- Email: [email protected]
Marijuana survey
of op'i nion that criticizes the present legislative treatment of cannabis on the grounds that it exaggerates the dangers of the drug and needlessly interferes with civil ' liberty.
The committee concluded that in the interests of public health, it was necessary to maintain restrictions on the availability and use of the drug. F or the purpose of enforcing restrictions, the committee saw no alternative to the criminal law and its penalties. We discussed the arguments in favor of legalization of cannabis but ruled them out for the near future. The practical recommendations included some technical ones-for example, making it easier to carry out research-but in effect the general changes that we recommended were that the present law should be retained and that there should be a marked scaling down in the penalties for cannabis offenses. We thought that the association of cannabis in legislation with heroin and other opiates was entirely inappropriate. We felt that new and quite separate legislation dealing especially and separately with cannabis and its derivatives should be introduced as soon as possible. As you might imagine, a report of this sort produced quite a lot of controversy and many people apparently had the notion that we were recommending the immediate legalization of cannabis. Most of the press said that this would be a ridiculous thing to do. But, if one reads the report, one can see that we were very cautious. We did not recommend increased use of cannabis, but we did feel that the
present penalties were too high. We also were assailed for being illogical, for as some people said, if the substance was not so very dangerous there was no need for legal sanctions. I think perhaps I should explain my own feelings about cannabis. My views are those of the extreme center. King James I described smoking as "a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless". When it comes to .prose, King James I had the edge on our report. He also increased the tax on tobacco by 4,000 percent which I think is more than any Chancellor would consider doing today. But he found that this merely led to an increase in smuggling and decrease in revenue, so this tax increase was reduced to 600 percent. From that time onward, tobacco was controlled by taxation rather than by prohibition. King James I was right to try and discourage use of tobacco as we now know of the public health problems caused by cigarette smoking (coronary thrombosis, lung cancer and bronchitis) . But also he was totally unsuccessful. My thoughts about marijuana are these-there still are ' so many uncertainties that I would not want to see extended use via smoking of yet another substance. At the same time, there is the difficulty that if enough people use it, it will come in inevitably anyway and it seems to me that what we have to do is think of some alternative and more effective way of dis-
about the author ... Thomas Henry Bewley, MD, is a consultant psychiatrist to St. George's, St. Thomas' and Tooting Bec Hospitals in London. A graduate of St. Columba's College and Trinity College, Dublin, Bewley also has served as registrar in M audsley Hospital and as clinical fellow and assistant clinician at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati General Hospital. H is activiti~s include serving on the Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence and the executive committee and research committee of the Medical Council on Alcoholism. He is a founding member of the Council of the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence and secretary of the Soci~ty for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs.
suading people from smoking marijuana. I can see reasons why I would not be enthusiastic about the further spread of the use of marijuana, but at the same time I would have doubts about whether severe penalties are the right answer. I think they would be the right answer if they prevented people from using it, but I think they are the wrong answer if despite heavy penalties people continue to ' use it. The debate goes on and I would ·hope that this particular report will in fact, over a period of time, enable people to acquire a more balanced view about marijuana and make it easier to discuss it without taking extreme views on either side. •
marijuana survey
FIGHT CANCER
614
LEGALIZATION of marijuana could lead to more widespread use of "hard" drugs, a University of Wisconsin survey shows. Approximately 800 students enrolled in five Madison high schools participated in a study last May. It was conducted by Professor Jon G. Udell~ director, and Robert S. Smith, research assistant, University of Wisconsin Bureau of Business Research and Service, with the cooperation of Conan S. Edwards, dire,ctor of secondary education, Madison Public Schools. Participants in the study were classified into three groups-those who have never used marijuana, 77 percent; those who have tried it once or twice, 12 percent, and those using marijuana rather frequently, 11 percent. Among the user group, the dominant opinion (90 percent) was that marijuana should be legalized. These persons also strongly favored the legalizing of hashish, while only eight percent of the non-users took this stand. Twenty-two percent favored the legalizing of opium. In contrast, only three percent of the non-users voted such action. Also in wide contrast were similar feelings toward LSD, speed, glue, cocaine and heroin. Children of public school teachers and university professors showed the highest proportion of drug use. Twenty-two percent of all the students using marijuana fairly often were the sons and daughters of educators, while this group constituted only ten percent of the total sample. Children of government administrators and business executives, physicians and lawyers also had a disproportionately high number of users. Contributing relatively low percentages of users were offspring of salesmen, clerical workers, skilled laborers or craftsmen, semi- and unskilled laborers. Among the user group 85 percent stated that they were able to obtain marijuana without difficulty. More than one-fifth of them were able to obtain opium easily. Eighty-three percent of the non-users believe that the user is not a leader among his peers. The users do not particularly esteem this status as suggested by the fact that only 30 percent of them viewed themselves as leaders. There appeared to be no marked relationship between a student's sex and the probability he or she would be a user of drugs.
Journal of the AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION
The committee concluded that in the interests of public health, it was necessary to maintain restrictions on the availability and use of the drug. F or the purpose of enforcing restrictions, the committee saw no alternative to the criminal law and its penalties. We discussed the arguments in favor of legalization of cannabis but ruled them out for the near future. The practical recommendations included some technical ones-for example, making it easier to carry out research-but in effect the general changes that we recommended were that the present law should be retained and that there should be a marked scaling down in the penalties for cannabis offenses. We thought that the association of cannabis in legislation with heroin and other opiates was entirely inappropriate. We felt that new and quite separate legislation dealing especially and separately with cannabis and its derivatives should be introduced as soon as possible. As you might imagine, a report of this sort produced quite a lot of controversy and many people apparently had the notion that we were recommending the immediate legalization of cannabis. Most of the press said that this would be a ridiculous thing to do. But, if one reads the report, one can see that we were very cautious. We did not recommend increased use of cannabis, but we did feel that the
present penalties were too high. We also were assailed for being illogical, for as some people said, if the substance was not so very dangerous there was no need for legal sanctions. I think perhaps I should explain my own feelings about cannabis. My views are those of the extreme center. King James I described smoking as "a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless". When it comes to .prose, King James I had the edge on our report. He also increased the tax on tobacco by 4,000 percent which I think is more than any Chancellor would consider doing today. But he found that this merely led to an increase in smuggling and decrease in revenue, so this tax increase was reduced to 600 percent. From that time onward, tobacco was controlled by taxation rather than by prohibition. King James I was right to try and discourage use of tobacco as we now know of the public health problems caused by cigarette smoking (coronary thrombosis, lung cancer and bronchitis) . But also he was totally unsuccessful. My thoughts about marijuana are these-there still are ' so many uncertainties that I would not want to see extended use via smoking of yet another substance. At the same time, there is the difficulty that if enough people use it, it will come in inevitably anyway and it seems to me that what we have to do is think of some alternative and more effective way of dis-
about the author ... Thomas Henry Bewley, MD, is a consultant psychiatrist to St. George's, St. Thomas' and Tooting Bec Hospitals in London. A graduate of St. Columba's College and Trinity College, Dublin, Bewley also has served as registrar in M audsley Hospital and as clinical fellow and assistant clinician at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati General Hospital. H is activiti~s include serving on the Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence and the executive committee and research committee of the Medical Council on Alcoholism. He is a founding member of the Council of the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence and secretary of the Soci~ty for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs.
suading people from smoking marijuana. I can see reasons why I would not be enthusiastic about the further spread of the use of marijuana, but at the same time I would have doubts about whether severe penalties are the right answer. I think they would be the right answer if they prevented people from using it, but I think they are the wrong answer if despite heavy penalties people continue to ' use it. The debate goes on and I would ·hope that this particular report will in fact, over a period of time, enable people to acquire a more balanced view about marijuana and make it easier to discuss it without taking extreme views on either side. •
marijuana survey
FIGHT CANCER
614
LEGALIZATION of marijuana could lead to more widespread use of "hard" drugs, a University of Wisconsin survey shows. Approximately 800 students enrolled in five Madison high schools participated in a study last May. It was conducted by Professor Jon G. Udell~ director, and Robert S. Smith, research assistant, University of Wisconsin Bureau of Business Research and Service, with the cooperation of Conan S. Edwards, dire,ctor of secondary education, Madison Public Schools. Participants in the study were classified into three groups-those who have never used marijuana, 77 percent; those who have tried it once or twice, 12 percent, and those using marijuana rather frequently, 11 percent. Among the user group, the dominant opinion (90 percent) was that marijuana should be legalized. These persons also strongly favored the legalizing of hashish, while only eight percent of the non-users took this stand. Twenty-two percent favored the legalizing of opium. In contrast, only three percent of the non-users voted such action. Also in wide contrast were similar feelings toward LSD, speed, glue, cocaine and heroin. Children of public school teachers and university professors showed the highest proportion of drug use. Twenty-two percent of all the students using marijuana fairly often were the sons and daughters of educators, while this group constituted only ten percent of the total sample. Children of government administrators and business executives, physicians and lawyers also had a disproportionately high number of users. Contributing relatively low percentages of users were offspring of salesmen, clerical workers, skilled laborers or craftsmen, semi- and unskilled laborers. Among the user group 85 percent stated that they were able to obtain marijuana without difficulty. More than one-fifth of them were able to obtain opium easily. Eighty-three percent of the non-users believe that the user is not a leader among his peers. The users do not particularly esteem this status as suggested by the fact that only 30 percent of them viewed themselves as leaders. There appeared to be no marked relationship between a student's sex and the probability he or she would be a user of drugs.
Journal of the AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION