To the detriment of readability and style, there has been a shift from the old school of "Let's try it on ourselves and the gang at the lab" to today's "controlled studies." As the plethora of instruments and laboratory tests grew, statistical evaluation methods were developed to deal with this rising flood of information. Coupled with avoidance of the use of the first person in a quasi-rationalistic anonymous stance, the writing somehow lacks the color and flavor of the old studies.

Allentuck et al. were chiefly concerned with physiologic changes and the mental effects in inmates of a prison hospital. Individual case descriptions and acute mental symptoms observed in this setting compare unfavorably with experiences described in previous chapters for excessive morbid content.

Ames repeats Allentuck's physiologic tests and adds a few of her own. Both report minimal physiologic effects and describe the psychological effects on subjects. Ames uses herself and eleven eager intern volunteers—very different fi:om Allentuck's prisoners.

Weil and Crancer et al. are interested in the more subtle but practical contemporary question of psychomotor performance impairment at low, socially used doses of smoked marijuana. Crancer compares smoked marijuana with high doses of alcohol. The Crancer driving study was rejected for publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, but published in Science, since the findings did not support the AMA's current official stance.

Weil uses simple machines and complicated psychological tools. Crancer uses complex machines to evaluate specifically the effects on driving performance in comparing the two social "highs."

These recent studies are rather pale by comparison with the earlier personal experiences and speculations, but are vital to the more accurate description of the low-dose marijuana states of consciousness.