, later Operations Manager 1960-1964
Verenigde Pharmaceutische Fabrieken N.V., Apeldoorn,
Operations Manager and Chief Chemist, later Deputy General Manager
1964-1973
Les Aerosols Français S.A., Villemeux-sur Eure, France
Président-directeur général 1971-1972
Part time function for Akzo
Diosynth B.V., Oss.
Manager Business Development, 1973-1977
Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
General Manager Chemical Operations 1977-1982
Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd, Westbury, Tasmania, Australia
General Manager 1977-1982, Managing Director 1982-1996
Additional functions within Johnson and Johnson:
Extal Pty Ltd, Westbury, Tasmania, Australia
Managing Director 1982-1989
Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd. Sydney, Australia
Director 1983-1996
492
Johnson & Johnson Retirement Benfits Plan (Australia)
Director 1989-1996
Retired 1996
Activities in Retirement
From 1996: Pursuing hobbies such as playing music, landscaping own coastal
property in Tasmania, making outdoor sculptures. Managing own
Superannuation Fund. Reading widely on subjects of interest such as alkaloid
chemistry, botany and ethics. Collecting information on the history of the
alkaloid industry in general and on the opiate and cocaine industries in the
Netherlands in particular.
From 2006: Researching and writing this dissertation under the guidance of
professor Ernst Homburg, Maastricht University.
Patent and publications
AKZONA, ‘3-Alkoxy-14-acyloxydihydromorphinone Derivatives’, Inventors:
W.R. Buckett and H.H. Bosman, US Patent 3,828,050 (1974) Aug 6.
AGASI, C.J., and H.H. BOSMAN, ‘Determination of Thebaine in Papaver bracteatum’,
United Nations Secretariat; ST/SOA/SER.J/16 (1974) Nov 27.
BEYERMAN, H.C., T.S. LIE and L. MAAT (TH Delft), and
A convenient synthesis of codeine and morphine’, Receuil des Travaux
BEYERMAN, H.C., J. VAN BERKEL, T.S. LIE, L. MAAT and J.C.M. WESSELS (TH Delft) and
‘Synthesis of racemic and optically active codeine and morphine via N-formylnordihydrothebainones’, Receuil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas 97 (1978)
127-130.
493
GENERAL LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Commercial Companies
KB
KZO
NCF
VPF
Koloniale Bank
Koninklijke Zwanenberg Organon
Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek
Verenigde Pharmaceutische Fabrieken
Bodies involves in Narcotics Control
CND
DEA
DND
INCB
LoN
OAC
PCOB
UN
Commission on Narcotic Drugs (UN)
Drug Enforcement Administration (USA)
Division of Narcotic Drugs (UN)
International Narcotics Control Board (UN)
League of Nations
Opium Advisory Committee (LoN)
Permanent Central Opium Board (LoN)
United Nations
Opium alkaloids and Opiate Raw Materials
ACA
AMA
ATA
CPS
EPC
NMR
TM
Anhydrous Codeine Alkaloid
Anhydrous Morphine Alkaloid
Anhydrous Thebaine Alkaloid
Concentrate of Poppy Straw
Extractum Papaveris Crudum (old name for CPS)
Narcotic Raw Material
Technical Morphine
Miscellaneous
CHF
DEM
NLG
USD
Swiss Francs
German Marks
Dutch Guilders
US Dollars
BCI
CPV
HHB
TMO
Bedrijfsgroep Chemische Industrie (the Netherlands)
Coca Producenten Vereniging (Coca Producers Association)
Hans Harold Bosman (the author)
Toprak Mahsulleri Ofici (Turkish Grain Board)
HCl
Hydrochloride (alkaloid salt)
CSE Chemicals, Solvents and Energy (used in alkaloid manufacture)
FN&C Foreign Navigation and Commerce (annual publication)
lb
oz
hkg
avoirdupois pound (0.4536 kg)
avoirdupois ounce (28.35 g)
half kg (500 g)
494
PART IV
SOURCE DATA
495
SOURCE DATA
INDEX
PERU (TOTAL) COCA LEAF (PCL)
PCL 1 Export Peru Coca Leaf (1890-1933)
PCL 2 Import Coca Leaf into the USA – 1 (1900-1933)
FC&N Data compared with Spillane’s Graphs
Spillane’s Graphs Digitized
Summary Table Imports USA by Fiscal and Calendar Year
PCL 5 Import Coca Leaf into Hamburg (1890-1913)
from Gehe’s Handelsbericht
PCL 6 Peru Coca Leaf Trade with Germany (1904-1913)
PCL 7 Import of Coca Leaf into Hamburg (1886-99 and 1910-13)
PCL 8 US Prices Peru Coca Leaf (1894-1916)
498-9
500
501
502-3
504
505
506
507
PERU CRUDE COCAINE (PCC)
PCC 1 Export Crude Cocaine from Peru (1888-1933)
PCC 2 Import Cocaine into the USA - 1 (1891-1923)
PCC 3 Import Cocaine into the USA - 2 Summary Table
Imports by Fiscal and Calendar Year (1901-1931)
PCC 4 Import Crude Cocaine from Peru into Hamburg (1892-1913)
PCC 5 German Prices for Crude Cocaine (1892-1913)
508
509
510
511
512
JAVA COCA LEAF (JCL)
JCL 1 Koloniale Bank. Java Coca Sold in Consignment (1882-1931)
JCL 2 Export Coca Leaf from Java (1891-1939)
JCL 3 Export Coca Leaf from Java by Country (1908-1938)
JCL 4 Export Coca Leaf from the Netherlands (1922-1932)
JCL 5 Sales of Java Coca Amsterdam (1905-1929)
Statistics P. Brusse
JCL 6 Sales of Java Coca in the Netherlands (1911-1932)
Conversion Number of Bales into Tonnes – Stocks at Year End
496
513
514-6
517
518
519
520
COCAINE (COC)
COC 1 League of Nations (PCOB) Statistics on the
Manufacture of Cocaine World-wide (1920-1939)
COC 2 Cocaine Manufacture in the Netherlands (1921-1939)
COC 3 US Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1892-1916)
COC 4 German Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1898-1906)
COC 5 German Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1907-1913)
COC 6 Crude Cocaine Manufacture in the Netherlands (1926-1938)
521
522
523
524
525
556
OPIATES (OPI)
OPI 1 Manufacture of Morphine Worldwide by Raw Material (1946-1970)
OPI 2 Manufacture of Morphine by Country (1929-1939)
OPI 3 Morphine and Codeine - Manufacture, Raw Material Usage and
Consumption Worldwide (1946-1960)
OPI 4 Poppy Straw purchased during 1936-1956 for Extraction in Germany
OPI 5 Extraction of Poppy Straw in Germany, Hungary France and
the Netherlands (1946-1960)
OPI 6 Codeine Manufacture by Country (1946-1969)
OPI 7 Codeine Manufacture by Country (1981-1995)
OPI 8 Morphine (CPS and Technical Morphine) Export and Import
the Netherlands (1981-2009)
OPI 9 Codeine Phosphate Price and Raw material (Opium) Cost (1962-2004)
OPI 10 Opiate Consumption met by Imports and Production available for
Export 1964-1980
527-8
539
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
FINANCE (FIN)
FIN 1 NCF Dividend Payments (1902-1953)
FIN 2 Exchange Rates US Dollar (USD), Dutch Guilder (NLG)
and German Mark (DEM) (1876-1994)
FIN 3 NCF Cost Extraction Poppy Straw (1943-1944)
FIN 4 NCF Balance Sheets 1950-1960 (Re-arranged)
FIN 5 NCF Profit & Loss Account 1950-1960 (Re-arranged)
FIN 6 NCF Investments and Depreciation 1950-1960
FIN 7 VPF Balance Sheets 1948-1955 (Re-arranged)
FIN 8 VPF Balance Sheets 1956-1963 (Re-arranged)
FIN 9 VPF Profit & Loss Account 1948-1955 (Re-arranged)
FIN 10 VPF Profit & Loss Account 1956-1963 (Re-arranged)
FIN 11 VPF Investments and Depreciation 1948-1963
497
538-9
540
541-2
543-4
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
Source Data
Export Peru Coca Leaf (1890-1933) Sources and Notes
PCL 1A
Columns
[1], [2] D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ Drug and Alcohol Dependence 49 [2] (1998) 145-156
GBFO = Great Britain Foreign Office; Peru = Official Statistics Peru; London = The Board of Trade Journal
[2]
1906, Musto includes a second figure of 7,710,290 lbs (3,224 mt) marked "total" in his table 2
[3]
Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsberichte, April (1890) 19, April (1897) 57
[4]
US Department of State, Commercial Relations of the US with foreign countries during the year 1902, 107
[5]
W. R. Tromp de Haas, ‘De Coca-Cultuur’, Teysmannia 14 (1903) 296-297
[6]
Korte Berichten van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel [12] (1911) 157
[7]
Abrahamson, ‘Het Coca Vraagstuk’ Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw in Nederlandsch-Indië 85 (1912)
142
[8]
A.W.K. de Jong, Teysmannia (1912) 674 mentions "exported in 1911 to American and European ports"
[9]
Handelsberichten (Ministerie van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel, The Hague) (1914) 327, includes a
specification.
[10]
T. Walger, ‘Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftlische Bedeutung’
Dissertation University of Giessen (Berlin 1917) 68-69.
On p 71 Walger mentions an export of 149 metric tonnes to Chile for 1911
[11]
The amount appearing for 1908 is calculated as difference between the total for 1904-1908 (Paz Soldán),
and the total for 1904-1907.
C.E. Paz Soldán “La Coca Peruana” (Lima 1936). Figure 4 in P. Gootenberg, Coca and Cocaine in
(commodity) chains: Their Licit, Global Rise and Demise, 1860-1950 (Stony Brook 2002)
498
7
129
378
494
407
312
566
610
933
1,026
911
1,490
1,211
654
496
496
768
770
393
478
393
266
307
167
386
453
88
124
190
170
217
204
143
150
101
192
170
97
86
Peru
Peru
GBFO
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
London
Peru
GBFO
Peru
GBFO
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Musto's
Selection
1998
[2]
Musto's
Source
1998
[1]
Year
of
Export
91
129
388
391
372
Gehe
1890, 1897
[3]
497
490
312
566
610
US
Dpt of State
1902
[4]
770
393
Handelsberichten
1914
[9]
Walger
1917
[10]
494
407
312
499
496
654
1,341
602
901
1,315
2,843
494
407
312
566
610
372
602
de Jong
1912
[8]
372
1,043
Abrahamson
1912
[7]
124
933
1,043
911
1,341
1,211
654
Korte
Berichten
1911
[6]
124
388
Tromp
de Haas
1903
[5]
Export Coca Leaf from Peru (1890-1933)
494
407
312
566
610
933
1,026
911
1,490
1,211
654
404
496
496
768
770
393
478
393
266
307
167
386
453
88
124
190
170
217
204
143
150
101
192
170
97
86
91
129
388
391
372
Musto's
Selection
Augmented
[11]
Paz Soldán
See Note
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Augmentation
Source
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Year
of
Export
tonnes
Source Data
Export Peru Coca Leaf (1890-1933) tonnes
The figure in blue is an estimate by the author
PCL 1
Source Data
PCL 2
Import Coca Leaf into the USA – 1 (1900-1933)
FC&N Data compared with Spillane’s Graphs
Foreign Commerce and Navigation
Year
Quantity
lbs
[1]
Quantity
lbs 000
[2]
Fiscal
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908.09
Value
USD
[3]
Price
USD/lb
[4]
483
-249,698
323,405
342,518
Spillane
Duty
Rate
[5]
USD
[6]
% ad val.
[7]
Quantity
lbs 000
[8]
Ratio
Sp / FC&N
[9]
Year
Graph
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
1,195
1,770
2,000
1,356
1,885
2,644
1,517
644
1,103
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1906
1907
1908
1909
2,650,141
1,515,616
633,121
1,100,649
2,650
1,516
633
1,101
488,545
212,424
76,109
126,881
0.184
0.140
0.120
0.115
Free
Free
Free
Free
117,134
591,412
708,546
117
591
709
16,947
81,507
98,454
0.145
0.138
0.139
Free
5c/lb
mixed
29,571
29,571
36.3
30.0
713
1.01
1910
1,226,772
1,179,540
1,175,780
1,227
1,180
1,176
234,162
201,950
139,035
0.191
0.171
0.118
5c/lb
5c/lb
5c/lb
61,339
58,977
58,789
26.2
29.2
42.3
1,218
1,172
1,172
0.99
0.99
1.00
1911
1912
1913
202,062
509,502
711,564
202
510
712
30,204
61,180
91,384
0.149
0.120
0.128
5c/lb
10c/lb
mixed
10,103
50,950
61,053
33.4
83.3
66.8
713
1.00
1914
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
1,048,312
947,537
634,932
1,059,484
1,048
948
635
1,059
98,870
106,627
90,131
179,312
0.094
0.113
0.142
0.169
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
104,831
94,754
63,493
105,848
106.0
88.9
70.4
59.0
1,034
943
644
1,057
0.99
0.99
1.01
1.00
1915
1916
1917
1918
Calendar
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1,346,013
795,074
634,356
104,129
147,256
345,758
129,879
158,736
291,698
286,964
211,371
122,242
1,346
795
634
104
147
346
130
159
292
287
211
122
219,153
167,957
161,643
15,320
45,360
84,854
21,975
38,287
31,636
44,523
40,198
24,123
0.163
0.211
0.255
0.147
0.308
0.245
0.169
0.241
0.108
0.155
0.190
0.197
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
134,601
79,507
63,436
10,413
14,726
34,576
12,988
15,874
29,170
28,696
21,137
12,224
61.4
47.3
39.2
68.0
32.5
40.7
59.1
41.5
92.2
64.5
52.6
50.7
1,011
897
322
46
322
230
92
253
276
230
253
1.27
1.41
3.09
0.31
0.93
1.77
0.58
0.87
0.96
1.09
2.07
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930/1
1930/2
1930 total
184,259
14,960
199,219
184
15
199
36,369
2,992
39,361
0.197
0.200
0.198
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
18,426
1,496
19,922
50.7
50.0
50.6
230
1.15
1930
1931
1932
1933
490,755
224,486
190,370
491
224
190
93,151
50,707
32,837
0.190
0.226
0.172
10c/lb
10c/lb
10c/lb
49,076
22,449
19,037
52.7
44.3
58.0
368
n/a
n/a
0.75
1931
1909/10/1
1909/10/2
1909/10 total
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14/1
1913/14/2
1913/14 total
Sources
US Department of Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States (Annual Statistics)
Volumes upto and including 1917/18 cover fiscal years ending June 30th, volumes from 1918 onwards cover calendar years.
J.F. Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The legal use and distribution of Cocaine in the United States, 1880-1920
Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University (1994)
Columns
[1], [3] to [7]
[2]
[8]
[9]
Data taken from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States
[2] = [1] / 1000
Column [5] from Table UCL 2
[9] = [8] / [2]
500
New York
Graph
Year
(Spillane)
PCL 3
Import Peru Coca Leaf into the USA – 2 (1892-1931)
Spillane’s Graphs Digitized
Source Data
Fiscal
Year
graph
measured
mm
[1]
calculated
lbs 000
[2]
USA
calculated
kg 000
[3]
graph
measured
mm
[4]
calculated
lbs 000
[5]
calculated
kg 000
[6]
Ratio
USA / NY
Fiscal
Year
Graph
Year
(Spillane)
[7]
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1891/92
1892/93
1893/94
1894/95
1895/96
1896/97
1897/98
1898/99
1899'00
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
10
26
13
19
33
38
19
14
43
47
70
78
54
99
128
333
167
244
423
487
244
179
551
603
897
1,000
692
1,269
58
151
76
110
192
221
110
81
250
273
407
454
314
576
11
29
14
21
36
42
21
15
47
52
77
87
59
82
253
667
322
483
828
966
483
345
1,080
1,195
1,770
2,000
1,356
1,885
115
302
146
219
375
438
219
156
490
542
803
907
615
855
1.97
2.00
1.93
1.98
1.96
1.98
1.98
1.92
1.96
1.98
1.97
2.00
1.96
1.49
1891/92
1892/93
1893/94
1894/95
1895/96
1896/97
1897/98
1898/99
1899'00
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908.09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
89
30
31
46
30
38
42
44
32
39
47
1,141
385
397
590
385
487
538
564
410
500
603
518
174
180
268
174
221
244
256
186
227
273
115
66
28
48
31
53
51
51
31
45
41
28
46
2,644
1,517
644
1,103
713
1,218
1,172
1,172
713
1,034
943
644
1,057
1,199
688
292
501
323
553
532
532
323
469
428
292
480
2.32
3.94
1.62
1.87
1.85
2.50
2.18
2.08
1.74
2.07
1.56
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908.09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
44
39
14
2
14
10
4
11
12
10
11
10
16
1,011
897
322
46
322
230
92
253
276
230
253
230
368
459
407
146
21
146
104
42
115
125
104
115
104
167
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Source
Column
J.F Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The legal use and distribution of Cocaine in the United States, 1880-1920.
Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University (1994)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Measured column height in figure 3.2, page 162; 78 mm representing 1 million pounds
[2] = [1] / 0.78 * 10
[3] = [2] * 0.4536
Measured column height in figure 3.3, page 163; 87 mm representing 2 million pounds
[5] = [4] / 0.87 * 20
[6] = [5] * 0.4536
[7] = [5] / [2] For the years 1904/05 to 1915/16, inclusive, the ratio of the totals of
columns [5] and [2] is 14,759 kg / 7,269 kg = 2.03. This provides the basis for
Spillane's extrapolation whereby he calculates the imports USA as imports
New York times 2.00 for the years 1892/93 to 1903/04.
501
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Source Data
Sources and Notes
PCL 4A
Column
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Column [2] Table 13.1
[2] = [1] * 0.4536
Column [6] Table 13.2
E. Reens, La Coca de Java, Monographie historique, botanique et pharmacologique,
Dissertation University of Paris (Lons-le-Saunier 1919) 18
Dissertation University of Giessen (Berlin 1917) 6.
Cultures 2nd Ed [3] (Amsterdam 1919) 299,
Calculated approximate quantity as the average of two consecutive fiscal years column [1],
[7] = [6] * 0.4536.
Reens, La coca de Java. The same data are reported in Handelsberichten (Ministerie van Landbouw,
Nijverheid en Handel, The Hague) (1914), 327 (for 1912/13) and in de Jong, Teysmannia (1912) 674
(for 1911) as export to Peru and the USA
US Department of Treasury, Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs in the year 1960,Table 10
Author's selection: 1905 Splillane col [9] and de Jong col [10]; 1906-1933 - FC & N col [8]
1910-1923, Bües, La coca del Peru; 1925-1933, Pilli, Coca Industry, from Gootenberg, Andean Cocaine
(North Carolina 2008) 158
Table 16.3
502
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
lbs 000
[1]
2,650
1,516
633
1,101
709
1,227
1,180
1,176
712
1,048
948
635
1,059
Fiscal
Year of
Import
columns
[1] to [6]
1891/92
1892/93
1893/94
1894/95
1895/96
1896/97
1897/98
1898/99
1899'00
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908/09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
1,202
687
287
499
321
556
535
533
323
476
430
288
480
[2]
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
kg 000
115
302
146
219
375
438
219
156
490
542
803
907
615
855
1,199
688
292
501
323
553
532
532
323
469
428
292
480
[3]
Import
USA
Total
Spillane
kg 000
Fiscal Years
849
1,183
676
282
491
316
548
[4]
Import
New York
ex Peru
Reens
kg 000
1,183
676
282
491
316
548
[5]
Import
New York
ex Peru
Walger
kg 000
503
475
429
849
1,183
676
282
491
316
548
534
[6]
Import
New York
ex Peru
de Jong
kg 000
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
[7] to [13]
2,083
1,074
867
905
968
1,203
1,178
944
880
998
792
847
1,346
795
634
104
147
346
130
159
292
287
211
122
199
491
224
190
[7]
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
lbs 000
945
487
393
410
439
546
534
428
399
453
359
384
611
361
288
47
67
157
59
72
132
130
96
55
90
223
102
86
[8]
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
kg 000
209
224
182
297
407
328
188
323
516
673
855
761
735
1,027
[9]
Import
USA
Total
Spillane
kg 000
452
1,016
930
479
387
404
432
541
[10]
Import
New York
ex Peru
de Jong
kg 000
455
424
144
[11]
Import
New York
ex Peru
Reens
kg 000
72
133
115
111
62
90
221
102
82
[12]
Import
USA
Total
Treasury
kg 000
Calendar Years (approximate values)
Summary Table Imports by Fiscal and by Calendar Year (1892-1933)
Calendar
Year of
Import
columns
Import Coca Leaf into the USA - 3
1,027
945
487
393
410
439
546
534
428
399
453
359
384
611
361
288
47
67
157
59
72
132
130
96
55
90
223
102
86
[13]
Import
USA
Author's
Selection
kg 000
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
[14] to [15]
Calendar
Year of
Export
columns
277
467
423
144
330
274
99
153
135
176
198
10
44
94
0
42
61
84
56
52
68
166
68
59
[14]
Export
from Peru
to the USA
Bües/Pilli
kg 000
456
424
144
[15]
Export
from Peru
to the USA
Table 16.3
kg 000
Source Data
The figures in blue represent the author’s choice
PCL 4
Source Data
PCL 5
Import Coca Leaf into Hamburg (1890-1913)
from Gehe’s Handelsbericht
Number of Bales
Year
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
Total
Import
G bales
[1]
Gehe
Reference
Year Page
2,910
745
2,113
1,732
1,474
2,618
5,000
1,823
1,334
2,156
1,852
3,500
1,870
2,000
92A 17
93A 14
94A 16
95A 17
95A 17
96A 19
97 20
98 19
99 26
00 23
01 19
02 31
03 29
04 32
06 28
06 28
07 26
08 33
09 68
10 66
11 76
12 65
13 76
14 75
400
850
890
710
Net
Import
G*
[2]
1,500
2,618
1,188
1,133
Gehe
Reference
Year Page
96A 53
98 19
98A 65
99A 65
In
Transit
tr = G-G*
[3]
1,118
3,000
635
201
>50%
950
1,400
Tonnes
Gehe
Reference
Year Page
97 20
02 31
03 29
04 32
Source Gehe & Co., Handelsbericht (1885-1914)
Column
[5]
43
60
35
15
60
51
70
Total
Import
G tonnes
[5]
169
43
123
100
85
152
290
106
77
125
107
203
108
116
23
49
52
41
The figures in blue are estimates by the author
[3]
[4]
In Transit
% of Total
(G-G*)/G
[4]
[3] = [1] - [2] (if no reference)
[4] = [3]/[1]*100 (for 1901: "ein grosser Theil")
Average of all values: 48%
[5] = [1]*0.058 (average bag weight in tonnes)
The Average bag weight was calculated using quantities of
cocaine manufactured from leaf during 1890-1903
estimated by Spillane, Cocaine (2000) 53.
504
Source Data
Year of
Import/
Export
Exported
to
Hamburg
[1]
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
PCL 6
Peru Coca Leaf Trade with Germany (1904-1913) tonnes
n/a
619
578
355
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
76
49
Imported
into
Hamburg
Reens
[2]
Imported
into
Hamburg
Walger
[3]
Imported
into
Hamburg
de Jong
[4]
n/a
619
578
355
n/a
n/a
20
42
n/a
n/a
n/a
619
578
355
237
47
20
43
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,587
619
355
n/a
n/a
20
43
40
36
Exported
to
Germany
Selection HHB
[5]
n/a
619
578
355
237
47
20
67
76
49
The figures in blue represent the author’s choice
Sources and Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The figures in this column are reported as exports from Peru. Sources: for 1905-1907, Korte
Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel, (Batavia, Dutch East Indies) (1911) 157 and
Handelsberichten (Ministerie van Landbouw , Nijverheid en Handel, The Hague) (1911) 147; for
1911, De Jong, Teysmannia (1912) 674; for 1912-1913, Handelsberichten (The Hague) (1914) 327.
E. Reens, La Coca de Java. Monographie historique, botanique et pharmacologique. Dissertation
University of Paris (1919) 18. Thedata for imports 1905 and 1906 in Rees' dissertation are at odds
with those reported by Walger and De Jong. The author presumes that the latter figures are correct.
For imports 1905-1910, Reens refers to Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel
(1912) 276 as the source. When checking Korte Berichten the author found that only the number of
bales of Trujillo coca imported into Hamburg in 1910 and 1911 was mentioned. For imports into
Hamburg 1912-1913 Reens refers to Gehe's Handelsbericht, where they could not be traced by the
author..
Dissertation University of Giessen (1917) 69. Walger refers to Verslag van de Commissie tot
Oprichting van het Coca-Syndicaat, Batavia (1912) as the source.
Cultures (1919) 299. No references.
The figures in column [5] were selected by the author (HHB). For the years 1905-1907 and 19121913 the export figures from Handelsberichten [1] were chosen, while for the years 1908-1910 the
import figures from de Jong [4] were taken.
505
Source Data
Import Coca Leaf into Hamburg (1886-99 and 1910-13)
By Provenance, in tonnes / number of bales
Bolivia
Cuzco
Trujillo
Huanuco
Total
Units
1886
1887
22
35
29
0
86
tonnes
17
0
16
0
33
tonnes
1897
1898
1899
1910
1911
1912
1913
0
313
180
0
0
90
0
637
1,754
900
0
0
200
350
230
0
261
400
850
600
360
321
89
511
0
0
0
0
1,188
2,156
1,852
400
850
890
710
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
By Provenance, in per cent.
Bolivia
%
Cuzco
%
Trujillo
%
Huanuco
%
Total
%
1886
1887
1897
1898
1899
26
52
0
15
10
41
0
54
81
49
34
48
19
0
14
0
0
27
4
28
100
100
100
100
100
Average
1886-1899
20
45
23
12
100
1910
1911
1912
1913
0
0
10
0
0
0
22
49
100
100
67
51
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
3
18
80
0
100
Average
1910-1913
Source
The above information on the varieties of coca leaf imported into
Hamburg was sourced from Gehe’s Handelsbericht.
The Bolivian coca was exported via the port of Mollendo
(South Peru)-
506
PCL 7
Source Data
PCL 8
US Prices Peru Coca Leaf (1894-1916)
Year
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
Price
Huanuco
Coca Leaf
US cents / lb
[1]
34
35
28
26
22
20
23
22
23
24
33
32
40
39
35
35
30
30
30
30
30
35
32
32
28
28
26
26
26
26
30
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
30
30
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Price
Huanuco
Coca Leaf
NLG / kg
[2]
1.73
1.32
1.18
1.23
1.56
1.97
2.03
1.78
1.65
1.65
1.84
1.65
1.48
1.43
1.54
1.65
n/a
1.65
1.65
1.65
n/a
n/a
Price
Truxillo
Coca Leaf
US cents / lb
[3]
22
20
20
21
14
13
11
13
14
22
32
20
27
29
25
25
19
19
20
20
18
20
18
18
17
14
14
13
13
13
25
25
35
35
35
33
28
22
24
24
40
40
40
40
Price
Truxillo
Coca Leaf
NLG / kg
[4]
1.10
0.96
0.66
0.74
1.48
1.29
1.48
1.21
1.07
1.04
1.04
0.96
0.77
0.71
1.04
1.65
1.92
1.67
1.26
1.76
2.19
2.19
Source Joseph F. Spillane, Cocaine (2000) 54. Weekly wholesale prices,
taken from the Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter were compiled by Spillane and halfyear averages were plotted in his Figure 3.2. The graph was digitalized
by the author (HHB) and the outcome is presented in columns [1] and [3].
Notes [2] = annual averages of [1]*2.49/45.4 (USD = 2.49 NLG)
[4] = annual averages of [3]*2.49/45.4
507
Source Data
PCC 1
Export Crude Cocaine from Peru (1888-1933) (kg)
Year
of
Export
Musto's
Source
1998
Musto's
Selection
1998
[1]
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Peru
1,730
Peru
Peru
Peru
930
3,215
4,550
London
Peru
Peru
Peru
London
Peru
Unknown
Unknown
GBFO
Peru
GBFO
4,200
4,346
4,500
7,745
10,688
8,268
10,000
9,500
6,778
5,914
6,057
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
5,266
5,524
5,434
2,944
3,267
979
1,353
1,576
1,896
2,967
596
1,637
157
778
192
967
621
1,048
980
625
236
Peru
Peru
Peru
246
420
918
Gehe
1897
[2]
Tromp
de Haas
1903
[3]
Comm.
Rel. USA
1901
[4]
Korte
Berichten Abrahamson
1911, 1914
1912
[5]
[6]
Walger
1917
[7]
Musto's
Selection
Augmented
[8]
Augmentation
Source
1,730
1,730
3,215
4,550
2,357
4,716
1,730
3,212
4,550
2,357
4,716
4,206
4,346
4,500
4,550
2,357
4,716
4,200
4,350
4,500
7,750
10,600
4,206
4,346
4,500
7,750
10,688
7,800
7,527
6,778
5,914
7,800
6,778
7,800
7,527
6,778
5,914
6,057
5,000
5,402
2,944
3,267
5,434
1,730
3,215
4,550
2,357
4,716
4,200
4,346
4,500
7,745
10,688
8,268
7,800
7,527
6,778
5,914
6,057
5,175
5,266
5,524
5,434
2,944
3,267
979
1,353
1,576
1,896
2,967
596
1,637
157
778
192
967
621
1,048
980
625
236
20
246
420
918
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Walger
Walger
Paz Soldán
Paz Soldán
Year
of
Export
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Sources and Notes
Column
[1] D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca’ Drug and Alcohol Dependence 49 [2] (1998) 145-156.
GBFO = Great Britain Foreign Office; Peru = Official Statistics Peru; London = The Board of Trade
Journal.
[2] Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsbericht, April (1897) 57,
[3] W. R. Tromp de Haas, ‘De Coca-Cultuur’, Teysmannia 14 (1903) 296-297.
[4] Commercial relations of the United States with foreign countries for the year 1901, 107 (US Dpt. of
State).
[5] Korte Berichten voor Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel (Batavia) (1911) 157; Handelsberichten,
Ministerie van Landbouw etc.(The Hague) (1914) 326; de Jong, Teysmannia (1912) 674.
[6] Abrahamson, ‘Het Coca Vraagstuk’ Tijdschr. voor Nijverheid en Landbouw in Ned,-Indië 85 (1912)
142.
[7] T. Walger, Die Coca: Ihre Geschichte, geographische Verbreitung und wirtschaftlische Bedeutung,
Dissertation University of Giessen (1917), 70.
[8] Calculated by the author for 1908 as the difference between the total for 1904-1908 (Paz Soldán)
and the total for 1904-1907 (above table column [8]); and for 1930 as the difference between the
total for 1929-1933 (Paz Soldán) and the total for 1931-1933 plus 1929 (above table column [8]).
C.E. Paz Soldán, “La Coca Peruana” (Lima 1936). Figure 4 in P. Gootenberg, Coca and Cocaine in
(commodity) chains: Their Licit, Global Rise and Demise, 1860-1950 (Stony Brook 2002).
508
Source Data
PCC 2
Import Cocaine into the USA - 1 (1891-1923)
Foreign Commerce and Navigation
Quantity
oz
[1]
Year
Quantity
oz 000
[2]
Value
USD
[3]
Price
USD/oz
[4]
Spillane
Rate
USD/oz
[5]
Duty
USD
[6]
Percent
ad valorem
[7]
measured
mm
[8]
Fiscal
1891/92
1892/93
1893/94
1894/95
1895/96
1896/97
1897/98
1898/99
1899'00
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1905/06
1906/07
calculated
oz 000
[9]
Sp - FC&N
oz 000
[10]
Year
25
50
47
34
25
15
22
15
27
34
68
64
47
34
21
30
21
37
Graph
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
176,948
254,704
224,453
74,446
10,391
10,782
37,585
3.00
3.00
2.98
2.17
1.90
1.97
1.44
44,237
63,676
56,113
18,612
2,598
2,696
9,396
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
43
62
55
25
4
4
19
59
85
75
34
5
5
26
1,027
12,086
25
25
3
24
4
33
0
1
1908
1909
1907/08
1908/09
3,792
32,272
4
32
4,108
48,343
1.08
1.50
1909/10/1
1909/10/2
1909/10 total
29,632
24,928
54,560
30
25
55
38,163
42,438
80,601
1.29
1.70
1.48
1.50
mixed
9,541
37,392
46,933
25
88
58
126
55
0
1910
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
4,031
2,004
3,715
4
2
4
8,306
3,499
4,835
2.06
1.75
1.30
1.50
1.50
1.50
6,047
3,006
5,573
73
86
115
3
2
3
4
3
4
0
1
0
1911
1912
1913
1913/14/1
1913/14/2
1913/14 total
3,206
85
3,291
3
0
3
3,995
106
4,101
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.50
2.00
mixed
4,808
171
4,979
120
161
121
2
3
-1
1914
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
179
4,275
19,388
8,597
0
4
19
9
422
5,887
38,627
35,358
2.36
1.38
1.99
4.11
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
358
8,550
38,776
17,194
85
145
100
49
1
3
15
6
1
4
21
8
1
-0
1
-0
1915
1916
1917
1918
Calendar
1918
1919
1920
1921
18,389
12,424
8,642
7,065
18
12
9
7
80,652
29,035
27,324
18,428
4.39
2.34
3.16
2.61
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
36,778
24,848
17,284
14,130
46
86
63
77
15
8
4
21
11
5
8
2
-2
1919
1920
1921
1922/1
1922/2
1922/3
1922 total
5,015
2,403
100
7,518
5
2
0
8
11,514
6,730
238
18,482
2.30
2.80
2.38
2.46
2.00
2.60
2.60
mixed
10,030
6,248
260
16,538
87
93
109
89
4
5
-2
1922
0
238
2.38
2.60
260
109
2
3
3
1923
1923
1924-1931
100
no imports
The figures in blue are calculates by the author
Sources US Department of Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States
Volumes up to and including 1917/18 cover fiscal years ending June 30th,
volumes from 1918 onwards cover calendar years.
J.F. Spillane, Modern Drug, Modern Menace: The legal use and distribution of Cocaine
in the United States, 1880-1920, Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University (1994).
Notes
FC&N Statistics on Cocaine include "cocaine, ecgonine and salts and derivatives of same" (from 1914).
It is assumed that in practice the quantity represented the total of Crude Cocaine
plus (pure) Cocaine HCl
[1] and [3]-[7]
[2]
[4]
[8]
[9] and [10]
Data taken from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States (FC&N).
[2] = [1] / 1000
For 1900/01 to 1906/07 [4] = [9] / [3] / 1000.
For other years the price information is taken/calculated from the FC&N statistics.
Measured column height in Spillane's figure 3.5, page 171; 73 mm representing 100,000 oz.
[9] = [8] / 0.7 [10] = [9] - [2]
509
Source Data
PCC 3
Import Cocaine into the USA - 2
Summary Table
Imports by Fiscal and Calendar Year (1901-1931)
Fiscal Years
Calendar Years (approximate values)
Fiscal
Year of
Import
columns
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
oz
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
kg
Import
USA
Total
Spillane
oz
Import
USA
Total
Spillane
kg
Import
New York
ex Peru
Reens
kg
Import
New York
ex Peru
Walger
kg
Import
New York
ex Peru
de Jong
kg
Calendar
Year of
Import
columns
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
oz
Import
USA
Total
FC&N
kg
Import
USA
Total
Spillane
kg
[1] to [6]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] to [10]
[8]
[9]
[10]
59,000
85,000
75,000
34,000
5,000
5,000
26,000
1,673
2,410
2,126
964
142
142
737
1900/01
1901/02
1902/03
1903/04
1904/05
1905/06
1906/07
1907/08
1908/09
1909/10
1910/11
1911/12
1912/13
1913/14
1914/15
1915/16
1916/17
1917/18
3,792
32,272
54,560
4,031
2,004
3,715
3,291
179
4,275
19,388
8,597
108
915
1,547
114
57
105
93
5
121
550
244
284
136
591
114
968
889
120
591
114
968
889
120
284
136
591
114
968
889
120
60
5
121
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924-1931
2,041
2,268
1,545
553
142
439
422
18,032
43,416
29,296
3,018
2,860
3,503
1,735
2,227
11,832
13,993
18,389
12,424
8,642
7,065
7,518
100
0
Sources and Notes
The figures in blue are calculated by the author
Column
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Table PCC 2 column [1]
[2] = [1] *28.35 / 1000
Table PCC 2 column [9]
[4] = [3] *28.35 / 1000
E. Reens, La coca de Java, dissertation (1919), referring to
Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat, Batavia (1912).
T. Walger, Die Koka, dissertation, (1917), 70, referring to
Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat, Batavia (1912).
A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter "Coca" in K.W. van Gorkom's
Oost-Indische Cultures (1919) 299. No references.
1908 = column [1] (1908/09 +1909/10)/2 etc.
1901 = column [1] (1901/01 +1901/02)/2 etc.
510
511
1,231
831
86
81
99
49
63
335
397
521
352
245
200
213
3
0
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
Year
of
Import
511
1900 A
1899 A
1904
1904
1904
1904
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
2,407
1,067
3,280
4,210
4,595
5,817
5,642
6,443
6,178
5,230
5,143
4,132
3,835
3,717
3,980
2,502
2,405
1898 A
1900 A
1901
1902
1,666
2,470
2,774
Source:
Gehe's
Handelsbericht
Issue
1,898
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Earlier Data
[2]
1,272
1,130
1,370
480
Transit
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Gehe
[3]
1904
1905
1906
1907
Source:
Gehe's
Handelsbericht
Issue
5,189
6,133
6,201
4,552
4,977
4,944
3,980
2,502
2,405
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Reens
[4]
6,201
4,552
4,977
4,944
3,980
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Walger
[5]
Sources and Notes
Gehe & Co., Dresden, Handelsbericht,1893-1914
[1], [2], [3]
E. Reens, La coca de Java , dissertation, 1919
[4]
T. Walger, Die Koka , dissertation, 1917, 70, referring to
[5]
Verslag van de Commissie tot Oprichting van het Coca Syndicaat , Batavia 1912
A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter "Coca" in K.W. van Gorkom's Oost-Indische Cultures
[6]
1919, 299. No references
1896 A
Source:
Gehe's
Handelsbericht
Issue
2,382
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Gehe
[1]
Import Crude Cocaine from Peru into Hamburg (1892-1913)
6,133
5,184
6,201
4,552
4,977
4,944
3,980
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
de Jong
[6]
4,271
5,106
2,729
2,449
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Gootenberg
[7]
5,073
2,729
2,449
6,670
6,156
6,313
5,184
Import
Peru Crude
Hamburg
Netherlands
[8]
kg
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
Year
of
Import
Source Data
Import Crude Cocaine from Peru into Hamburg (1892-1913) kg
PCC 4
Source Data
PCC 5
German Prices for Crude Cocaine (1892-1913)
Year
1902
Price
Crude Cocaine
DEM per kg
[1]
440
270
220
390
350
Average Price
Crude Cocaine
DEM per kg
[4]
Average Price
Crude Cocaine
NLG per kg
[5]
Month
[2]
Source
[3]
Jan
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
334
197
Gehe
Gehe
340
201
330
195
Sep
Dec
1903
290
390
1904
340
360
280
340
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
1905
340
225
320
Jan
Oct
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
295
174
1906
320
Jan
Gehe
320
189
1907
195
200
250
215
127
May
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
1908
198
180
240
Jan
Mar
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
206
122
1909
240
240
Jan
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
240
142
1910
240
300
247
305
Jan
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
273
161
1911
260
250
300
310
264
305
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
282
166
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
236
139
Gehe
Gehe
173
102
1912
1913
280
185
225
180
275
305
203
Jan
Apr
Dec
Jan
Dec
Jan
Jun
145
200
Sources
Gehe & Co. Handelsbericht (1898-1914)
Abrahamson, Het Cocavraagstuk, Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw (1912) 150-151.
Column
[4] [4] is the average of [1] for the year
[5] [5] = [4] (non-rounded) * 0.59 (Exchange Rate DEM / NLG)
512
Source Data
Koloniale Bank. Java Coca Sold in Consignment (1882-1931)
Year
1889-1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Quantity
(weight)
Unit
(of weight)
"kleine partijtjes (small lots) coca"
44,000
A.P.
103,000
A.P.
106,000
A.P.
96,000
A.P.
162,264
A.P.
76,026
kg
162,655
half kg
153,624
half kg
97,300
half kg
n/a
79,010
half kg
41,510
kg
46,811
kg
46,526
kg
41,934
kg
59,510
kg
50,032
kg
57,675
kg
73,167
kg
168,374
kg
254,423
kg
385,506
kg
389,172
kg
428,280
kg
350,456
kg
49,484
kg
114,505
kg
268,008
kg
288,535
kg
330,828
kg
317,610
kg
262,993
kg
237,562
kg
260,750
kg
210,000
kg
237,000
kg
145,000
kg
112,000
kg
87,000
kg
91,000
kg
74,000
kg
37,000
kg
0
kg
Quantity in
kg
21,736
50,882
52,364
47,424
80,158
76,026
81,328
76,812
48,650
n/a
39,505
41,510
46,811
46,526
41,934
59,510
50,032
57,675
73,167
168,374
254,423
385,506
389,172
428,280
350,456
49,484
114,505
268,008
288,535
330,828
317,610
262,993
237,562
260,750
210,000
237,000
145,000
112,000
87,000
91,000
74,000
37,000
0
Source Koloniale Bank, Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports) 1889-1935.
Nationaal Archief, Access No. 2.20.04, Items 4-7.
Notes A.P. = Amsterdam's Pond = 0.494 kg
For 1891-1895 [2] = [1]*0.494
For 1897-1901 [2] = [1]*0.500
For 1897 in the Annual Report "KG" is mentioned as the unit but
that is presumably in error; when the unit "half kg" is used,
the quantity calculated in column [2]is in line with the other figures.
513
JCL 1
Source Data
Export Coca Leaf from Java (1891-1939) Sources and Notes
JCL 2A
The numbers refer to the columns
[1] Sold on consignment. Koloniale Bank, Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports) 1891-1904. Nationaal
Archief, Access No. 2.20.04, Items 4-7. Table JCL 1.
[2] C.S. Abrahamson, ‘Het Coca Vraagstuk’ Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw in
Nederlandsch-Indië 85 (1912) 142.
[3] T. Walger, Coca: Its history, geographic distribution and economic significance, Dissertation
University of Giessen (1917). Chapter 7 in S.B. Karch, A History of Cocaine. The Mystery of
Java Coca and the Kew Plant (2003) 155.
[4] E. Reens, Java Coca, Dissertation University of Paris (1919), Chapter 5 in S.B. Karch A
History of Cocaine. The Mystery of Java Coca and the Kew Plant (2003) 73. Reens refers to
Abrahamson [2].
[5] A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: H.C. Prinsen Geerligs, editor, K.W. Van Gorkom’s OostIndische Cultures Volume 3 (1919) 294.
[6] P. Brusse, Jaarverslagen voor Kinabast en Coca (Annual Reports on Cinchona bark and Coca),
Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam.
Brusse’s statistics (1920) are identical with the Statistics Dutch East Indies. From 1921
onwards Brusse’s statistics differ considerably from his 1920 figures and from the D.E.I.
Statistics.[12]. Brusse does not mention the source of his statistics and does not comment on the
differences between the amounts reported in 1920 and in later years.
[7] W. Labohm, ‘Uitbreiding Cocacultuur’ Mededeelingen van het Nederlandsch-Indisch
Landbouw Syndicaat 26 (1922) 91-94.
[8] H. Maier, Der Kokainismus (Leipzig 1926). Maier refers to Brusse [6] as the source.
[9] Coca Producenten Vereniging Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports) 1927-1932, Nationaal Archief,
The Hague, Acc. No. 2.20.04 Item 1673.
The CPV mentions Brusse as the source of the statistics appearing in its publication.
[10] A.W.K. de Jong, Chapter ‘Coca’ in: C.J.J. van Hall and C. van de Koppel, editors, De
Landbouw in de Indische Archipel Vol II A (1948) 887.
[11] D.F. Musto, ‘International Traffic in Coca through the early 20th Century’, Drug and Alcohol
Dependence 49 [2] (1998) 153.
[12] Statistiek van den Handel en de In-en Uitvoerrechten (Statistics Dutch East Indies), Deel IIa
(Java en Madoera) Weltevreden 1874-1923, Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT),
Amsterdam. (1908-1938)
[13] Author’s selection Column [13] (in blue).
1891-1905 Koloniale Bank (no other information available)
1906-1907 Consensus – Reens, de Jong, Walger and Musto
1908-1938 Statistics Dutch East Indies
1939
de Jong (1948) = Statistics Permanent Central Opium Board.
514
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year
of
Export
22
51
52
47
80
76
81
77
49
30
70
72
77
77
Koloniale
Bank
1891/1904
[1]
200
417
380
430
751
Abrahamson
1912
[2]
26
67
122
200
417
380
430
750
Walger
1917
[3]
67
122
200
417
380
430
750
1,075
1,332
Reens
1919
[4]
67
122
200
418
373
430
750
1,060
1,332
1,353
777
137
179
De Jong
1919
[5]
433
748
1,072
1,335
1,356
1,091
408
272
662
994
Brusse
1920
[6]
741
1,065
1,332
1,353
777
137
179
494
994
1,707
1,073
1,284
907
1,118
978
1,065
723
413
627
Brusse
from 1921
[6]
1,332
1,353
777
137
179
494
993
1,707
1,073
Labohm
1922
[7]
Export Coca Leaf from Java (Total) (1891-1939)
740
1,065
1,332
1,353
777
137
179
494
994
1,707
1,073
1,284
Maier
1926
[8]
907
1,118
978
1,020
678
385
585
354
287
209
CPV
1927/1932
[9]
105
125
117
133
41
180
De Jong
1948
[10]
26
67
122
200
417
373
430
750
1,075
1,332
1,353
1,089
408
272
662
994
1,677
1,137
1,284
907
1,118
1,008
1,043
709
385
585
354
304
209
161
105
125
Musto's
Selection
1998
[11]
417
373
430
741
1,075
1,332
1,353
1,089
408
273
662
994
1,677
1,137
1,269
907
1,118
997
1,020
678
385
585
354
287
209
161
105
125
117
133
41
Statistics
D.E.I.
from 1908
[12]
22
51
52
47
80
76
81
77
49
30
70
72
77
77
67
122
200
417
373
430
741
1,075
1,332
1,353
1,089
408
273
662
994
1,677
1,137
1,269
907
1,118
997
1,020
678
385
585
354
287
209
160
105
125
117
133
41
180
Author's
Selection
[13]
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year
of
Export
tonnes
Source Data
Export Coca Leaf from Java (1891-1939) tonnes
The figures in blue are the author’s choice
515
JCL 2
tonnes
Source: Table JCL 2
516
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1933 1935 1937 1939
Export Coca Leaf from Java 1891-1939
Source Data
Export Coca Leaf from Java (1891-1939) Chart
JCL 2B
Source Data
Export Coca Leaf from Java by Country (1908-1938) tonnes
Year
of
Export
to
the Netherlands
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
311
353
401
645
1,043
1,231
1,250
909
125
17
0
756
1,394
677
903
509
791
657
763
436
307
396
252
to the UK
3
0
15
84
26
92
103
88
8
4
to Germany
to USA
102
21
9
12
5
9
to
Other
Countries
5
80
273
235
408
125
11
6
3
11
30
to Japan
1
9
21
17
19
67
34
100
72
26
20
11
2
17
254
107
269
456
364
364
307
323
200
175
25
42
1
5
38
37
JCL 3
Total
Exports
from Java
417
373
430
741
1,075
1,332
1,353
1,089
408
273
662
994
1,677
1,137
1,269
907
1,118
997
1,020
678
385
585
354
Source
Statistiek van Den Handel en de In-en Uitvoerrechten (Statistics Dutch East Indies), Deel IIa (Java en
Madoera) Weltevreden 19741923, Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam.
517
518
Source
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
Year
of Export
0
8,000
9,000
1,760
8,678
21,498
91,575
13,483
51,284
2,549
33,206
to
France
32,000
34,000
0
31,000
74,069
43,837
22,724
11,287
24,334
57,176
11,340
to
USA
33,000
10,000
24,000
6,000
1,014
17,279
40,124
58,720
102
14,037
20,205
to
Switzerland
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,087
15,453
3,220
30,641
8,864
to
UK
4,000
0
0
14,719
1,050
493
435
947
186
0
225
to
"Other"
Coca-Producenten Vereniging (Coca Producers Association), Annual Reports 1926, 1927 and 1932
Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No. 2.20.04 Item 1643
357,000
277,000
466,000
84,645
60,258
60,621
794,545
78,603
102,813
88,577
33,371
to
Germany
Export Java Coca from the Netherlands (1922-1932)
426,000
329,000
499,000
138,124
145,069
143,728
951,490
178,493
181,939
192,980
107,211
Total
Export
kg
Source Data
Export Coca Leaf from the Netherlands (1922-1932) kg
JCL 4
5,346
20,249
27,450
57,664
110,379
180,491
412,901
578,155
846,255
903,638
114,255
40,172
5,610
0
157,740
652,659
27,626
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Year
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1929
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87,674
277,165
224,699
316,302
23,588
196,429
419,354
530,854
382,839
423,393
544,295
198,318
195,266
225,990
1,049,359
223,831
168,620
Coca Leaf
Sold
Directly
kg
[2]
5,346
20,249
27,450
57,664
110,379
180,491
412,901
578,155
846,255
991,312
391,420
264,871
321,912
23,588
354,169
1,072,013
558,480
382,839
423,393
544,295
198,318
195,266
225,990
1,049,359
223,831
168,620
Coca Leaf
Sold
Total
kg
[3]
82
303
427
940
1,795
2,992
6,517
9,241
13,062
14,918
1,717
650
103
0
2,147
8,973
403
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
At auction
kg
[4]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,455
4,580
4,022
4,562
286
2,495
5,911
7,860
5,965
6,462
8,233
2,931
2,838
3,261
15,446
3,293
2,546
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
Directly
kg
[5]
82
303
427
940
1,795
2,992
6,517
9,241
13,062
16,373
6,297
4,672
4,665
286
4,642
14,884
8,263
5,965
6,462
8,233
2,931
2,838
3,261
15,446
3,293
2,546
Alkaloid
In leaf sold
Total
kg
[6]
519
1.53
1.50
1.56
1.63
1.63
1.66
1.58
1.60
1.54
1.65
1.61
1.76
1.45
1.21
1.31
1.39
1.48
1.56
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.45
1.44
1.47
1.47
1.51
Assay
Calculated
HHB
%
[8]
28.55
25.91
23.18
18.58
27.59
39.59
39.10
21.55
19.45
15.06
12.04
16.31
20.09
55.00
67.17
30.30
28.38
54.78
61.63
63.79
59.27
60.97
34.00
24.00
24.00
44.80
[9]
Unit
Price
NL cts
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1929
Year
Notes
[3]=[1]+[2] and [6]=[4]+[5] Assay figures: [8]=[6]/[3]*100 are
calculated by the author; Brusse's annual assay figures [7] are
apparently averages of assays of monthly sales. Unit Prices 19271929 are derived from the tables published by the CPV.
1.53
1.50
1.59
1.67
1.63
1.65
1.57
1.61
1.56
1.64
1.52
1.44
1.45
1.33
1.28
1.37
1.50
1.59
1.53
1.50
1.48
1.45
1.44
1.47
1.47
1.51
Assay
Reported
Brusse
%
[7]
Sales of Java Coca Amsterdam (1905-1929)
Sources
P. Brusse, Jaarverslagen voor Kinabast en Coca (Annual Reports on Cinchona bark and Coca), 1910-1933
Library Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam: All figures in black are from this source except
Unit Prices 1927-1929 which are taken from:
Coca-Producenten Vereniging (Coca Producers Association), Jaarverslagen (Annual Reports), 1926-1950,
Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No. 2.20.04 Item 1643. (CPV)
Coca Leaf
Sold
At auction
kg
[1]
Sales of Java Coca Amsterdam (1905-1929)
Source Data
JCL 5
520
[3] = [1] + [2]
[7] = [5] + [6]
[8] = [7]/[3]*1000
[9] = [4]*[8]/1000
7,743
10,759
16,066
18,372
7,326
4,832
5,679
444
6,186
18,983
10,434
6,901
7,868
10,362
3,779
3,743
4,210
19,368
4,019
2,885
2,273
1,446
1,723
Notes
0
0
0
1,588
5,218
4,111
5,607
444
3,342
7,183
9,918
6,901
7,868
10,362
3,779
3,743
4,210
19,368
4,019
2,885
2,273
1,446
1,723
Sold
Total
[3]
[1], [2], [4], [5] and [6]
7,743
10,759
16,066
16,784
2,108
721
72
0
2,844
11,800
516
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Sold
Directly
[2]
Source
Sold
at Auction
[1]
Year
413
578
846
904
114
40
6
0
158
653
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sold
at Auction
[5]
0
0
0
88
277
225
316
24
196
419
531
383
423
544
198
195
226
1,049
224
169
131
84
107
Sold
Directly
[6]
Average
413
578
846
991
391
265
322
24
354
1,072
558
383
423
544
198
195
226
1,049
224
169
131
84
107
Sold
Total
[7]
TONNES
54
53.3
53.7
52.7
54.0
53.4
54.8
56.7
53.1
57.3
56.5
53.5
55.5
53.8
52.5
52.5
52.2
53.7
54.2
55.7
58.4
57.7
57.8
62.3
Weight of
One Bale kg
[8]
133
106
95
511
322
23
0
201
332
77
200
227
227
639
1,016
1,221
418
520
588
574
562
Stock at
Year End
[9]
P. Brusse, Jaarverslagen voor Kinabast en Coca (Annual Reports on Cinchona bark and Coca),
Library RoyalTropical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam.
2,471
2,006
1,754
9,570
5,877
403
0
3,518
5,879
1,436
3,610
4,213
4,319
12,179
19,483
22,747
7,708
9,340
10,053
9,947
9,731
Stock at
Year End
[4]
NUMBER OF BALES (COLLI)
Sales of Java Coca in the Netherlands (1911-1933)
Conversion Bales (Colli) into Tonnes - Stocks at Year End
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Year
Source Data
Sales of Java Coca in the Netherlands (1911-1932)
Conversion Number of Bales into Tonnes – Stocks at Year End
JCL 6
521
3,300
2,400
2,500
2,344
1,826
1,153
1,020
744
870
358
810
566
595
236
N.R.
6,302
Germany
500
500
500
500
1,100
911
831
373
297
394
244
365
536
333
324
N.R.
France
---140
238
318
381
395
427
385
395
393
367
376
401
UK
70
59
140
344
328
155
243
161
99
79
257
129
83
215
321
732
391
186
Switzerland
1,623
892
1,026
818
846
723
870
788
792
856
841
782
813
785
868
2,311
1,656
1,623
USA
1,479
1,418
1,509
1,542
1,420
1,215
1,192
1,008
931
920
910
900
900
896
900
900
4,100
2,324
3,680
Japan
38
37
179
52
40
84
75
90
85
80
Formosa
-N.R.
537
269
85
122
193
181
459
405
USSR
----103
132
127
160
155
176
357
Belgium
---111
90
154
119
117
137
N.R.
Czechoslovakia
-----57
31
41
42
N.R.
Poland
-1
-1
10
12
-2
37
60
21
Other
Société des Nations, Deuxième Conférence de l'Opium, Partie I, Tableaux Statistiques 1920-1923 O.D.C. 1 (C,656.H234.1924.XI) Geneva 1924, 46
Advisory Committee on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs. Report on the 13th Session, Geneva 1930, Annex 3
PCOB Document C.121.M.39.1930.XI Geneva, League of Nations; 1930
Annual Reports to the Council on the Work of the Board and Statistics.
PCOB Document A.35.1932.XI (Synopsis 1929-1931)
PCOB Document C.368.M.242.1936.XI (Synopsis 1931-1935)
PCOB Document C.364.M.185.1935.XI (Synopsis 1930-1934)
PCOB Document C.353.M.240.1937.XI
All PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) Documents were accessed at or via the League of Nations Library at Geneva.
In the above table "--" stands for Return (by governments) marked "nil" and "N.R"for "Not Reported".
A blank cel means: no information available.
Amounts reported for France 1924-1927 are "estimates only" and amounts reported for USA 1921-1923 represent 'sales'.
The amount reported for Japan 1920 is taken from the letter by J.B.M. Coebergh to the "Minister van Arbeid etc." dated 13 February 1924,
All amounts in Blue are calculated by the author.
For Manufacture the Netherlands 1921-1924 see Table COC 2.
Total quantities manufactured 1925-1918 and 1936 are calculated from the PCOB figures.
1,223
971
1,128
880
977
775
692
668
281
135
89
189
106
95
58
76
89
60
185
the Netherlands
7,818
6,146
6,319
6,630
5,699
4,718
4,612
3,968
4,010
3,464
4,002
4,086
4,142
3,490
Total
kg
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year
League of Nations (PCOB) Statistics on the
Manufacture of Cocaine World-wide (1920-1939) kg
1929-1939
1929-1931
1932-1935
1934
1935-1936
1937-1938
1939
Sources
1920-1923
1925-1928
Notes
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year
League of Nations (PCOB), Statistics on the Manufacture of Cocaine 1920-1939
Source Data
COC 1
Source Data
Cocaine Manufacture in the Netherlands (1921-1939) (kg)
Year
Export
[1]
Import
[2]
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1,515
1,151
1,157
931
1,076
787
711
493
227
109
92
184
88
47
64
42
43
40
126
337
225
71
89
133
44
54
42
7
28
22
21
53
9
4
5
3
4
0
Consumption
[3]
45
45
43
38
34
32
22
33
32
37
34
31
32
23
27
25
25
22
33
Manufacture
Calculated
[4]
1,223
971
1,129
880
977
775
679
484
252
118
104
194
67
61
87
62
65
58
159
Manufacture
Reported
[5]
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
692
668
281
135
89
189
106
103
58
76
89
60
185
Notes
Amounts in Blue are calclated by HHB.
[4] = [1]-[2]+[3], [6] = [5]-[4].
Stock Increases [6] are the calculated amounts.
Actual stocks at year end are not available for all years. They are inconclusive.
Utilisation 1924 is estimated the average of 1923 and 1925
Sources
1920-1923
1925-1928
1929-1931
1932-1935
1934
1935-1936
1937-1938
1939
Société des Nations, Deuxième Conférence de l'Opium, Partie I,
Tableaux Statistiques C,656.H234.1924.XI Geneva 1924, 46
Permanent Central Opium Board (PCOB)
Advisory Committee on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs.
PCOB Document C.121.M.39.1930.XI Geneva, League of Nations; 1930
Annual Reports to the Council on the Work of the Board and Statistics.
PCOB Document A.35.1932.XI
522
COC 2
Stock
Increase
[6]
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
13
184
29
17
-15
-5
39
42
-29
14
24
2
26
Source Data
US Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1892-1916)
Calendar
Year
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
USA
Price
O, P & D R
USD / oz
[1]
6.20
6.20
5.70
5.10
5.70
5.60
4.80
4.80
4.00
3.60
2.80
3.50
3.00
3.20
3.50
6.20
5.00
6.30
6.20
5.00
4.00
4.30
4.30
3.80
3.50
3.50
3.80
3.30
3.20
2.70
2.70
2.30
2.00
2.30
2.70
3.40
3.30
3.50
3.90
3.60
3.20
3.30
3.00
2.90
3.10
4.20
3.80
4.00
4.50
USA
Price
Average
USD / oz
[2]
USA
Price
Average
DEM / kg
[3]
USA
Price
Average
NLG / kg
[4]
6.20
918
545
5.40
800
474
5.65
837
496
4.80
711
422
3.80
563
334
3.15
467
277
3.10
459
272
4.85
718
426
5.65
837
496
5.60
829
492
4.15
615
364
4.05
600
356
3.50
518
307
3.55
526
312
2.95
437
259
2.50
370
220
2.15
318
189
3.05
452
268
3.40
504
299
3.75
555
329
3.25
481
285
2.95
437
259
3.65
541
321
3.90
578
343
4.50
667
395
COC 3
Source
Joseph F. Spillane, Cocaine (Baltimore 2000). Weeky wholesale prices from the Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter
were compiled by Spillane and half-year averages are plotted in his Figure 3.2 on p. 54.
The graph (Figure 3.2) was digitalized by the author (HHB), the outcome is contained in column [1].
Notes
All figures in [2], [3] and [4] are calculated by the author. [2] = annual averages of [1].
[3] = [2]*42/0.2835 (USD = 4.20 DEM).
[4] = [3]*0.59 (DEM = 0.59 NLG)
523
Source Data
German Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1898-1906)
Price
Cocaine HCl
DEM per kg
[1]
Average Price
Cocaine HCl
DEM per kg
[4]
Average Price
Cocaine HCl
NLG per kg
[5]
Month
[2]
Source
[3]
320
400
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
360
212
1899
700
Nov
Gehe
700
413
1900
600
570
550
620
600
620
700
720
720
700
Jan
Mar
Jul
Aug
Aug
Sep
Sep
Sep
Oct
Dec
Gehe
CZ
Gehe
Merck
Gehe
CZ
Gehe
Merck
CZ
Gehe
640
378
1901
600
620
720
Jan
Jan
May
Gehe
Merck
Merck
647
382
1902
700
620
600
600
550
570
500
480
530
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
May
May
Jul
Jul
Nov
Gehe
Merck
Kol. Bank
Gehe
Gehe
Merck
Merck
Gehe
Gehe
572
338
1903
530
580
580
530
460
420
400
Jan
Mar
Aug
Oct
Nov
Dec
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Kol. Bank
Gehe
Gehe
CZ
Gehe
500
295
1904
400
430
470
Mar
Apr
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
433
256
1905
470
430
380
410
Jan
Sep
Oct
Nov
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
423
249
1906
410
370
Jan
Gehe
CZ
390
230
Year
1898
Sources
Notes
Gehe
CZ
Kol. Bank
Abrahamson
Chemiker Zeitung (1900-1908)
Koloniale Bank, Minutes of Board Meetings (1902-1908)
Het Cocavraagstuk, Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw (1912)
All averages are calculated by the author.
Exchange Rate DEM / NLG = 0.59 [5] = [4] * 0.59
524
COC 4
Source Data
German Prices for Cocaine Hydrochloride (1907-1913)
Year
Price
Cocaine HCl
DEM per kg
[1]
Month
[2]
Average Price
Cocaine HCl
DEM per kg
[4]
Average Price
Cocaine HCl
NLG per kg
[5]
Gehe
Gehe
310
183
248
146
Source
[3]
1907
300
320
1908
320
270
200
240
215
200
265
270
July
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Kol. Bank
Gehe
CZ
Gehe
Kol. Bank
Gehe
1909
270
290
265
Jan
Mar
Nov
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
275
162
1910
265
230
260
290
320
234
325
Jan
Mar
Sep
Oct
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
275
162
1911
320
270
300
300
325
275
305
Jan
Jul
Oct
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
299
177
1912
300
250
225
215
225
265
305
220
Jan
Mar
Jun
Sep
Oct
Nov
Jan
Jun
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Abrahamson
Abrahamson
251
148
1913
265
240
220
210
200
180
195
205
180
165
Jan
Jan
Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr
May
Jul
Oct
Dec
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
Gehe
206
122
Sources
Notes
Gehe
CZ
Kol. Bank
Abrahamson
Jan
Feb
Feb
Mar
Mar
Chemiker Zeitung (1900-1908)
Koloniale Bank, Minutes of Board Meetings (1902-1908)
Het Cocavraagstuk, Tijdschrift voor Nijverheid en Landbouw (1912)
All averages are calculated by the author.
Exchange Rate DEM / NLG = 0.59 [5] = [4] * 0.59
525
COC 5
Source Data
Crude Cocaine Manufacture in the Netherlands (1926-1938) kg
Year
Export
[1]
Import
[2]
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
259
244
141
288
326
183
53
139
77
101
276
100
309
27
0
0
0
25
116
75
155
92
30
250
10
248
Utilisation
[3]
0
0
0
0
0
96
157
0
127
0
0
0
24
Manufacture
[4]
232
244
141
284
325
180
54
16
93
56
75
40
86
Notes
Amounts in Blue are estimates by the author.
[4] = [1]-[2]+[3]
They are calculated based on the assumption that stocks were constant.
Sources
1926-1928
1929-1931
1932-1935
1934
1935-1936
1937-1938
Advisory Committee on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs.
PCOB Document C.121.M.39.1930.XI Geneva, 1930
PCOB Document A.35.1932.XI
`
526
COC 6
527
82,607
114,285
97,112
93,661
104,827
117,541
105,485
AVG 1961-1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
AVG 1966-1970
52,795
34,573
49,776
62,591
58,169
58,868
36,502
32,460
44,239
32,907
38,050
34,853
PCOB/INCB Statistics
83,170
76,807
83,751
80,950
88,355
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
20,807
13,580
16,895
22,003
21,142
30,417
17,027
12,065
16,900
19,645
18,425
18,100
8,468
7,860
4,591
8,120
10,107
11,662
from
Poppy Straw
[2]
158,281
148,858
146,888
156,252
162,996
176,409
119,108
115,630
121,046
116,658
119,000
123,208
107,235
87,368
108,953
111,845
108,217
119,791
79,319
72,345
77,948
73,894
83,414
88,993
55,008
43,704
52,869
56,169
56,563
65,733
Total
[4]
AVG 1991-1995
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
AVG 1986-1990
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
AVG 1981-1985
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
AVG 1976-1980
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
AVG 1971-1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Year
73,081
94,420
74,557
75,186
64,699
56,544
64,025
75,012
62,878
59,261
41,833
81,140
77,081
59,314
81,833
80,006
77,174
87,077
87,074
108,878
87,929
94,318
80,287
63,957
106,933
110,309
109,111
105,609
108,196
101,439
from
Opium
[1]
15,851
18,139
14,056
12,472
18,053
16,536
27,131
36,496
30,325
28,121
17,698
23,014
29,715
25,114
22,654
26,859
30,419
43,528
101,474
68,537
101,505
118,325
111,058
107,945
56,819
64,373
62,658
56,390
46,047
54,627
from
Poppy Straw
[2]
149,193
125,695
123,681
150,272
155,956
190,359
109,611
79,527
128,120
111,270
129,721
99,418
78,706
79,035
73,233
72,720
79,314
89,230
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
from
CPS
[3]
238,125
238,254
212,294
237,930
238,708
263,439
200,767
191,035
221,323
198,652
189,252
203,572
185,502
163,463
177,720
179,585
186,907
219,835
188,548
177,415
189,434
212,643
191,345
171,902
161,803
172,967
165,501
151,656
162,823
156,066
Total
[4]
kg AMA
Manufacture of Morphine Worldwide
by Raw Material (1946-1995)
Source:
86,427
62,292
AVG 1951-1955
AVG 1956-1960
60,280
61,048
54,249
64,989
70,893
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
73,788
92,058
89,842
87,075
89,374
46,540
AVG 1946-1950
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
35,844
48,278
48,049
46,456
54,071
from
Opium
[1]
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Year
Manufacture of Morphine Worldwide by Raw Material (1946-1995)
Source Data
OPI 1
kg AMA
528
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
from Opium
from Poppy Straw
from CPS
1946194819501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994
Manufacture Morphine Worldwide by Raw Material 1946-1995
Source Data
Manufacture of Morphine Worldwide
by Raw Material (1946-1995) Chart
OPI 1A
55,221
Sub-Total Major
Manufacturing countries
529
0
Minor Manuf. Countries
as a Percentage of Total
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
55,453
Total (PCOB) of all
Sources:
PCOB Publications
(Sinopses)
232
Sub-Total Minor
8
0
69
106
----0
49
---
8,374
24,000
N/R
12,141
1,989
4,577
4,140
USA
Germany
USSR
France
Japan
UK
Switzerland
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
Netherlands
Italy
Hungary
Poland
Yugoslavia
Korea
Other Countries
1929
3
34
29
47
3
30,457
767
2
124
20
194
12
0
5
328
82
29,690
7,728
4,994
1,766
8,734
1,446
1,021
4,001
1931
A.35 (1932)
A.35 (1932)
C.364.M.185 (1935)
C.364.M.185 (1935)
C.364.M.185 (1935)
C.261.M.179 (1939)
1
34,423
341
0
156
72
---
---
34,082
5,373
10,555
N/R
12,495
1,904
1,911
1,844
1930
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
6
27,580
1,570
6
295
85
337
61
349
119
114
204
26,010
7,966
7,421
3,468
2,824
1,832
1,292
1,207
1932
15
26,761
4,045
973
460
270
595
348
456
342
324
277
22,716
5,983
4,983
2,581
3,022
3,305
2,037
805
1934
C.261.M.179 (1939)
C.261.M.179 (1939)
C.261.M.179 (1939)
C.261.M.179 (1939)
C.147.M.143 (1940)
10
30,466
3,025
419
367
390
380
192
174
441
458
204
27,441
7,459
6,285
2,123
4,482
3,624
1,873
1,595
1933
Morphine Manufacture by Country 1929-1939
14
30,805
4,308
1,175
558
495
619
419
352
404
0
286
26,497
6,270
6,252
3,178
3,903
3,245
2,103
1,546
1935
16
36,884
5,843
1,304
698
743
1,335
724
508
299
0
232
31,041
7,697
6,294
4,927
4,645
3,947
2,023
1,508
1936
16
41,899
6,579
1,769
1,037
1,220
N/R
687
810
707
0
349
35,320
10,256
4,910
7,755
4,284
4,798
1,810
1,507
1937
39,515
4,505
1,769
N/R
1,093
N/R
780
N/R
615
0
248
35,010
8,625
5,292
8,098
4,291
4,549
1,890
2,265
1938
1,310
N/R
N/R
N/R
1,941
N/R
N/R
10,154
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
6,233
4,378
1939
Minor Manuf. Countries
as a Percentage of Total
Total (PCOB) of all
Sub-Total Minor
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
Netherlands
Italy
Hungary
Poland
Yugoslavia
Korea
Other
Sub-Total Major
USA
Germany
USSR
France
Japan
UK
Switzerland
kg
Source Data
Manufacture of Morphine by Country (1929-1939)
OPI 2
530
1955-1960
1951-1954
1946-1950
844
PCOB Statistics
Source
676
885
876
861
923
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
86,427
73,788
92,058
89,842
87,075
89,374
62,292
60,280
61,048
54,249
64,989
70,893
46,540
35,844
48,278
48,049
46,456
54,071
Morphine
manuf.
kg AMA
Average
594
594
560
541
614
659
430
340
454
440
441
473
Utilized
t
Average
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Average
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Year
Opium
13,350
9,323
11,405
14,022
12,641
19,357
8,803
5,204
8,838
9,612
9,590
10,769
4,709
3,433
2,064
6,571
6,036
5,442
20,807
13,580
16,895
22,003
21,142
30,417
17,027
12,065
16,900
19,645
18,425
18,100
8,468
7,860
4,591
8,120
10,107
11,662
Morphine
manuf.
kg AMA
Poppy Straw
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.23
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.23
0.22
0.12
0.17
0.21
107,247
87,410
108,955
111,854
108,220
119,798
79,319
72,345
77,948
73,894
83,414
88,993
55,008
43,704
52,869
56,169
56,563
65,733
Morphine
Total ManuYield
factured
%
5,695
2,235
5,588
7,211
4,464
8,976
4,777
4,035
8,218
3,017
2,813
5,803
5,319
3,921
6,532
5,838
4,942
5,361
Unconverted
4,095
4,354
4,156
4,165
4,188
3,614
5,158
5,848
5,124
5,101
5,150
4,568
5,801
6,340
6,130
5,516
5,406
5,615
Morphine
Consumption
Morphine (kg AMA)
`
92,339
78,118
94,032
94,744
93,506
101,294
67,815
61,336
63,486
64,542
73,839
75,871
44,673
35,631
41,335
44,633
45,981
55,784
95,758
80,384
97,005
99,815
97,521
104,065
70,094
66,490
65,070
66,444
75,395
77,070
45,152
36,592
42,180
44,078
45,201
57,708
Codeine
Manufactured
88,423
77,484
89,976
87,302
90,788
96,565
65,281
55,905
57,645
67,489
68,473
76,893
40,521
30,158
36,399
42,294
41,932
51,821
Codeine
Consumption
Codeine (kg ACA)
Morphine
Utilized
kg AMA
Manufacture, Raw Material Usage and Consumption Worldwide (1946-1960)
Utilized
t
Morphine and Codeine
Source Data
Morphine and Codeine - Manufacture,
Raw Material Usage and Consumption Worldwide (1946-1960)
OPI 3
Source Data
Poppy Straw purchased during 1936-1956
for Extraction in Germany
Poppy
Straw
t
Merck Assay
%
kg AMA
1936-1939
1936
1937
1938
1939
Total
333
356
143
126
958
0.19
0.37
0.27
0.29
0.28
633
1,318
385
365
2,701
1940-1945
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
Total
1,106
359
1,690
3,643
497
130
7,425
0.15
0.15
0.26
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.27
1,659
538
4,393
11,658
1,540
415
20,203
1946-1950
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Total
703
1,262
2,092
1,489
561
6,107
0.29
0.39
0.16
0.39
0.31
0.29
2,038
4,923
3,347
5,806
1,738
17,852
1951-1955
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Total
1,482
2,371
1,369
931
203
6,356
0.29
0.39
0.34
0.18
0.23
0.32
4,296
9,246
4,654
1,690
466
20,352
1956
250
0.31
774
21,096
0.293
61,882
1936-1956
Source
Grand
Total
W.Küssner, Bulletin on Narcotics (1961)[3]
531
OPI 4
532
Average
0.20
0.17
0.23
0.33
0.40
0.24
0.26
0.36
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.22
0.25
0.19
0.34
0.26
Yield
F.R. Germany
PCOB Statistics
353
399
8
0
0
152
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1956-1960
Average
Source
799
1,535
1,810
1,109
1,385
1,328
691
234
1,400
1,707
1,347
1,076
t
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1951-1955
Average
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1946-1950
Year
603
902
26
0
0
306
3,191
3,611
4,702
4,047
3,354
3,781
1,787
526
3,539
3,323
4,619
2,759
kg AMA
1,836
3,599
4,280
2,992
5,374
3,616
2,866
4,420
3,051
3,201
3,574
3,422
221
377
3,754
3,024
2,140
1,903
t
0.08
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.17
0.23
0.20
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.21
0.06
0.16
0.21
0.13
Yield
Hungary
2,780
6,352
7,479
5,436
8,292
6,068
6,594
8,685
6,289
5,240
4,525
6,267
312
783
2,076
4,836
4,522
2,506
kg AMA
293
0
119
179
295
177
240
446
492
683
458
464
1,177
700
514
621
235
649
t
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.29
0.26
0.30
0.27
0.33
0.27
0.24
0.33
0.28
Yield
France
507
0
224
362
653
349
750
1,435
1,561
2,006
1,212
1,393
3,178
2,308
1,397
1,503
769
1,831
kg AMA
25
0
108
13
0
29
t
1,224
1,759
2,092
2,124
3,547
2,149
267
435
968
939
1,033
728
Extraction of Poppy Straw in Germany, Hungary, France and the Netherlands 1946-1960
0.20
0.21
0.27
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.19
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.17
Yield
Netherlands
2,504
3,778
5,590
5,818
8,266
5,191
514
1,047
2,371
2,494
2,470
1,779
43
0
208
21
0
54
kg AMA
7,186
5,863
8,684
9,526
13,206
8,893
1,016
2,122
4,625
4,638
6,539
3,788
2,540
974
900
424
1,752
1,318
Other
kg AMA
13,580
16,895
22,003
21,142
30,417
20,807
12,065
16,900
19,548
18,425
18,100
17,008
7,860
4,591
8,120
10,107
11,662
8,468
Total
kg AMA
Source Data
Extraction of Poppy Straw in Germany, Hungary,
France and the Netherlands (1946-1960)
OPI 5
533
1956-1960
1951-1955
1946-1950
18,693
20
PCOB Statistics 1946-1960
17,615
18
16,797
19,320
19,212
18,207
19,931
13,753
20
11,068
10,197
15,808
17,582
14,111
9,234
20
9,809
10,214
5,722
9,166
11,261
UK
12,090
13
8,570
11,000
12,600
14,097
14,185
8,845
13
8,080
7,097
10,705
9,951
8,390
5,010
11
2,002
4,226
5,378
5,300
8,142
USSR
8,250
9
7,694
9,075
8,759
8,050
7,674
5,467
8
5,015
4,871
4,868
5,769
6,814
4,723
10
2,430
4,429
6,097
5,164
5,495
France
10,868
11
8,311
11,460
12,235
11,537
10,796
6,776
10
5,494
5,395
8,952
8,135
5,906
2,478
5
1,152
1,046
3,066
2,560
4,567
Fed. Rep.
Germany
4,776
5
2,941
5,550
5,240
3,838
6,311
4,237
6
5,636
4,531
3,640
4,177
4,499
1,643
4
144
293
873
2,803
4,101
Hungary
2,908
3
2,036
2,445
3,095
3,158
3,806
1,578
2
1,090
2,357
2,134
1,551
758
467
1
388
477
433
523
512
Netherlands
20,357
21
16,577
18,913
21,205
21,754
23,338
12,338
18
12,109
12,585
12,916
14,059
10,020
5,714
13
3,620
5,715
7,472
6,038
5,724
Other
Manuf.
Countries
95,558
100
80,384
97,005
99,815
97,521
103,065
70,094
100
65,070
66,444
75,395
77,070
66,490
45,152
100
36,592
42,180
44,078
45,201
57,708
World
Total
Manufacture
kg ACA
Manufacture of Codeine by Country (1946-1960)
Source
Average
Percent
17,458
19,242
17,469
16,880
17,024
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
16,578
19,411
16,372
15,846
1952
1953
1954
1955
16,943
24
15,992
1951
Average
Percent
15,883
35
17,047
15,780
15,037
13,647
17,906
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Average
Percent
USA
Year
Source Data
OPI 6
534
1991-1995
1986-1990
1981-1985
INCB Statistics 1981-1995
35,464
17
28,566
30,095
36,580
42,049
40,030
23,647
13
24,470
25,498
19,231
24,768
24,267
24,683
14
21,936
22,423
22,224
26,746
30,084
UK
24,295
12
25,305
18,570
23,378
21,726
32,494
14,083
8
13,072
12,789
14,921
14,722
14,911
10,133
6
8,804
8,435
9,323
11,616
12,485
Australia
23,982
11
24,854
21,058
25,747
23,425
24,825
15,967
9
15,052
13,826
14,493
18,051
18,413
14,892
9
13,482
13,676
15,017
15,547
16,739
France
6,004
3
4,392
2,864
6,433
6,910
9,419
8,012
4
7,663
8,369
10,425
6,443
7,160
5,553
3
5,786
4,528
5,256
7,496
4,698
Hungary
5,513
3
14,098
0
6,842
3,540
3,087
15,027
8
18,035
21,745
12,670
10,664
12,021
15,410
9
15,015
15,763
17,653
16,953
11,665
USSR
3,299
2
9,855
6,339
300
0
0
7,574
4
6,377
7,736
7,689
10,174
5,892
10,506
6
10,038
8,567
9,774
12,169
11,980
Netherlands
53,877
26
50,023
53,885
50,457
49,121
65,900
44,942
25
42,027
49,121
44,637
47,461
41,464
38,674
22
40,945
41,563
36,281
37,424
37,158
Other
Manuf.
Countries
210,453
100
211,592
184,184
215,699
208,912
231,878
182,430
100
181,493
197,231
173,437
185,118
174,870
172,081
100
163,794
164,673
168,128
181,050
182,759
World
Total
Manufacture
kg ACA
Source
58,020
28
54,499
51,373
65,962
62,141
56,123
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Average
Percent
53,178
29
54,797
58,147
49,371
52,835
50,742
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Average
Percent
52,231
30
47,788
49,718
52,600
53,099
57,950
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Average
Percent
USA
Year
Source Data
OPI 7
Source Data
Morphine (CPS and Technical Morphine)
Export and Import the Netherlands (1981-2009) kg AMA
OPI 8
.
CPS (AMA)
TM (AMA)
Total CPS plus TM (AMA)
Year
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Export
Import
Net
Export
Export
Import
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
11,189
7,800
3,882
4,215
8,872
0
0
0
501
0
11,189
7,800
3,882
3,714
8,872
34
955
1,864
91
35
0
0
0
0
0
1981-1985
7,192
100
7,091
596
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
0
0
0
2,657
4,773
0
3,299
18,000
3,968
15,061
0
-3,299
-18,000
-1,312
-10,289
1986-1990
1,486
8,066
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
4,253
3,192
4,269
4,256
0
1991-1995
Net
Export
Export
Import
Net
Export
34
955
1,864
91
35
11,223
8,755
5,746
4,306
8,907
0
0
0
501
0
11,223
8,755
5,746
3,805
8,907
0
596
7,787
100
7,687
7,053
5,670
5,229
2,042
721
13
46
68
56
74
7,040
5,624
5,161
1,986
647
7,053
5,670
5,229
4,699
5,494
13
3,345
18,068
4,024
15,135
7,040
2,325
-12,839
675
-9,642
-6,580
4,143
51
4,092
5,629
8,117
-2,488
15,163
12,254
7,778
6,496
4,007
-10,911
-9,062
-3,509
-2,240
-4,007
893
741
2,242
1,465
1,334
96
119
121
187
1,220
797
622
2,121
1,278
114
5,146
3,933
6,511
5,721
1,334
15,259
12,373
7,899
6,683
5,227
-10,114
-8,440
-1,388
-962
-3,893
3,194
9,139
-5,946
1,335
349
986
4,529
9,488
-4,959
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0
0
0
0
0
4,531
2,500
0
0
5,639
-4,531
-2,500
0
0
-5,639
1,787
2,028
1,255
2,014
2,133
1,500
1,190
4,720
3,767
1,640
287
838
-3,465
-1,753
493
1,787
2,028
1,255
2,014
2,133
6,031
3,690
4,720
3,767
7,279
-4,244
-1,662
-3,465
-1,753
-5,146
1995-2000
0
2,534
-2,534
1,843
2,563
-720
1,843
5,097
-3,254
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
0
0
0
0
0
2,859
5,997
12,597
0
1,998
-2,859
-5,997
-12,597
0
-1,998
2,151
2,908
1,470
1,931
848
1,495
1,136
1,468
1,614
588
656
1,772
2
317
260
2,151
2,908
1,470
1,931
848
4,354
7,133
14,065
1,614
2,586
-2,203
-4,225
-12,595
317
-1,738
2001-2005
0
4,690
-4,690
1,862
1,260
601
1,862
5,950
-4,089
2006
2007
2008
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,997
0
0
0
-1,997
0
595
749
838
1,030
800
1,271
359
1,088
-205
-522
479
-58
595
749
838
1,030
800
1,271
2,356
1,088
-205
-522
-1,518
-58
2006-2009
0
499
-499
803
880
-77
803
1,379
-576
Source
INCB Statistics 1981-2009
Note 1
The year 2005 was the last year of opiate manufacture at Diosynth. Some trading in CPS and TM and importation
of pure morphine and salts for pharmaceutical use, continued after 2005
For the year 2008 the INCB Report "Comparative Statement of Estimates and Statistics" contains an error for
the Netherlands. The calculated and reported figures for Stock at Year End do not agree
For the year 2008 the INCB Report mentions 1,997 kg AMA for CPS imported into the Netherlands.
In the "Comparative Statements" this quantity reported as "utilized" without any further specifation or explanation.
Note 2
Note 3
535
Source Data
OPI 9
Codeine Phosphate Price and Raw Material (Opium) Cost
Year
Indian
Opium
Price
USD/kg
[1]
Codeine
Phosphate
Price
USD/kg
[2]
Opium
Cost
USD/kg
Codphos
[3]
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
15.5
14.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
11.5
11.8
12.0
15.0
18.0
18.0
24.0
26.7
32.0
49.0
60.0
60.0
50.0
45.0
42.4
35.0
35.0
100
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100
125
325
330
405
650
825
780
650
495
400
350
345
340
111
100
93
93
86
82
84
86
107
129
129
171
191
229
350
429
429
357
321
303
250
340
Sources:
[1]
[2]
[2]
[3]
Year
Indian
Opium
Price
USD/kg
[1]
Codeine
Phosphate
Price
USD/kg
[2]
Opium
Cost
USD/kg
Codphos
[3]
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
n/a
n/a
30.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
35.0
36.5
38.0
42.0
50.0
58.0
62.0
70.0
77.5
77.5
77.5
72.5
72.5
72.5
330
280
230
200
205
210
380
485
442
385
400
469
445
570
650
646
625
576
515
500
500
n/a
n/a
214
225
225
225
225
250
261
271
300
357
414
443
500
554
554
554
518
518
518
Prices at 10% AMA as established by the Indian Government (courtesy Tas Alk)
Average annual open world-market price (courtesy Tasmanian Alkaloids)
1962-63 and 1970-71 recollections of the author (approximate prices)
[3] = [1] / 1.40 Cost of opium per kg codeine phosphate (1.40 is the yield factor
commonly used in the industry).
Codeine Phosphate Price and
Raw Material (Opium) Cost 1961-2004
1000
600
400
200
Codeine Phosphate Price
Raw Material (Opium) Cost
536
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
0
1962
USD / kg
800
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Year
537
Source
Notes
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
134.2
143.4
153.1
143.2
175.1
176.5
193.5
184.3
189.7
197.9
189.4
186.0
185.5
187.1
196.2
192.6
186.6
(1)
Total
Consumption
103.5
110.7
115.8
105.9
146.4
136.1
141.4
137.5
140.6
156.2
155.8
141.9
151.7
141.5
152.6
148.0
143.5
(3)
Consumption
met by
Import
91.2
80.1
82.5
81.8
111.9
161.9
132.4
155.6
138.8
116.4
121.4
153.6
213.4
288.9
318.2
259.0
186.5
Surplus
Production
available
for Export
(4)
-12.3
-30.6
-33.3
-24.1
-34.5
25.8
-9.0
18.1
-1.8
-39.8
-34.4
11.7
61.7
71.9
136.3
170.2
115.5
(5)
Excess
Production
52.6
50.0
34.3
36.6
60.9
90.7
81.1
91.5
104.6
97.8
111.2
125.8
153.8
131.1
175.8
151.7
117.2
India
(6)
14.2
18.0
36.2
24.8
26.7
43.2
31.3
48.4
15.5
0.0
0.0
17.5
48.0
127.3
98.5
41.5
46.5
Turkey
(7)
66.8
68.0
70.5
61.4
87.6
133.9
112.4
139.9
120.1
97.8
111.2
143.3
201.8
258.4
274.3
193.2
163.7
India +
Turkey
(8)
24.4
12.1
12.0
20.4
24.3
28.0
20.0
15.7
18.7
18.6
10.2
10.3
11.6
30.5
43.9
65.8
22.8
Other
Countries
(9)
Surplus Production available for Export
Equivalent tonnes AMA
Opiate Consumption met by Imports and
Production available for Export (1964-1980)
Total opiate consumption worldwide
Opiate consumption in raw materials producing countries
Opiate consumption met by imports (all other countries)
(3) = (1) - (2)
Surplus raw materials plus opiates available for export
(4) = (6) + (7) + (9)
Excess production raw materials and opiates
(5) = (4) - (3)
Raw materials available for export from India
Raw materials available for export from Turkey
Raw materials available for export from India plus Turkey
(8) = (6) + (7)
Raw materials plus opiates available for export from Other Countries
INCB Report for 1980 E/INCB/52/Supp, Tables 17-18, p 108-109
30.7
32.7
37.3
37.3
28.7
40.4
52.1
46.8
49.1
41.7
33.6
44.1
33.8
45.6
43.6
44.6
43.1
Consumption
met by
Domestic
Production
(2)
Opiate Consumption met by Imports and Surplus Production available for Export 1984-1980
Source Data
OPI 10
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
Share Capital
NLG
[1]
200
300
360
225
80
55
140
0
50
75
36
0
20
130
280
291
300
300
350
35
50
50
50
150
250
150
Dividend
%
[2]
24,000
36,000
43,200
27,000
9,600
6,600
16,800
0
16,200
24,300
11,664
0
6,480
42,120
90,720
94,284
97,200
97,200
113,400
11,340
16,200
16,200
16,200
48,600
81,000
48,600
Dividend
NLG
[3]
538
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
64,800
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
97,200
Share Capital
NLG
[1]
500
125
150
95
55
85
80
75
85
90
75
150
140
50
10
18
10
0
12
35
n/a
20
30
60
20
53.33
Dividend
%
[2]
162,000
40,500
48,600
30,780
17,820
27,540
25,920
24,300
27,540
29,160
24,300
48,600
45,360
32,400
9,720
17,496
9,720
0
11,664
34,020
n/a
19,440
29,160
58,320
19,440
51,840
Dividend
NLG
[3]
Notes
The figures in column [3] are calculated by the author [3] = [1]* [2]%
Dividend 1940: 100% paid as shares plus 40% paid in cash.
Dividend 1941: 50% paid as shares.
Dividend 1951 plus 1953: 66.67% paid as shares
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
Year
NCF Dividend Payments (1902-1953)
Sources
1902-1944 Report by the Koloniale Bank on the NCF, dated
26 Nov. 1945 Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Access No.2.20.04 Item 928
1945-1949 Nederlandsche Cocaine Fabriek
(Minutes of Board Meetings), 23 February 1934 - 15 May 1950.
1950-1953 NCF Profit and Loss Accounts
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
Year
NCF Dividend Payments (1902-1950)
Source Data
FIN 1
539
NLG
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
NCF Dividend Payments 1902-1953
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
Source Data
NCF Dividend Payments (1902-1953) Chart
FIN 1A
USD/NLG
2.49
2.46
2.47
2.39
2.38
2.13
2.55
2.91
2.97
2.60
2.56
2.62
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.48
1.93
1.48
1.48
1.55
1.82
1.82
1.87
1.88
Year
until 1914
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
4.23
4.85
5.50
5.77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.20
4.20
4.21
4.19
4.20
4.19
4.23
4.21
3.28
2.54
2.48
2.48
2.49
2.49
2.50
2.50
4.20
USD/DEM
0.58
0.51
0.43
0.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.60
0.63
0.73
0.73
0.75
0.75
0.59
DEM/NLG
During the period 1876-1913 a number of countries including the
USA, Germany and the Netherlands had linked the values of their
currencies to a defined weight of pure gold (the Gold Standard).
From 1834 to 1933 the price of 1 Troy Ounce (31.103481 gram) of
gold was fixed at USD 20.67.
Exchange Rates US Dollar (USD), Dutch Guilder (NLG)
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
2.64
2.64
2.65
2.65
2.90
3.81
3.81
3.80
3.80
3.79
3.81
3.83
3.82
3.79
3.77
3.77
3.63
3.60
3.60
3.61
3.60
3.62
3.60
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.49
3.21
2.78
USD/NLG
1.5048
0.6048
0.3584
1 USD
1 NLG
1 DEM
Year
Gram
Gold
Currency
1.000
0.402
0.238
USD
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Year
2.488
1.000
0.593
NLG
4.199
1.688
1.000
DEM
2.68
2.52
2.64
2.45
2.16
2.01
1.99
2.50
2.67
2.85
3.21
3.32
2.45
2.03
1.98
2.12
1.82
1.87
1.76
1.86
1.82
USD/NLG
1876 - 1913
Exchange Rates US Dollar (USD), Dutch Guilder (NLG)
540
Source: Lawrence H. Officer, "Exchange Rates
Between the United States Dollar and Forty-one
Currencies", MeasuringWorth, 2008. URL:
http://www.measuringworth.org/exchangeglobal
Value
Source Data
FIN 2
Source Data
NCF Cost Extraction Poppy Straw (1943-1944) Page 1
541
FIN 3
Source Data
NCF Cost Extraction Poppy Straw (1943-1944) Page 2
542
FIN 3A
543
Source:
640
4
137
5
85
747
NCF Annual Accounts 1950-1960
540
1
14
Equities and Bonds
Banks and Cash
TOTAL ASSETS
57
Accounts Receivable
474
443
461
57
65
311
276
35
28
25
25
1954
611
5
228
303
262
41
349
125
274
169
416
58
152
626
31
25
3
1953
Inventory Finished Product
Inventory Raw Materials
Inventory for Third Parties
Total Inventory
25
25
6
1952
50
25
Property, Plant and Equipment
25
1951
Participations
25
Land and Buildings
Machinery and Equipment
Machinery on Order
1950
Balance Sheets 1950-1960 (Re-arranged)
Assets
714
15
257
361
299
62
50
31
25
6
1955
860
6
376
371
371
5
102
25
3
74
1956
1,170
1
335
624
379
245
5
205
133
72
1957
1,183
27
228
679
456
223
5
244
143
101
1958
1,411
9
212
693
452
241
212
285
161
124
1959
NLG 000
1,410
2
110
826
652
174
140
332
171
161
1960
Source Data
NCF Balance Sheets 1950-1960 (Re-arranged) Assets
FIN 4
544
Source:
540
TOTAL EQUITIES
747
10
20
169
220
19
29
29
183
70
90
18
5
97
1952
461
8
56
2
0
70
17
29
29
182
70
90
17
5
97
1953
611
7
78
1
64
72
45
0
0
182
70
90
17
5
162
1954
714
13
89
110
74
64
25
25
177
50
127
0
0
162
1955
860
14
50
239
102
26
90
90
177
50
127
0
0
162
1956
1,170
4
73
1
387
199
37
90
35
125
182
70
90
17
5
162
1957
1,183
127
254
186
77
35
90
70
160
182
70
90
17
5
162
1958
1,411
144
258
288
87
55
90
145
235
182
70
90
17
5
162
1959
NLG 000
1,410
76
560
135
28
7
90
170
260
182
50
67
0
0
65
162
1960
NCF Balance Sheets 1950-1960 (Re-arranged) Equities
640
3
72
2
34
Undistributed Net Income
Net Income current year
158
62
138
Various Debts
Bank Loans
55
Accounts Payable
65
0
0
29
0
183
70
90
18
5
97
1951
0
Provision for Taxes
Other Provisions
Dividend Reserve (Loan)
Renewal Fund (Loan)
(Shareholder) Loans
185
70
90
20
5
General Reserve
Special Reserve
Delcredere
Support Fund
Renewal Fund (Retained)
Retained Earnings
97
Capital Stock (Issued)
1950
Equities
Source Data
FIN 4A
545
2
0
5
128
56
72
1
3
3
54
20
34
Interest
Other Income
Provision for Losses
Income before Taxes
Provision for taxes
Net Income
11
20
9
1
0
31
3
39
71
15
14
42
1952
0
135
1
55
Depreciation
Operating Income
Source:
170
15
20
135
78
10
12
56
1951
Income from Operations
Contributions to NCF Superfund
Bonuses
Margin on Operations
1950
Profit & Loss Account 1950-1960 (Re-arranged)
(Income Statement)
40
56
0
1
0
96
4
95
134
15
20
99
1953
59
78
1
2
0
137
5
136
180
15
25
140
1954
56
89
0
12
0
145
4
134
152
15
0
137
1955
20
50
0
15
46
70
5
101
121
15
0
106
1956
38
73
0
5
0
111
15
106
146
0
25
120
1957
77
127
19
0
35
203
20
257
311
0
33
278
1958
77
144
0
0
21
220
31
241
272
0
0
272
1959
NLG 000
0
76
0
23
17
76
41
70
139
0
28
111
1960
Source Data NCF Profit & Loss Account 1950-1960 (Re-arranged) Income Statement
FIN 5
546
5
7
220
118
76
107
103
15
205
1957
0
8
264
59
39
20
244
1958
9
34
9
0
25
6
3
31
1952
0
0
25
1951
71
5
102
1956
1
25
1950
10
316
72
41
31
285
1959
13
32
1
-3
4
28
1953
11
373
88
47
41
332
1960
17
30
2
-3
5
25
1954
NLG 000
11
35
10
6
4
31
1955
NCF Investments and Depreciation 1950-1960
Source: NCF Annual Accounts 1950-1960
Calculations by the author (HHB)
Percent depreciation
Property, Plant and Equipment before depreciation
Net Increase in value
Depreciation (P&L Account)
New investments
Property, Plant and Equipment (Balance Sheet)
New investments
Investments and Depreciation 1950-1960
Source Data
FIN 6
547
TOTAL EQUITIES
2,978
3,097
0
100
622
0
125
250
2,000
3,097
419
926
253
741
559
47
152
758
1950
3,243
0
142
681
0
120
300
2,000
3,243
523
69
226
1,437
772
46
170
989
1951
The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand NLG
Annual Reports VPF 1948-1963
2,920
10
90
529
15
83
250
2,000
2,978
0
1,023
300
781
729
21
124
874
1949
3,333
27
146
656
0
150
354
2,000
3,333
259
208
381
1,412
782
45
246
1,073
1952
3,512
37
150
691
0
225
409
2,000
3,512
186
725
470
1,006
811
69
245
1,125
1953
3,766
29
151
842
0
280
464
2,000
3,766
184
782
532
1,113
836
53
266
1,155
1954
NLG 000
4,070
22
175
657
0
698
519
2,000
4,070
184
1,047
573
1,019
855
85
308
1,248
1955
VPF Balance Sheets 1948-1955 (Re-arranged)
Note
Source
443
16
Accounts Payable
Doubtful Debts
11
99
100
Provision for Taxes
250
2,000
General Reserve (Retained Earnings)
2,920
0
503
Equities and Bonds
Banks and Cash
TOTAL ASSETS
327
1,250
687
0
153
840
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
Land and Buildings
Real Estate
1948
Source Data
FIN 7
548
Note
4,336
TOTAL EQUITIES
4,557
4
227
0
0
220
941
431
734
0
0
734
2,000
4,557
178
74
850
1,958
0
850
342
304
0
1,496
1957
9,211
18
254
0
750
734
2,170
1,030
1,000
250
1,005
2,255
2,000
9,211
111
175
1,080
4,656
30
984
385
1,040
750
3,159
1959
4,758
6
241
0
0
0
740
771
1,000
0
0
1,000
2,000
4,758
148
1,036
700
1,481
0
828
372
193
0
1,394
1958
10,317
18
237
2,500
196
0
1,219
1,692
1,200
250
1,005
2,455
2,000
10,317
111
464
1,274
5,138
30
1,382
365
1,358
196
3,301
1960
10,392
24
214
2,500
0
120
1,286
1,542
1,450
150
1,005
2,605
2,100
10,392
117
443
1,474
5,417
30
1,340
366
1,203
0
2,910
1961
9,241
3
221
2,500
0
0
651
1,060
1,550
150
1,005
2,705
2,100
9,241
117
1,676
1,889
3,256
30
1,225
356
692
0
2,272
1962
NLG 000
9,728
9
220
2,500
0
0
631
1,413
1,700
150
1,005
2,855
2,100
9,728
117
4,115
1,437
2,474
30
1,088
350
117
0
1,555
1963
VPF Balance Sheets 1956-1963 (Re-arranged)
Annual Reports VPF 1948-1963
11
181
Source
746
Accounts Payable
0
0
0
822
Provision for Taxes
5% Debenture Loan
Various Debts
Bank Loans
576
0
0
576
2,000
General Reserve
Share Premium
Revaluation reserve for machinery
Total Reserves (Retained Earnings)
4,336
193
268
Equities and Bonds
Banks and Cash
TOTAL ASSETS
746
Accounts Receivable
1,579
0
Participation in Belgian Affiliate
Inventory
923
316
312
0
1,551
Land and Buildings
Real Estate
Machinery on order
1956
Source Data
FIN 8
549
83
0
90
100
0
99
Other Income
Income before Taxes
Provision for taxes
Retained Earnings
Net Income
VPF Annual Reports 1948-1963
46
173
52
199
Operating Income
Source:
95
127
1,104
882
222
1,167
986
181
34
147
Depreciation
Total Cost less Raw Mat. Cost
Sales less Raw Mat. Cost
1949
1948
125
0
100
32
225
190
193
1,232
849
383
1950
(Income Statement)
120
50
142
259
312
393
53
1,387
941
446
1951
150
50
146
29
346
333
317
1,751
1,101
650
1952
225
50
150
78
425
372
347
1,949
1,230
719
1953
280
50
151
35
481
388
446
2,328
1,494
834
1954
NLG 000
380
50
175
87
605
554
518
2,919
1,847
1,072
1955
Source Data
VPF Profit & Loss Account 1948-1955 (Re-arranged)
Income Statement
FIN 9
0
153
588
211
150
227
0
77
591
360
50
181
Interest
Other Income
Income before Taxes
550
Provision for taxes
Retained Earnings
Net Income
630
253
241
0
67
1,124
450
1,057
3,974
2,467
1,507
1958
750
236
254
0
173
1,240
548
1,067
4,328
2,713
1,615
1959
1,000
185
237
0
149
1,422
966
1,273
5,561
3,322
2,239
1960
600
250
214
125
65
1,064
760
1,124
4,914
3,030
1,884
1961
400
100
221
125
200
721
759
646
4,395
2,990
1,405
1962
NLG 000
830
150
220
125
235
1,200
788
1,090
5,236
3,358
1,878
1963
VPF Profit & Loss Account 1956-1963 (Re-arranged)
Income Statement
363
435
365
514
3,057
2,259
798
2,922
2,043
879
Depreciation
Operating Income
Source:
Sales less Raw Mat. Cost
Total Cost less Raw Mat. Cost
1957
1956
(Income Statement)
Source Data
FIN 10
551
Source
Notes
Revaluation Machinery
New investments
New investments
19
20
1,860
309
668
1,916
-55
364
1,496
1957
10
969
34
95
129
874
1949
303
365
1,551
1956
34
840
1948
24
1,844
348
-102
450
1,394
1958
20
948
-117
190
73
758
1950
20
2,702
1,765
548
-1,005
1,308
3,159
1959
28
1,382
231
393
624
989
1951
Calculations by the author (HHB)
Investments and Depreciation 1948-1963
23
4,267
1,108
142
966
3,301
1960
24
1,406
84
333
418
1,073
1952
21
3,670
369
-391
760
2,910
1961
25
1,497
52
372
424
1,125
1953
25
3,031
121
-638
759
2,272
1962
25
1,543
30
388
418
1,155
1954
NLG 000
34
2,343
71
-717
788
1,555
1963
31
1,802
93
554
647
1,248
1955
Source Data
VPF Investments and Depreciation 1948-1963
FIN 11
552

The History of the Nederlandsche Cocaïne Fabriek and its

Transcription

Similar documents

Die BUCHSTAVIER - Das Dosierte Leben

Bondig 1

kekke - Piet Boon

De odyssee van de aardappel - International Potato Center

bijlagenrapport