Before we discuss the benefits of our marijuana laws, it will be helpful to provide some perspective by setting out what may be called the "ordinary" effects of marijuana use.

In some sense, these ordinary effects might better be called nonmorbid or nonpathological effects. They are not the ones at which the law is aimed; indeed, they bear the same relation to the dangers of marijuana use as the social drink at a cocktail party bears to all of the pathological effects of alcoholism. The "ordi-nary" effects of marijuana as described here will be fairly harmless —not because all marijuana use is harmless, but rather because those effects that are alleged to be harmful are considered in subsequent chapters.

Moreover, in this chapter we will be discussing only the acute effects of marijuana—those occurring while the user is actually under the influence of the drug—as distinguished from the more long-term chronic effects. Although, as we will see in Chapter V, there is considerable controversy about whether and to what extent        the chronic effects of marijuana use are harmful, it is almost uni-versally admitted that often, indeed usually, the acute effects of the drug are not damaging.

The Difficulties of Laboratory Experimentation

It would seem that the most logical place to begin any study of the acute effects of a drug would be with experimental laboratory tests on animals and humans. When we attempt this with marijuana, however, we find that, although there is a good deal of description in popular literature and by law-enforcement agencies, we have comparatively little "hard" information on the drug. There are several reasons for this.

First of all, people mean very different things by "marijuana." Broadly used, the term covers any of the preparations of the Can-nabis sativa, or Indian hemp plant, since all these preparations are presently felt to share the same ingredient. Marijuana itself, also called pot, grass, or a dozen other names, as the term is usually used in the United States, means the chopped-up leaves, sterns, and flowers of the plant. The resin produced by the flowering tops of the plant contains a much higher proportion (between five- and tenfold) of the active ingredient and is called hashish or, in India, charas. 'Marijuana preparations have different names in different countries, and research on one form of the drug cannot—without compensating for the strength of the preparation—be used to make predictions as to the effects of another. The situation is worse than this, even. South African dagga, which has long been regarded as the local form of marijuana, turns out also to be the name used for an entirely different drug.1

For a long time the very illegality of the marijuana acted as a deterrent to research in the United States. Even though possession of the drug for the purpose of research could, in theory, be per-mitted, the actual bureaucratic problems of securing such permis-sion were almost insurmountable. Thus, when Weil and Zinberg set out in 1967 to do their first double-blind experiments on mari-juana, it took two months to do the actual experiment but more than six to receive the necessary permission from the federal authorities. And when, the next year, Weil attempted to do further experimentation in California, the federal authorities gave approval but the state authorities granted it only after a nine-month delay and an initial denial.2

The legal impediments are, however, by no means the only reasons for the paucity of experimental research into the effects of marijuana. The fact is that up to very recently scientists have not been very interested in the drug. First of all, it did not fall into any particular specialty. It was not a drug that promised a cure for any of the many diseases that have been the subject of vast research. There did not seem to be anything about it that promised any especially fundamental insights into basic science. And finally, considering the law, there were no obvious commercial possibilities in the drug. Since neither government nor industry felt it worth-while to subsidize the kinds of studies that have been done on various other drugs, research languished.

In addition to these social reasons, there are some very practi-cal pharmacological difficulties in the way of research on mari-juana. The problem stems partly from the fact that scientists are generally reluctant to use human subjects until they have gained a rough idea from animal experimentation as to the effects of a drug and what types of reaction they should expect. Unfortunately, mari-juana, like several other psychoactive drugs, shows very" little correlation between its effects in animals and in man.3

More important, even, is the fact that experimenters do not like to deal with material they cannot quantitatively measure. Typi-cally, when a drug is tested, the response at different dosages is carefully controlled by administering a pure sample of the drug to the subject—either by injection into the bloodstream or by inges-tion. In the case of marijuana, however, there are serious problems with both the methods of administration and the purity of the sample.

The insolubility of the drug in water prevents its injection except in an artificial solvent, and while it is true that one can feed it to a subject, there are several problems with this type of admin-istration. Not only do we have very little knowledge as to the effects of digestion upon the active ingredients of marijuana, but eating is a somewhat unnatural method of administering the drug, since in the United States it is typically consumed by smoking.

Nor is smoking a very good way of administering the drug, either. First of all, we know very little about the effect of com-bustion on the ingredients of marijuana. Second, users will vary in the amount of the material they can hold in their lungs and in the efficiency with which they absorb the drug from the lungs into the bloodstream. Finally, the experimenter must depend upon the cooperation and good faith of his subjects, who may conceivably want to make the effects of their drug look less significant by mini-mizing the dose they are receiving.

Another major problem plaguing laboratory experiments on marijuana stems from the nature of the drug sample. Due to the extreme complexity of the biochemistry of marijuana, the "active ingredient," 1-Δ-3, 4-transtetrahydrocannabinof (hereafter called simply THC), has only recently been isolated and synthesized. Moreover, though we are fairly confident that this is an active ingredient (and indeed probably the main active ingredient in marijuana), there is by no means a consensus as to whether it is the only one in the drug.4 The very fact that users so often report that marijuana varies from batch to batch not only in potency but also in the "laziness" of the high and in its mixture of euphoriant and depressing effects is strong evidence that more than one active ingredient is involved. As a result, even today, tests using vegetable marijuana involve the administration of groups of unknown sub-stances that may vary from batch to batch, while tests on THC may not be so relevant to determining facts about marijuana.

This problem concerning the control of dosage of the active ingredients arises in the interpretation of various laboratory experi-ments. Scientists have, until very recently, been primarily interested in using marijuana as a tool in the study of psychoses. It has been widely known for some time—in fact, it was first suggested in 18455—that marijuana in very high doses could cause symptoms mimicking those of mental illness. Because of this, some of the most careful experimental work on the drug has been con-cerned with dosages far above ordinary use in the "psychotomimetic range."' And even when this was not the intent of the experi-menter, there are a number of examples in experimental studies where, because of the difficulty of determining the dose given, it is clear that psychosomimetic doses were actually used.7

The Problems of Set and Setting

Probably the most intractable problem in laboratory experi-ments on marijuana is that the usual variables of dosage and method of administration comprise only one of the three groups of variables that pharmacologists must specify before they can make accurate statements as to the effect of a drug. The other two variables are called "set and setting."

Set means the psychological characteristics of the drug-user that bear upon the effect the drug will have upon him. This in-cludes the personality of the individual taking the drug, his expec-tations of the drug's effect, and the mood he is in at the time.

Setting, on the other hand, refers to the external variables that affect the drug-user in conjunction with the drug. These in-clude the conditions of use, such as whether the drug is used in a quiet setting with intimate friends, at a noisy party with strobe lights, alone, or in the laboratory, where psychological and physi-cal measurements are taken every few moments.

Set and setting are considerably more important determinants of drug effects than is popularly believed. This accounts for the medical witticism, "Whenever a new drug cure comes onto the market, go to your doctor quickly, while both you and he still think it works." Moreover, set and setting have their greatest in-fluence on the effects of psychoactive drugs—and, within this category, on the effects of the more subtle drugs. The problems of set 'and setting, in short, are at their maximum with respect to marijuana. First, the drug is among the most subtle of those used for psychoactive effect; second, its experienced users have already acquired an elaborate set of expectations as to its effects; and finally, the settings in which marijuana is typically used are very different from those in the laboratory, where the measurements we would like to make themselves interfere with our observation of marijuana in its usual setting.

This dilemma is summed up neatly by Doctors Zinberg and Weil, who have performed probably the most publicized of the recent experimental studies on marijuana.

The curious problem of the experimentalist, however, is that as he controls the laboratory environment more and more carefully so as to maximize his confidence in ascribing observed effects to known causes, his laboratory becomes less and less like the real world which is what he set out to study. Indeed, control can pro-ceed to the point that the experimental results are scientifically impeccable but their relevance to anything in the real world is lost. Then if someone comes along and says, "So what?"—as happens all too frequently in science—the experimentalist will be stuck for an answer.8

The problems, then, of dosage, set, and setting become especially acute when we discuss the effects of a "social" drug that is not taken under medical supervision. We must avoid placing credence in reports analogous to the Prohibitionist tract that emphasized the dangers of another social drug, alcohol, by point-ing out, quite correctly, that if someone sat down in his living room and, in a period of half an hour, drank a fifth of bourbon, it would most likely kill him.

To discuss the effects of "social" drugs such as alcohol or marijuana, we must know not only the dosage used, but also the circumstances and purpose of the drug use. For instance, in mak-ing meaningful statements about the effects of alcohol, we must specify not only the total amount drunk but whether it was con-sumed.in the form of beer, wine, or hard liquor; at a cocktail party or alone in one's room; before dinner, at a long lunch, or upon arising in the morning; and whether the user was using the drug to relax or "drinking to forget."

The Patterns of Ordinary Marijuana Use

In order, then, to answer questions concerning the ordinary effects of marijuana, we must first consider the pattern of use in the United States. Although this subject is only beginning to be studied, it is clear that by far the most common method of marijuana consumption in this country is by smoking rather than by eating or drinking, as in some foreign countries.9 The major importance of this difference is that it is far easier to obtain an overdose from eating the drug than from smoking it—even though, milligram for milligram, the THC will have more effect when smoked.

This paradox occurs because the rapid onset of the drug's effect allows experienced smokers of marijuana to "titrate" their dosage with a fair degree of accuracy, even though the potency of the material being smoked varies within wide ranges. At least with most users who have taken the drug several times previously, the effect of marijuana is felt within a very short period—two to three minutes—after inhalation. It is a matter of some dispute whether they then take no more than they want because they stop when they have felt enough effect, or because once a given effect hits them they lose further interest in the fairly arduous job of holding the smoke in their lungs. In any event, most users report that while they enjoy smoking marijuana they find an overdose quite un-pleasant. Except for occasional inexperienced users who neglect the fact that, although the effect "hits" almost immediately, it peaks thirty to forty minutes later, marijuana-users are able to, and generally do, stop smoking before they experience anY of the phenomena associated with high dosages.

VVhen marijuana is eaten, however, no such titration is possi-ble. The user ingests a certain amount of the drug in a fudge brownie or in some other form, and once this is done he has no further control over the amount released into his system. Given a great variability in potency of the marijuana available in the United States, the dose ingested may prove much higher than expected and indeed involve the user in the psychotomimetic dose range that will be discussed in Chapter V.

Not only is marijuana generally smoked, but in the United States the smoking is usually done in a social setting. Typically, the users will sit around in small groups passing a cigarette back and forth among themselves. The marijuana is used very much like alcohol, as a social lubricant, except that its users believe that the euphoria produced and the relative absence of aggressive effects make social interactions, at least on a superficial level, easier.

Two other possibilities seem equally likely, however. First, it is the simple act of passing the cigarette, or "joint," to one's neigh-bor and of waiting while he fills his lungs for about twenty seconds before exhaling that focuses attention on others. Second, it is pos-sible that personal interactions are not in fact easier, but that the effect of the drug, in turning the user inward, simply makes them less necessary.

Though consumption of marijuana, like alcohol, will vary among users, and in the same individual depending upon the occasion, there is an extra variable with respect to marijuana. The potency of the cigarette varies considerably more widely than does the potency of even mixed alcoholic drinks. As a rough estimate, though, at a typical social gathering using marijuana, one might expect to find six people sharing about as many cigarettes. And though the number of cigarettes smoked will often vary widely, depending both on the mood of the gathering and on the potency of the marijuana, gatherings where consumption averages out to two or more cigarettes per person appear to be quite rare.10

The marijuana "cocktail party," of course, is not the only pattern of marijuana use. Probably the next most common pattern is characterized by the smoker who uses the drug alone or in the company of one of the opposite sex, sharing a cigarette or two while listening to music.

In both of these patterns consumption of marijuana on one night during the week is probably about average, though users are known who will have a cigarette almost every evening after dinner.

There are other patterns of much heavier use, some of which will be considered in Chapter V. We will see there that these use pattern§ are not ordinary, either in the sense of common or in the sense of nonpathological. In addition, for our purposes here we need make no exception for marijuana use in these patterns. It turns out that even in those use patterns the effects observed in any one use of marijuana do not differ significantly from the ones to be described here.

Value Judgments in Descriptions

Before embarking on a discussion of the acute effects of ordinary marijuana use, we must dispose of one last obstacle. Although descriptions of drug effects might seem to be purely factual matters, they can, without being inaccurate, be so value laden as to interfere with our comprehension. And in an emotionally charged atmosphere such as that surrounding mari-juana, this problem becomes especially serious. For instance, as stated by Donald E. Miller, Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Nar-cotics and Dangerous Drugs:

. . . immediate physiological effects of marijuana intoxication include some loss of coordination in the limbs; an increase in pulse rate; an abnormal lowering of body temperature; an insatiable hunger; and inflammation of the mucous membranes and the bronchial tubes. Other effects include fantasia, exhilaration of mood; the feeling of being above reality; there is a loss of timing, minutes seem like hours; and there is often uncontrollable hilarity over something which is not particularly amusing to a normal person. When larger doses are used, extremely vivid hallucinations often occur; there may be panic and fear of death; illusions; periods of paranoia; and a high enough dose can result in a condi-tion resembling toxic psychosis»
The first problem that strikes one on reading Mr. Miller's descrip-tion is that it cannot be a complete view of reality. As described by Mr. Miller, marijuana smoking could hardly be regarded by its practitioners as a pleasant experience. And, though for some it is not, many marijuana-users obviously do regard their drug use as pleasant. Part of the difference between Mr. Miller's reality and that of the marijuana-users is revealed by Professor Jerome Skolnick's parody of this type of description:

Suppose we were to ask, "What are the effects of playing tennis on the individual?" In response, we would have to describe a heightened pulse rate, facial flushing, sweating and marked adrenal activity. In many cases, we would observe loss of breath followed by feelings of dizziness and nausea. There are, in addition, reliable reports of death following the activity, especially among the middle aged who neglect exercise. . . . A fairly frightening sound-ing clinical picture could be described for a reader who has never experienced a game of tennis.12

The Objective Effects of Ordinary Marijuana Use

In order to discuss the ordinary acute effects of marijuana, it will be convenient to divide them into the objective effects of the drug—those that can be measured experimentally—and the subjective effects—those that are not measurable with our present technology but that the user himself feels as a drug effect. We will discuss both objective and subjective effects in some detail, but, with respect to ordinary marijuana use, the fact that most strongly strikes one is that the subjective effects of the drug seem far more gross and pervasive than the objective effects.

One problem, of course, is that the objective effects cannot be measured except under conditions very different from the usual social settings that give rise to most of the reports of subjective effects. The disparity between the objective and the subjective effects of marijuana is probably not, however, purely a phenome-non of the laboratory setting—though, of course, we cannot be completely certain of this, since by definition, in a social setting we take no measurements.

The very difficulty of ascertaining whether someone is under the influence of marijuana—a problem we will allude to later on several occasions—points in this direction, and while it cannot be taken as conclusive, it is significant to note that laboratory sub-jects whose objective symptoms of marijuana use are not at all gross commonly report subjective effects that parallel those in a social setting. Moreover, though for various reasons reports of drug-users about the effects of their drug are often unreliable, one is struck by the unanimity among experienced marijuana-users. Almost all report that, though they feel very different under the influence of marijuana, they can, if necessary, perform, with only minor impairment, a whole series of tasks that one would not think to be within the capabilities of those under the influence of a powerful intoxicant.

Taking, then, the objective effects of marijuana as measured in the laboratory, we find that so far as physical effects are con-cerned, they are very minor. First, marijuana use causes a rise in heartbeat, though not such a dramatic one as "to make subjects conscious of a rapid pulse"; second, in a high proportion of the subjects, marijuana use causes a reddening in the conjunctiva, the membrane covering the whites of their eyes;13 and third, most users report that they feel a dryness in the throat and mouth, but until reliable salivary measurements are performed it will remain uncertain whether this is an objective or subjective effect of the drug.

Until fairly recently, one further effect—dilation of the pupils —would have been included on any list of the objective effects of marijuana use. Though this had never been verified in the labora-tory, it was almost universally believed and included in police manuals, educational literature, and the like." Indeed, as recently as 1968 an appellate court relied on the fact that the defendant's pupils appeared enlarged as a major item of evidence to sustain an arrest for marijuana use.15 Now, despite the previous high level of agreement on the issue, laboratory measurements have shown that marijuana use has essentially no effect at all on pupil size.1° Apparently the idea gained currency from reports of police who had arrested marijuana-users and noted that their pupils were usually enlarged and that light seemed painful to them. Most likely, however, there were two reasons for this, apart from any drug effect. First, users were usually arrested at parties in dimly lit rooms and hence their pupils were enlarged as a consequence of the darkness. The second reason, what is called by psychologists the "Hesse effect," is that emotional stress—such as that of an arrest—causes pupils to enlarge.

The objective mental effects of marijuana, like the physical effects, are measurable but hardly gross. Somewhat surprisingly, considering the descriptions given both by law-enforcement agents and by some users, the use of marijuana seems to have almost no effect upon balance, perception, or the performance of relatively simple mental tasks." A comparatively small number of users appear to be made dizzy by using the drug, though it is not.at all clear whether this is a genuine drug effect or merely a consequence of the deep breathing typically used in smoking marijuana. The drug distorts the time sense,1° making short intervals seem longer, though it is hard to call this an objective effect since it is primarily a subjective feeling of a slowed passage of time. Experienced users seem to compensate reasonably well for this and as a result, when asked to estimate a particular length of time--say, fifteen seconds —are able to do so without much more error than if they were not under the influence of the drug.

The most interesting objective mental effect of marijuana use, however, is that the drug seems to interfere substantially with the performance of complex tasks.1° One theory explaining this is that the drug inhibits immediate memory. Thus the user can remember the previous details of his life and even what he learned a few minutes ago but not what he was thinking, saying, or doing a few seconds previously.2° There is, moreover, evidence that this effect upon immediate memory is cyclical.21 For a while, the immediate memory will be unaffected, and then, suddenly, it will be sharply diminished, only to return a few seconds later to almost normal.

The mechanism of this is by no means clear. It has been suggested that somehow the drug is temporarily absorbed by an organ—perhaps the liver—and then suddenly released as the capacity of the organ is exceeded—though this view has by no means achieved considerable support.

A consequence of this immediate-memory problem is that although a marijuana-user may be able to escape detection as such, his performance may be sharply diminished on complex tasks that require sustained levels of attention. This is not to say that the diminishing of this performance would be so gross as to be usable as a test for marijuana intoxication, as is the drunk's inability to walk a straight line. Nonetheless, one under the influence of mari-juana will be considerably less able than he would otherwise have been to perform certain complex intellectual tasks. The primary significance of this for public policy purposes is, of course, the effect of marijuana upon automobile driving—a subject that we will discuss in Chapter VIII.

These, then, are the objective effects of marijuana use as re-vealed by laboratory experimentation to date. Considering the pub-licity that the drug has received, they are hardly impressive, a fact which can cause some embarrassment to experimenters. Thus Zinberg and Weil report:

At the end of our study we arranged a demonstration session in which two of our user-subjects volunteered to go through the tests again for the benefit of a party of observers from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Massachusetts Bureau of Drug Abuse and Drug Control and several lawyers. Most of the observers had never seen anyone smoke marijuana before. The universal reaction was extreme disappointment—dis-appointment that nothing happened. It was not clear what they had expected to happen, but they had expected something. When our subjects continued to behave normally and to go through the tests without difficulty, the observers became restive. "Are you sure they were inhaling right?" one asked. "Are you sure the marijuana is any good?" said another. The subjects meanwhile both said they were quite stoned; and when asked to rate how high they were on a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest they had ever been, they rated themselves at eight and nine..2  which, though as yet unverified, does account both for the paucity of the objective effects and for the subtlety of the subjective effects of marijuana. Dr. Reese Jones, a psychiatrist at the University of California Medical School who has experimentally compared the effects of alcohol and marijuana, has informally suggested that the relatively minor objective effects of marijuana use are a conse-quence of extremely low doses taken in ordinary use. According to Dr. Jones, the similarities between marijuana and alcohol at equivalent doses far outweigh their differences. This fact is ob-scured by the published literature on alcohol where scientists typically use as much as will affect the measures which interest them. And indeed, there are very few scientific studies of the effect of one or two drinks—even though such quantities of alcohol do have a subjective effect. According to Dr. Jones, the similarity between the ordinary effects of marijuana and those of alcohol is further concealed by the fact that the doses of ordinary use of alcohol, while they can be equivalent to those of marijuana, are much higher a far greater percentage of the time. The reasons for this are twofold. First of all, the titration possible when a drug is taken through smoking makes it far easier for the marijuana-user to control his dose--and hence his "high." And second, un-like alcohol, marijuana at higher doses than those of ordinary use produces considerable dysphoria as well as euphoria and, hence, is avoided by ordinary users on the ground of its less pleasant effect.

Problems in Ascertaining the Subjective Effects of Marijuana

Before going further, we should note that the fact that a drug effect is subjective does not make it any the less "real." The subjective effects of a drug often give us evidence of changes that more sophisticated measurement might determine to be objective. And even when they do not, it is only by understanding the subjective effects of a drug that we can explain why its users use it.

Although the subjective effects of marijuana use are far more impressive than the objective effects, laboratory studies have provided us with relatively little more detailed information. Weil, Zinberg, and Nelson, however, have documented one fact reported by many users: that the subjective effects of a given quantity of marijuana are felt less by inexperienced than ex-perienced users.23 Weil et al. in their experiment used two types of subjects, "naive" subjects—those who had never used marijuana before--and experienced marijuana-users. Although the objective effects of the drug on both were quite similar, the subjective effects were quite different. The naive subjects reported that they felt un-aff ected by the dosage and often concluded that they had received inactive material. The regular users, however, although they had earlier expressed great skepticism as to whether they could get "stoned" in a laboratory atmosphere, uniformly reported that they had become very high indeed.

The first major sociological work on the use of marijuana, Professor Howard Becker's Becoming a Marijuana User,24 de-scribes similar phenomena as a type of learning experience wherein a user learns from other users just what to look for in the drug experience and tends to appreciate rather subtle effects that he might. otherwise miss.

Of course, this is not the only explanation for the observation. Weil himself postulates a "reverse tolerance" whereby marijuana-users become more biochemically sensitive to the drug and hence require less to achieve a given effect.25

Another possibility is that once having been "high" on the drug, the individual sets in motion a whole chain of associations that result in the same subjective experiences on later occasions of drug use. At least some evidence for this is that of Jones, who reported that while all of the regular marijuana-users he tested were able to tell that he had given them a high dose when, in fact, he had, most of them also felt that he had given them a reason-ably high dose26 when, in fact, they had merely received mari-juana from which the active ingredients had been removed.

Jones' team grapples with this issue as follows:

In almost every other respect, they gave evidence of being ade-quate judges of drug effects. Perhaps the cues from the taste and smell are so overpowering as to induce the characteristic psycho-logical state in one primed for it. An alternative explanation is that there is some psychoactive substance left in the plant residue after [what are thought to be the active ingredients are removed by] alcohol extraction. If this is so, the placebo material gives no evidence of producing anything other than subjective change. . . .

We've also observed that subjects with impaired taste and smell because of cold or an occluded nose can more readily distinguish placebo and active material. This evidence of the unreliability of human assay utilizing heavy smokers should cause investigators to exercise some caution and should cause marijuana peddlers some joy.21

Aside from offering some support for the reports of users that after the first use or two it becomes easier to achieve a "high," the laboratory experiments shed very little information on the sub-jective effects of marijuana. Perhaps the closest they come to this issue is an observation that their subjects, though, of course, not in any measurable way, seemed to be having a "sleepy, happy high."28

For more information than this, however, we must turn to the reports of the users themselves. These will be considerably more detailed than our laboratory findings for two reasons. First of all, we have far more information from users about the sub-jective effects of marijuana than we do from controlled laboratory studies. Second, the subjective effects of marijuana far surpass in their intensity and variety the measurable objective effects.

Problems of Value Judgments

In looking into the subjective effects of marijuana, we con-front a host of problems. One major difficulty is that the issue so often becomes entwined with value judgments. Thus, Donald Miller in distinguishing between an alcohol and a marijuana "high" quotes a psychiatrist, Dr. Benjamin Kissen, as stating that

Psychoactive drugs may be used in two ways: to diminish emo-tional tension and permit a person to function within reasonable limits or . . . to allow the person to escape from reality.29

The problem, of course, is that tension is part of "reality" and that any drug that diminishes tension presumably allows that much of an escape from reality. Moreover, the "escape from reality" is cited as if it were a dreadful and unnatural thing. Certainly if it is a long-term escape, we would so regard it—and classify the escaper as psychotic as well. On the other hand, many activities—from watching movies to engaging in sports—allow, and indeed are sought because they allow, an escape from the reality of our work-aday problems.

Perhaps the most common value-laden description of the effects of marijuana is related to the escape-from-reality idea. Both medical associations and law-enforcement officials have attempted to distinguish between alcohol and marijuana on the ground that, unlike users of alcohol, "marijuana-users . . . have one motive when they use the substance, to achieve a physical and mental thrill, to smoke more and more until there is an altering of the mental processes."30

It is true that marijuana-users do not regard themselves as "high" unless there is an altering of their mental processes. On the other hand, the impression that the ordinary use of marijuana, as distinguished from massive overdoses, involves complete disorienta-tion and the type of bizarre mental symptoms that we associate with LSD is completely untrue. A little thought would show that if this \Titre so, the objective mental effects, including performance on a wide range of tests, would be far more affected than they are. The marijuana "high" is only beginning to be studied, but already it is clear that it is far subtler than being drunk.

Alcohol-users who are unfamiliar with the effects of mari-juana often assume that every use of that drug is like a blind drunk. They would be amused, however, at anyone who thought the same of all alcohol use. Yet Prohibition was in part based upon just such a view. In 1920, at the Democratic National Convention, Prohibitionist William Jennings Bryan spoke in opposition to a wet plank:

If you cannot get alcohol enough to make you drunk why do you want alcohol at all? Why not cut it out altogether and go on about your business?31

It should be noted that value judgments interfere with descrip-tions of the effects of marijuana by those who are for, as well as by those who are against, marijuana. We are often told by partisans of the drug that it increases insight, improves personal relation-ships, allows clearer vision of reality, and makes the user more healthy spiritually. These, of course, are not effects of the drug but value judgments as to the effects. There is, however, one distinction between these judgments and the value judgments of those inveighing against the drug. The pro-marijuana value judgments are those made by users themselves and hence must be considered when evaluating the subjective effects of the drug. In any event, this type of dramatic value judgment is not that common among marijuana-users—being much more characteristic of the LSD-user.

Reports of Users

Related to this problem, however, is another methodological difficulty in determining the subjective effects of marijuana. In doing so, we are forced to rely on the reports of users of marijuana who, being users, are, by and large, biased in its favor. In some sense, perhaps, we have a partial guarantee against this effect's becoming too gross. The very fact that a drug's users are biased in its favor indicates that they do indeed feel some of the desirable effects they report. (Interestingly enough, users of heroin very often "badmouth" their drug.)

Entirely apart from any bias, however, users' descriptions of the subjective effects of marijuana, as they are seen after the event, may vary greatly from the apparent effect at the time. Scientists at Stanford Medical School experimenting with volunteer marijuana-users have noted subjects who appeared to be having a most un-happy session—apprehensive, frightened, and depressed—and yet who, after the drug experience had ended, were completely un-aware of this. They reported that they had had a wonderful time and described pleasant effects that, at least observers thought, had been greatly outweighed by unpleasant ones. The contrary has also been known to occur, though less frequently. A number of sub-jects who appeared at the time to be euphoric and having only happy and pleasant sensations have, after the drug has worn off, refused to undergo any further experiments because they felt that the drug experience was extremely unpleasant.32

Another problem in determining the subjective effects of marijuana is that the drug itself is a "subtle" one. In ordinary dosage, there are no obvious drug effects that "hit one over the head" as would an injection of amphetamine or four martinis. Marijuana, then, is no exception to the pharmacological principle that the more subtle the effect of a drug, the more dependent upon set and setting are its effects. And, since one of the most important aspects of set is the user's expectation, a wide variety of different effects—some completely contradictory—are reported by different users.

To a great extent marijuana use is a leaming experience. First, the user leams how to smoke the drug, a technique of filling the lungs very different from that of tobacco smoking. Then he learns to expect and recognize the effects of the drug. And finally, certainly if he is to continue marijuana use, he leams to enjoy some of the effects that he perceives.33

The final problem in determining the subjective effects of marijuana is caused by the very illegality of the drug. Since, at least until very recently, users were unwilling to admit openly their commission of a serious crime, the authors of first-person descrip-tions bf marijuana experiences have had to remain anonymous. This deprives us of one of the guarantees of reliability in scientific work, since the very anonymity of the author means that in some sense he need not "stand behind his work."

The shortage of acknowledged first-person reports of mari-juana use has encouraged recourse to the two types of such descriptions most available. The first of these has been the occa-sional reports of scientists who have tried the drug upon them-selves out of clinical interest.34 This type of use, however, differs so greatly in both set and setting from the ordinary recreational use of marijuana that such descriptions are almost irrelevant to our discussion here.

The second type of report is no more relevant to our dis-cussion. It consists of the florid, poetical drug-induced fantasies of the nineteenth-century French hashish-eaters such as Baudelaire and Gautier." Although perhaps minor classics of literature, these have very little to do with the ordinary use of marijuana. There the drug was eaten, not smoked; it was taken in what were ob-viously huge doses; and, finally, the use was not the typical Amer-ican social use, but rather the drug was being used as a psychotomimetic to give the user an experience that was then regarded as the same as mental disease.

Because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable reports of the subjective effects of marijuana, such information is usually gath-ered by an interview technique. The researcher merely questions a sample of marijuana-users and reports the reactions they describe. He is able, in practice if not in law, to guarantee their anonymity. And, if his sample is large, he can receive a range of reports wide enough to give a meaningful picture of the drug's subjective effects.

Of course, this technique does not in itself correct for the problems of value judgments, bias, improper recollection, and the like--and even introduces errors that might stem from the lack of randomness in the sample. Indeed, its only defense is that it pro-vides the best information we have on the issue.

The Subjective Effects of Ordinary Marijuana Use

Recognizing the problems involved in studying the subjective effects of marijuana, we now turn to the existing data. First, we will set out one anonymous user report from the many available. This one, from Erich Goode's collection of papers on marijuana,36 though it differs in many particulars from others, is in many ways typical:

(The Respondent was a twenty-two year old college senior who played in a rock band on weekends. Now enrolled in a graduate business school, he has smoked marijuana twice a month during the school year and every day during the summer.)

Things start striking me funny—I mean, somebody woad say something and I'd keep hearing it. Or I'd look at something, and I'd find myself looking at it for an overly long period of time, and all of a sudden I'd wake up and say, what the hell am I doing, looking at this for so long? When I'm high, I always listen to music. Music would begin to sound extraordinarily good. And then, after four or five minutes more, I would realize that I was high, and I'd get very happy. I spend most of my time high listen-ing to music. I'd listen to the music, and I'd always concentrate on one instrument, it didn't matter which one. I could never listen to all at the same time, which is the only drawback I see to being high and listening to music, as opposed to being straight. But I could listen to what I consider good rock and roll, and just love it. It would be just about the most pleasing thing I've ever done in my life.

I play the guitar. I prefer to play casually, informally, high. I will not play before an audience high, because it's too uncom-fortable. I know that I have to perform, and I get scared. I start to think, what if I pass out, what if I don't have enough wind for the next song, 'cause I do get short-winded. I almost blew the whole thing in a night club last summer. But rehearsing, or getting together with the rest of the group when you're high, it's a great experience. I sit there and play and play and play. I play much better. I'm quite convinced that this is not a high fantasy. I know I'm playing better. 'Cause I don't make any mistakes, like I usually do. And I can anticipate what's coming. And throw phrases back and forth between guys, if somebody else is high. We had a job once at Bryn Mawr, where I played. We all smoked in the after-noon and came back to this room where we were going to play, and we sat down and played one song, one instrumental song, for forty-five minutes without stopping, and it was the best thing I've ever done.

I used to play games, I used to do things with my eyes, great things. Nothing that really ever scared me, because I could always be cautious not to go too high, so that I wouldn't have, you know, a bad time. I could always know where I was, what I was doing, unless I made myself forget. Sometimes I'd listen to the Byrds. I could lie down on the bed, and pick myself up, and throw myself down, sort of float down one of those concentric-ring, man-hole type things. Or there was one experience I had recently, where I was listening to them. And the notes were coming out, ifs a very strident, shrill, crisp 12-string electric guitar, and it's beautiful. He does Indian-type stuff on it. And the notes sounded to me as they came into my ears, it sounded as if I were a million miles away. I had a picture in my mind of sitting out in space and watch-ing the notes come flying by. They were very sharp, coming by. I said to myself, the machine is making these notes, and these notes will be free from now on, they're coming out in a certain order to make a tune, and I saw them continuing out from the earth into space, and they could always be heard if you had sensitive-enough ears. It was great when I was out there, for about ten seconds I was sitting out there, in space, looking at the earth, watching the notes come by. And it was all black around me. And then all of a sudden, I realized that everything, my whole world, was back there, several million miles away. And I got clutched for a minute. So I opened my eyes and I came back. I like to do stuff like that.

I have changed colors on some of those psychedelic posters. I've made them flash from red and white to black, and then changed it to blue. Very often I can place myself inside a concert hall when I'm listening to records. I can see the performance taking place in front of me. This happened the first time I got high. I saw the band, and they were dancing, and the drummer's feet, and all the performers' heads, came to a sharp point, because the music was very shrill, and the notes were sharp and pointed. And then during the solo, I remember the drummer got up and danced around his drums while he was playing them—on his points, the points of his toes.

Simultaneously, I thought of the guy I was with in the room. I realized that I was sitting on the floor with my ear next to the speaker, and I said, this must look very foolish. And then I said, well, it looks foolish, and if it looks foolish, I'll have to get up. But I don't want to get up. So I'll just pretend that it doesn't look foolish. You'll do almost anything to rationalize away something that gets in the way of your enjoyment.

[The author then discusses the relation between marijuana and sex. Since this will be dealt with in a few pages, that section of the user's report will be set out there.]

I get very, very, very thirsty when I'm high. My mouth dries out. In fact, the last time I smoked, my mouth dried out so much that I actually thought I was going to do some physical damage to it, because it got to the point where I couldn't speak, because my lips were sticking to the insides of my gums, and it was totally dry.

Just walking around feels good, nice, you know. You can groove on your own movements. In some cases I become pretty uncoordinated, however. But at other times, I become very co-ordinated. I tried playing tennis once high, and it was a complete disaster. Whereas I can sit in my room with an imaginary set of drums and coordinate my two feet and two hands to different beats, which I could never do straight.

My eyes get very heavy. Hot."

In order to appreciate the frequency of the various subjective effects of marijuana, it will be helpful to examine a somewhat detailed table of effects compiled by Erich Goode as part of his study of two hundred fairly heavy marijuana-users in the New York area. In this study, rather than suggesting any particular effects to the users, Goode merely asked them to write down as many of the drug effects as they remembered experiencing under the influence of marijuana. This type of interview technique tends to produce considerably lower rates of response than does a check-list or a series of suggested answers. On the other hand, the relative frequency of the volunteered effects is approximately the same as the number of effects that would be recognized by users from lists. In any event, the effects reported by Goode's users were:

Goode's study is strikingly corroborated in another stuay of relatively heavy marijuana-users by two University of California law students, Lloyd Haines and Warren Green. Instead of asking directly about the effect of the drug, this study asked a sample of 131 users why they used marijuana. Not only did Haines and Green find, in agreement with Goode, that by far the most popular reason for using marijuana was to relax, but the rest of their list parallels his, as well39:

Similarly, a study by Keeler in the American Journal of Psy-chiatry of fifty-four users of marijuana found that,

Most of those who continued to use the drug sought an experi-ence that combined the relief from tension and inhibition usually associated with central nervous system depressant drugs such as alcohol with the subjective sensations of euphoria and rapidity of thought usually associated with central nervous system stimu-lants such as amphetamine. The experience was closer to that of alcohol than to that of amphetamine.40

Interestingly, Keeler also found use that would have to be classified as pathological rather than ordinary. We will discuss this in Chapter V, but for completeness here it should be noted that while pointing out the "coincidence does not imply causality," KeeIg found correlations among using marijuana "for a psychotomimetic experience, high dosage, incidence of schizophrenia and dropping out of school."'

Interference with Time Sense

Until very recently, the subjective effects of marijuana could be elucidated only by lists—such as those just discussed—of vari-ous, apparently unrelated changes experienced by those under the influence of the drug. Recently, however, two psychiatrists and a pharmacologist have postulated a mechanism that not only seems to explain the most common subjective effects of marijuana but in a sense ties this explanation into the objective effects. Melges, Tinklenberg, and Hollister° have hypothesized that the subjective effects of marijuana are a consequence of the same interference with immediate memory that was noted in the laboratory studies. The hypothesis is that the user's difficulty with immediate memory in some way disrupts his connection with the past and with the future, leaving his attention focused on the present moment to a much greater extent than does ordinary consciousness.

We must remember, of course, that this is merely one hy-pothesis and that we do not know what causes the subjective effects of marijuana. Nonetheless, this does explain the most commonly reported effects of the drug. For instance, marijuana is known, first of all, to affect the mood of its users. If, indeed, one under the influence of the drug temporarily becomes less concerned with the things he must do in the future, the lessening of what are called "goal tensions" would be expected to produce not only relaxation but euphoria as well.

Moreover, the hypothesis of focus on the immediate present seems also to explain the next most commonly reported subjective effect of marijuana, the distortion of a sense of passing time. It is quite easy in the laboratory to verify this as to inexperienced users, and though experienced users seem better able to compensate for these effects, they are generally not completely successful. In any event, according to one user:

Bach's "First Brandenburg Concerto" lasts hours. An hour seems to have passed, but the clock records 25 minutes. The person's internal fantasies are long and involved, but only a few minutes have passed. . .43

Along with the euphoria, this slowing of subjective,time is probably the most dramatic effect of ordinary marijuana use. It is parodied superbly in the story of the two hippies who were buzzed by a military jet while sitting in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. As the sonic boom subsided, one turned to the other and said, "Man, I thought he'd never leave."

Apparent Sensory Enhancement

Apparent sensory enhancement, the final major subjective effect of marijuana, is perhaps not so easily explained by the hypothesis that marijuana focuses its user on the immediate pres-ent. Nonetheless, it is not too farfetched to think that if this oc-curred, it might result in making physical sensations feel newer and hence more vivid. Almost every report of the effects of marijuana use emphasizes increases in felt sensations. Thus, colors under the influence of marijuana are reported to be somewhat "stronger" than otherwise. And users commonly report that their hearing seems more acute--though objective measurements such as tests of hearing acuity fail to offer any substantiation of this."

The subjective effect of marijuana upon hearing is especially interesting because users very commonly report that the drug has a significant effect on their enjoyment of music. Sociologist Erich Goode gives three possible explanations for this:

(1) There is actually something about the effects of marijuana which relates specifically to music, to rhythm, movement, sound, pitch, etc.—a physiological and psychological expla-nation.

(2) Marijuana smokers happen to be people who enjoy music and merely attribute marijuana—which they also enjoy—with positive effects on any activity which they feel positively toward—a kind of cultural explanation.

(3) It just happens that given the personnel and the setting—in one's living room for the most part—it is highly likely that music is one of the activities which marijuana users will be engaged in while high—a largely logistical explanation

It is likely that all of these explanations play a part, as well as others that are presently unknown. In addition, users not only report that they enjoy music more but that they hear it differently under marijuana. It may well be that both the increased subjective perception of sensation previously discussed and the weakening of categories discussed later are at work. In such a case, marijuana-users may recognize, in a complex piece of music, themes they had previously overlooked. They may even be able to invent relation-ships that in some sense were not there and, hence, may be able to combine the novelty of listening in a new way with the familiarity of a piece already known.

Similarly it is not possible to verify the common assertion that under the influence of marijuana foods taste better—except for the fact that even in laboratory experiments it is noted that users, if permitted, tend to eat a great deal. At one time it was thought that marijuana lowered the sugar content of the blood, the usual method of inducing hunger. This however has recently been disproved by several laboratory studies.46 As a result, we must attribute the "hunger" either to some other unknown mechanism or else simply to the fact that marijuana's effect upon present sensation makes food taste better and hence makes the users sim-ply want more.

Sexual Activity. The last of the issues as to increased sen-sory awareness is probably one of the most emotion-charged ones involving marijuana—it relates to the area of sexual activity.

From the very earliest times that marijuana was noticed in this country, there were strong hints that the drug inflamed the sexual impulses and led to promiscuity. As far as we can tell from the objective effects of marijuana, there is no reason why the drug should have any such effect. Nonetheless, there is some truth in these reports, and the connection of marijuana with sexual activity seems second only to its connection with music.

Thus, in Haines and Green's sample of heavy marijuana users, eighty-four percent of the users had engaged in sexual activity while under the influence of marijuana—though this figure is some-what misleading, since about two-thirds of this group engaged in sexual activity just as large a percentage of the time when not under the influence of the drug. The Haines and Green study, however, does seem to refute the notion of a connection between marijuana and promiscuity. As they Aate in discussing this,

This is not to say that when one smokes marijuana he or she immediately engages in sexual activity. The responses show that most subjects have regular sexual partners whether it be a spouse or lover. The incidences occur when they are together and have the opportunity. Only one unattached subject in the test group claimed to go out and "hustle" or try to "pick up" a partner. All the other unattached subjects found that their ability to "hustle" was impaired after smoking marijuana. They had little ambition to get up, get dressed and attempt to meet people.47

A more detailed study of this issue was conducted by Erich Goode. In his sample, perhaps due to "cultural associations, expec-tations, and a feeling of increased sensual awareness," fifty per-cent of the women and thirty-nine percent of the men stated that marijuana increased their sexual desire. On the issue of sexual en-joyment, however, the effect of the drug on men seemed somewhat greater. Thus seventy-four percent of the men and shay-two per-cent of the women said that they enjoyed the sex act more under the influence of marijuana." Haines and Green confirm this in their sample, reporting that about four-fifths of those who engaged in sexual activity while under the influence of the drug felt that the activity was "more enjoyable" than it was while not under the influence of the drug." These effects are by no means understood. Perhaps they are the result of suggestion and the quiet, relaxed settings in which two people, alone together, smoke marijuana.

Very likely these reports are due both to the feeling of increased sensory awareness and to the time distortion which, to many, makes orgasm seem much longer.

Finally, the anonymous user quoted by Goode states,

There's always sex. If you don't want it, you get more turned off. If a girl repulses you, you definitely wouldn't think of going near her. But once you get the idea into your head that you want to get your hands on her, there's very little that can stop you. And you don't care. The easiest thing to do is to walk up to a girl, if you're at a party or something, and to let her know you're high, so she'll understand if you try to con her into bed in one minute. There's definitely a heightening of all the physical impulses high. They are much, much stronger, in every way. Pain, too. If you concentrate on pain, you'll really start to hurt. Sex is more purely physical high, that's the only problem. It's a lust orgy. When you are involved in it, you don't think about the girl at all, you just think about the physical pleasure. But the physical pleasure is just immense. However, it doesn't detract from my normal, straight sex life. I don't say, "Gee whiz, I wish I were high." But when you want it to, marijuana acts as a frighteningly powerful aphrodisiac. At least for me it does.50

Although this is a very impressive report of the prowess of mari-juana, it is a real question how much of the effect is due to the drug and how much to the fact that the user is a twenty-two-year-old healthy, American male.

While we are on the connection between marijuana and sex, it might.be appropriate to add here the parenthetical note that, in an entirely different context, this may be a partial answer to one of the great mysteries concerning the use of marijuana and indeed of nonapproved drugs in general. Though there is absolutely no hard data on the issue, one of the most common informal topics at the many scientific conferences on drug use and abuse is just what happened in the sixties to so vastly increase the use of these drugs. There are many possible answers, but two involve a connec-tion between sexual activity and drug use. Both postulate an enormous increase in sexual activity and in sexually free attitudes on the part of the young—in part as a consequence of the pill. The first hinges on the additional assertion (also without present scientific support) that without the guilt which previous generations felt, sex becomes much more spiceless and bland. According to this theory, then, young people turn to drugs at least in part to provide the "kick" that is now missing from their sex-lives. The second of the two theories probably receives more support. It is that the increased access to sex has put upon many young people stress which, at their level of emotional maturity, they are not pre-pared to assume--especially since the boys tend to develop so much more slowly than their natural partners, the girls in their school classes. As a result of these strains, the need for some-thing to reduce anxiety and to tranquilize becomes all the more acute—and since marijuana performs both these functions without inhibiting performance, it is a natural recourse.

Weakening of Categories

Compared to the effects of marijuana on mood, time sense, and sensory awareness, the remaining subjective effects of the drug are much more subtle and are noted correspondingly less often. A good percentage of marijuana-users report that the drug seems in some way to "weaken the categorization" that they gener-ally make of objects. Thus, in an example given by one user, the table before him no longer seemed like one of many tables Jae had seen in the past but like a special object in and of itself. Of course, marijuana use does not destroy all categorization. The user contem-plating a desk knows that it is a desk and as such is like many others, but he will also, to a much greater extent, consider it a unique object.

A quite similar effect of marijuana, which may indeed be the same one in slightly different words, is the effect of the drug in weakening the attention that can be devoted to any one facet of an observation. This, as a result, seems to expand the number of impressions of the object or event that the user receives. According to one analogy, "A scholar looks at a book and notices the title but not the binding. For the book binder, the opposite is the case,"5' while either under the influence of marijuana would, in a sense, notice both—at a cost, of course, of decreasing the focus of his mind on the particular details that he usually sees. This type of effect is among the easiest to explain under the "focusing on the present" hypothesis. Marijuana, by weakening the strength of the user's memory of previous events, weakens the strength of his habits of viewing things.

Effect on Memory

The final subjective effect of marijuana is the direct effect upon the memory. Although the effect of the drug is on imme-diate, not long-term, memory, the lack of immediate memory may have, in turn, an effect on the memory of more distant events. Thus, although the factual elements remembered are usually weak-ened, the emotional content of previous experiences is often remembered with increased intensity. Thus:

. . . strong emotional responses such as grief, fear, guilt, etc., often arise under marijuana. These are responses to remembered events [which] might normally be suppressed. Usually the person's sense of identity is functioning so that he can either accept the emotion and the part of it which is usually therapeutic or reject it, which may produce dissonance and anxiety. . . . Emotions or pressures . . . [sometimes] threaten the person's self-concept or his sense of control. Under marijuana, however, these responses often are not too serious since the individual user is highly distractible ... [e]ven though he is not able to suppress his unpleasant feelings, an experienced user is usually able, by running, jumping, dancing, etc., to change his emotional tone.52

Unpleasant Effects of Ordinary Marijuana Use

As the previous quotation indicates, it should by no means be assumed that all of the ordinary effects of marijuana use are pleasant. Some users—though, of course, they do not become frequent users—view the loss of thought control which the use of marijuana entails as a most unpleasant experience, and a good many users occasionally have "bad trips" in which they become extremely frightened or anxious. Marijuana-users report that they are especially sensitive to the emotional atmosphere around them; and, if for some reason, such as a police car going by or an argument breaking out, it becomes unpleasant, they are especially likely to become frightened or depressed. Nor is such anxiety and fear always as easy to dispel as the above quotation implies, for many marijuana-users have had extremely unpleasant and frightening experiences under the drug's influence. This is probably not noted more often because the self-selection of mari-juana-users makes the effects of the drug on them more pleasant than such effects would be on the population at large. Since many who try marijuana give up the drug simply because they do not like its effects, this leaves those who do like the effects in some sense overrepresented among the users.

Some observers have argued that the paranoia which can accompany marijuana use is a consequence of the illegality of the drug rather than any drug effect. Thus Allen Ginsberg argues,

I myself experience . . . paranoia when I smoke marijuana, and for that reason smoke it in America more rarely than I did in countries where it is legal. I noticed a profound difference of effect. The anxiety was directly traceable to fear of being appre-hended and treated as a deviant criminal and put through the hassle of social disapproval, ignominious Kafkian trembling in vast court buildings, coming to be judged, the helplessness of being overwhelmed by force or threat of force, deadly force, and put in a brick and iron ce11.53

Certainly, this is a contributing fact. On the other hand, experi-ments in the laboratory where the subject understands that his drug-taking is legal, often involve paranoid suspicions and anxiety as wel1.54 It is likely that one of the effects of the focus on the present that marijuana produces is a loss of a sense of relationship with the past or the future. Certainly, if this happened when not under the drug, it would be quite frightening; and one may suspect that the user, on occasion, may forget that he is under the drug and react as a normal person would to the strange sensations, thus experiencing, in addition to the ordinary effects of the drug, an anxiety, and even mild paranoia.

This discussion of the effects of marijuana use should not be taken as asserting that all effects of marijuana are as mild as portrayed here. It is merely that those effects that are extremely gross or harmful are not discussed here with the ordinary effects. Nor even at this point does it follow that these are the most common effects of the drug—though it will turn out in Chapter V that this is so. All we can say, at this point, is that these are some effects of the drug and that they are the effects that the typical user—if not the average nonuser—thinks of as the effects of marijuana use.

Summary

Before moving on, in subsequent chapters, to con-sider the consequences of marijuana use that are usually given as a justification for the criminalization of the drug, we discuss here the ordinary effects of marijuana use. By this is meant the non-pathological effects that the average marijuana-user thinks of as the effects of the drug.

Efforts to measure these drug effects in the laboratory have encountered many difficulties. These include restrictions upon experimentation caused by the criminalization of the drug; the inability of experimenters to gain much help from animal experimentation; the problems of administration of the drug via injection, ingestion, or smoking; and a lack of availability of the active ingredient (or ingredients) of the drug in pure form.

In addition, many serious obstacles are placed in the way of laboratory experimentation by the difficulties of controlling for set and'setting, especially because marijuana is a subtle drug to which these variables are of exceptional importance and because the usual setting for marijuana use is so different than that of the laboratory.

There are several significant things to note about the ordinary use of marijuana in its "natural" setting. First, the drug is smoked, usually in cigarette form, in a social setting with the cigarette being handed among the users. The fact that the drug is smoked is important because the rapid onset of the drug's effects allows the smoker to titrate his dose and receive no more than he desires. As a result, in ordinary use the smoker is usually able to avoid the problems of high dose often encountered in laboratory studies.

The most significant thing about the effects of marijuana is that the objective effects of the drug as measured in the laboratory are far less gross than the subjective effects. The objective physical effects are an increased heartbeat, a reddening of the conjunctiva, and, if it can be considered an objective effect, a dryness in the throat.

The objective mental effects of the drug, similarly, are far less gross than one might expect. Indeed, it is as yet impossible in the laboratory to devise any mental test that will consistently reveal anyone to be under the influence of marijuana. It does appear, however, that marijuana does adversely affect immediate memory and that while this has little effect on the performance of simple tasks, it does cause a noticeable decrease of the ability to perform complex tasks that require sustained levels of concentration and memory.

In measuring the subjective effects of marijuana we run into a host of problems. By definition, we are forced to rely upon the reports of users who may be biased. In addition, the illegality of marijuana places difficulties in the way of completely open dis-cussion of these effects. On the other hand, surveys of the reports of users are very helpful, considering the high degree of corre-spondence among them. From them we can gain a fairly clear idea of the subjective effects of ordinary marijuana use, as experienced by the great majority of users.

The most important and widespread ordinary effects of mari-juana are a feeling of relaxation, a sense of euphoria, and an impression that one's senses have somehow been sharpened.

The mechanism of marijuana's effect is by no means clearly understood. One recent hypothesis—the first that seems to explain all the varied effects of the drug—is that marijuana's basic action is on the time sense. This causes a time distortion that to a greater extent than usual fixes the user upon the present moment rather than upon the past or the future. As a result he is temporarily freed from worries about the future or regrets about the past and hence is relaxed and mildly euphoric. Since he forgets boredom with past sensations, the user's present sensations seem newer and hence sharper and more intense. This applies to colors, taste, hearing, and the enjoyment of music and sex.

In addition, the fixation on the present tends to blur the usual categories by which we are accustomed to interpreting events and feelings. As a result the user will acquire—though to an extent far more limited than drug partisans (especially of LSD) may suggest—new ways of looking at events. Finally, the fixation on the present is not only a source of joy to the user. It can be extremely frightening—or, even if not so interpreted, can be quite unpleasant. This ordinary effect of marijuana is underrepresented in the sample of regular users. The reason is simply that those who tend to be frightened more often by the less rooted feeling of marijuana use are less likely to continue using the drug.

NOTES

1. See Watt, J. M., and Breyer Brandwijk, M. G., "Medicinal and Poisonous Plants of Southern and Eastern Africa," 1962, quoted in Andrews, George, and Vinkenoog, Simon, The Book of Grass (New York: Grove Press, 1967), p. 146.
2. Letter from Dr. Andrew Weil.
3. Jaffe, Jerome H., "Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse," in The Phar-macological Basis of Therapeutics, Louis S. Goodman and Alfred Gilman, eds., 3d ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 299-301.
4. See Amaral Vierra, F. J., and others, "Effects of the Organic Layer of Hashish Smoke Extract and Preliminary Results of Its Chemical Analysis," Psychopharmacologia (Berl), Vol. 10, 1967, p. 361.
5. Moreau de Tours, J. J., "Du Hachich et de l'Aliénation Mentale" ["Hashish and Mental Illness"], Etudes Psychologiques (Paris: Masson, 1845).
6. See Brotteaux, P., Hachich, Herbe de Folie et de Rive [Hashish, Plant of Madness and Dreams] (Paris: Vega, 1934), Chapter 4, pp.,$9 ff; Ames, Frances, "A Clinical and Metabolic Study of Acute Intoxication with Cannabis Sativa and Its Role in the Model Psychosis," Journal of Mental Science, Vol. 109, 1958, p. 972.
7. See Chapter V, p. 143.
8. See Zinberg, Norman, and Weil, Andrew, "The Effects of Mari-juana on Human Beings," New York Times Magazine, May 18, 1969, pp. 28, 82.
9. See Walton, Robert P., Marijuana, America's New Drug Problem (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1938), p. 50.
10. See Ronayne, Donald, "Marijuana, Regular Use" (1968) ; Wilcox, Jonathan W., "Marijuana Use Patterns at Stanford" (1969).
11. Miller, Donald E., "What Policemen Should Know About the Marijuana Controversy," address before the International Nar-cotic Enforcement Officers Association at Louisville, Ky., Oct. 22-26, 1967, pp. 7-8.
12. Skolnick, Jerome, "Coercion to Virtue," University of Southern California Law Review, Vol. 41, 1968, pp. 595-96.
13. See Weil, Andrew, Zinberg, Norman, and Nelson, Judith, "Clinical and Psychological Effects of Marijuana in Man," Science, Vol. 162, 1968, pp. 1239-40.
14. See Williams, John B., Narcotics and Hallucinogenics (Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1967), p. 14.
15. People v. Beale, 73 Cal. Reptr. 787 (1969).
16. See Weil and others, op. cit., p. 1240.
17. See Jones, Reese T., and Stone, George C., "Psychological Studies of Marijuana and Alcohol in Man," read at the 125th Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Bal Harbour, Fla., May, 1969.
18. Ibid.
19. See e.g., Clark, Lincoln D., and Nakashima, Edwin N., "Experi-mental Studies of Marijuana," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 125,1968, p. 379.
20. Tinklenberg, J. R., and others, "Marijuana and Immediate Mem-ory."
21. Clark, Lincoln D., Hughes, Ronald, and Nakashima, Edwin, "Be-havioral Effects of Marihuana: Experimental Studies"; see also Melges, F. T., and others, "Marijuana and Temporal Disintegra-tion."
22. Zinberg and Weil, op. cit., p. 92.
23. Weil and others, op. cit., pp. 1238-41.
24. Becker, Howard, "Becoming a Marijuana User," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 59,1953, p. 235.
25. Weil and others, op. cit., p. 1241. A recent paper argues, hoWever, that among very heavy users a tolerance does develop. See Smith, D. E., and Mehl, C., "An Analysis of Marijuana Toxicity," 1970.
26. Jones and Stone, op. cit., p. 10-11.
27. Ibid.
28. Hollister, Leo E., Richards, Richard K., and Gillespie, H. K., "Comparison of Tetrahydrocannabinol and Synhexyl in Man," Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 9,1968, pp. 783, 790.
29. Kissen, Benjamin, "On Marijuana," Downstate Medical Center Reporter, Vol. 2, No. 7, April, 1967.
30. Miller, op. cit., p. 19.
31. See Sinclair, A., Era of Excess (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 17.
32. Letter from Dr. Jared Tinklenberg, Dec. 29,1969.
33. See Becker, op. cit.
34. See e.g., Walton, op. cit., pp. 56 ff.
35. See, e.g., Bloomquist, Edward R., Marijuana (Beverly Hills: Glen-coe Press, 1968), pp. 63-67.
36. Marijuana, Erich Goode, ed. (New York: Atherton Press, 1969).
37. Ibid., pp. 52-55. For evidence that the hearing of those under the influence of marijuana may be actually somewhat decreased, see Caldwell, Donald F., Meyers, Stephen A., and Domino, Ed-ward F., "Effects of Marijuana Thresholds in Man," address pre-sented by Edward F. Domino (1969).
38. Goode, Erich, The Marijuana Smokers (New York: Basic Books, 1970).
39. Haines, Lloyd, and Green, Warren, "Marijuana Use Patterns" (1969), p. 12.
40. Keeler, Martin H., "Motivation for Marijuana Use: A Correlate of Adverse Reaction," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 125, 1968, pp. 386-87.
41. Ibid., p. 388.
42. Melges, F. T., and others, "Temporal Span of Awareness and Marijuana Intoxication," 1970.
43. Anonymous, "The Effects of Marijuana on Consciousness," in Tart, Charles T., Altered States of Consciousness (New York: Wiley, 1969), p. 355.
44. Caldwell and others, op. cit.
45. See Goode, The Marijuana Smokers.
46. See, e.g., Weil and others, op. cit., p. 1240.
47. See Haines and Green, op. cit., p. 20.
48. Goode, Erich, "Marijuana and Sex," Evergreen Review, Vol. 66, 1969, pp. 19, 20.
49. Haines and Green, op. cit., p. 19.
50. See Goode, Marijuana, p. 55.
51. Anonymous, in Tart, Altered States of Consciousness, p. 347.
52. See Goode, The Marijuana Smokers.
53. Ginsberg, Allen, "The Great Marijuana Hoax," The Atlantic, Vol. 218 (Nov., 1966), p. 109.
54. Letter from Dr. Jared Tinklenberg, Dec. 29, 1969.