Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding.
Chapter II
Marihuana Use and Its Effects
|
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
— John Adams (1770)
|
The ultimate objective of the Commission is to evaluate the total impact of actual
and potential marihuana use on contemporary American society. This endeavor involves
three phases: first, an evaluation of the nature and scope of contemporary American
marihuana use; second, a careful reevaluation of the pharmacological effects of
the drug on the human body with special emphasis on the drug's capacity to alter
or modify behavior; and third, an evaluation of the impact of marihuana use on society.
This chapter deals with the first and second phases, and Chapter Three deals with
the third.
Cannabis has been used widely for many centuries in nonindustrialized countries
of Asia and Africa. Today, as in earlier years, use of the drug is concentrated
primarily among lower socioeconomic groups. In these countries, the practice is estimated
to be confined to a tenth of the lower socioeconomic, male population. Although
such use of the drug is well-established, it offers little direct comparison with
the American experience.
Although the commercial, industrial and therapeutic value of the hemp plant was
widely recognized and exploited in the United States from the earliest days of its
history, knowledge and use of its intoxicating and psychoactive properties remained
largely unknown until about 1900.
At that time, the custom of smoking marihuana was generally limited to groups of
Mexican itinerant workers in the border states of the Southwest. By 1910, marihuana
use began to emerge in other southern states and cities, particularly New Orleans,
and in the port cities along the Mississippi River. In time, these cities became
distribution centers for enterprising sailors. From there, marihuana use spread
cross-country to other urban centers, mining camps, railroad construction sites,
farm labor camps, "bohemian" communities of artists and jazz musicians,
and various other groups outside the mainstream of American society.
Recently, of course, use of the drug has spread to young, white, middle class groups
and especially to high school and college populations.
On the basis of the Commission-sponsored National Survey, we have concluded that
contemporary marihuana use is pervasive, involving all segments of the U.S. population.
The Survey estimated that about 24 million Americans over the age of 11 years (15%
of the adults 18 and over, and 14% of the 12-17 year olds) have used marihuana at
least once, referred to in this Report as ever-users. Until recently twice as many
males as females had used it; the most up-to-date studies of high school students,
college-age individuals, and young adults carried out by the Commission indicate
that this sex differential appears to be diminishing. In many youthful populations
use is almost equally distributed between males and females.
Marihuana use does not appear to vary significantly by race. With respect to the
religious affiliation of the users, Jews and Catholics appear to be slightly overrepresented
as compared to Protestants.
Usage is highest in cities, towns, and suburbs but not uncommon in rural areas.
States in the Northeast and West have considerably higher rates of use than have
the North Central states, which in turn have significantly higher rates than those
in the South.
Use is found in all socioeconomic groups and occupations, though slightly more predominant
among persons with above-average incomes. A New York survey of the state's general
population indicated that ever-use as well as regular use is almost equally prevalent
among sales workers, clerical workers, skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers,
managers, owners, professionals and technical workers.
At the same time, the incidence of use seems to vary according to educational attainment.
Among all adults not now in school, 5% of those with an eighth grade education or
less have used the drug, contrasted with 11% of those who completed some high school,
14% of those who graduated from high school, 25% of those who completed some college
and 21 % of those who graduated from college.
Age is presently one of the most significant correlates of marihuana use. Among
the total population, those who have tried or used marihuana at least once, termed
ever-users, are heavily concentrated in the 16-25 age bracket. Of all the ever-users,
about half are in this group. At the same time, however, we should emphasize that
use is by no means confined to teenagers and young adults.
The proportion of individuals in different age groups who have used marihuana is
indicated in Figure 1.
The incidence of use is greatest among young people: 27% of the 16-17 year olds,
40% of the 18-21 year olds, and 38% of the 22-25 year olds have tried marihuana;
at the low extremes, 6% of the 12-13 year olds and 6% of the over-50 generation
have used the drug.
Among those now in school, incidence also seems to rise with increasing school level:
Ever-users represent 44% of those persons now in college or graduate school; 30%
of high school juniors and seniors; 17% of freshmen and sophomores; and 8% of students
in junior high school.
At the same time, the use of the drug among adults is by no means confined to college
students. Even among the 18-25 year olds, 75% of the ever-users are not now in school.
The initial patterns of contemporary marihuana use appear to be shifting; there
is a trend toward increased use among college students as well as non-college students.
Non-student users now span social class, income level and occupational classification.
In addition, the proportion of users increases during the teens, peaks during the
young adult years and then falls off rapidly (Figure 1).
Having described the incidence of any use of marihuana ever, and demographic characteristics
of the 24 million Americans who have tried the drug, we recognize the need to place
this information into perspective. The policymaker must also be concerned with the
patterns of use: frequency, amount consumed at each smoking, and duration of use.
The most striking of the use patterns revealed in the National Survey is that 41
% of the adults and 45 % of the youth who have ever used marihuana reported that
they no longer use the drug. Twenty-nine percent of the adults and 43% of the youth
reported that they are still using marihuana (see Table 1). When asked why they
had terminated use, the overwhelming majority of adults (61%) specified, among other
reasons, that they had simply lost interest in the drug.
|
Table 1. — EXPERIENCE WITH MARIHUANA
|
|
|
Percent of ever-users |
|
|
Frequency |
Adults
(18 and
over) |
Youth
(12-17) |
Designation |
|
Have used marihuana but no longer use |
41 |
45 |
Experimenters
|
|
Once a month or less |
9 |
15 |
|
2-3 times per month |
8 |
10 |
Intermittent users
|
|
Once per week |
4 |
9 |
|
Several times per week |
5 |
4 |
Moderate users
|
|
Once daily |
1 |
1 |
|
More than once daily |
2 |
4 |
Heavy users
|
|
No answer |
30 |
12 |
|
These data indicate that at least 41% of the adults and 45% of the youth have used
marihuana but have discontinued use; 9% of the adults and 15% of the youth use
the drug sporadically, once a month or less. These persons can be characterized
as experimental marihuana users.*
*All respondents for the National Survey were asked to complete a self administered
questionnaire. This instrument covered many sensitive areas, including a series
of items on personal experience with marihuana and other drugs. Given the nature
of the questions, the contractor took every precaution to insure that the interviewee
responded honestly and that his responses were kept strictly confidential. Even
the interviewer who orally administered the rest of the Survey was not permitted
to view the written instrument.
One of the inevitable costs of such confidentiality is the risk that a certain percentage
of respondents would not complete one or more of the questions. Where a significant
number of questions remained unanswered, the questionnaire was not tabulated at
all. However, in 30%, of the otherwise complete questionnaires, the adult respondents
who had ever used the drug did not answer the question, "On the average, about
how often do you use marihuana at the present time?"
Concerned about the meaning of this non-response rate, the Commission directed
the contractor to conduct a detailed analysis comparing the non-respondents with
all respondents and with those individuals who had never used marihuana at all.
On the basis of this analysis, we are confident that the overwhelming majority,
if not all, of the non-respondents are experimenters.
In the flrst place, the demographic characteristics of the non-respondents coincide
closely with those of the non-users and less frequent users. Very few of the young
adults, where more frequent use is concentrated, failed to respond.
Secondly, the non-respondents are disproportionately located in the geographic regions
where use was least prevalent and least frequent. For example, 50% of the ever-users
in the North Central region failed to respond, compared to 71% in the West. Yet
only 5% of the ever-users in the North Central region continue to use the drug more
than once a week, compared to 21% in the West; and less than .5% of the ever-users
in the North Central region use the drug more than once a day, as compared to 4%
in the West.
To ensure an understanding of this section of the Report, some definitions are required
at this juncture. In this report, the Commission employs the following designations:
|
Frequency of Use
Experimental — At least one trial to once a month or less
Intermittent — Two to 10 times monthly
Moderate — 11 times monthly to once daily
Heavy — Several times daily
Very Heavy — Almost constant intoxication with potent preparations; brain rarely drug free
Duration of Use
Short Term — Less than two years
Long Term — Two to 10 years
Very Long Term — Over 10 years
|
Twelve percent of the adults and 19% of the youth who have ever used marihuana can
be designated intermittent users; they continue to use the drug more than once a
month, but less than several times a week, probably on weekends. Six percent of
the adults and five percent of the youth are moderate users who continue to use
marihuana several times a week to once daily.
Finally, 2% of the adults and 4% of the youth who have ever used marihuana are heavy
users: they use the drug several times daily. A very small fraction of these heavy
users may be very heavy users, who are intoxicated most of their waking hours and
probably use very potent preparations of the drug.
In addition to frequency, duration of use is an important variable in discussing
use patterns and especially when considering drug effects. Most users in this country
have smoked the drug over a short term, that is, less than two years. Others have
used the drug over a long term, two to 10 years. Very few Americans can be considered
very long term users, that is, over 10 years.
Another important element of use is the amount of marihuana used on each occasion.
Most intermittent and moderate users average about one-half to one cigarette per
occasion, usually at night. Most heavy users smoke at least one to two cigarettes
an occasion, with a few using as many as five consecutively.
As this brief description of use patterns suggests, marihuana use and the marihuana
user do not fall into simple, distinct classifications. Although it is possible
to sketch profiles of various marihuana-using populations, no valid stereotype of
a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn. The spectrum of individuals who use or
have used marihuana varies according to frequency, intensity and duration of use.
It is meaningless to talk of "the marihuana user" or "marihuana use"
without first clarifying descriptive data.
Several studies by the Commission and many other recent college and high school
surveys have elucidated a variety of personality types or categories of marihuana
users. These profiles relate primarily to the patterns depicted above and to the
meaning of marihuana use for various individuals. Essentially we will describe a
continuum with much overlapping among the categories. The reader should understand
that group identification is at best a hazardous occupation; the traits described
are not exclusive to marihuana users. A much larger number of individuals who have
not used the drug can be similarly described.
Experimental Users
The first and by far the largest group has been designated as "experimenters"
because of their extremely infrequent or non-persistent marihuana usage. Experimentation
with the drug is motivated primarily by curiosity and a desire to share a social
experience. These experimenters are characteristically quite conventional and practically
indistinguishable from the non-user in terms of life style, activities, social integration,
and vocational or academic performance.
Disciplined, optimistic, and self-confident, experimenters appear to be as conventional,
responsible, goal-oriented and orderly as non-users.
Intermittent Users
The intermittent users are motivated to use marihuana for reasons similar to those
of the experimenters. They use the drug irregularly and infrequently but generally
continue to do so because of its socializing and recreational aspects. For the intermittent
user, marihuana often contributes to the establishment and solidification of close
social relations among users similarly inclined. The individual has a sense of belonging
to an intimate group.
Investigations of behavioral aspects of marihuana smoking clearly demonstrate that
marihuana smoking is a social activity, believed by intermittent users to enhance
the enjoyment of shared activities, especially music, art, films and food.
In a Commission-sponsored study to determine the effects of repeat doses of marihuana,
under free access conditions, the subjects smoked almost exclusively in groups.
A certain number of these individuals tended to share much of their leisure time
in common activities, and marihuana smoking was the focal activity around which
other types of social interactions revolved, such as conversation, watching TV,
listening to music and playing games. The intermittent users studied exhibited an
increased sense of well-being, relaxation, and friendliness during these activities.
They were more inclined to seek and emphasize the social rather than personal effects
of the drug.
Intermittent marihuana users, like the experimenters, are generally conventional
in most respects. They are more liberal politically and socially and they tend to
stress education for personal improvement rather than for recognition or high grades.
Like many non-users, these individuals are likely to be self-expressive, intellectually
and culturally oriented, creative, and flexible. Placing a high value on experimentation
and responsible, independent decision-making, they often manifest a desire to search
for new experiences, resulting in some behaviors which depart from the norms of
the larger society. Often accompanying their search is a sense of uncertainty about
the future.
Moderate and Heavy Users
The final groups of marihuana users are the moderate and heavy users. This range
is wide and includes individuals who use marihuana more than 10 times a month to
several times a day. Practically all of the American research effort to date has
focused on the large majority of individuals who use less often, that is, the experimental
and intermittent users. Consequently, not enough is known about characteristics
and behavior of the moderate and the heavy users, so it is difficult to distinguish
accurately between the two groups. We suspect however that the moderate users share
traits with both the intermittent and the heavy users. Having already discussed
the intermittent group, we will now turn to the characteristics of the heavy group.
Heavy users seem to need the drug experience more often. Their initial and continued
marihuana use is motivated not only by curiosity and an urge to share a social experience
but also by a desire for "kicks," "expansion of awareness and understanding,"
and relief of anxiety or boredom.
Generally, the heavy marihuana user's life style, activities, values and attitudes
are unconventional and at variance with those of the larger society. These individuals
are more pessimistic, insecure, irresponsible, and nonconforming. They find routine
especially distasteful. Their behavior and mood are restless and uneven.
Heavy users place particularly strong emphasis on impulsive response in the interest
of pleasure-seeking, immediate gratification, and individual expression. They tend
to evidence social and emotional immaturity, are especially indifferent to rules
and conventions, and are often resistant to authority. However, several surveys
have also revealed that they tend to be curious, socially perceptive, skillful and
sensitive to the needs of others, and possess broadly based, although unconventional,
interests.
The Boston free-access study permitted the Commission to observe a group of individuals
whose life styles, activities, values and attitudes are representative of a segment
of the unconventional youthful subculture. The month-long period of controlled study
during the fall prevented the participation of individuals who were married, steadily
employed, or enrolled in school.
Individuals who smoked marihuana once a week or less were sought by the researchers
but were exceedingly unusual among the population available for the study. Consequently,
the group studies contrasted with the student and full-time working populations
in which weekly marihuana use is more common. For this reason, the intermittent
users studied appeared to be similar to, rather than different from, the moderate
and heavy users studied. Both groups had used marihuana for an average of five years.
Under the study's confined conditions, participants tended to smoke more marihuana
than they did "on the outside." The intermittent users, who by our definition
averaged eight times a month under outside conditions, averaged three cigarettes
a day during the study. The range was from one-half to six cigarettes daily.
The moderate and heavy users, who "on the outside" averaged 33 times a
month, now averaged six-and-a-half cigarettes a day. The range was three-and-a-half
to eight cigarettes. In discussing the Boston study, we will call this group "daily"
users.
Smoking usually occurred at night, sometimes during the afternoon and only occasionally
upon awakening. The intermittent and heavy users usually smoked one cigarette a
session. The daily users were more likely to smoke more than one a session. A few
individuals in the daily group could have been considered constantly intoxicated
on a few occasions during the 21-day period.
The mean age of the subjects studied was 23. Based on IQ testing, they were superior
intellectually, although they had completed, on the average, only two-and-a-half
years of college. Their job histories were rather erratic, characteristic of a pattern
of itinerant living. The intermittent users were from a middle or upper class background,
while the daily users generally shared a lower socioeconomic status. Broken homes
and instances of alcohol or drug abuse were more common in the family backgrounds
of the daily users.
Alcohol was rarely used by the subjects. Use of hallucinogens and amphetamines was
significantly more widespread and had begun earlier in the daily user group. In
contrast to the intermittent group, the daily users almost uniformly reported that
marihuana smoking produced relaxation, noting also increased alteration
in perception or psychedelic-like effects. Similarly, they reported
an increased sense of well-being, friendliness, carefreeness and decreased hostility.
Additionally, the daily users appeared to demonstrate a moderate psychological dependence
on the marihuana experience while the intermittent users demonstrated
little or no psychological dependence.
Analysis of social-behavioral aspects of daily users' marihuana smoking clearly
demonstrated that it is a pivotal social activity around which conversation, other
personal interactions, and much of the users' lives revolve. Smoking almost exclusively
occurred in groups and was the focal activity around which these groups formed.
The daily users exhibited a readiness to take part in but not to initiate a smoking
session.
In contrast to the intermittent users, all the daily users in a group smoked when
marihuana was made available. Marihuana smoking appeared to be a primary means of
reinforcing group solidarity. Yet these users were more inclined to seek the personal
effects of the drug rather than the socializing effects sought by the intermittent
users.
The social adjustment of the daily users, when judged from a traditional psychiatric
standpoint, was impaired. Individuals tended to be more withdrawn and to interact
less with each other than the intermittent users, regardless of the type of activity
or state of intoxication. However, the daily users did appear to accommodate themselves
better than the intermittent users to the effects of the intoxication on social
interaction.
Despite a relatively high level of scholastic attainment and superior intelligence,
many of the subjects were performing well below their intellectual capability, usually
working at menial, mechanical or artisan tasks. They were not oriented toward achieving
the traditional goals of the larger society.
Nonetheless, during the period of the Boston study, the subjects could not be characterized
as displaying a general lassitude and indifference, carelessness in personal hygiene
or lack of productive activity, all supposed to be characteristic of very heavy
use. Even during the periods of heaviest marihuana smoking, they maintained a high
level of interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as
writing, reading, keeping up on current world events, and participating in athletic
and aesthetic endeavors.
Additionally, all of the subjects maintained a desire to complete all aspects of
the research study. Although they could be labeled 'underachievers" in terms
of the traditional standards of the larger society, these individuals were motivated
to pursue actively the interests and activities of their own subculture.
Generally, most studies which have been undertaken indicate that individuals who
are heavy marihuana users cannot find a place for themselves in conventional society.
Their heavy marihuana use may reflect and perhaps perpetuate their unconventionality
while providing social acceptance in one of the non-conventional subcultures.
Very Heavy Users
The Commission's analysis of frequency, quantity and duration of marihuana use suggest
that the United States is at the present time in a fortunate position. All of the
studies available to the Commission have indicated that only a minute number of
Americans can be designated as very heavy marihuana users. These studies uniformly
indicate that chronic, constant intoxication with very potent cannabis preparations
is exceedingly rare in this country.
The Commission believes that important distinctions must be made between the daily
(moderate and heavy) American marihuana user and the very heavy hashish or charas
user in other parts of the world where cannabis is widely cultivated and its use
deeply ingrained. Many of the North African and Asian users do not employ the drug
only as an intoxicant in the western sense. Instead, it is frequently used in "folk
medical practice," in religious rites and as a work adjunct particularly in
those occupations which are physically demanding, monotonous, unintellectual, and
offer little possibility of advancement.
In these countries, very heavy use is typically associated with young males from
a lower socioeconomic background. Nonetheless, use is more widespread among all
ages and elderly chronic users are not uncommon.
Generally, these very heavy users consume high amounts of very potent preparations
continually throughout the day so that they are rarely drug-free. These individuals
evidence strong psychological dependence on the drug, requiring compulsive drug-taking.
Clear-cut behavioral changes occur in these extreme cases. The very heavy user tends
to lose interest in all activities other than drug use. A common element of the
behavioral pattern is lethargy and social deterioration. Not surprisingly, these
users have been held in low esteem and very heavy use has been subject to societal
disapproval in almost all countries.
Our attempt to classify marihuana users is primarily for descriptive purposes. It
does not imply that all individuals who resemble any of the categories are necessarily
marihuana users. Nor is it implied that all marihuana users fit neatly or precisely
into these slots. There is no "typical" marihuana user, just as their
is no typical American. The most notable statement that can be made about the vast
majority of marihuana users — experimenters and intermittent users — is that they are
essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental
criterion other than their marihuana use.
But if most users and non-users of marihuana essentially are indistinguishable,
why have some people chosen to use the drug and others not, and why have some people
continued to use it and others not? An important part of the explanation is that
use of marihuana, like all human behavior, occurs within specific social and cultural
settings. The individual's biological characteristics and personality probably play
an important role in determining the pattern his use will take. However, the cultural
and social setting play a larger role in determining whether he will use it at all.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that the young person who chooses to use marihuana
differs in some important sociological respects from his peer who does not choose
to do so. These differences relate to his willingness to experiment with a drug,
especially a forbidden one. In short, the process of becoming a marihuana user is
not a " seduction of the innocent" as is often portrayed. Based on interrelated
familial, social and cultural factors, persons, especially young persons, who may
choose to use marihuana can be predicted statistically.
Parental Influence
The decision to use marihuana is related to parental life style.
Parents provide the most important example of acceptable drug-taking behavior for
their children. That marihuana users frequently have medicine-taking, cigarette-smoking,
or liquor-drinking parents has been demonstrated. In a series of Canadian studies,
grade and high school students who said their mothers took tranquilizers daily were
three times more likely to try marihuana than the students who did not so report.
Beyond the influence of a drug-taking example, parents have the primary influence
on their childrens' acquisition of skills, values and attitudes necessary to be
mature and responsible adults. Many parents have oriented their children toward
becoming independent, competent, educated, and adaptive adults.
Simultaneously, many young people observe in their parents' lives the trend toward
shorter work periods, earlier retirement and increased emphasis on leisure time
activities. It appears that the incidence of adolescent marihuana use is strongly
correlated with this trend toward increased leisure time.
Situational Factors and Behavioral Correlates
All studies of the ever user, including the Commission-sponsored National Survey,
have established that marihuana smoking is significantly correlated with a number
of demographic variables. Males, college students, and residents of metropolitan
areas, especially in the Northeast and West, are generally over-represented in proportion
to their percentage of the total population.
Among the behaviors statistically correlated with marihuana use are radical politics,
visits to psychiatrists, sexual freedom, and separate residences from parents. The
most significant behavior seems to be use of legal drugs, especially alcohol and
tobacco. Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally
the same people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco.
For example, in a study of high school youngsters, only 3% of all the nonsmokers
in the sample had ever tried marihuana, compared with 50% of all the current cigarette
smokers. Similarly, for alcohol drinking outside the family setting, only 2% of
all the nondrinkers had tried marihuana, as compared to 27% of the drinkers. The
National Survey tends to confirm the close association between marihuana use and
cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Among all the adults sampled in the Survey, 71%
had smoked cigarettes and 39% are current smokers. Similarly, of adult non-marihuana
users, 70% have smoked cigarettes and 38% are current smokers. These percentages
increase somewhat for marihuana users: 87 have smoked cigarettes and 54% are current
cigarette smokers.
In regard to alcohol consumption, 40% of all the adults sampled indicated that they
had not consumed beer or hard liquor in the 30 days prior to the survey. Marihuana
users tended to have consumed alcohol more often than non-marihuana users (Table,
2).
|
Table 2. — LIQUOR CONSUMPTION DURING 30-DAY PERIOD
|
|
|
0 days
|
1-4
days
|
5-10
days
|
11 or
more
days
|
No
answer
|
|
Percent of nonmarihuana users
|
45
|
19
|
6
|
7
|
21
|
|
Percent of marihuana users
|
26
|
30
|
12
|
8
|
24
|
Social Group Factors
One of the most influential factors in determining behavior in contemporary America
among adolescents and young adults is peer group influence. Knowing other people
who use marihuana predisposes the individual to use marihuana, and having marihuana-using
friends provides the social opportunity for the curious. The individual who is already
part of a social group which uses marihuana indicates by this choice that his attitudes
and values are already to some degree compatible with illicit drug use.
Social peer groups are especially influential upon individuals who have not yet
become "successful" adults, such as adolescents, college students and
young adults, who spend a great deal of time and effort competing for status in
situations where status opportunities are minimal. The social peer group provides
an opportunity for achieving status among equals by demonstrating competence and
autonomy. Outstanding performance in athletics, organizations or academics demonstrates
competence but not autonomy because these activities are adult-oriented and controlled.
Additionally, only a relative few are able to excel.
Opportunity to prove oneself is more readily available in the peer group. Often,
adolescents participate in forms of delinquent behavior, termed symbolic infractions,
in order to demonstrate autonomy and competence to their peers. These include joy-riding,
vandalism, sexual promiscuity, underage drinking, violation of rules of decorum
and dress, and purposeless confrontation with authority.
Marihuana use has recently been added to the list of infractions and offers several
advantages for adolescents and young adults. Most important, it provides a shared
group experience which offers the shy, lonely, socially awkward neophyte a means
of entrance to the group, complete with its own ceremonial initiation. Repetition
of the behavior serves to increase closeness and commitment to the group. Usually
the experience is pleasurable and the individual is able to control his level of
intoxication. This delinquency is viewed as relatively harmless to oneself and others,
although its symbolic impact on parents and authority is often greater than that
of other common infractions.
Therefore, a, subtle process of acquiring attitudes favorable to drug use, of having
friends and acquaintances who define the marihuana experience in acceptable and
pleasurable terms, and of having a social belief system which prepares one to accept
the conversion process to begin with, are all powerful complementary factors which
direct a young person toward marihuana use. At this point, the use of marihuana
provides further opportunities for acquiring new marihuana using friends and entering
the social milieu of marihuana users.
The Dynamics of Persistent Use
The cultural and social factors sketched above, in combination with the individual's
somatic and psychic characteristics, determine the pattern of his drug behavior
once he has chosen to experiment with it. The majority of individuals who reach
this point progress no further and often discontinue marihuana use. The most common
explanation for discontinuing use is loss of interest; the effect lost its novelty
and became boring. Other less common reasons are fear of legal hazards, social pressure,
and concerns over physical and mental drug effects. Among the infrequently noted
reasons are: interference with other activities; replacement by alcohol; unavailability;
cost; unpleasant experiences; fear of moral transgression; or progression to other
forms of non-drug interests such as yoga, transcendental meditation, agrarian communes,
esoteric religion and restrictive diets.
For those who continue use, psychosocial factors are important determinants of the
use patterns. Many marihuana users are strongly committed to traditional society
in which they desire to rise socially. They have chosen to participate fully in
the traditional adult-oriented activities and the formal achievement-reward system.
Their peer groups consist primarily of similarly oriented individuals. The infrequent
use of marihuana by these persons is a social activity for fun and satisfies curiosity.
Those individuals who continue to use marihuana more frequently appear to be different
types of people and oriented toward a different part of the social system. Most
of them maintain stable career orientations and continue to function within the
broader society. But they feel more burdened by the traditional system of social
controls and more removed from contemporary society's institutions. These individuals
tend to turn away from more traditional adult-oriented reward systems and intensify
their peer-group orientation. Their interests and activities emphasize an informal
"in-crowd," out-of-school or work orientation. The meaning of marihuana
use by this peer group emphasizes the ideological character of usage. In contrast
to the infrequent type of user, these individuals seem to build their self-identity
around the marihuana-using peer group.
The more one smokes marihuana, the more involved his interpersonal relationships
are likely to become with his peers who share the experience with him. As he spends
more time with this group, he begins to sever his contacts with conventional individuals
and conventional routines. He may eventually view himself as a drug user and be
willing to experiment with other drugs which are approved by his peer group. Only
a small portion of the marihuana users who reach this stage are likely to become
persistent, frequent users of these other drugs. The majority appear to experiment
only.
Epidemiologic Studies
The Commission's studies have confirmed the association between marihuana usage
and the consumption of other drugs for curiosity and pleasure. This association
holds for all drugs, including over-thecounter and prescription pain relievers,
tension relievers, sleeping pills, and stimulants as well as hashish, methamphetamines,
cocaine, LSD and mescaline, and heroin. The National Survey showed that current
marihuana users are about twice as likely to have used any illicit drugs than are
those who have ceased using marihuana (Table 3).
|
Table 3. — ILLICIT DRUG USE BY ADULTS |
|
Substance
|
Never used marihuana
|
Have used
but no
longer use
marihuana
(percent)
|
Currently
using
marihuana
(percent)
|
|
Hashish
|
Less than 0.5 percent |
28
|
63
|
|
LSD or mescaline |
Less than 0.5 percent |
11
|
28
|
|
Methamphetamine |
Less than 0.5 percent |
10
|
23 |
|
Cocaine |
Less than 0.5 percent |
4
|
10
|
|
Heroin |
Less than 0.5 percent |
1
|
4
|
The Commission additionally has contracted a study of 105 selected, middle class,
young, working adults from California, who are marihuana smokers. Of this sample,
11% were daily marihuana users and 47% used it several times a week; 33% used it
several times a month; 6% used it once to several times a year; and 3% had used
it but were not currently using marihuana. The study indicates that while most of
the subjects were frequent marihuana users, the incidence of other drug use was
relatively low (Table 4).
|
Table 4. — FREQUENCY OF OTHER DRUG USE BY MARIHUANA USERS |
|
Substance |
Percent
who
never
used
marihuana
|
Percent who use marihuana
|
Once to
several
times
a year
|
Several
times
a month
|
Several
times
a week
|
Daily
|
|
Hashish |
42
|
31
|
21
|
5
|
0
|
|
LSD |
96
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Mescaline |
79
|
19
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
|
Psilocybin |
96
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
STP, DMT |
100
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Heroin |
98
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Codeine |
87
|
11
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
|
Amphetamines |
89
|
7
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
|
Barbiturates |
86
|
10
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
|
Cocaine |
75
|
19
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
|
Glue |
100
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
With the exception of marihuana and hashish, no drug was used by more than 25% of
this population and this use was almost exclusively experimental. Interestingly,
the more exotic drugs, mescaline and cocaine were more frequently used (21% and
25% of this sample respectively) than the common dangerous drugs: LSD (4%), heroin
(2%), codeine (11%), barbiturates (14%), and amphetamines (11%).
Among high school students, marihuana is normally the first illicit drug used,
although several recent studies have suggested that a significant number of students
initiate illicit use with other drugs. Of the marihuana users, a majority have
used no other illicit drug, and they tend to be experimental or intermittent users
of marihuana.
The more frequently the adolescent uses marihuana, the more likely he is to experiment
with other drugs. For example, in one recent study of San Diego high school students
of predominantly white middle socioeconomic background, 80% of the students who
used marihuana weekly or more often had used other drugs, and 50% of this group
had used LSD. In contrast, 33% of the less than weekly users had used other drugs.
Profiles and Dynamics
The personality profile of the heavy marihuana user discussed earlier includes elements
propelling him toward heavy involvement in the multiple-drug-using-subculture. Heavy
drug use by these individuals may reflect and aggravate a total alienation and disaffiliation
from American society and its institutions. This group hopes to find in drug use
more than simple fun or relief from boredom. The heavy use of drugs represents
a shift into the drug subculture and an adoption of a totally new life style. Some
observers feel that this shift provides a new identity which allows the individual
to counteract his apathy and search for meaning in a society he views as unloving,
lonely, and meaningless. He seeks to become involved with what he describes as the
exciting, relevant, "real" experience of life. Additionally, he believes
drug use provides new feelings and awareness needed to overcome barriers between
himself, others, and the natural world.
The drug culture as a community also helps to meet the needs of the individual.
It provides a ready supply of drugs, unites common experiences and secrets that
enhance the drug experience, and protects the individual against undesired experiences
and against "the outside world." Most important, the culture instills
self-confidence by reassuring the individual that he has been wise in choosing this
new identity.
Frequently, these are individuals who express feelings of loneliness, isolation
and over-protection from their home and family. One frequent pattern involves an
intimate, dominating mother and a distant, unemotional father. In some cases, the
drug-use ritual and the sense of community closeness offered by the drug subculture
appear to satisfy certain personal needs. Additionally, joining the subculture provides
a release from sheltered life, a test of competence, an opportunity to participate,
and a chance to express anger. When the anger is turned inward instead of directed
at society and family, drug use becomes a form of passive, self-destructiveness.
Sociocultural Factors
After the individual views himself as a drug user and has become immersed in the
drug-using subculture, the drugs he chooses to experiment with and his pattern of
use are determined primarily by non-drug factors well beyond the simple properties
of the psychoactive chemical. These factors are predominantly socioeconomic and
sociocultural, although psychic and somatic factors also play a role in determining
who will continue and how intensively.
The availability of a distribution system which stocks the other drugs is essential.
Most often, contact with this distribution system is increased by having friends
or acquaintances who use or sell other drugs. However, much of the marihuana selling
takes place at the customer level between friends, and involves little profit and
relatively small quantities of the drug. The marihuana user who only buys
has little
contact with the professional multidrug dealing system. However, the
user-buyer-seller
of marihuana is more involved with the multidrug system, uses more himself and has
more friends who use and sell other drugs. This factor of being a seller rather
than only a buyer-user is influential in determining the degree of an individual's
involvement with and commitment to the use of other drugs.
Marihuana use does not itself determine which drugs the heavily involved user will
choose to use. Generally, the selection of other drugs is influenced by the social
group. For example, blacks and whites have roughly equal rates of trying and using
marihuana, but their choice of other drugs and the styles of drug use are quite
different and distinctive, due to their frequently different sociocultural backgrounds.
Additionally, one recent study of white high school and college students revealed
different patterns of further drug use among males and females. Men and women used
marihuana in equal numbers, but the men who used other drugs tended to use hallucinogens
while the women tended to use amphetamines.
An extensive survey of drug use among 3,500 liberal arts undergraduates attending
14 campuses in the New York area demonstrated the racial character of drug use among
this population (Table 5).
|
Table 5. — RACIAL CHARACTER OF DRUG USE |
|
Percent tried drugs |
Heroin
|
Cocaine
|
Meth-
amphet-
amine
|
Amphet-
amine
|
Hallu-
cinogens
|
|
Blacks |
9
|
16
|
5
|
9
|
13
|
|
Whites |
4
|
7
|
11
|
19
|
21
|
According to recent studies, heroin usage is not common among white marihuana users.
Heroin is most strongly linked to marihuana use in black and Spanish-speaking ghettos
where many feel they have little chance of personal advancement and self-fulfillment.
In such communities, a segment of the population constructs new illegitimate but
accessible avenues for social coping. For some this involves the hustle (non-violent
stealing) and the excitement of obtaining and using heroin and cocaine. They regard
marihuana as a "cool" drug and use it for its social and calming effects.
In contrast, studies have demonstrated that the psychedelics are more often used
by the white, middle to upper middle class, college-educated populations. The typical
use of these drugs in high school, college and working populations is episodic and
experimental, and is usually discontinued rather rapidly in contrast with marihuana
use, which for many persons is of long duration. In many instances, psychedelic
drug use begins almost simultaneously with marihuana.
For a few, drug use becomes an ideologic focus, reflecting disillusionment with
society and rejection of the "establishment." These and other motives,
including mere pleasure-seeking, lead to continued use of LSD and other hallucinogens.
Marihuana is viewed as a dilute LSD and is often used to enhance or prolong the
effects of that drug. Sometimes it is encountered after first LSD use.
Methamphetamine, or "speed," use is more characteristic of those lower
socioeconomic white youth who are not school or work oriented. Living for the moment
is the characteristic attitude of the speed scene. The speed user views marihuana
as he does alcohol and uses it for fun or for its calming effects.
For these three groups of illicit drug users, marihuana use has different meanings
and is secondary in importance to the use of the other drugs. Whether or not marihuana
leads to other drug use depends on the individual, on the social and cultural setting
in which the drug use takes places, and on the nature of the drug market. Its use,
however, is neither inevitable nor necessary.
The previous section has attempted to paint a broad picture of the marihuana user.
This section will deal with the drug and its effects on these individuals.
The meaning of drug often varies with the context in which it is used. The physician
would define a drug as any substance used as a medicine in the treatment of physical
or mental disease. Today, due to the influence of many factors, the layman may focus
on the negative connotations of drugs, such as the stupefying, poisoning, habit-forming
misuse of the opiate drugs. The considerably wider and more scientific definition
of a drug which will be used in this section is: any chemical substance which has
an action on living tissues.
|
A psychoactive drug is any substance capable of modifying mental performance and
individual behavior by inducing functional or pathological changes in the central
nervous system.
|
As defined, psychoactive drugs exert their major effect on the state of the mind
including emotions, feelings, sensibility, consciousness and thinking. The definition
implies neither positive nor negative meanings. Chemical substances are not inherently
good or bad. All substances, including medicines and foods, which man has chosen
to consume have certain desired effects (whether therapeutically beneficial or pleasurable)
and undesired effects (whether detrimental or unpleasant). For example, eating food
is certainly a necessary and pleasurable activity. However, obesity plays an important
role in many diseases, including diabetes, high blood pressure and heart attacks,
and tends to limit physical activities.
The classification of any drug effect as either beneficial or harmful often greatly
depends on the values the classifier places on the expected effects. This is especially
relevant with respect to the psychoactive drugs such as tranquilizers, stimulants,
coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, marihuana and other licit or illicit drugs. For all
of these drugs, the weights of benefit and harm are difficult to determine when
viewed merely in terms of their stated effects.
Marihuana refers to a preparation derived from a plant, cannabis sativa L. The preparation
contains varying quantities of the flowers and their resinous secretions, leaves,
small stems and seeds. These plant parts contain many chemical substances. The chemical
substance which produces the major drug effects is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). According
to current information, the amount of THC present determines the potency of the
preparation. Hereinafter, any reference to drug content or drug effect of marihuana
will, for all practical purposes, mean that of tetrahydrocannabinol.
The drug content of the plant parts is variable, generally decreasing in the following
sequence: resin, flowers, leaves. Practically no drug is found in the stems, roots
or seeds. The potency and resulting drug effect of marihuana fluctuates, depending
on the relative proportions of these plant parts in the marihuana mixture.
Most marihuana available in this country comes from Mexico and has a THC content
of less than 1%. Marihuana of American origin often contains less than two-tenths
of 1% THC. Marihuana originating in Jamaica and Southeast Asia often has a 2% to
4% THC content.
Marihuana is the least potent preparation of the plant. Jamaican ganja, containing
primarily the flower tops and the small leaves or bracts, has a THC content of about
4% to 8% depending on the mixture. Indian ganja is less potent. The most potent
preparation is hashish (charas) which is composed of only the drug-rich resinous
secretions of the flowers. Generally, the THC content of hashish is 5 % to 12 %.
A number of variable factors exert an important influence on the psychopharmacologic
effects of marihuana in man, as is true for all drugs. Failure to take these factors
into consideration probably accounts for a large part of the inconsistency and controversy
surrounding the description of the drug effect.
Dosage
The dosage or quantity of the drug (tetrahydrocannabinol) consumed is the most important
variable. As with most drugs, the larger the dose taken, the greater the physical
and mental effect will be and the longer the effect will last. The effect of a high
dose of marihuana on an individual would be quite different from the effect of a
low, usual "social" dose.
Method of Use
The method of use has a bearing upon the drug effect. The method is directly related
to both dosage and time lapse before the drug effect is felt. Injection directly
into a vein delivers the total dose immediately, producing a rapid, maximal response
of minimal duration. Smoking and inhalation cause rapid but less efficient delivery
of the dose; variable quantity of the drug is destroyed during burning or escapes
into the air and does not reach the lungs. Oral ingestion produces different effects,
according to the system in which the drug is dispersed. Generally, oral ingestion
diminishes the drug effect, but prolongs it.
Metabolism
Another factor which influences the effect of the drug is metabolism. During the
metabolic process, the body cells, principally in the liver and lungs, chemically
alter drug substances, changing their activity and providing for their elimination
from the body. Increasing evidence indicates that marihuana is first changed by
the body in a way that activates or enhances the drug effect and is subsequently
altered in a way that inactivates the drug prior to its removal from the body.
The rate and direction of these metabolic steps can significantly influence the
effect of marihuana. For instance, individuals with extensive exposure to marihuana
or other drugs metabolize more rapidly, and perhaps differently, from those individuals
with no drug exposure.
Set and Setting
An important variable in discussing the effect of marihuana on the user is the social
and emotional environment; that is, the individual's "set" and "setting."
"Set" refers to a combination of factors that create the "internal
environment" of the individual, including personality, life style, and philosophy,
past drug experiences, personal expectations of drug effect, and mood at the time
of the drug experience.
"Setting" refers to the external environment and social context in which
the individual takes the drug. These factors are most influential when drugs are
taken at low dosages and, like marihuana, produce minimal physical and subtle subjective
mental effects. The effect of marihuana generally will be quite different for an
intermittent social adult smoker from that of a youth deeply involved in the youthful
drug subculture. These factors partially account for the belief of a marihuana user
that he is experiencing a "high" in certain experiments even when he is
given a non-marihuana substance (placebo) but is told it is marihuana.
Tolerance
Another important factor that determines the immediate effect of any drug is tolerance.
Tolerance has two different connotations. The first, initial tolerance, is a measure
of the amount of a drug which a subject must receive on first exposure to produce
a designated degree of effect. A variety of innate and environmental factors contributes
to initial tolerance among individuals. Different individuals require varying amounts
of the drug to attain the same physical and mental effect.
The second connotation, which shall be referred to when we use the word tolerance,
is that of an acquired change in tolerance. That is, within the same individual,
as a result of repeated exposure to the drug, the same dose of the drug may produce
a diminishing effect so that an increased amount of the drug is required to produce
the same specified degree of effect.
Tolerance develops at differential rates to given effects of the same drug. If tolerance
has developed to one specific effect, it has not necessarily developed to other
specific effects.
By definition, the development of tolerance is neither beneficial nor detrimental.
If tolerance develops rapidly to the desired mental effect of a "high"
but slowly to the behavioral or physical effects, rapid increase in dose would be
necessary in order to have the desired effect, and progressive behavioral and physical
disruption would be seen. This is the pattern for amphetamines.
However, if tolerance develops slowly or not at all to the desired mental effects
but more rapidly to the behaviorally or physically disruptive effects, no dosage
increase or only a slight one would be necessary and the unpleasant and undesired
effects would progressively diminish.
With regard to marihuana, present indications are that tolerance does develop to
the behaviorally and physically disruptive effects, in both animals and man, especially
at high frequent doses for prolonged time periods. Studies in foreign countries
indicate that very heavy prolonged use of very large quantities of hashish leads
to the development of tolerance to the mental effects, requiring an increase in
intake to reach the original level of satisfaction. However, for the intermittent
use pattern and even the moderate use pattern, little evidence exists to indicate
the development of tolerance to the desired "high," although the high
may persist for a shorter time period. During the Boston free-access study, no change
was apparent in the level of the high produced by a relatively large dose of the
drug over a 21-day period of moderate to heavy smoking.
The fact that some individuals smoke more of the drug than others may merely reflect
a desire for a different level of "high." There is a tendency to develop
a tolerance to the physical effects and behaviorally disruptive effects, especially
the depressant effects, in heavy daily users. The development of such behavioral
tolerance of this nature may explain the fact that experienced marihuana smokers
describe a lower occurrence rate of undesirable drug effects. The development of
tolerance may also explain why these smokers exhibit normal behavior and competent
performance of ordinary tasks, while not appearing intoxicated to others even though
they are at their usual level of intoxication.
Reverse Tolerance
Repeated exposure to marihuana has been said to cause an individual to need lesser
amounts of the drug to achieve the same degree of intoxication. This "reverse
tolerance" may be related to one's learning to get high or to the recognition
of the subtle intoxication at low doses. Or perhaps, such tolerance reflects an
increase in the body's ability to change the drug to an active chemical. To date,
the existence of "reverse tolerance" has not been substantiated in an
experimental setting.
Duration of Use
Tolerance development is only one of a variety of occurrences which possibly are
related to repetitive use of marihuana. Any discussion of drug effect must also
take into account the time period over which the drug use occurs. Immediate effects
of a single drug experience must be contrasted with effects of short-term use and
the effects of longterm use in order to detect any cumulative effects or more subtle,
gradually occurring changes.
This issue of an individual's change over a period of years is quite complex; a
multitude of factors other than marihuana use may affect his life. As previously
defined, short-term refers to periods of less than two years, long-term to periods
of two to 10 years, and very long-term to periods greater than 10 years. Most of
the American experience involves short-term and long-term use, with low doses of
weak preparations of the drug.
Patterns of Use
The drug effect of marihuana can be realistically discussed only within the context
of who the user is, how long he has used marihuana, how much and how frequently
he uses it, and the, social setting of his use.
In general, for virtually any drug, the heavier the pattern of use, the greater
the risk of either direct or indirect damage. For purposes of this discussion, the
patterns of use developed in the first section of this chapter will be utilized.
Because frequency of use is presently the, primary determinant of use patterns in
this country, we employ similar designations:
(1) The experimenter who uses marihuana, at most a few times over a short
term and then generally ceases to use it, or uses once a month or less;
(2) The intermittent user who uses marihuana, infrequently, that is more
than once monthly but less than several times a week;
(3) The moderate user who uses it from several times a week to once daily,
generally over a long term;
(4) The heavy user who uses it several times a day over a long term and;
(5) The very heavy user who is constantly intoxicated with high tetrahydrocannabinol
content preparations, usually hashish, over a very long term.
Again, these classifications are not intended to be rigid but are designed to facilitate
a discussion of the many usage patterns.
Definition of Dependence
Before describing the effect of marihuana, on the user, two additional definitions
are required. They concern the concept of dependence which has so clouded
public and professional consideration of psychoactive drugs. Throughout the remainder
of this report, we refer Separately to psychological and physical dependence, defined
as follows:
|
Psychological dependence is the repeated use of psychoactive drugs leading
to a conditioned pattern of drug-seeking behavior. The intensity of dependence varies
with the nature of the drug, the method, frequency, and duration of administration,
the mental and physical attributes of the individual, and the characteristics of
the physical and social environment. Its intensity is at its peak when drug-seeking
becomes a compulsive and undeviating pattern of behavior.
Physical dependence is the state of latent hyper-excitability which develops
in the central nervous system of higher mammals following frequent and prolonged
administration of the morphine-like analgesics, alcohol, barbiturates, and other
depressants. Such dependence is not manifest subjectively or objectively during
drug administration. Specific symptoms and signs, the abstinence syndrome, occur
upon abrupt termination of drug administration; or with morphine-like agonists by
administering the specific antagonists.
|
Set out below is a brief summary of effects of marihuana, related to frequency and
duration of use. The remainder of the Chapter discusses the effects of immediate,
short-term, long-term and very long-term use of the drug.
|
Experimenters and intermittent users
|
Little or no psychological dependence.
Influence on behavior related largely to conditioning to drug use and its social
value to the user.
No organ injury demonstrable.
|
|
Moderate users
|
Moderate psychological dependence increasing with duration of use.
Behavioral effects minimal in stable personalities, greater in those with emotional
instability.
Duration of use increases probability of escalation of all effects including shift
from moderate to heavy use.
|
|
Heavy users
|
|