ABSTRACT
On the basis of data derived from a major research project conducted by the National Center for Social and Criminological Research in Cairo on the use of cannabis in Egypt and several minor studies dealing with the same subject, this paper outlines traditional and current patterns of hashish consumption in Egypt. General observations and impressions are presented where no scientifically tested data are as yet available.

Along, with the presentation of a particular pattern, the paper touches upon possible similarities or dissimilarities to other patterns of cannabis use, particularly in highly industrialized societies.

The main assumption is that in the case of drug consumption, we are faced with a broad diversification stemming not only from the type of the drug but from the varying cultural context of the phenomenon.

The aspects of drug abuse are so widely diversified that to achieve any understanding or insight, the problem should be studied within its cultural context. A cross-cultural approach is indispensable to determine and interpret the epidemiological characteristics of a given drug in any given society and to identify the rationale behind its incidence. Against so many different sociocultural backgrounds, one must expect to find dissimilarities and differences in the underlying values and manifestations involved.

This assumption is plausible particularly in the case of mild levels of drug consumption where the practice tends to be culturally conditioned. This is not exactly the case, however, when we consider more serious levels of consumption where underlying individual inadequacies are generally responsible for drifting into addiction, whether through addiction-producing drugs or through heavy and frequent doses of milder drugs. Character and personality factors are probably more at work in the selection of addicts as well as other environmental circumstances.

Beyond the relatively limited scope of addiction, drugs have played an important role in man's life throughout known history. Man has always used some "substance" whether in relation to spiritual or ritualistic experiences or to induce changes of mood, feelings or perception. The choice of the substance depended on its availability and the nature of the change desired. The idea, in fact, behind many pharmacologically unrelated substances is the same: to induce an artificial sense of satisfaction derived from feeling "up" or "down" or bringing about a change of perception.

In this sense, it is a safe assumption that drug use or abuse has always been functional. This supposition could be sustained by the concept of anomie advanced by Merton who maintains that people who are denied access to the goals society values, who are given little or no opportunity to achieve those goals may withdraw and retreat from these goals and have recourse to deviant substitute activities such as drug use. Merton has stressed the need to alleviate the strains between the cultural goals and the unequal means for achieving them, which constitute a constant pressure toward deviancy (Brill 1966).

We could cite, for example, the case of chewing coca leaf, which probably has the effect of alleviating thirst and reducing sensations of hunger. The rationale behind coca-leaf chewing could be basically utilitarian in the sense that it provides a means to overcome unwillingness to work, or enables adequate functioning in socioeconomic conditions where work is an unpleasant or arduous experience.

As regards cannabis, the studies on habituation to hashish consuniption undertaken by the National Center for Social and Criminological Research in Cairo which have been going on for several years,3 indicate that there is a popular close association between hashish and feelings of elation and relaxation, good highs, improvement of personal communications and relatedness and a deep sense of togetherness. The research findings also indicate that under hashish a more pleasurable sex experience is believed to be attained. Of course, the objectivity of this observation is debatable but certainly, in a matter based so much on imagination, it is quite important.

There are some clues which could support the assumption that drug intake is indeed functional especially when viewed in broad cultural perspective. Cultural beliefs define to some degree the situation of any drug use and by far condition its effects. With this functional character in mind, society, which seems to have always lived with drugs, should learn to live with the fact that drugs are here to stay and their use may even be expected to increase. This licit expectation of a human society more involved in drugs could find a strong argument in our gradual development into a leisure society looking increasingly for mind-expanding experiences.

To turn to the more recent manifestations of drug misuse, a close review of the drug scene discloses disturbing trends which have become apparent in the past decade, mainly the increasing resort to drugs by younger age groups and the popularization of psychotropic drugs. These are usually classified into three groups: hallucinogenic mind-expanding drugs, e.g., cannabis and LSD; stimulants, e.g., amphetamines and cocaine; and sedatives. In the present order of popularity, cannabis seems to come first. While the misuse of heroin and other opiates seems to remain comparatively static, the psychotropic drugs, the so-called pop-drugs, are gaining more popularity. This thesis is apparently sustained by Interpol reports that the volume of illicit traffic has increased by thirty per cent in 1968 as reflected by seizures, and that except in the case of opium the quantities of drugs seized appeared to be on the increase. In this connectins, we might observe that the popularization of psychotropic drugs has taken place in developed and industrialized parts of the world while it was almost traditionally limited to less-developed regions.

We, therefore, seem to be confronted now with a problem of a dual character, sometimes described as two subcultures of drug use, the narcotics subculture and the psychedelic subculture. Research in the United States where the two types coexist tends in general to indicate that "junkies" (narcotic users) represent a cross-section of socially, economically and culturally deprived Americans while "hippies," the most outstanding or visible group favoring psychedelic drugs, are middle-class Americans. The maximum cluster among hippies falls within the ages of 18 to 21, while junkies range from the mid-teens to older citizens age groups (Hamburger 1969).

Without going as far as assuming the existence of two drug subcultures, we are of the opinion that the drug wave should not be viewed as a unique phenomenon revealing identical traits. Putting aside for more detailed consideration the traditional use of some drugs in many parts of the world that could not be ascribed to the modern drug wave, we have on the one hand the most socially and economically deprived neighborhoods with the highest rate of juvenile delinquency and crime which have always developed a special cultural climate favorable to drug abuse and addiction; on the other hand we have the angry or apathetic young generation disillusioned by what they believe is the evident failure of the establishment or the "system." On the whole, these are experimenters looking for new experiences rather than desperate life-deserters squeezed by the life machine. Generally, unless they drift to heavy doses and addiction, they experience no serious side effects and are often able eventually to break the habit. Glorifying justification is sometimes given to these experimenters; their indulgence in drugs is not viewed as a case of acting out internal problems or as a consequence of failure in legitimate or illegitimate social endeavor; they are seen rather to be playing a conscious active role by striving toward the high status of protest or rebellion, while at the same time, feeling fatherless in modern society, they find common bonds and a sense of belonging through a peer group of drug users.

Coming back to traditional patterns, we realise that habitual consumption of cannabis assumes a different character in those countries where it constitutes a traditional habit practiced for hundreds or even thousands of years. In these countries many otherwise normal people consume cannabis with the same attitude as people who consume alcohol in a normal social manner. In some North African countries with a long established pattern of use among lower-class males, there appears to be no upsurge among youth or middle-class groups. In Morocco there are indications of an overall decline in cannabis use, associated with an increase of the use of alcohol.

In India, there is a well-known long history of cannabis use in religious practices, both in celebrating various religious holidays and in trse by priests and other religious figures. As regards the use of cannabis in indigenous systems of medicine in India, eighty per cent of the population lived in villages which had no access to modern medicine and traditional systems of medicine employing cannabis were essential for the treatment of a number of illnesses. The introduction and supply of modern medicines to a huge population was a gigantic task which could only be accomplished over a period of time.

Egypt has a long history with hashish use that probably goes back several hundred years. It is usually maintained that this may be the result of religious sanctions that prohibited the consumption of alcohol. While there may be some justification in this assumption it would be an oversimplistic interpretation. Maqrizi, an Egyptian historian (1364-1442 A.D.), reports how the Sultan Nigm Al Din Ayoub ordered Prince Gamal Al Din Fath Moussa Ibn Aghmour to prevent the plantation of hashish in the Regouri Gardens. One day, when the Sultan went to the gardens, he observed that there were yet great quantities of hashish left intact, consequently, he ordered that the plants be collected and burnt.

Maqrizi also maintains that, at the turn of the fourteenth century, the Sultan punished eaters of hashish by pulling out their teeth. Despite the harsh punishment, a quarter of a century later, hashish consumption was a public matter; eating the plant was quite fashionable and talking about it became most uninhibited.

According to modern Arabic historians, cannabis came to be planted and used in Egypt around the mid-twelfth century during the reign of the Ayyubid dynasty, as a result of the emigration of mystic devotees from Syria. Poems published in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries describe the desirable behavioral changes attributed to cannabis consumption. They are: euphoria, acquiescence, sociability, carefreeness, feelings of importance, meditativeness, activation of intelligence, jocularity and amiability. By way of comparison with alcohol the following qualities were attributed to hashish; it was cheap and not prohibited by the Islamic religion, a comparatively small quantity was enough to get the desired effect; it did not smell like alcohol and, therefore, was not easily detectable; and lastly, that it was not pressed by the feet in preparation for consumption. On the other hand, the adversaries pointed out five undesirable effects resulting from hashish use: submissiveness, debility, insanity, some sort of organic brain damage, and prostitution (Hussein 1957). This poetry reflects the poets' diagnostic practices supposed to draw upon popular wisdom.

As far back as 1879 Egyptian authorities attempted to enact laws for the prevention of hashish consumption. The first piece of legislation in fact only prohibited the cultivation of cannabis. Since then harsher penalties have gradually been set: Law 182/1960, amended by law 40/1966, punishes by the death penalty and a fine from three to ten thousand pounds the illicit import, export, production or manufacture of drugs. To possess, buy, sell, transport or offer drugs for illicit traffic is an offence punishable by the death penalty or hard labor for life and a fine in the above amount.

An Egyptian researcher who conducted a study of the consumption of hashish in Egypt in the 1950s explains the stigma attached to hashish by the fact that consumption was associated with the poor and lower classes who were subject to the contempt of the upper classes. The results of his work point to the fact that while hashish consumption is not exclusively a one class practice, it is more widespread among the poor working class. Next on the social scale are the middle class followed by the wealthy, who consume the least (Al-Magraby 1963).

Here we might note that cannabis use in the United States heavily involves college youth, the educated and the middle class which supports the assumption that we are faced with diversified cultural patterns of consumption.

The most thorough and comprehensive study on hashish consumption in Egypt to date has been undertaken since 1957 by the National Center for Social and Criminological Research in Cairo. A series of reports on the research findings have been issued by the research team headed by Professor M. I. Soueif. A recent publication reports the results of the administration of the interviewing schedules to 850 hashish takers and 839 non-takers (Soueif 1971).

The experimental group included the whole population convicted exclusively for hashish use and detained in Egyptian penal institutions during the period from June 1967 to March 1968 who admitted using the drug at least once per month throughout the year preceding imprisonment. Ages ranged from 15 to slightly over 50 years with an average of 39 years. Four hundred sixty subjects were in prisons in big cities intended for urban offenders, while 390 subjects were villagers detained in rural prisons. Seventy-two per cent of the group were married, 21% bachelors, 6% divorced and about 1% widowed. Sixty percent were illiterate and the rest distributed among various levels of education with only six subjects having completed high school. None were university graduates. Approximately 25% of the group were skilled laborers and the rest were unskilled workers.

Controls were selected from among the convicts detained in the same prisons as the experimentals. The control group is fairly well matched to the experimentals in regard to age, urban or rural background and percentages of skilled laborers. The experimentals have a better position as to income while the opposite is true concerning literacy.

Smoking was found to be the prevalent route of administration (89.4%) either by josah, a smoking pipe (61.7%) ; or cigarettes (10.5%); or a combination of both (17.1%). Very few habitues (1.3%) take the drug orally only, and the rest (9.3%) combine smoking with some method of oral administration.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the literature on hashish consumption in Egypt indicated that the drug was eaten rather than smoked, and that hashish was eaten in its purest form. Methods of mixing the drug appeared later. In modern times, however, smoking is the usual manner of consumption, and smokers have often been viewed as being more refined than eaters of hashish.

Smoking as a preferred way of drug use was found to be related to the number of times per month the drug was taken. Thus, 87% of heavy users (those who take the drug more than 30 times) versus 93% of moderates (those who take it 30 times or less) invariably smoke the drug.

The majority (82.5%) take hashish in groups, and only 17.5% consume it alone. Heavy users do not differ markedly from moderate ones in this respect; city dwellers, however, have a significantly higher percentage of lone-takers (23.9%) than the users from rural areas (10%).

A significant relationship was found between frequency of hashish use and age of onset; the earlier the onset the higher the frequency. When the group was divided into those who started taking the drug regularly before the age of 22 (N = 488) and those who began at 22 or after (N =-- 354) the relationship was very striking. Whereas 76% of those who started before the age of 22 were heavy users, only 56% of the beginners after 22 were in the same category. The discrepancy between the two percentages is highly significant.

Heavy users did not differ markedly from moderates as regards the situation (i.e., the external circumstances) which occasioned the onset of use. When asked about their conscious motives for starting hashish use, more heavy takers than moderates mentioned imitation (62.5% v. 53.4%, respectively), trying to behave in a "manly" manner (78.4% v. 58.9%) and seeking euphoria (86.3% v. 79.1%).

Nearly a third (31.6%) of the group admitted that they used to take °phi& More heavy takers (34.3%) than moderates (25.7%) tend to take opium. Opium taking was also found to be slightly more prevalent among urban habitues (34.5%) than among the rural group (28%).

More hashish users (22.7%) than controls (9.1%) (regardless of urban or rural background) were found to be alcohol drinkers. The difference is highly significant. As in the case of opium, more alcohol drinkers were found among heavy hashish users (27%) than among moderate users (13.5%) and the difference was again highly significant.

Forty-two per cent of the group started to take cannabis before the age of 20. Out of this subgroup 32.8% had their first experience with the drug before completing 16 years of age (early beginners). On the other hand, 17.6% of the total group did not start before the age of 28 years (late beginners).

More early beginners (61.2%) than late ones (24.7%) reported some family member or members using cannabis. Again more early beginners (36.4%) than late ones (17.6%) with one parent reported dead, stated that the remaining parent was remarried. The difference is significant. Early beginners reported more incidence of separation and/or divorce between parents (15%) than the late beginners (7.8%).

Thus, early onset of cannabis use is associated with exposure to the influence of a drug consuming example within the family circle, combined with the effect of the loss of father or mother and the intrusion of a stepparent.

Asked about their conscious motives for taking hashish for the first time subjects stated numerous motives, ranked in the following order: conformity to a group of personal friends (87.8%); seeking euphoria (86.6%); behaving like "real men" (72.5%); imitating others (59.5%); curiosity (75.5%); forgetting personal problems (42.8%); alleviating a mood of depression (40.5%); medicinal use (27.3%); and lastly, for the enhancement of sexual enjoyment (23.8%). This ranking of conscious reasons for taking hashish for the first time was found to prevail among the experimentals irrespective of urban or rural background, heavy use or moderation and early or late onset.

Of the group, 27.3% stated they had interrupted cannabis taking once or twice. Only 17.1% of the early starters did so compared with 31.7% of the late ones.

When asked about their conscious motives for resumption they stated three main reasons, in the following order: the impact of the occasion; to be able to bear their troubles; and having leisure time to spare. Almost the same pattern emerged when early beginners were compared with late beginners, and again when comparing heavy users with moderates.

When asked whether they still wished to stop taking hashish, 78.5% of the total group answered in the affirmative with a marked difference between early (60%) and late beginners (93.2%). A difference was noted between heavy users (75.1%) and moderates (85.6%). The reasons, in their order of frequency, were as follows, irrespective of heavy taking versus moderation and/or early versus late onset of the habit: financial reasons, fear of punishment, health reasons, and lastly, concern about social status.

It is safe to assume, as a result of research and observation, that cannabis more than any other intoxicant is used to achieve a sense of belonging to an intimate group. It is widely believed that a hashish session creates an atmosphere of joy and fun-loving causing the participants to be amused by the slightest matters, to exchange jokes and repeated greetings and words of endearment combined with a tendency to forget one's troubles and enjoy the moment. Smoking hashish in a water pipe, as a folk song points out, has the function of "grouping" the "beloved."

An in-depth study of the "togetherness" of hashish consumers could shed light on the factors of attraction and the manner in which newcomers are initiated. The reason for initiation is usually to conform to the general atmosphere of one's friends and to avoid their criticism and insinuations that non-participants should leave.

A hashish session usually brings together people from different professions, classes and educational standards, who meet in an atmosphere of brotherhood and equality as well as freedom fron social norms that prescribe certain modes of behavior. Furthermore, these sessions follow particular rituals. There is a supervisor usually called The Sultan who has the honor and privilege of having the first "drag" from each new "load." The water pipe is then passed around to the participants who sit in a circle. The person who is in charge of the pipe changes the water, feeds the fire and loads it with hashish.

It is reported that hashish consumers feel superior to alcoholics and to consumers of other drugs such as opium and cocaine. They believe that alcohol and other narcotics are addictive and could lead to insanity and loss of respect and identity. Hashish consumers in Egypt have always insisted that the practice was not prohibited by Islam despite the fact that the Egyptian Islam Mufti issued a Fetwa in 1940 that prohibited the consumption of hashish or any other drug, equating it with alcohol.

If society has lived with drugs, it has always also lived with some sort of social control related to drug use. Drugs have been a subject of legislative regulation all over the world reflecting local conditions and underlying legalphilosophy. The legal-thought impact has had great influence in the shaping of popular ideas. The drug offence is the creation of a legal norm set out by legislation; and it is safe to assume that the law has largely acted upon the premise that drug addiction was largely a vice which could be conquered by an effort of the will.

Setting aside the evident case of compulsive addiction, some sort of legal philosophy is at the base of incrimination of drug offences. In the light of the prevailing thesis of the protection of social interests, some would wonder if the law has often gone too far in incriminating drug offences and enacting severe penalties. It is necessary to determine precisely what interest society wishes to protect. Indeed, one is somewhat confused about the thin line which cross-cuts the use of such substances and divides it into permitted and prohibited substances.

Needless to say, however, illicit traffic in and production of dangerous drugs should remain a criminal offense or even be regarded more severely. On the other hand, if private moral conduct should not be criminalized there always remain the social effects which could have more drastic consequences on those using drugs, especially the young. If the use of narcotics hardly needs to be argued, psychedelic drugs are seen as giving rise to major undesired social consequences such as psychological dependence, drug-seeking behavior, leaving little room for other activities, restriction of stimuli conducive to social apathy and marginality and irresponsible behavior.

Marihuana is generally agreed to be the mildest, least dangerous of drugs. Yet it is classified as a narcotic along with morphine and heroin, and long terms of imprisonment are imposed for its possession and use. These laws governing marihuana are an example of the irrationality of legislation and are completely out of proportion to the actual dangers and constitute social hypocrisy regarding drugs and alcohol.

Some recommend legal reform through a new classification of drugs by danger, with offences scaled accordingly. Cannabis should be removed from its present category to a lesser one. Offences relating to cannabis should be set according to the quantity involved, with higher penalties for trafficking and more modest ones for possession of quantities intended for personal use. On the whole, the laws in a great number of countries have failed to act flexibly on the differentiation related to the type and quantity of drugs. Perhaps possession for personal use or for trafficking has been the most popular basis of differentiation.

In Egypt, Act 182/1960 amended by Act 40/1966 makes no distinction between drugs as to type or quantities, and does not subscribe to differentiation in punishment between hard and "softer" drugs like cannabis. Egyptian law only distinguishes between types of offences. The import, export, production or manufacture of drugs for illicit traffic is punishable by death and a fine of 3-10 thousand pounds; other acts of commerce are punishable by death or hard labor for life and a fine as mentioned above; penalty for possession for personal use is imprisonment for 3-15 years and a fine of 500-3000 pounds.

Strict law enforcement — if ever totally or partially attained — and severe penalties are not the easy answer to problems of drug addiction and misuse. It is a fallacy, though, that law enforcement is the best method to deal with social evils. We must look for a rational drug control program based on a thorough understanding of the phenomenon.

REFERENCES

AL-MAGRABY, S.
1963 The phenomenon of hashish use. Cairo: Dar-el-Maaref.

BRILL, LEON
1966 Drug abuse as a social problem. The International Journal of the Addictions 1:2, 10.

HAMBURGER, E.
1969 Contrasting the hippie and junkie. The International Journal of the Addictions 4:1, 133-134.

HUSSEIN, M. K.
1957 Studies in poetry during the Ayyubid dynasty. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr el Arabi.

SOUEIF, M. I.
1971 The use of cannabis in Egypt, a behavioral study. Bulletin on Narcotics 33:17-28.

1 In November 1957, a committee was set up to carry out the enquiry under Professor Zeiwar. In June 1966, Professor M. I. Soueif took over from him. Professor Soueif, who was on the first committee, was responsible for writing up the successive reports published by the National Center and the English summaries, some of which were published in the United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics.