Drug Abuse

The Holy Barbarians

Lawrence Lipton

The euphoria that the beats who use marijuana are sensing is not the wholly passive, sedative, pacifying experience that the users of commercial tranquillizers want. On the contrary, they are looking for a greater sense of aliveness, a heightened sense of awareness. Of all the euphoric, hypnotic and hallucinogenic drugs, marijuana is the mildest and also the most conductive to social usage. The joint is passed around the pad and shared, not for reasons of economy but as a social ritual. Once the group is high, the magic circle is complete. Confidences are exchanged, personal problems are discussed—with a frankness that is difficult to achieve under normal circumstances-music is listened to with rapt concentration, poetry is read aloud and its images, visual and acoustical, communicated with maximum effect. The Eros is felt in the magic circle of marijuana with far greater force, as a unifying principle in human relationships, than at any other time except, perhaps, in the mutual metaphysical orgasm. The magic circle is, in fact, a symbol of and a preparation .for the metaphysical orgasm. While marijuana does not give the user the sense of timelessness to the same degree that peyote does, or LSD or other drugs, it does so sufficiently to impart a sense of presence, a here-and-nowness that gives the user a heightened sense of awareness and immediacy.

Extracts From The Wicker Report

Randolfe Wicker

About a year ago, New York Times writer Walter Carlson did a feature on marijuana ... The article had been spurred by a series of incidents on college campuses—namely: University of Toledo, New York University, University of Massachusetts, University of Colorado, Columbia, Brandeis, Cornell, and the University of Wisconsin—in which students had been discovered scoring, dealing, holding, or puffing on various varieties of green, brown, and gold weed.

Carlson reported that the students smoked pot to obtain 'a feeling of well being and an easing of pressures', and that they almost universally 'thought there was no problem, except the one they felt society had created in making marijuana illegal.'

The Brandeis Dean of Students was reported as predicting experimentation with marijuana would 'grow', especially since it had attained an 'aura of respectability' as a result of Harvard's consciousness-expanding (LSD) controversy and the increasing popularity of writers such as Aldous Huxley whose books related their own experiences with consciousness-expanding agents.

Carlson quoted Dr Graham B. Blaine, Jr., a Harvard and Radcliffe Health Service psychiatrist, as saying 'the students involved are, for the most part, bright students. They are usually the ones who do not feel challenged and are looking for something that has more grab and bite to it. They are apathetic, usually non-committed, those who are contemptuous of the organization man.'

Carlson noted that nearly everyone agreed that marijuana experimenters 'were definitely not the goldfish swallowers, nor the telephone booth stuffers' but instead resembled 'the type that might have experimented with communism in the i930's.',

'The risk, the psychiatrists questioned agreed, was not primarily the risk of addiction', Carlson reported while concluding his Times report, 'the biggest danger is that some already unstable person might suffer lasting mental damage.' (emphasis ours.)

Less than a year later Martin Arnold, another New York Times writer, commenced his front-page marijuana-narcotics feature story on a completely contradictory note.

'NARCOTICS A GROWING PROBLEM OF AFFLUENT YOUTH' the Times heading declared. 'Beginning With Marijuana, Many GO ON TO Heroin', read the sub-caption. In the shabby script that followed, Martin Arnold, and with him The New York Times, abandoned all pretences of objectivity and journalistic integrity. Harmless, benevolent, defenseless Mary Jane had rarely seen a darker hour. She was labeled simply and plainly an ugly, immoral, sick 'kick'.

The police were quoted as unofficially estimating that 35% of all marijuana users went on to become heroin addicts—a figure that would mean that there should be at least fifty times as many addicts as there actually are.

The other 65%, or those pot smokers who didn't become heroin addicts, Mr. Arnold reported would either 'seek, and be helped by, psychotherapy' or would 'pull out of it on their own and dismiss it as a youthful phase.'

And those who didn't? Why, they would 'settle into a rootless, goalless existence in which marijuana will be a vague but basic element, like changing partners, lodgings, and jobs.' To support his thesis, Mr. Arnold conjured up a stereotyped 'beat' chick—a free-floating, sexually promiscuous girl who smoked boo all day and socialized with junkies when she wasn't busy banging away in bed with her latest stray male pick-up. She was, it was explicitly stated, a 'typical' pot-head!

Mr. Arnold, dirty old man of letters that he be, did begrudgingly mention New York's Lemak (legalize marijuana movement) but only to use it as proof of just 'how smart' and how 'in' pot-smoking had currently become.

This writer is a pot-smoker and has been for some years. And he has seen the ugly tragedy of heroin addiction at close range—both as a layman and as a special correspondent writing on narcotics addiction for the New York Herald Tribune.

Therefore it is especially painful to sit by quietly and watch even papers of reputation—such as The New York Times—consistently treat both marijuana smoking and, to a lesser degree, heroin addiction superficially and biasedly.

... I would like to present some quotes from an addict—a dope peddler, to be precise—on the subject of marijuana smoking. The following comes from an interview, 'Big Head: Obituary For A Junkie', which was taped by myself and broadcast over WBAI-FM last summer [1964], and which will be rebroadcast. It explains the qualitative difference between marijuana smoking and narcotics addiction.

'Well, it's an entirely different thing,' Big Head explained. 'Smoking marijuana produces an introspective state, a state of heightened awareness regarding what is occurring around you. It slows down your time sense, so that minutes will sometimes seem like hours. A heroin addict is looking for exactly the opposite effect ... For instance, if you're nervous, if you're a junkie and you're nervous and up tight and take a shot of stuff, it will calm you. But if you smoke marijuana, you will become more nervous and up tight. Marijuana doesn't change the nature of your sensations, it merely heightens them. But when you use heroin, all of your bodily processes are depressed, including physical perception.'

The College Scene In The USA

Richard Goldstein

The following is an article which appeared in an American student magazine. The people mentioned are reed, but names have been altered.

Tom Harmon is a student at Hunter College in New York City. He is short, thin, blue-eyed, and perhaps a bit withdrawn. Anyone who speaks to him for a few minutes, or visits his apartment near the campus, may begin to admire his easygoing independence.

But those who really get to know Tom, who travel in his circles, may eventually become his customers, and will probably think of him as being 'hip'.

Tom pushes pot. That's what sets him apart from other students, it provides his cool. Tom is a pusher, and his circle of customers are all students. Parents don't know about Tom, though they may have met him. Deans have probably heard a thing or two, perhaps sniffed around the corridors, but they have no desire to intervene and bring the curse of bad publicity to their campus. The police know who Tom is and everyone thinks Tom will eventually be busted.

Pot, weed, grass, tea, boo, joint, stick, reefer, hash, stuff, marijuana: They are all the same and they are all within the realm of those who travel in Tom's circle.

Tom Harmon is no literary symbol; he and his friends operate on many campuses around the nation. For every Tom that the police encounter there are twenty others each servicing a group of marijuana users, each drawing a profit that is meager for drug dealers, but abundant for any student. Tom makes $150 a week on drugs, though he admits he could profit by 'cutting' his marijuana with oregano, a common spice which resembles pot in texture and color. But Tom doesn't do that, because, he says, 'my friends wouldn't like it.'

Tom is a new breed of criminal; neither he nor the students whose needs he services consider his business reprehensible. He is well liked, even admired. Many of his friends call him Santa Claus.

Pot has become a problem on college campuses throughout the nation. It is a problem not simply because students are breaking the law in using pot. In fact, the problem has many sides to it: the increasing consumption, the fact that 'nice' kids use the drug, the lack of information on drug effects, and the publicity surrounding exposure of drug usage. As a result, the many-faceted problem has been making news more and more often on more and more campuses.

Headlines tell part of the story. During the past year, student newspapers (followed often by city dailies) have come up with a raft of drug scandals. One of the reasons for the headlines, of course, is the very fact that administrators react in horror to the revelation of drug
usage. Another reason is that horrified administration reaction is itself news, and provides banner headline material. Administration reaction alone becomes a large part of the problem.

Fear of the exposure of drug usage becomes silly in a national context: So many colleges are hit by drug scandals that a college with a scandal has no excuse feeling like a sore thumb. Items:

Three students of the University of California's Berkeley Campus were arrested following a raid in which police found marijuana growing in the kitchen and back yard of a student's apartment. On Cal's Riverside campus, the arrest of a graduate student was the result of an investigation, by police and campus officials, into marijuana smoking by students.

Police at the University of Washington cracked a marijuana ring of 250 students after a patrol woman infiltrated the group and acted as an undercover agent.

Ivy Schools are no exception. Columbia's Dean David Truman said that he 'doubts there is a college anywhere in the country where narcotics is not a serious problem, and Columbia is no exception.' This statement followed the disclosure that a Columbia freshman who committed suicide had narcotics, including marijuana, in his room when he died.

Newspapers in the Boston area reported arrests involving marijuana usage at both Brandeis University and the University of Massachusetts. The situation reached crisis proportions last March when a Cambridge judge, Frank W. Tommasello, ordered an investigation to 'clean out Harvard Square' of drug peddlers. The demand, and subsequent estimates of just how extensive the problem was at Harvard, brought angry retorts from administrators who attributed the problem to non-students.

Students at the University of California are so accustomed to pot consumption taking place on campus that they joke about it openly. Vie Keppel, a columnist for The Daily Californian at Berkeley, wrote about marijuana on his campus and told how it was pushed. One student, Keppel declared, drives down to nearby Mexico, where marijuana is illegal but plentiful, and fills numerous scuba tanks with potent smoke. He returns to Berkeley and sells these tanks 'like beer kegs' to interested parties.

Another student contracts with friendly Yaqui Indians to weave marijuana into sombreros and baskets with harmless vegetable dye. These he sells around campus as party favors.

A particularly ambitious chap has graduated from selling tourists maps of the campus on which are marked locations of marijuana crops and now intends to open a printing press which will reproduce anti-marijuana tracts on marijuana paper. 'After digesting the medical information, the informed may roll up the last chapter and smoke it,' Keppel pointed out.

It is difficult to determine exactly how many students use marijuana. Other than the long list of arrests and raids there are no statistics available. Part of this is due to the reluctance of administrators to reveal marijuana usage on their campus, and part is due to laws which require that an individual be held only on charges of possessing—not using—marijuana, Possession of under an ounce of marijuana is considered a misdemeanor. Possession of over an ounce is a felony and punishable by three to ten years in prison, on a second offence. Police officials consider anyone who carries enough marijuana to fill 100 or more cigarettes a pusher, and provide penalties of five to fifteen years in prison.

Headlines really say more about public opinion than they do about the extent of drug usage on campus; but isolated comments by public officials, college administrators, and students present a mosaic of views which support the belief that student drug usage is considerable.

A student at a small Midwestern college estimates that half of the 800 students there have used marijuana. He claims that at his school 'the administration says it is really a bad thing, but that you can do it if you don't smoke in rooms on campus.'

Administrators at the Harvard University health service believe that student use of drugs is more a matter of youthful experimentation than a danger. Dr Dana Farnsworth of the health service there declares, 'Experimentation with drugs has increased in all elements of society, and the college student has become a natural target for those who profit from the circulation of marijuana and other drugs.'

Tom DeVries, general secretary of the United States Student Press Association, was forced this past year to revise his views on the extent of drug usage. During a mid-winter drug scandal at Philadelphia's Temple University, DeVries said: 'The drug problem is like cheating or sex. There may be an increase, but it's certainly not in proportion to the increase in administration concern.' Subsequent events caused DeVries to assert this summer that, 'there is an incredible, explosive, mushrooming increase in the use of drugs on campus.'

Judging by all these estimates and by the incidence of drug scandals, it is safe to assume that there are few large campuses in the country where less than 5% of the student body have had some experience with marijuana or other such drugs.

Douglas Hansen, deputy director of field operations for the US Food and Drug Administration, is no alarmist; but he laid the problem on the line before a conference of college administrators: 'In many cases, colleges don't act because they don't want to bring publicity to their own campus ... The problem is greater than we think it is and you think it is. It's probably on your own campus.'

Lack of action by college administrators hamstrings efforts by the FDA and other public officials to combat the drug supply at its source. For example, commanding officer Ira Bluth of the New York City Narcotics Squad does not consider marijuana consumption on his city's campuses a problem for his department. His reasons are simply stated: no college administrator has ever contacted his office to complain of drug usage, or to ask for departmental help in combating the problem. For Ira Bluth, the problem does not exist.

When Commander Bluth is presented with evidence that marijuana is being smoked on most of New York City's campuses, he replies: 'I wouldn't dispute it, or argue with you ... but we haven't gotten any complaints, so I just don't know how extensive the problem is.' Mr. Bluth has these words for reluctant administrators: 'I don't know where they get their information, but if they were good citizens they would tell us about it.'

'The student who uses marijuana loses all judgment in time or space,' says Dr Katherine Hess, Narcotics co-coordinator for the New York Board of Health. 'If he is driving a car, what looks blocks away may be feet away. If she is a mother who thinks she's fed her infant one hour ago, it may have been six hours. There is real evidence that some brain damage may occur from its frequent use.'

'It's a dangerous situation on campus,' Dr Hess says. 'Students still drive cars on campus, and they have to deal in criminal circles to get their marijuana.'

Most important, Dr Hess declares, 'the adolescent who smokes marijuana loses all sense of values, and becomes promiscuous without knowing what he's really doing.' On campus, marijuana users are likely to indulge in 'irregular activities'. Also, 'the drug creates a sensation of ultimate power, and that can be dangerous, though not to the normal personality. It produces a psychic, mental dependence, and any person who depends on marijuana needs psychological help.'

Dr Hess opposes marijuana consumption. But she does not advocate punishment as the answer to the question of pot. She advocates a more realistic approach, one taken by more and more administrators: open discussion of the issue, and psychological counseling for users. Students caught using drugs under this plan are required to see the campus counseling service in lieu of suspension or disgrace. Dr Hess feels this procedure should be mandatory.

The administrator who is really concerned about the health of his students rather than the reputation of his institution must be willing to admit that the problem exists on his campus. The solution follows: educational, not punitive. Lectures, seminars, and discussions provide a rational, adult, and progressive approach to the problem.

There must be an objective study of the use of drugs, including both beneficial and harmful aspects. The obvious questions should be asked. Should such drugs be legalized? Are they really harmful, or merely repugnant to society? Are they the way of the future, 'the new frontier of the mind', as scientist-novelist Aldous Huxley claims,' or are they a manifestation of campus rebellion, as liquor was in the twenties, as sexual license was in the fifties?

Memoirs Of A Kif Smoker

Michael Pickering

The following article was written by a sixteen-year-old English boy and appeared in his local parish magazine.

When you first arrive at Tangier in Morocco, you recoil with horror when you are approached by young men trying to sell you marijuana or hashish or whatever you like to call it (in Morocco it is universally called 'Kit). You have thoughts of glassy-eyed junkies wasting away in dens full of drug addicts. After a few days or a few weeks (or never at all with some people) you begin to get a different impression—you find that most of the people you know smoke or have smoked it, and that those who have are not one jot different from those who have never touched it. So, urged on by your friends and trying to cover up your anxiety, you taste a little.

At first it is horrible: you feel weak and tired and depressed, with none of the light and joy they'd told you to expect. But you are given more reassuring words—it's only because of your scarcely repressed fears that cause your subconscious to try and reject the effect. Keep on trying and it will come. It does after one or two times, with effects that are impossible to describe accurately and which give some of the most wonderful experiences of your life.

Kif itself is a plant that grows or can grow all over the world—even in England, though the product I am told is not very good. The Rif mountains in the north of Morocco grow some of the best. The leaves of the plant are finely chopped and sorted (a very skilled process) and often a little tobacco added. It is smoked in tiny clay bowls at the end of long wooden pipes, which are sometimes beautifully carved or decorated, each filling gives only three or four drags—the ash being neatly blown out before the pipe is refilled.

The effects, usually coming on after two or three or four pipefuls, are different for each person, but several general characteristics are usually common to everybody. First of all, you suddenly notice as if for the first time in your life, how fantastically beautiful everything in the world is—even little things you hardly thought worth looking at before ... all colors become incredibly bright and intense, and sounds and touches full of beauty. When I first got high on kif, I was in a filthy youth hostel in Casablanca—but lying on a table was a small alcohol heater someone was using for cooking; it was dark and the heater was shooting out a long bright blue flame. Suddenly this flame was to me the most beautiful object in the world—the only thing worth looking at—it was full of exquisite wisps of orange and red—it was swirling round and round in the air, always emitting a lovely hissing noise that filled the whole room. It became for me all sorts of things—a flaming torch sweeping through the sky or a gurgling river of fire leaping from the table.

One example of thousands. But there is much more than just the heightening of the senses. You begin to think think think. More profoundly and more interestingly than ever before. You have fantastic ideas thrown up by your imagination which knows no bounds or restraints. And you feel an intense physical exhilaration—that makes you want to leap around. Everything in the world suddenly becomes true and real—you can see deep into people's minds by just looking at their eyes—you can tell everything about them, their thoughts, characters, dreams and secrets. You can see what people are really like—their 'image' is shattered—and so is yours—you start behaving as you really are. Politeness for the sake of politeness is impossible, or if tried, it is completely unconvincing. You become obsessed with the beauty of everything around you—a small noise made with your mouth is wonderful—you repeat it over and over again. To any observer you appear crazy—but this is nothing to you—you are in your own lovely world creating thoughts and visions and sounds and sights—creating whatever you like—doing whatever you like—you have woken up at last and start seeing the world as it really is for the first time—the kif has drawn the veil from your eyes and there is only life and growth and creation.

All very well. What happens afterwards? Answer, nothing. When the effect wears off, you are as you were before—but with a difference—in many ways you still see the world as it was when you were high—the flame is just as beautiful an object as before. Your whole life is enriched, your imagination deeper, and your mind is more active. There is not the slightest chance of getting hooked (addicted) to kif, unlike opium or heroin, which are different altogether; there are no bad effects no headaches or hangovers, no depression or 'let-down' feeling. Moroccans who have smoked it for sixty years or more have no ill effects.

It is strange to realize that kif and 'drugs' like it are regarded as the height of evil and corruption in European countries. Strange also that here it is alcohol (highly respectable in Western countries) that has this same association of sin and wickedness (it being illegal for a native of a Moslem country to drink). But nobody can claim that alcohol (and tobacco), unlike kif, are not addict-forming or without harmful effects.

Two Statements

Judge John M. Murtagh

Judge Murtagh is Administrative Judge of the City of New York's Criminal Court.

1959: 'Our drug laws are immoral in principle and ineffectual in operation.'

April 25th, 1966: 'If there is a success in fighting the problem of narcotics addiction, it will be due to the scientists. We of the law are asses, and our approach is at best an utter disgrace. Basically, it is a public health matter. Punishment should be limited to deviant conduct which harms the rest of us. An enforcement law corrupts more than it corrects.'

The Case Of Timothy Leary

New York Daily News Report

Laredo, Tex., March 11 (UPI)—Dr Timothy Leary, 45, former Harvard professor nationally known for experiments with such hallucination drugs as LSD and Peyote, was convicted today on two marijuana charges and sentenced to a maximum of thirty years in federal prison. His eighteen-year-old daughter, Susan, was ordered sent to a federal reformatory.

Federal Judge Ben C. Connally also fined Leary $30,000. Susan drew an indeterminate term. Defense attorneys said they would appeal.

Leary was found guilty of charges of transporting marijuana and failing to pay tax on it.

Connally gave Leary and his daughter ten days to wind up their affairs. They plan to return to their Millbrook, N.Y. home immediately. At the end of ten days, both must submit to psychiatric examination before Connally determines final sentence.

Seized At Border

Leary, Susan, his son John, sixteen, and two companions were arrested at the Mexican border Dec. 22. Susan was found guilty of failing to pay tax on marijuana and John was not charged. A woman customs inspector made Miss Leary undress and found three ounces of marijuana in a silver snuffbox. Leary said the marijuana was his.

Before the case went to the jury, Connally dismissed a charge of smuggling marijuana against Leary. He dismissed charges of smuggling and unlawful transportation of marijuana against Miss Leary.

Leary had freely admitted using marijuana and said it was less dangerous than alcohol. He was convicted of unlawful transportation, for which he was sentenced to twenty years in prison and fined $20,000, and of failure to pay tax on marijuana, for which he was sentenced to ten years and fined $10,000.

Drop Smuggling Count

Connally said he dismissed the smuggling count because Leary, by his own admission, had the marijuana when he left New York. In earlier interviews, Leary had denied being dismissed as a Harvard professor for his drug experiments. He said he was fired in an argument over salary.

Leary had been operating a foundation in Millbrook in connection with his experiments in drugs, (11th March, 1966.)

Sympathizers throughout the United States and in fact all over the world have recently formed a Timothy Leary Defense Fund. The following statements by eminent authorities and officials are being used by them to show that current legal penalties for the use of marijuana in the States are excessive.

'It is the opinion of the panel that the hazards of marihuana 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.' (White House Conference on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, 1962.)

'Dr S. J. Holmes, Director of the Narcotic Addiction Unit of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, believes it is "fantastic and ridiculous" that a person caught with one marihuana cigarette can be sent to prison. "The situation is a disgrace to our civilization and merits much consideration".' (Toronto Globe and Mail, Feb. 17, 1966.)

'The continued linking of marihuana with opiates and cocaine results in excessively harsh penalties at both federal and state levels.' (Subcommittee on Narcotics of the Public Health Committee, N.Y. County Medical Society. Donald B. Louria, M.D., Chairman, March, 1966.)

'The penalty provisions applicable to marihuana users under state and federal law are about the same as those applied to heroin users. These penalties are entirely disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending behavior and lead to gross injustice and undesirable social consequences ... The moderate or occasional marihuana user is not a significant social menace.' (Alfred R. Lindesmith, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Indiana University in The Addict and the Law, 1965.)

'Physicians and social scientists have defaulted leadership 'and responsibility in dealing with the pleasure-giving drugs, and law-enforcement agencies and legislatures have far exceeded their legitimate areas of concern.' (Joel Fort, M.D., Director, Special Problems Centre, San Francisco, former Consultant to World Health Organization, in Utopiates, ed. R. Blum, 1965.)

'The laws are now turning half the people on our campuses and a good portion of our leading citizens into criminals and law breakers. It is like, Prohibition when the laws had nothing to do with the practices and beliefs of the people.' (Rev. Howard R. Moody of Judson Memorial Church, Village Voice, March 31, 1966.)

Abuse Of American Law

Dr Henry Smith Williams

The following statement was made in 1938 only a year after legislation to control the use of marijuana was introduced in the USA.

A Marihuana Tax bill was introduced and presently enacted as Federal law. And the foundation was thus laid for a racket that should quite eclipse even the billion-dollar illicit drug industry that the Harrison Act (as misinterpreted) developed and fostered. For the new drug has qualities that put it in a class by itself.

For example: Marihuana, despite its high-sounding name, is merely a product of the familiar hemp plant—an agricultural product to which (according to statements made before the Congressional committee) upward of 10,000 acres of land in the United States are devoted. Leaves and flowers of any of these plants supply material for the marihuana cigarettes which we are asked to believe are a menace to American youth today.

But that is only the beginning. The hemp plant is not only cultivated extensively, but it grows wild in countless fields, neglected gardens, fence comers, and back yards ... But with the aid of newspaper propaganda already started, an interest will be created in the alleged allurements of marihuana smoking; and the army of inspectors sent out to explore the millions of fields on which the weed may grow need only apply, with slight modifications, the methods learned in the conduct of the narcotics racket, in order to develop a marihuana industry that should eclipse the billion-dollar illicit narcotics racket of today.

Racketeers who developed a billion-dollar illicit drug industry, using opium that had to be smuggled into the country, should have no difficulty at all in developing a five-billion dollar racket with marihuana—provided only that the press can be induced to stimulate curiosity by giving the drug publicity.

Already a good beginning has been made. A recent magazine article conveyed the impression that marihuana is rampant as a chief promoter of sex crimes; it being noted in particular that several hideous crimes committed in Los Angeles were instigated by use of this drug.

The Black Market In America

Edwin M. Schur

Frequently various non-opiate drugs are mentioned in connection with the problem of narcotic addiction. Some of these drugs are stimulants, the effects of which are, very roughly, opposite to those produced by opiates ... Of the non-opiates, marihuana is probably most often closely associated, by the general public, with addiction ... Marihuana' does not appear to produce tolerance and physical dependence, and hence it should not be considered a truly addictive drug. There seems little justification for the term 'marihuana addiction' which one sometimes encounters. Although popular reports often suggest that marihuana use leads to sexual orgies and violent crime, very likely the drug's dangers have been greatly exaggerated. A careful study in New York in 1944, for example, concluded that publicity about marihuana's catastrophic effects was largely unfounded.

A final point about marihuana is of considerable importance for our understanding of the addiction problem. One often hears that the use of marihuana is the first step on the road to opiate addiction. This may well be true in certain cases. But when it does happen, such progression is due to particular social aspects of the use of marihuana. In America today marihuana purchasers are especially likely to encounter opiate peddlers, and the marihuana-using group may develop attitudes favorable to opiate use. It should be stressed that there is no necessary relation—in pharmacological or physiological terms—between the two types of drugs ...

Why do our present drug laws and enforcement policies continue to receive support, even though they are patently ineffective and are considered by many to be inhumane? From a sociological standpoint, this cannot be explained fully by reference to the belief that eventually these laws will work. When ineffective laws persist, there is a strong likelihood that they are bound up with other social values and institutions ... Sometimes a law is so glaringly ineffective that simple common sense seems to dictate a change. American addiction laws appear to fall into this category. One legal writer has noted that failure to control addiction may in part relate to lack of adequate technical knowledge of that condition. But he goes on to state, 'it requires more than a reference to scientific ignorance to justify the absurdity of current efforts to control the narcotics traffic in the United States.' Without doubt American thinking in this area continues to be based partly on the misconceptions Lindesmith aptly labeled 'the "dope fiend" mythology": '... a body of superstition, half-truths and misinformation ... bolsters up an indefensible repressive law, the victims of which are in no position to protest.'

... We have already noted that the 'market' in the United States is such that distribution of illicit drugs brings exceedingly high profits ... Not only has organized, crime in America been extremely profitable, but we know that at some times it has maintained at least indirect connections with legitimate businesses and political machines ... Especially relevant to our analysis of the narcotics situation is Linde-smith's remark that the underworld is implicit in our 'legal' organization. We have seen how American drug policies—by depriving addicts of access to legitimate supplies—set the stage for the growth of a 'big business' in illegal narcotics. Even Commissioner Anslinger has had to admit that effective curbing of medical drug supplies helps make profiteering worthwhile ... One legal expert even maintains that 'It is precisely our enforcement efforts, and nothing else, that ... keep the traffic flowing.' It is difficult to see how a black market in drugs could maintain anywhere near its present success if it had to compete with widespread legal distribution of low-cost narcotics. Hence we must do more than recognize that drug traffic, as such, performs economic functions. We have to realize that it is the combination of economic demand and the severe limitations placed on supply by current policies which is at the heart of the matter. It is a latent function of these very policies that they support a prosperous underworld trade. Presumably Judge Murtagh had this in mind when he notes: 'In a way, the big shots of the narcotics trade must be grateful for the government's single-minded attitude toward addiction. Just as rumrunning made the Mafia rich when liquor was outlawed in this country, so junkrunning makes the new Mafia rich and powerful today.' The underworld drug business depends upon current American policy, and those involved in the business have a real stake in perpetuating present laws ...

Another factor relating to the persistence of current laws has been the success achieved by Commissioner Anslinger and his associates in disseminating their views ... Murtagh is correct in asserting that Congress 'has accepted the word of our Commissioner of Narcotics and has ignored the advice of knowledgeable doctors, psychiatrists, educators, social workers, and lawyers' . According to Kolb, whose governmental experience entitles him to write with some authority, 'People with only a police training have secured commanding positions in the formulation of narcotics policies; sound medical opinion based on careful research is cried down or ignored ...' Perhaps this has not been entirely Commissioner Anslinger's doing, since drug addiction already had become a police problem when he took office. However, according to one account, 'Anslinger accepted the task of making sure it stayed that way.'

... Why does the Narcotics Bureau continue to support policies which many independent observers condemn and which almost all objective evidence refutes? As already noted, Rufus King maintains that the Narcotics Division of the Treasury Department 'succeeded in creating a very large criminal class for itself to police ... instead of the very small one that Congress intended.' ... One cannot overlook the fact that the Narcotics Bureau appears to have a definite interest in preserving current American policies. And the fact that a bureaucratic apparatus designed to implement those policies has been established further increases the resistance to change ... Judge Murtagh writes, 'There is only one way to start reform—retire Commissioner Anslinger and replace him with a distinguished public health administrator of vision and perception and, above all, heart. Such a man would not fight against clinics; he would be bound to fight for them.'

The Law In Colorado

Colorado Daily News Report

Boulder District Judge William E. Buck Monday declared the state law governing narcotics unconstitutional and dismissed charges against twelve defendants involved in February's crackdown on marijuana in the city.

The action came at a seven-hour hearing on the case, during which defense attorneys Jim R. Carrigan and Robert Ryan argued for dismissal on grounds that marijuana is not a narcotic, is not addicting, does not cause physical damage and thus is not covered by state narcotics laws.

Colorado statute 48 6-1 was ruled unconstitutional by Buck on two grounds.

That marijuana exhibits characteristics different from a narcotic as defined by law, and

That the State Board of Health has been given the power to define, a narcotic. Buck ruled this an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Charges were dismissed against '(names omitted for obvious reasons').

The twelve were arrested last February on charges ranging from possession of the plant, to use and sale.

Captain Joseph Moomow, head of the Denver police laboratories, and University Pharmacologist Dr Harold C. Heim testified for the defense in the case.

Stanley F. Johnson, Boulder deputy district attorney, said, 'We defended the statute as best we could. There are two or three avenues left open for us to follow. Actually, we just have not yet decided which one to follow.' He said there is a possibility of asking the state legislature to do something about the statute, and added, 'It may be carried to the supreme court.'

Johnson said he would argue the case on the basis of the statute as it exists.

The argument of the defense attorneys were that marijuana was placed in an unreasonable classification with heroin and morphine: cruel and unusual punishment for marijuana smokers, paralleling those of heroin and morphine; delegation of legislative power to the Board of Health, and the fact that marijuana is not an addictive drug.

Moomow, in his testimony for the defense, said, 'Dr Heim and I agreed on all of the material physiological and psychological effects. Marijuana has no addictive powers, it does not have the habit-forming characteristics even tobacco may have.'

Speaking of the law itself Moomow said, 'There are a number of categories for drugs. To put all drugs in one law is foolish. There is a distinction between marijuana and other drugs.'

Moomow said however he does feel that marijuana should be illegal. 'There is no excuse for its existence or use,' he said, 'but it just should not be classified with the other drugs.'

The defense's second major witness, Heim, added that ... ' marijuana is not addicting, there is no recorded instance where marijuana has been fatal, as barbiturates and heroin can be. Based on pharmaceutical evidence, the body doesn't respond to it the same way it does to morphine or heroin. It is not in the same league, and that was the point I was trying to make.

'I do not feel it is a safe drug to go on smoking. It should be curtailed, but it just is in a different league than the others,' Heim said.

According to Moomow, the law was set up by the state health board, and was patterned after a recommended law of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.

Tom Andrews, federal narcotics bureau chief in Denver said, 'The Federal Narcotics Act of 1956 covers the possession, acquisition, transfer and sale of narcotics. There is no federal law against illegal use.' Federal authorities could not prosecute for use, according to Andrews, but he said they could, if the federal attorney desires, prosecute on the charges of possession and sale.

'We'll wait and see what happens,' Andrews said. 'If we have to tighten our belts, spit on our hands, and start over again, we will.'

Both Andrews and Moomow stressed the connections between crime and marijuana. 'Denver police are active against illegal use,' Andrews said, 'we consider it a disorderly factor.'

The question now pending, according to Johnson, is whether carrying the case to a state court constitutes double jeopardy. 'We're studying the thing fully,' Johnson said.

The ramifications of Boulder District Judge William E. Buck's decision Monday that Colorado's narcotics statutes are unconstitutional are momentous, according to a Boulder lawyer.

The barrister, who requested his name be withheld, said the ruling in effect left Boulder County with no narcotics laws. He added, however, that he felt Judge Buck's decision was correct and fair.

The Defense attorneys, he said, based their argument on four points.

The unrealistic classification of marijuana with such drugs as heroin and morphine.

The cruel and unusual punishment for the sale of marijuana to persons under twenty-five years of age. (The statute provided the death penalty for this.)

The delegation of legislative power to the state board of health in that the board could determine the definition of a narcotic.

The irrebuttable presumption of fact, i.e., that heroin, morphine and marijuana are addictive drugs.

Another lawyer, who also wished to remain unnamed, said the defense was not contending that the use, possession and sale of marijuana should not be an offence.

He said the penalties provided by the current statute, especially the death sentence, were completely out of proportion to the offence.

----, one of the defendants, said, 'I didn't expect this motion to be granted. I was ecstatic. I'm glad it's over. Buck showed extreme courage.'

---, another defendant, said, 'I knew they were going to argue the motion, but I never thought it would be accepted. We were already tried by some newspapers before we were put on trial in court. Judge Buck made a good decision.'

---, had entered a plea of guilty which was dismissed when the charge was ruled unconstitutional. He said, 'I was surprised. Even my lawyer didn't think it would go through. I feel we were given some unfair publicity during this whole thing. Buck was a good judge. He realized the law was incorrect. He was not just being a good guy.'

---, also a defendant, said, 'I was stunned by it all. It's nice to know that twelve nice people are not going to jail.' In reference to the publicity given the case, she said, 'What I saw really disgusted me.'

'I knew the lawyers were going to make this motion,' said---, 'but I was surprised at the way it should have come out.'

Professor Albert R. Menard Jr. of the Fleming Law School, said, 'The ruling has a reasonable possibility of standing since it was reached after full argument.' (list April, 1964.)

Nigeria Whispers

Akin Davies

In May 1966, a British tourist and an American were both sentenced in Lagos to 75 years' imprisonment, on charges of growing and smoking Indian hemp. The following article by a Nigerian journalist will help to explain why.

There is a growing trend in the more economically advanced countries to indulge at leisure in the exploration of the personality. At a certain stage of development, there is less need to produce and more time to spend consuming. This is healthy. If used properly. Marihuana could be helpful at this stage of development. However, countries which are only beginning to develop a more complex economic structure must channel all their energies into creating a new system. This means that they must sacrifice more of their pleasures.

People who smoke hemp seem on the whole to be less aggressive than people who drink alcohol. Hemp smoking may have a positive value for certain social functions. In my country, Nigeria, and in other parts of Africa the main trouble with it seems to be its abuse by terrorist organizations of the type made famous by the Assassins of ancient Persia. The system works something like this. An unscrupulous politician decides to build a private army. He goes around the country and finds unemployed young men who are not too intelligent and close to starvation. He sees to it that every day they each get food, pocket money, and a supply of marihuana (a luxury for a poor man). What they must do in return is to carry out his orders: beat up, kill, or kidnap political opponents, perhaps plunder 'or bum a house now and then. They are usually called the 'party stalwarts'.

Recently there was rioting in Western Nigeria which went on for three months. The Army and the Police failed to quell the rioting. Gangs of 'party stalwarts' armed with guns and locally manufactured flame-throwers which sprayed victims with burning petrol are reported to have killed 567 people. The Government, as most Governments do, tried to minimize the casualties and gave an official figure of 153. The Government neither replied to the demands of the opposition nor applied emergency measures to cope with the situation. It was this aloofness, plus the attempt to minimize casualties, which was the signal for desperate action. The Army took over. The news was received with joy by Nigerian circles abroad, and the change was popular at home also.

One of the first acts of the Military Government was to issue a decree making it punishable by death to grow marihuana, and by up to twenty years of prison for merely being in possession of it. This seems extremely excessive, but must be considered as a reaction to the misdeeds of the gangs of 'party stalwarts'. It is to be hoped that the law can be modified when a way is found to prevent politicians from forming such private armies. In the meantime, we Nigerians have to stop getting high for a while and develop our country.

Notes From Tartaros

Neal Phillips

Neal Phillips, an American teacher of English, is at present serving a four and a half year sentence in the Greek prison of Tartaros for being in possession of three kilos of Indian hemp.,

Anton The Connection finally drove his color poem in here. I know now he is high enough to survive bomb blast and fallout.

What a jolt your opening into a dialogue of deliverance gave to my twisted system. I seem to be chopping cotton fields with an iron-handled hoe and could believe it was true except that a hoe with an iron handle can't happen since old Abe Lincoln cut our chains but the handle is iron so it must be me who is not here. But where? I seem to be this unstable (a pure act of will) gentleman who is the acknowledged leader of the fools and one-armed beggars but has a steaming head and a very bad look in his eye who Still has not been flushed although they pulled the handle hard. On the way down I found there's a bottom to despair. As for the rest, if this is bottom (and it must be close because it's at the far edge of human conception) then wow! I've arrived and learned to live here, which gives rise to fright rather than comfort. But the case is not finally closed. They must be given every possible reason for giving me a full pardon. Life seems no longer real. I am consumed now by this constant vision of a man like me stumbling away through the snapping fields of flowers one afternoon ... I went to Hydra to rent a house and do some writing. Fuzz followed me for three days, found no evidence of selling. They busted me. They spoke very poor English, I no Greek at all. I asked for Consulate and they refused. I asked that they write questions in English and they both couldn't and wouldn't. I asked that I write answers in English and they refused. They twisted my story into pure nonsense. Had a Court of Inquiry five bloody days later, had lawyer appointed by police as they didn't allow me to call Consulate until too late to obtain my own lawyer. The lawyer spoke about 200 words of English and was working for the police besides. The court interpreter spoke no more English than the lawyer. They merely read off papers prepared by the police—again in Greek— handcuffed me, and pushed me into an outdoor cement compound where I lived with 120 half-kicked junkies through a long winter on the far side of sense. Went to court and was convicted before I started. As they had absolutely no evidence of selling, they convicted me as 'a member of an international gang' solely on the basis of my own testimony to the police. Wow! There is nothing lower than narcotics fuzz, Anton, they are worse than terminal cancer. So now we must say from everywhere and repeatedly that a grotesque mistake has been made. I mean, can that be called a pre-trial procedure? After all, how long would the Greek people take it if the police who questioned them knew only 200 words of Greek and wrote down the answers in Chinese? Is there any difference? Does that procedure not leave an endless margin for malice and misunderstanding? Under what set of principles do we accept a procedure which puts such unlimited power in the hands of the police? And if we do not accept it in principle, then how can we accept it in fact? Also: they gave me 40 years, and while it is within the wide limits of the law it happens to be a stiff penalty. I've seen several hundred hashish cases here, and the biggest holder of all (67 kilos) who was in addition convicted of selling (I was not) got three years. Endless examples of bigger 'narcotics crimes' here with sentences down to six months. According to my lawyer, there is no hope. Especially since my crime is narcotics, as there has Never been a pardon issued for a narcotics case ...

Cannot write much except letters here and run the risk of having them translated which would strike a mortal blow to my pardon possibilities, but the imagery here is overpowering and so darkly beautiful that it can never be erased. A hundred kilos of galloping horrors in a one kilo bag. I've fallen through the crust of the earth and am walking through Tartaros on my face. Very slow, very painful, very impressive. Reduced to simple instinct I win with ease, but the victory tastes like last year's herring. In the next cell sixteen murderers masturbate in close harmony, all still looking for the regret which precedes guilt which must come before deliverance. Dimitraki the Blank-Faced Beggar Boy spreads his cheeks several times nightly on the next cot to receive the sperm of hatred. His reward is but promises of cigarettes that will never be delivered. Promises are in fact all he really wants, because when he never receives them it proves to him what he always thought about a world that never delivers, has never delivered, and never will deliver, being but sliding panels that change shape and color and pitch and texture and back out of reach before his needy hand. Dimitraki. One comes to hope that his ship will never come in, for now he knows a constant disappointment, but at least he can predict it and prefers it to confusion. But Greek junkies win all the prizes, Anton. They are beneath contempt here, beaten and brutalized by the police and nobody cares, live in the worst prison on the least food, get the worst medical attention. They have one defense: to become so despicable that not even a fuzz will slap them down.

'Gimme a cigarette,' says the guard. 'You can't talk to me like that!' shrieks Junkie, as he whips out the top of a sardine can and slashes his forearm twenty times and blood spurts everywhere. Fuzz turns green and phones for ambulance. Junkie chases him to phone and wipes blood all over his uniform while he speaks. 'You're subhuman!' says Fuzz in agony. 'Once more and I'll cut my throat right before your eyes,' says Junkie. 'Stop! You win!' says Fuzz in despair. 'OK, I win,' says Junkie and speeds away to a warm bed for a day or two. I once saw a junkie get so mad at the ruling of the fuzz-scorekeeper at a volleyball game that he slashed his abdomen open, pulled his entire stomach out in his hands, and tried to hand the bloody mess to the guard. 'That's what you wanted? Then don't be afraid to take it!' No end to it, so extreme is the self-mortification. They commit these acts not in the name of humility but in the name of pride, for they choose to drop themselves below the lowest level the fuzz can feature for them in order to maintain the freedom of at least controlling their own fate. Partly illusion, partly courage of truth, but at least we know now that even though absolute humility and absolute indifference become almost indistinguishable at times, and that the two of them turn to pride when they become the final refusal to be judged by all standards social and finally human, then at last my friends are proud of their distinctive vision and willing to chase it through the swamps until it wins.

A man came in today having just received a two-year sentence for importing, possessing, and selling 90 kilos. I got 4 1/2 years for importing and possessing three kilos, and I was not convicted of selling. They really hated me ...

The American Embassy of Athens has done absolutely nothing to help me. I must put the thumb on those people, they are offering zero and I am in terrible trouble without even a tiny bit of aid from them, like acknowledging my existence as a human being or something.

The Queen is having a baby, so they're canceling five years off every sentence Except Narcotics. Do you see what I've run up against? Narcotics, hell! If everybody were high here they wouldn't even need a court, or a Queen either. The page runs out, sun comes up. I must go out and break rocks for five hours now before they'll give me a handful of olives and black bread for lunch. Always bread and olives. Another five hours in the afternoon. They are punishing me, but when I groan I groan for them and not one time for me. It is all an intermediate point on the way to beginning ...

The rock slide was started by a homicidal nut two hours before schedule and caught me half-prepared, was too far underneath the overhang. Got out with a little Jehovah's Witness (he won't carry a rifle so they gave him twenty years) under my arm but went underneath at the last instant and my left hand was mangled. Stared at it for hours under morphine. Handsomely pulverized. Ghoulishly gnarled. Hurts but as expected just melts into other greater pains and is indistinguishable.

My lawyer writes that the American Embassy is showing no interest in the case whatsoever. The Greek government must be made to feel that the Teahead Troopers are after them. Hit them from here, hit them from there, from the other side, it looks as if their tourist identity is threatened, and that is the source of their heartbeat. Hoeing cotton now like Miles's grandfather, but mine's got snakes and scorpions in it. One-handed. Pressed a scorpion between the pages of Sartre's St Genet. Plans to flee later jell now. Cold criminal wit. Know every police mind in existence and every step from here to there. Don't want to do it as November is a bad month to bleed, but if pardon is denied ... Zinc dawn emerges. Better the lonely night. Sleep is a distant memory, so is wakefulness. Keys rattle in the concrete rampart. They're coming.

There is a young (24) New Zealand schoolteacher in here with me, busted selling two kilos to narcotics fuzz (they trapped him) in Athens. He got One Year. Anyway he has done four months and cannot hold out any longer, has lost thirteen kilos, has long vacant spells, howls at night, so his Embassy is seeding doctors up and trying to get him out early. He's been f— ked about a hundred times, just overpowered and balled, also beaten here and there, was forcibly given an overdose of heroin and nearly died, etc. None of that in New Zealand jails, he says. Sorry as hell for him but can't help. End scene: his mother will shriek with terror when he finally walks out.

Marijuana And Alcohol

Anthony Storr

In Britain today increasing anxiety over the use of drugs by young people is prevalent among parents, school-teachers, dons and Government officials. Some of their anxiety is justified; but much of it is based upon ignorance and fear, fanned by emotional articles in the daily Press which make extravagant statements, such as 'drug addiction is a venereal disease of the soul.' The fact is that we know relatively little about addiction, and until we know more from the sober results of controlled research, any new legislation will be premature and may defeat its own object ...

Indian hemp, marijuana or hashish has been known and used for centuries, especially in Muslim countries where alcohol is forbidden. Although a few people may become dependent upon its use, marijuana is not a drug of addiction and is, medically speaking, far less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. Yet the possession of marijuana is, in this country [Great Britain], illegal and in 1964 a Glasgow doctor was sent to prison for having it ... The idea that the use of marijuana necessarily leads to addiction to other drugs springs from the fact that it is illegal and has thus become associated with black market activities ...

Marijuana is currently popular at Oxford and other universities. It is generally smoked in the company of others and its chief effect seems to be an enhanced appreciation of music and color together with a feeling of relaxation and peace. A mystical experience of being at one with the universe is common, which is why the drug has been highly valued in Eastern religions. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not lead to aggressive behavior, nor is it aphrodisiac. There is no hangover, nor so far as is known, any deleterious effect. As with other drugs, there may be some danger that people turn to it as an habitual escape from life's problems.' Its supposed pleasures have at times been rather tediously over-sold.

The Oxford Scene And The Law

Stephen Abrams

Mr. Abrams is a post-graduate student at St Catherine's, Oxford, and is currently writing a book: 'Infinity on Trial: A Study of the Psychology of LSD and Related Drugs'.

The Problem Of Cannabis

The use of cannabis (marijuana and hashish) is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating. It is obvious that the police are no longer able to control the situation, though the possession of cannabis carries a penalty, in this country, of up to ten years in prison. The most enlightened approach to the problem would seem to lie in the enactment of a campaign of public information to warn young people of the dangers of smoking cannabis. This is what the Home Secretary proposes to do. But there are two reasons to believe that this campaign is likely to fail. Sensational mass publicity concerning the effects and availability of cannabis is probably the leading cause of the increase in illicit traffic. To have any chance of success a publicity campaign would have to be able to point to documentary evidence of the dangers of cannabis, and such evidence is apparently lacking. If people are informed of the pleasures of cannabis and not convinced of its dangers, the result will be disastrous for the purpose of law enforcement.

Dr Joel Fort, a consultant on drug addiction to the World Health Organization, Lecturer in Criminology at the University of California, and former staff member of the U.S. hospital for drug addicts in Lexington, Kentucky, has stated bluntly that 'cannabis is a valuable pleasure-giving drug, probably much safer than alcohol'.' This view is shared by Guy's Hospital Gazette, where it has been argued that 'the available evidence shows that marijuana is not a drug of addiction and has no known harmful effects ... (the problem of marijuana has been) created by an ill-informed society rather than the drug itself' .2 The Lancet, having considered the evidence, has recently called for discussion of the possibility of repealing the laws prohibiting cannabis.3Unless statements such as these can be effectively answered and then suppressed, the Law will seem to be an ass, and civil disobedience will result, culminating in a protest movement along the lines of CND.

At present it is not known for certain whether cannabis is dangerous. But this does not justify the view that it is perfectly safe and should be made freely available to everyone. It is an established principle of pharmacology that a drug should not be made generally available until its safety has been established by means of controlled clinical trials. Here lies the great difficulty in the present situation. For various reasons it has not been possible to obtain the scientific information that is necessary to make a fair assessment of the social and medical problem of cannabis. There are few experimenters who .would be prepared to risk working in such a controversial field. Furthermore, the drug has been removed from the Pharmacopoeia, and is virtually unavailable for research purposes. To be in possession of cannabis or to import it, one must hold a license issued by the Home Secretary. Given such a license, one would find that international controls make the purchase of cannabis difficult. For such reasons, the average number of scientific papers published annually on the subject of cannabis has recently been about four or five, and these have been mainly chemical studies. Those who have a legitimate right and a scientific reason to possess cannabis find that they cannot obtain it, but their students have no difficulty in purchasing it for the purpose of 'getting stoned'. One could, of course, take the risk of performing research with illegally bought supplies; and I am informed by the editor of one of the British Psychological Society journals that his fellow editors would probably consider publishing research on cannabis on its scientific merit and without reference to the source of supply. But in such a case the investigator would risk prosecution and dismissal from his job. It is to be hoped that the Home Office will recognize that the present situation is intolerable, and that they will make cannabis seized at the customs available to legitimate research workers.

The best that can be done at the moment to shed some light on the problem of cannabis is to report on the casual observations that one has been able to make concerning the actual conditions of its use. To be meaningful, such observations should be confined to a normal and respectable community of cannabis smokers. That is, the group under observation should be, as far as possible, representative of the country as a whole in all respects other than its use of cannabis in preference to alcohol. The closest approximation to such a group is the subculture of cannabis users within a university community. The members of a university may not be strictly representative of the country as a whole, but they assume a special importance as future leaders of the country. The use of cannabis is widespread within the universities, and if this drug is damaging the minds of future members of parliament, captains of industry, scientists and teachers, drastic action is obviously called for. I live in Oxford where there are several hundred undergraduates and an increasing number of Dons on the 'pot scene'. The observations I have been able to make are probably biased in various ways, and I accept that their validity may be called into question. But I am obliged to report what I have seen and the conclusions I have drawn in the hope that they may, in a modest way, assist in the determination of public policy and the planning of properly controlled experimental research.

The Oxford Scene

Undergraduates introduced the large scale use of cannabis to Oxford in the autumn of 1963, about the time that pop music, pop art and pop culture became a country-wide intellectual fad. The standards set by the leading pop groups are not merely sartorial. This is an open secret, as should be obvious from the names of some of the groups, and the titles and words of many of their songs. Jazz is marijuana music, and has been ever since it began in New Orleans. Before 1963, there had been a small and very private 'scene' composed of people who had been introduced to cannabis in North Africa or America. At the end of the Long Vac a young poet brought fifteen kilos of 'kit from Morocco in a sleeping bag. CND was then in its death agony, and the undergraduates who had deserted it found a new and refreshingly different cause to support in 'pot'.

It is well to refer to 'pot-smoking' as a social cause, because it is an important part of the reaction that is now setting in against excessive materialism in our society. The 'tea-head', as he is called, does not merely proclaim his cause as a defensive reaction. The feeling seems to be that it was wrong to blame the Bomb, America, Russia and the Police for one's sense of frustration and inadequacy. A much more mature attitude upon which some hold the survival of society may depend is to recognize that one tends to project the worst part of one's character on to some external 'threat' which conveniently accepts the blame for the mess that lies inside. The attitude of undergraduates has become increasingly introverted. In part this has led to experiments with drugs—and in part it has been the result of these experiments. The view of the 'tea-heads' and of their hero, the American folk-rock singer Bob Dylan, is that CND and other social causes were a great hoax. They seem to believe that any excessive involvement in politics constitutes playing the other fellow's game and an acceptance of his rules.

It is very difficult to estimate the number of members of the University who make use of cannabis. At one time I kept a list which grew to 257 names before I decided that it would be prudent to destroy the list in fairness to my informants. I am continuously surprised by meeting someone for the first time at a party, a university society or a coffee house and learning that he smokes cannabis and does so with a group whose existence had previously been unknown to me. Without any claim to accuracy I should think that there are at least 500 junior members of the University who smoke cannabis when it is available. In addition, the drug is now being used by a few dozen of the younger Dons, though it has not yet been smoked in the Senior Common Rooms. Some of these Dons were undergraduates when cannabis was introduced to Oxford, but others have been 'turned on' by their students. Some of the older and more eminent Dons have also experimented with cannabis. Most of these Dons are people who have taken LSD, mescaline or other hallucinogens and regard cannabis as a comparatively innocuous drug to be taken out of curiosity or to find out whether it is safe for one's students.

If I were to say that the cannabis users tend to be the more 'switched-on' members of the University, I should be speaking redundantly. The smokers seem to be a fairly representative cross-section of junior members. They tend to be more adventurous and more extroverted than the average, but there are many exceptions. Surprisingly, the majority seem to have attended public schools, but all social classes and races appear to be represented in roughly the same proportion as within the university generally. The academic record of the smokers is difficult to judge, but it does not seem to be unsatisfactory, and I doubt that there are grounds for serious concern. The self-aggrandizing politicians from the Union and the athletes are two groups which are notably absent. On the other hand there are among the cannabis smokers a certain number of malcontents and weak or disturbed individuals of the kind who would be expected to join whatever protest movement was most popular at the moment.

It is interesting that many undergraduates seem to be congenitally unable to experience the effects of Cannabis,, however many times they try. Were this not so the proportion of smokers within the University would be considerably higher than it is. To my knowledge, no serious research has yet been done on susceptibility to cannabis, but I have reached the opinion that self-acceptance and relaxation, two of its principle rewards, must be present in some degree for the drug to produce its effects. It would therefore appear that 'tea-heads' must be fairly well balanced individuals, at least to begin with.

I have been able to interview a large number of individuals, at Oxford and elsewhere, who have been smoking cannabis for periods of up to nineteen years and I have been unable to find any obvious physical or mental deterioration associated with its use over a long period. These persons have satisfied me that they have been able to discontinue the use of the drug at will or when required by external circumstances and that they have not experienced withdrawal symptoms except of the most trivial kind. Several state that they found it much more difficult to give up cigarettes. I cannot therefore regard such persons as addicts to cannabis. I would compare them with people who have used alcohol for periods of up to nineteen years. On this topic I should add that there is no evidence that the dosage of cannabis increases over time, and it is not evident that the frequency of smoking increases once the individual has established his pattern of cannabis use. Furthermore, the great majority only smoke when they have easy access to cannabis. Thus they usually discontinue smoking during the vacs and when they 'go down'.

It has often been asserted that drug use of any kind is a form of escapism and should be strongly discouraged on that ground alone. To this one student has replied: 'Of course, anyone who rejects the Protestant Ethic or some other related set of social obligations, such as Marxism, can expect to be branded as an escapist for refusing to do someone else's dirty work'. But I have gained the impression that cannabis is a poor escape route. Alcohol may blot out reality, but cannabis tends to magnify it- If one 'turns on' when one is feeling bad, cannabis usually has the effect of making one feel miserable. The sort of person who wants to escape from reality may turn to heroin or they may turn to the Church, but they are unlikely to continue to smoke cannabis. On the other hand, if intelligently used, cannabis can provide the necessary relief that will enable a person to ride out a difficult period in his life. It is evidently a much safer agent for such purposes than barbiturates and amphetamines, both of which are dangerous drugs leading to addiction, mental illness and, for several thousand people each year, death.

Another criticism that is frequently made is that cannabis leads to violence and crime. Professor G. Joachimoglu has stated that 'the French word assassin for murderer is derived from hashish, because at the crisis, when these people are excited and experiencing the full effect of the hashish, they act criminally. '4 I find this extremely difficult to believe. During the so-called 'crisis' the most violent activity that is likely to occur is uninhibited dancing. I have observed hundreds of persons under the influence of cannabis and have never seen a single act of violence committed. I have known many people who have been arrested for possession of cannabis, but I know of no instance where a person has been arrested, in Oxford at least, for disorderly behavior under the influence of cannabis. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity of observing the same persons under the influence of both cannabis and alcohol and seen that the latter drug sometimes gives rise to viciousness of many kinds whereas the former leads to a sense of peace. Indeed one of the possible dangers of cannabis is that it may reduce aggressiveness to below the level that is socially acceptable.

Much has been made of the supposed aphrodisiacal quality of cannabis. Shaw once argued that the great majority of sexual encounters take place out of boredom because the individuals concerned cannot think of anything else to do. Under the influence of cannabis, when most things are pleasant, there is always something else to do and sex is unlikely to take place unless it is uppermost in the minds of both individuals.

Under the influence of cannabis, people tend to behave as if they had regressed to that time in one's life when innocence makes all things seem possible. It is this naive enthusiasm, more than anything else, which is the attraction of cannabis. It is a world in which pretentiousness is automatically and kindly deflated and prejudice ceases to exist. The pleasures of cannabis are innocent and simple.

The price of cannabis in Oxford tends to be about eight or nine pounds an ounce for hashish, which is more frequently used, and a pound or so less for marijuana. This works out at about the price of a pint of bitter for the evening's entertainment. Whatever the profits may be in retailing other drugs, the margin in selling cannabis is very slim, and no one in Oxford makes a living at it. 'Pushers' tend to be smokers who want to make a pound or two a week and get their smokes for free. They stay in business for a few months until they become well known and then quietly retire. The smokers take turns acting as pushers. Those who never push to make, a profit are usually willing to sell small quantities of cannabis at cost to friends who have temporarily exhausted their supplies, in return for similar favors in future. One point which is clear, and indeed admitted by the authorities, is that in this country there is no organized criminal conspiracy behind the sale of cannabis. Sometimes the drug is smuggled into the country on a one shot basis by students. The major supplies are brought into the ports by merchant seamen acting for themselves and are sold to anyone who is waiting around the docks. Smaller quantities are sometimes sent through the post.

One tends to be introduced to cannabis at Oxford in a casual way. Cigarettes are frequently and openly passed around at parties and small informal social gatherings. No one is urged to smoke, and it is rare to be overtly asked to join in. One tends to observe the behavior of friends under the influence of cannabis and to contrast this with one's own reactions under alcohol. An impressive point is that the cannabis smokers do not become ill or wake up with a hangover the next morning. One takes the odd puff until finally one night one becomes properly stoned. One then tends to be 'turned on' by friends and eventually introduced to the pusher of the day.

Cannabis is usually smoked in a small group in congenial surroundings in rooms in college or in digs. The atmosphere is rather like that of a sherry party. A gramophone is the most essential prop. As the drug begins to take effect, within a few minutes, there is usually an increase in physical activity, accompanied by great mirth. One may feel a compulsion to dance. Sensory experience of all kinds is enhanced and there is an air of conviviality. The usual 'high' is an innocuous evening spent listening to music, dancing, talking and eating. One may also venture out to a party, a color film, or even to a pub, and during the day it is pleasant to punt on the river or visit the Ashmolean art gallery. Many persons find they are able to do intellectual or artistic work under the influence of cannabis; and I know of a case of one young man successfully sitting an examination for a fellowship when he was 'high'.

The usual textbook account of cannabis intoxication suggests that hallucinations frequently occur and that the user falls into a stupor at the end of the cannabis experience. Neither observation is confirmed in Oxford. I have been told of just one case of an hallucination, by a girl who claims to have seen a castle at the end of Little Clarendon Street. What does happen is that spatial dimensions are distorted, and the surroundings take on a warm glow. The only reason that smokers often fall asleep is that the drug is usually taken at night. If it is taken during the day the effect wears off within about three hours. It is unusual to smoke every day. The average seems to be once or twice a week.

My observations tend to confirm the opinion of those authorities who find cannabis to be a relatively innocuous habit and probably less dangerous than alcohol. I find it hard to think of cannabis as a social menace. Yet a contradictory view is held by the legal authorities, and it must be based on evidence of some kind. There is more than prejudice to it. I think the answer is that the effects of cannabis have been confused with the people who make use of it. This can also be seen in connexion with the great variability in the effects of alcohol. Both drugs create states of increased suggestibility, and the nature of the experience depends on personal and social factors. The society of Oxford is probably a highly favorable
environment for the use of cannabis, bringing out what is best in the experience. But it is not necessary to accept that in other environments cannabis produces harmful effects. Its use by criminals may be an example. It is true that some criminals smoke cannabis, but that is probably due to the fact that they have special access to illicit channels of supply. I should expect that the use of cannabis would have the effect of reducing the crime rate. This, of course, is an untested hypothesis.

One glaring inconsistency is that in the Middle East hospitals are filled with so-called hashish addicts whereas there is no evidence of mental deterioration among cannabis smokers in the West. However, in the Middle East cannabis is often mixed with opium; the opium content may be as high as 50%. In addition, in Egypt and other countries cannabis is often taken together with datura seeds which are known to produce progressive and fairly rapid mental deterioration. It may be that the addiction is to opium and that the major ill-effects are produced by datura. Malnutrition may be another factor.

It is important that the use of cannabis in this country be under governmental control. But there is, as Professor Macdonald of Manchester University remarked recently 'a big feeling in this country that prohibiting a drug is not really the way to solve the problem'.5

1 Fort, Joel, 'Social and Legal Response to Pleasure Giving Drugs', in Blum,-Richard (ed.) Utopiates, New York: Atherton Press, 1964.

2 'Drugs and Prejudice', Guy's Hospital Gazette, 79, 1965.

3 'Pop "Pot" ', Lancet, 1963, II, 989 f.

4 Joachimoglu, G., remark in discussion, in Wolstenhoime, G. E. W. and Knight, Julie (eds.) Hashish: its chemistry and pharmacology, London: J. & A. Churchill, 1965, p. 14.

5 Macdonald, A.D., Chairman's concluding remarks, in Wolstenhoime, G. E. W. and Knight, Julie (eds.) Hashish: its chemistry and pharmacology, London: J. & A. Churchill, 1965, p. 93.

< Prev		Next >