Drug Abuse

by Roger Smith M.S.
Director Haight-Ashbury Amphetamine Research Project

The possession, sale or use of marijuana in the United States today is considered serious deviant behavior, both legally and socially, and the penal sanctions which may be imposed on a convicted marijuana offender are among the most severe in both the Federal and State penal codes. It is the threat of arrest and conviction which is currently the most persuasive argument advanced to young people when attempting to dissuade them from the use of the drug. Simple logic would suggest to us that there must be more to our proscription of marijuana than meets the eye; in order to merit such severe legal penalties, marijuana surely poses a major threat to the fabric of our society, in the same way that society is threatened by acts of murder, arson or burglary, criminal acts which carry similar stiff penal sanctions.

Although the professional literature reveals conflicting data regarding the pharmacological, psychological, and social effects of marijuana use, there is nowhere presented fact or research data which would justify our current legal attitude toward the drug. It is for this reason that we seek, in this paper, to examine some of the less tangible aspects of attempts to control marijuana use in this country, as well as to review some of the highlights of such legislation historically. Because the history of marijuana legislation has been extensively reported in both the professional and lay literature, a certain familiarity with the content and implications of that specific legislation is assumed, although reference will be made to it when it is of some particular value or interest.

The Historical Background

In the years which preceded the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act, the specter of "demon rum" was still quite clear in the minds of the moral entrepreneurs of this nation, when a new menace, the "killer weed" raised its ugly head. Like alcohol, it was an intoxicant which was sought after primarily because of the pleasure it gave the user, but unlike alcohol, it did not provide for the spiritually-redeeming morning-after hangover. Its use, like alcohol, is a pleasurable, hedonistic, non-productive, and above all, a sinful practice. As a pharmacological entity, marijuana can be regarded as a relatively innocuous and insignificant weed, but as a social, legal and philosophical entity, it
has assumed menacing proportions. Just why this has happened requires a close examination of the images which were drawn of the marijuana smoker and the methods employed to arouse a generally apathetic and unaware public to this new menace.

It is somewhat difficult to understand where the impetus for such an energetic anti-marijuana campaign on the national level arose. In the late 1920's, marijuana was used primarily in the South and Southwest part of the country, where the majority of the habituates were Mexican descent, although the practice had slowly spread to the urban centers in the North, where marijuana smoking was practiced by musicians and other "bohemian" groups.

One of the earliest and most forceful of the anti-marijuana crusaders was Earle Albert Towel!, who was convinced that he had discovered the ultimate aim of the tobacco industry; namely turning everyone on to marijuana, which, in his opinion, would lead ultimately to the destruction of the morals and health of the nation. In his popular book On the Trail of Marijuana, The Weed of Madness, Rowell clearly outlines the potential of this new drug:

1. Destroys will power, making a jellyfish of the user. He cannot say no.

2. Eliminates the line between right and wrong, and substitutes one's own warped desires or the base suggestions of others as the standard of right.

3. Above all, causes crime; fills the victims with an irrepressible urge to violence.

4. Incites to revolting immoralities, including rape and murder.

5. Causes many accidents, both industrial and automobile.

6. Ruins careers forever.

7. Causes insanity as its specially.

8. Either in self-defense or as a means of revenue, users make smokers of others, thus perpetuating evil •2

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, formed in 1 930 and staffed largely by ex-Prohibition agents, was apparently not particularly concerned with the national control of marijuana until the middle 1930's. By 1930, some 16 states had passed legislation restricting the sale or use of marijuana in some way, although these laws were not vigorously enforced, for the most part. In 1932, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was an interested observer at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws which touched on the matter of marijuana legislation on the state level. It was about this time that a rash of lurid articles and stories began to appear in the popular press concerning marijuana, most of which were outrageous enough to prompt the FBN to publically minimize the importance of the "marijuana menace. "S At this time they apparently saw marijuana control as properly the baliwick of the states.

Despite the fact that following the Uniform State Laws conference in 1932, several additionalstates enacted legislation prohibiting the manufacture, sale or possession of marijuana, the FBN became increasingly insistent that the states were not doing enough and that if they did not step up their efforts, the FBN would be forced to seek legal controls at the Federal level. By 1936, the FBN, and particularly Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, was deeply involved in a campaign to alert the public to the menace of marijuana. There is an interesting parallel between their efforts to shape policy with regards to marijuana and their previous campaign to impose their will on the administration of various pieces of legislation intended to control the distribution and use of the "hard" narcotics, principally the opiates and cocaine.

The opiate addict at the turn of the century was regarded as an unfortunate victim of ignorance, who had become addicted to drugs which he had initially used for alleviating suffering, and not simply for the pleasurable feelings which accompanied its use. The majority of addicts at this time were women, most were Protestants, whiteand from rural areas. With the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the patent medicines loaded with opiates were taken off the market, while the Harrison Act of 1914 curbed the indiscriminate sale of opiates across the counter. The Harrison Act, like the Marijuana Tax Act, is a revenue act, and is enforced by agencies within the Treasury Department. The original law made no mention of addicts or addiction, and reflected a growing concern about the widespread use of narcotics for the self-treatment of a variety of complaints. The legislation came at a time when the medical-profession was becoming aware of the potential dangers of such drugs and sought to sharply curtail their use.

Those who were addicted to narcotics immediately subsequent to the passage of the Harrison Act had little difficulty in receiving proper medical care, until a series of court interpretations of the Act made it impossible for the addict to obtain drugs from any source other than the black market. Thus, many cities opened up ambulatory drug clinics, the first being in New York City, in 1919, with hopes for rehabilitating the addict and preventing his involvement with criminal drug distributors. Later, other cities began opening drug clinics, and there were soon a total of 44 throughout the United States.

The clinic experience was the critical period insofar as the development of our current punitive policy toward drugs is concerned. The addict was publicly characterized as an individual in need of medical help and assistance when the clinics opened in 1919. Narcotics addiction was regarded as an unfortunate occurence, but not really the fault of the individual. The public was receptive to treating him as such. By 1923, all of the clinics had closed their doors, the addict was left with only the criminal underworld as his source of supply, and he had come to be regarded by the lay public as a willfully indulgent criminal, unwilling to respond to humane medical treatment, and fully deserving of society's moral and penal sanction. It was only after this radical transformation of the addict's image that the increasingly punitive approach advocated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics could become official policy. It is of significance that nowhere in the discussions of the ambulatory clinics does one find a critical analysis of the treatment methodology. The FBN was instrumental in exposing the weaknesses of the clinics, and the press had a field day with them.

As the public became more aroused and outraged by the activities of narcotics addicts as described for them in the press, they became less receptive to pleas for moderation or rationality, and insisted on the strongest possible punitive measures. The addict was no longer a victim, but a threat, a transformation which took but four years to accomplish.4

In order to set the stage for federal legislation controlling marijuana, the FBN set about to promote the notion that the marijuana smoker was a serious threat and responsible for an increasing number of crimes, particularly crimes of violence, including murder and rape. To this end, they widely publicized several "examples" of heinous crimes which they claimed were directly related to the use of marijuana. For example:

"In 1935, a 30 year old male "assaulted 10 year old girl, admitted being under the influence of marijuana, so "crazy", convicted in court trial. Hanged."

"1936, in San Antonio, Texas. Two women arrested for possession of marijuana violently attacked Officer C. Cullen. Arrested.

1921,  male 30, beat to death with rock T. Bernhardt, boy, 14,while herding cattle in pasture; accused boy of polluting his water supply. Boy's head crushed, one eye gouged out, and missing. Arrested several hours later, he screamed and tore jail furnishings. Smoking marijuana at the time; claimed insane, found to be sane. Hanged.

1 933 Tampa, Florida. A boy murdered his father, mother, sister and two brothers with an axe while under the influence of marijuana. Didn't know of all this until next morning. Arrested.5

While there were few people in this country who objected to statements linking marijuana use and crime, it is clear that in the numerous cases previously cited, the "casual relationship" between marijuana and crime was tenuous, at best, and in some cases, outright fabrication. Thus, we turned to other sources for confirmation of the dangerous qualities inherent in the drug. Longitudinal studies on users in this country were impossible because of the length of time that it had been a "social problem", as well as the fact that there had been no research done in this area. Thus, we looked to the experiences of other cultures. One of the more popular stories on the marijuana circuit was the story of the "Assassins", in which we discover that the use of hashish by members of a certain Persian religious sect led directly to the commission of political assasinations by individuals who were in no way predisposed to such violence. In another variation of the same story, FBN officials related the stories about how warriors would become fearless fanatics on the battlefield under the influence. They failed to explain how in the first instance hashish made one a stealthy, cunning assassin, and in the latter, a screaming fanatic.

Few have called into question this particular bit of folklore from another culture, and in fact, many law enforcement officials still use this story to underscore their contention that marijuana can lead to acts of violence. Mandel's analysis of this story would suggest that they were grossly distorted, and that indeed hashish was a reward for certain kinds of behavior, not the cause of it.°

As the campaign against marijuana was stepped up, an increasing number of sensational horror stories were related in magazines and newspapers, deploring the "juicy" sex and violence which was attributed to marijuana smoking. Some enterprising attorneys attempted unsuccessfully to introduce marijuana intoxication as a defense in capital cases.

By the time the Treasury Department went to Congress with the proposed Marijuana Tax Act, the fervor had reached a high pitch. The hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means lasted five days. There was little doubt in anybody's mind that the legislation would be enacted. Rather, the primary function of the hearing was to titillate the legislators with horror stories. They were assured that the Act had the blessings of the newspapers. The Hashish-assassin story was related. The various crimes which the Federal Bureau of Narcotics linked directly to marijuana were related, including the tale of the youngster who murdered his family while under the influence, and couldn't recall having done it the following day. A district attorney told the committee that marijuana was used as an aphrodisiac, but that prolonged use led to impotence. A pharmacologist who had done research on doped race horses testified that marijuana produced mental and physical deterioration when administered to dogs. Though he admitted that he had done no work with humans, he stated unequivocally that the drug was dangerous because it produced degeneracy of the brain. A district attorney from New Orleans related that several individuals who had been prosecuted through his office had claimed that they were not criminally responsible for their acts because they were under the influence of marijuana at the time the crime was committed.

The dissenting witnesses before the committee were limited. The birdseed industry feared that the new law would inhibit their use of hempseed. The Committee quickly amended their bill to allow them to continue their production unhindered.

The last remaining witness, Dr. William C. Woodward, the legislative counsel for the American Medical Association, and himself an attorney, opposed the bill on a number of counts. He felt that the state legislation was sufficient to meet the problem, and that previous testimony was based primarily on hearsay evidence. The passage of this act, he added prophetically, would inhibit further research into its pharmacology and would rule out further investigation into the medical possibilities of the drug. He cited its use in medicine as a sedative and muscle relaxant.

Dr. Woodward's testimony aroused the ire of the committee, who apparently had anticipated little opposition to their efforts. In response to his testimony, committee members challenged his credentials, which turned out to be impeccable, and criticized him for not cooperating. The members assured themselves that they were doing the right thing, by reminding the doctor of the tales of horror which had been previously related. In their parting shot, the doctor was rebuked: "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something the Federal Government is trying to do. "7

The Marijuana Tax Act quickly passed the House of Representatives, and shortly thereafter, the Senate. There Nnas little debate during the Senate hearings. The star witness was again Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, who reiterated the numerous crimes which he felt were comitted by individuals under the influence of marijuana.

The Marijuana Tax Act, now a part of the Internal Revenue Code, provides " a graduated occupational tax by all persons who import, manufacture, produce, compound, sell, deal in, dispense, prescribe, administer, or give away marijuana. A tax is also imposed upon all transfers of marijuana at the rate of $1 per ounce or fraction thereof, if the transfer is made to a taxpayer registered under the Act, or at the rate of $100 per ounce, if the transfer is made to a person who is not a taxpayer registered under the act." Obviously, the Act has not produced significant tax revenue, since few Marijuana Tax Stamps have been issued, although the Internal Revenue Service still attempts to collect $100 per ounce of illegally possessed marijuana from those convicted of violating the Act. In many cases, this tax is collected from an individual upon his release from prison on parole, a time when the individual finds himself in a most difficult position financially.

The obvious intent of this legislation was to impose federal police powers into the area of marijuana enforcement. The original Act provided for a maximum penalty of $2000 fine and/or five years in prison, with probation or suspended sentence possible.

By the time that the Marijuana Tax Act had passed the Congress, most states had outlawed marijuana under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, an act which grouped marijuana with the opiates. This system of classification poses no problem for Donald Miller, Chief Counsel for the United States Bureau of Narcotics, who stated in a recent speech: "Legally, marijuana is not considered a narcotic drug under the Federal law, but it is considered a narcotic under the State laws. I do not consider these differences to be significant, since both laws are designed to control a substance which is socially unacceptable. It k less important that the controls fit like some finely balanced formula under either the taxing clause or the commerce clause of the Constitution, or in a category according to its similarity with other dangerous drugs. In fact, the Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled it is perfectly permissible to define marihuana as a narcotic drug."

With a reported upswing in the number of young people addicted to heroin a few years after World War II, increasing pressure was brought to bear by the Bureau for increased penalty provisions, both on the state and Federal level. By this time, however, there were grave doubts in even the most conservative minds about the relationship between marijuana smoking and insanity or violence. Hence, a new theme emerged, which persists to this date, despite data to the contrary. In testimony before the Senate subcommittee investigating drug abuse in 1955, Commissioner Anslinger, in response to a question regarding the relationship between marijuana and heroin addiction, stated: "...our great concern about the use of marijuana, that eventually if used over a long period, it does lead to heroin addiction." However, on the relationship between marijuana smoking and crimes of violence, he has taken a new tack: "It does not follow that all crime can be traced to marijuana. There have been many brutal crimes traced to marijuana, but I would not say that it is a controlling factor in the commission of crimes. "10

Convinced that the answer to the problems of drug use and sale was heavier penalties, the Congress authorized minimum mandatory sentences, with no chance for probation, suspended sentence or parole, and an optional fine of up to $20,000 for individuals convicted of selling narcotics, including marijuana. For first offenders convicted of possession, the penalties were increased to 2 to 10 years, an optional fine up to $20,000 and the possibility of probation, suspended sentence, or parole.

Following the lead of the Federal Government, many states enacted new legislation which increased the penalty provisions in their narcotic laws, which, by definition, included marijuana. In several states, one convicted of selling marijuana to a minor could be subjected to death or life imprisonment,

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics is dedicated to the notion that increasing penalties is the only way to limit the traffic in narcotics. One of their initial fears upon passage of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 was that judges would be hesitant about convicting an individual in a case which carried a minimum mandatory sentence.

In testimony before a House subcommittee in 1960, Commissioner Anslinger expressed great satisfaction with the sentences which had been handed down by Federal judges since the 1956 legislation, but expressed concern about the traffic in marijuana. The solution, as he saw it, lay in increasing the penalties. In response to the question as to whether marijuana led to heroin addiction, Anslinger replied: "Yes, Sir. That is
the beginning, especially in the New York and Los Angeles areas. They start on marijuana and get sort of a jaded appetite and want to get to something real. Well, they switch to heroin, and that is when the trouble starts." 11

What we have seen then, in less than thirty years from the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act, is a dramatic transformation in the qualities of a drug, from a substance which produces moral degeneration, and is the cause of crimes of violence, to a drug which has only a tenuous causal relationship to crimes of violence, but is directly responsible for progression to harder narcotics. This transformation took place without benefit of even minimal research into the actual properties of the drug which was severely restricted because of the limitations imposed on legitimate researchers.

If the assumptions of the Commissioner, and law enforcement officials in general are correct, we might assume that with increased penalties for possession and sale of marijuana since 1956, the practice by 1968 would be almost totally eradicated. This apparently not being the case, we are forced to look at the implications of existing laws, and how they have shaped the contemporary scene.

The Current Scene

Marijuana smoking is no longer confined to the Southwest part of this country, nor are its users primarily from the lower socio-economic classes. Attorney General Thomas Lynch has characterized the current drug offender in California as being "young, white, urban, and without previous arrest record." It is perhaps this fact, more than any other, which accounts for the re-examination of our current laws which is being undertaken on all levels of government. During the White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse in September of 1962, doubts were voiced by many individuals who had pressed for
severe penalties in 1956. Senator Thomas Dodd in a very forceful presentation to the conference, gave the following example of the implications of the minimum mandatory sentences, quoting from a United States District Judge:

"The mandatory sentence can work extreme injustice. I was compelled to impose a five year sentence on a Marine veteran of the Korean campaign who was found with three or four marijuana cigarettes. He had been drinking in Tijuana and was arrested at the border. Obviously, three or four cigarettes did not make him a peddler and these were not commercial amounts.

"He had a spotless civilian record and an excellent military career. He had received a Purple Heart and had been wounded in action and had a wife and children. I held up sentencing 60 days with the defendant's consent, to attempt to get the U.S. attorney to file a tax consent on a smuggling charge which would not have carried at least 5 years sentence. I was unsuccessful. I sentenced the man to 5 years in the penitentiary without parole." 12

That conference suggested that "...the hazards of marijuana per se have been exaggerated and that long criminal sentences imposed on an occasional user or possessor of the drug are in poor social perspective." 13 The recent report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice also recommends differentiating between narcotic and marijuana offenders, giving more discretion in the sentencing of marijuana offenders, to the courts or correctional institutions.14

We should have learned something as a result of our national experience with marijuana. We did not. At this moment, legislation is being considered in the Congress which would make possession or sale of LSD a criminal offense, carrying with it long prison terms. This despite the fact that there appears to be a tapering off in the extent of LSD use, prompted not so much by the fear of arrest, but because medical research has suggested the possibility of real harm resulting from use under certain conditions. The information which was made public was not in the nature of bizzare claims or unfounded rumors offered by ill-informed enforcement officials, but rather, medical research. We as a nation seem obsessed with the notion that the threat of punishment will deter people from doing things which they enjoy.

In demanding new legislation, the legislators, both on the state and federal level, are assured that the real intent of the legislation is to control traffic, to arrest and imprison the criminal entrepreneur and not the so-called victim. As a practical matter however, few of the major trafficers in drugs are arrested, and it is the street level user or dealer who is arrested and imprisoned.

Let us examine some of the practical effects of our current posture toward marijuana. The obvious fact is that police activity is at an all time high. We witness the spectacle of police invading the high schools and grilling students about their use of drugs and that of their friends. Convinced that early detection is the only answer to later addiction, parents are bringing their teen-aged sons and daughters to the police station for arrest. Local police departments author ludicrous pamphlets for distribution in the schools which are an affront to even the novice. Telling lies to a youngster who has read scientific data on the pharmacology of marijuana in one of the many paperback books readily available in every magazine rack in town is hardly the way to develop a respect for law enforcement.

Nor does it pave the way to a receptive mind when an informed individual urges individual restraint and caution with regard to other more harmful substances.

Marijuana smoking among the majority of teenagers is interwoven into their daily round of activities. It is but one facet of an adolescent style which emphasizes clothes, music, friendship, sexuality, freedom from restraint, and non-violence, It is a drug which makes a small gathering in some homes more convivial.

Heroin addicts are regarded by most as relics of the past; as weak minded individuals who are untrustworthy and incapable of relating to other people. It would seem that this assessment is generally correct. The heroin addict of today is little different from the addict of ten or twenty years ago. He is still a product of a slum environment, he is still a dependent, inadequate individual, unable to cope with the challenges of everyday life. The pressure in most adolescent groups is away from the use of addictive drugs, contrary to popular opinion. Street gang workers in New York and other cities have noticed a trend away from violence and toward "coolness". One group, formerly called the Assassins, is typical of this change. Several years ago they were one of the most violent gangs in Manhattan. Today, the overwhelming majority of the gang smokes marijuana, and the club has been renamed the "Socializers." 15 This is not to suggest that we have found the answer to gang violence, but merely to emphasize that the culture has built-in mechanisms of control which restrict the use of drugs by all but the most disturbed youngsters in a way which is infinitely more effective than the threat of arrest and detention.

What of the youngsters who are arrested? Have we indeed saved them from a life of degeneration and crime as an addict? It is difficult to understand how being excluded from school as a menace to other youngsters contributed to the alleged "rehabilitative" process. The felony conviction of youngsters over 18 certainly poses major problems in terms of their educational or vocational plans.

Incarceration, although a decreasing probability for most convicted of marijuana offenses, is perhaps one of the best ways to assure continued drug use on a larger scale upon release. It is within criminal subcultures, not groups of potheads, that the peer sanctions against the use of addictive drugs are lowered. It would thus seem that the notion that there is a single line of progression from a mild drug to the addictive drugs leaves out the most important variables, namely, the individual's public and personal image, the cultural controls against certain forms of deviant behavior, including narcotic drug use.

Perhaps the most ludicrous expressions of our popular conception relating marijuana use to hard narcotics is the use of the nalline clinic for marijuana offenders. The purpose of this testing, authorized in 1957 legislation, was to "discourage" the individual from progressing on to harder drugs. Although this program might do much to discourage some from returning to heroin, we might speculate upon the implications of such a program in a
larger urban area, where the majority of individuals taking Nalline shots are heroin addicts. The weekly meetings are very convivial events, with each person being required to wait around a reception room from 20 minutes to half an hour following the injection of Nalline before being examined. The associations that might be made in such a setting are obvious.

In reviewing the merits of this legislation, we must ask ourselves a question which as a nation we were forced to ask during prohibition: does the legislation restricting behavior which we have decided is harmful to our society cause more harm in its enforcement than the original harm which we set out to control? In the case of our current marijuana legislation, we must answer in the affirmative.

1    For a detailed description of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1 937 and the testimony of the key witnesses, see Lindesmith, Alfred R., The Addict and the Law, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1963; the Marijuana Papers, edited by Solomon, David, Indianapolis; Bobbs-Merrill, 1966: Schur, Edwin M., Crimes Without Victims, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965.

2.    For a detailed description of Rowel's activities, see Lindesmith, Alfred, !bid, pp. 222-242.

3.    Becher, Howard, The Outsider, Tree Press, Glencoe, 1963, pp.138.

4.    For a discussion of the clinic experiment and the reversal of the imagery surrounding the addict, see Smith, Roger "Status Politics & the Image of the Addict", in Issues in Criminology, School of Criminology, U.C. Berkeley, Vol 2. Fall 1966.

5.    Munch, James C. "Marijuana and Crime", reprinted from U.N. Bulletin on Narcotics, VOL, XVIII, No. 2 April-June, 1966. Munch is a member of the advisory committee, U.S. Bureau of Narcotics.

6.    Mandel, Jerry, "Hashish, Assassins, and the Love of God", in Issues in Criminology, School of Criminology, U.C. Berkeley, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1966, pp. 149-156.

7.    Oteri, Joseph and Silverglate, Harvey, "In the Marketplace of Free Ideas: A Look at the Passage of the Marijuana Tax Act", in Simmons, J.L., Marijuana Myths and Realities; Brandon House, North Hollywood, California, 1967, page 152,

8.    Narcotic Drug Addiction Problem, Proceedings of the Symposium on the History of Narcotic Drug Addition Problems, March 27-28, Bethesda, Maryland, page 50.

9.    Narcotic Drugs and Marijuana Controls-a paper presented by Donald E. Miller at National Association of Student Personnel Administration Drug Education Conference, Washington, D.C. November 7-8, 1966,

10.    For a detailed description of Anslingers testimony, see Lindesmith, Alfred, op. cit., pp. 230.

11.    Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Jan. 26, 1960, page 182.

12.    Proceedings: White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, Wash. D.C. September 27 & 28, 1963, pp. 231

13.    !bid, pp. 286.

14.    Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Report by the Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Wash. D.C., Feb. 1967, pages 211-231.

15.    Geis, Gilbert, Juvenile Gangs, Presidents Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, Washington, D.C., June 1965, pp. 49.

REFERENCES

1.    Davis, F. and Munoz, L. Heads and freaks: Patternsandmeanings of drug use among hippies. J. Health and Social Behavior, 9:156-64, 1968

2.    Meyers, F. H. Pharmacology of marijuana and its constituents. J. Psychedelic Drugs, 2: 1968.

3.    McGlothlin, W. H. Hallucinogenic Drugs: A perspective with special reference peyote and cannabis.    July, 1964.

4.    Smith, D.E. "LSD: An Historical Perspective." Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1: 3-7, 1967.

5.    Smith, D. E., Rose, A. J. "LSD: Its use, abuse, and suggested treatment." Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1: 117-123, 1967.

6.    Meyers, F. H., Rose, A.J., Smith, D.E. "Incidents involving the Haight-Ashbury population and some uncommonly used drugs." Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1: 136-146, 1967