You are here:

User Tools
	Email this page
	Translate this page

1938 Marihuana Conference

Part 2

Back

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: And now, Gentlemen, if we have no more questions on the agricultural phase of the problem we will proceed to a little more controversial subject. The pharmacological phase. I would like to have Dr. Munch give us a little history of the pharmacology of Marihuana.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. MUNCH PROFESSOR OF PHARMACOLOGY TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

DR. MUNCH: So far as the external effects are concerned of the fluid extract of Cannabis, the effects are hyperesthesia, fomication, and cold extremities. These cause increase in intensity. It is not local.

So far as the gastro-intestinal tract is concerned, there is no effect upon the taste. There is a tendency towards an increase in thirst and appetite, and large doses will cause nausea, emesis, vomiting, and the drugs produced diarrhea or constipation. So far as the effect on the brain, I am only going into that to this extent, to say that in connection with USPVIII which was thirty years ago we were interested

Page 56

in knowing whether the American grown plant could be used as well as that which had been imported from India. The study made by the American Drug Manufacturers Association and by others at that time led the USP official Committee to the stand that either the Indian or the American grown material would be comparable for medicinal purposes so long as it was tested and found to have a certain physiological effect, and from a number of bio-tests that were made in which the material was administered to dogs, there were three different effects produced, one effect being to cause the dog to sway from side to side, and back and forth, and finally not to be able to stand erect at all. It was then that satisfactory material was produced which would produce such a response. When it became necessary to prepare revised standards for world use of the Cannabis, we standardized the standards. First, we obtained material from various manufacturers in this country representing the ordinary strength or potency of the product and then many of these manufacturers told me of the material of ten or twenty or thirty years before, and they gave me the products or materials which were of the same commercial strength as they have always been marketing.

Then through various means, we obtained drugs and

Page 57

standardized those products, that is thirteen different products of this series of drugs. Those products were then mixed, and constituted the USP fluid extract of Cannabis, which was officially recognized in USP X.

Then as to the method of bio-assay. Contrary to much of the published literature we find that dogs vary as greatly in their response as do humans. On. some 500 dogs I have used, fully one-half were very insensitive, and were discarded immediately. The nervous type or short- haired dog is usually a satisfactory animal but not necessarily the best.

Going back to the pharmacological action, so far as the causes, and effect on circulation, a small dose causes rapid beating of the heart which may be followed by less than normal. The blood pressure is usually unchanged, or there is a slight fall.

So far as the blood is concerned, there is a definite increase in the hypoglycemiacal content. At the same time, there is a definite increase in the blood sugar. Enormous doses have produced death by cardiac failure, but the doses were 100 to 200 times doses, which produced a tremendous physiological effect.

If smoked, there is a tendency to choking or coughing, and all doses tend to decrease the respiratory needs.

Page 58

So far as the muscles are concerned, the muscles show a definite confusion, and with very large doses there are shown flexor spasms. But not with a therapeutic dose.

So far as the pupils of the eyes themselves, there is a very definite contraction of the conjunctiva, and usually but not always a dilation of the pupil.

So far as the effect on the glands, there is probably a double diuretical effect. There is a question, and the production of the diuretic effect is unsettled.

It has been reported there is a sexually stimulating effect. Some say it does and some say it does not exist.

So far as antidotes are concerned the thought is, if it has been swallowed, the administration of an emetic, caffeine or acid drinks in general.

So far as the habituation is concerned, it has been claimed and denied, and so far as elimination is concerned, I have not been able to detect it in the urine. So, I do not believe the active principle is eliminated by urine.

In the general pharmacopoeia developed by O’Shaunessy in 1843, which reached its peak ten or fifteen years later, it was clinically recommended for all sorts of diseases and later found worthless.

There is a definite decrease in the central Indian

Page 59

drug which stimulated further work done by Casparis and others, after which it appears to have gone into innocuous desuetude until it began to be criminally exploited, which led to the present burst of study.

Pharmacology is right I think, when it is said it does not have the same effect, or one effect on the brain, and I may be sticking my head out when I make a suggested answer that the cause of the awful intoxication is largely due to the difference in the rate of absorption, whether the material is smoked or given by solution or in capsules and taken into the stomach, or given rectally, and also the susceptibility on the brain, because in many instances we have given the same material to humans or dogs. Some of the animals it has shown no effect upon, others it has shown an enormous effect with the same dose. So far as animals are concerned, we have made a comparative study and find that dogs and rabbits have proven most suitable for quantitative assays but none can be relied on for qualitative accuracy, that is 10 to 12%. That is a complete change from what I said in my book,1 but it is possible, by running from 14 to 20 bio-assay, to obtain results accurate within plus or minus 11 to 20%. But, it never has been done commercially and can only be done in connection with research.

Page 60

Through what channels does the active principle find its way into the nerve centers? I should say through the blood. So far as the effect on the blood pressure, I have attempted to cover those reflex changes. It has been stated and denied that there are significant lesions in the brain of humans. Dogs I have used for some years, in some instances showed certain types of brain changes. Whether those are connected with Cannabis, I do not know. I am trying to complete that now and perhaps within the next five years I can answer the question. Regarding the other questions, I would rather refer those to Dr. Bromberg.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Before we enter into a general discussion, I would like to call on Dr. Loewe of Cornell University to give us a statement on the bio-assay method.

STATEMENT OF DR. S. LOEWE PHARMACOLOGIST CORNELL UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE

DR. LOEWE: The bio-assay, in my opinion, is the point where the pharmacologist has to enter this manifold picture at which we arrive in this conference for a very significant reason.

Page 61

The reason is that all the manifold aspects of Marihuana are focused around and makes the existence of an active principle in this drug, active principles which are chemically not known, and as long as an active principle is not chemically known, it can only be determined from its action, that is, biologically, which can only be by bio-assay.

Dr. Munch has thoroughly depicted the many aspects of the pharmacological action of Marihuana. That is what we can call the pharmacological spectrum of this drug, But it must be emphasized, that the spectrum of the drug as such and not on one certain active principle necessarily, for nobody knows the active principle, and nobody ever knows whether there is only one active principle or more than one active principle.

It can be assumed from the beginning that there is more than one active principle but this must not necessarily concern the Marihuana interests, because the problem is narrowed to that active principle among possibly many active principles which produces the narcotic or ‘dope’ action in humans.

Even with respect to this point, of course, we are not one hundred percent sure that this is the action of one principle or more than one.

Page 62

Quantitative bio-assay of the active principle of Marihuana, of course, tends or aims to determine that one active principle or a complex of active principles, which is interesting from the human point of view, the narcotic principle. May I mention right here that as long as we do not know how many active principles there are, we have to assume primarily that every action is carried by a separate active principle, and with this assumption, may I speak for the definite ataxia principle, which is the principle which can be bio-assayed in the drug which produces the main action stored in the dog. There is another action in the drug, which I may call the depressant action, the cataleptic action, and then there is the anesthetic principle which can be studied in the rabbit, using the depression of the corneal reflex. The depressant action in the mouse, manifested by prolonging the hypnotic action, is an action which I have observed and used to bio-assay this one active principle.

Now, bio-assay has to start, therefore, with this, which one of these actions is preferable for the Marihuana problem for studying the narcotic principle, important for humans?

We have much evidence that the ataxia action is fairly well related to the narcotic action.

Page 63

In detail, there is not much to say. Walton has elaborated the previous effects and experiences of the bio-assay of the drug in a fairly good manner. There are details, and certainly it is necessary to bio-assay a large number of animals due to the individual natures and non- susceptibility which complicates the actions, and action can only be compared in one and the same animal, and only for comparison in a single animal, and the consequence is that a large group of animals has to be used.

The mode of administration has been emphasized by Dr. Munch. I would prefer and do prefer, for bio-assay, intravenous administration because the Marihuana action has a very long period of latency without the means of elimination from the system, so that the results seem to be fairly well comparable.

Now, I am of the opinion, just like Dr. Munch has emphasized, that the bio-assay method of the drug is not definitely eliminated. I have the impression that the method will result in fairly good accuracy, but it is an accuracy of plus or minus 15 or 20%, and which will suffice, I suppose, for the period in which bio-assay is necessary.

It is the unfortunate situation of the pharmacologist that in certain periods of development of active princi-

Page 64

ples he is available for the purpose, and in a certain sense he is the man charged with the entire problem. But, his unfortunate situation is that just when he has developed this method and applied it, it is always finally inherent that he is out of the picture for, as soon as the chemist comes into the picture, and the bio-assay is not any more necessary, the pharmacologist can be dropped. If I may mention this at random, all of these points of view are true also as to the chemical test. Before the chemist has developed the active principle, the chemical method of identification of much or great importance to the country, and they may be of much or less importance for identifying the active principles than are the bio-assay methods, but only after the discovery of the active principle and its chemical properties, the problem of the chemical test, the importance of the Beam test can become clear. I know of another example where a greater activity of a certain drug was found, and the drug was not white but yellow, and this, of course, introduced many beliefs that yellow colors and opticals would be an easy expedient for getting a quantitative activity. So, there was developed a number of tests for this drug, going into this problem, but finally it turned out what general color

Page 65

of the narcotic or commodity was and the reason for the high activity of the drug.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Well, Doctor, we are going to have the chemists confer among themselves, and they will then give us some of their views. I think we can reserve the general discussion for the afternoon.

We will now hear from Dr. Walter Bromberg, Senior Psychiatrist of the Department of Hospitals, City of New York.

STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER BROMBERG SENIOR PSYCHIATRIST DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS, CITY OF NEW YORK.

DR. BROMBERG: To start with, my interest in this Marihuana problem began in 1933 when I reported at Bellevue Hospital a group of 11 cases of mental reactions induced by smoking Marihuana and I reviewed the literature and medical knowledge at that time. Also, the experience which I obtained was at the Psychiatric Clinic of the Court of General Sessions over a period of six years. Persons showing overt mental symptoms were brought to the hospital by interested relatives and occasionally on a magistrate’s order. For that reason, the vast majority of Marihuana smokers did not reach the hospital. Cases which came before the Clinic had passed through the Court of General Sessions and had been arraigned, indicted and

Page 66

convicted of a felony.

There has been considerable literature on the intoxication and insanity-producing effect of Cannabis, in papers from Asia, Europe, and the United States. To sum up this material concisely, it can be said that the several types of syndromes recognized fall into three groups: (a) intoxication, (b) toxic psychosis with or without admixture of other types of mental reactions (schizophrenia, manic-depressive) and (c) according to Eastern European and Asiatic observers, chronic dementia and deterioration following prolonged use of the drug. Apparently this latter type of deteriorating process has not been observed in American clinics.

Our experience with mental conditions following Marihuana indicate to us that there are two categories of mental reaction. The following classification is suggested:

Acute intoxication (Marihuana Psychosis) Containing sensory, motor and subjective elements, lasting hours to several days, often with anxiety or hysterical reactions, and panic states and depressions of transient nature. Toxic Psychoses (a) in which there are many admixtures of disturbed sensorlum, delusional and emotional reactions amounting to psychosis, but with the common characteristic

Page 67

toxic signs and (b) functional psychoses of a typical variety, initiated by Marihuana or colored by Marihuana in their symptomatology, but which continue in the form of the underlying psychosis. In these cases Marihuana represents an incipient stage in the psychosis, apparently.

There were 14 cases of Acute Intoxication and 17 of Toxic psychosis.

The point at which the line is drawn between acute intoxicating due to Marihuana and psychosis due to Marihuana depends on the degree and severity of the symptoms. Acute intoxications, induced by smoking one to four cigarettes, bring about after an interval varying from one-half to five hours in the individual one or all of the following symptoms: an increase in motor activity, a feeling of excitement, mental confusion, disorientation, crowding of perception, elementary visual illusions and hallucinations, euphoria and talkativeness. In addition to these symptoms, numerous subjective experiences occur, such as increased speed of thought processes, a feeling of intellectual brilliance, change in time perception, various somatic feelings, dizziness, hunger, a feeling of swelling of the head, lightness of the extremities, a sensation of walking on air, lengthening of the limbs and sexual illusions. More often sex excitement consists

Page 68

in the fact that the possible sexual objects in his environment become extraordinarily desirable. There is abundant evidence in our clinical and experimental material to show that the stimulus for sexual interest and activity derives from the aesthetic enhancement of objects in the environment. It is not so much a matter of increased potency on the part of the user as increased reaction to sexual fantasies and illusions. One of our patients said: “I saw black and white women lying in bed with legs separated, as if expecting men . . . some women in the park with nothing on, doing nasty dances, moving their hips. I chased after them.” Others state women appear amazingly beautiful. Another patient said: “In the subway I felt very sexy. I wanted to touch every woman that passed.”

The speeded-up physical motility has its counterpart in rapid speech. There is a feeling on the part of the individual that he is witty, even brilliant; his ideas flow quickly and words come readily to the tongue. Conclusions and answers seem to come to mind ready-formed and surprisingly clear, without the effort of thinking. This feelings of clarity is, of course, spurious. Actually the productions of the intoxicant are hard to follow, for when he wishes to explain what he has thought there is

Page 69

only confusion. The rapid flow of ideas gives a subjective impression of brilliance of thought and observation. The sense of increased speed of thinking apparently has an effect on memory - hence the confusion that appears on trying to recall what was thought during the intoxication.

The smoker finds it pleasant to be with others and to impart his experiences to them. This is reflected in the fact that Marihuana is ordinarily smoked at parties or in groups. It is felt that this need for a social setting is a reaction to an inner anxiety arising from the threat of bodily destruction implied in somatic illusions induced by Marihuana In the ordinary case of smoking Marihuana, especially with one who is used to the drug, this threat becomes converted to euphoria which develops to uncontrollable fits of laughter. Nevertheless inquiry shows that almost every smoker is aware of definite uneasiness at the outset of the intoxication. The description from smokers in Harlem and from experimental subjects agrees on this point. In the words of a user of two years’ standing, initiates “shrink together, feel tight inside and get frightened.” After they smoke it more than once, the reality of these frightening somatic illusions becomes less. In occasional instances, and these are the cases

Page 70

which are apt to come to medical attention, the fear of death, of insanity, of bodily deformity and of bodily dissolution are startling. These patients are tense, nervous, frightened, they may develop a state of panic. Often suicide or assaultive acts are the result of these emotional states. The anxiety state is so common in patients admitted to the hospital for uncomplicated Marihuana psychosis, that it can be considered part of the intoxication syndrome.

Notes taken on experimental subjects who were psychologically trained illustrate these points:

Subject l. Two cigarettes were smoked within 40 minutes. Immediately after the second a feeling of lightness in vertex of head was felt. Head was expanding; there was a feeling of mild excitement. Now the head felt heavy and there was a definite feeling of lengthening in the legs and a tension in the back muscles of the thigh. Head felt alternately light and heavy. There was a sensation as though the top of the head were lifted with about four inch increase in height, accompanied by optic images of skulls and skeletons. Feeling of the arms rising up in the air. Subject was aware of a feeling of confusion. Suddenly he saw images of legs and arms in a dissecting

Page 71

room which were terrifying. Subject 2. “I felt a little euphoric at first, but with the first draw my heart feels faster, my eyes a little heavier. I feel myself perspiring all over, and shaking. I can feel a slight dizziness. I feel weak; the dizziness has left and I am perspiring (Asked to walk around the room. Refuses to do so and becomes negativistic). On looking back I remembered that I had sexual thoughts during the time of the experiment. Time seems to pass in a peculiar way, there being a combination of fastness and slowness. I took my first inhalation a few minutes after 9 and when I looked at the clock and saw it was 10 after 9. I was very much surprised because it seemed like hours. The whole experiment seems now as if it lasted much longer than it did. Walking home I walked slowly in front of oncoming cars and felt a sense of recklessness connected with not being able to walk faster and not caring.”

It is remarkable how much anxiety is developed when one looks for experimental subjects among laymen. The drug is popularly supposed to release aggressive and sexual impulses beyond the point of control; it is also regarded as being habit-forming. The legendary history and social connotation of hashish smoking may help to de-

Page 72

velop in those who have had no experience with the drug, a series of anxieties masking sexual fantasies and aggressive impulses. This has come almost to the point of mass hysteria. Some public officials are unwilling to allow the use of Marihuana cigarettes for experimentation purposes, on the ground that it may be ‘immoral,’ tending to foster the development of drug addiction among the public. This frequent anxiety concerning Cannabis may have as its source the feeling of dissolution and other somatic changes induced in smokers which is communicated somehow to the non-smoking public.

In clinical material as indicated, Marihuana effects may range from mild intoxications to transitory psychoses which require psychiatric aid. The effects vary and not all the symptoms occur in every case. Illustrative of the Marihuana psychosis with anxiety reactions, and somatic sensory distortions: A 31 year old white man, admitted March 27, 1934, with a history of having smoked just one cigarette. On admission the patient was depressed, retarded, apprehensive. He admitted smoking Marihuana. Was oriented and memory showed no defects. Physical examination was negative. The patient states, “My hand began to feel blue all of a sudden. I felt like laughing and I felt

Page 73

funny in my head. it was the queerest feeling I ever had. I felt like I was kind of fainting away like. I sweat and then I’d get kind of chilly. I got the scare of my life. I thought I was going to die and everything else. I knew what was happening all the time. I thought my hands were beginning to get blue. My throat began to get kind of dry. It was a little better than getting drunk. I did not want to step down from the curb-it seemed to be so high. I was sitting down and was afraid to get up.” Patient improved and on the second day was less apprehensive, was pleasant and cheerful. He was discharged as recovered, after two days.

This case demonstrates visual illusions, which recall the megalopsia (perceiving objects larger than they are), and more common micropsia, which has been reported experimentally and clinically. It is this type of illusion, induced by hashish, that may have been the basis for the story of Aladdin who saw the tremendous genie emerge from his lamp spout in the Arabian Nights’ tale.

A 32 year old Irish-American, admitted September 17, 1937, with a history of smoking Marihuana cigarettes two hours prior to admission. He felt dizzy, wanted to commit suicide by jumping out of windows, bumping head on the wall, floor, etc. On admission was uneasy, ap-

Page 74

prehensive, impulsive. Said, “I feel sick. I’m going through hell. I saw trucks coming at me getting larger and I wanted to open the door of the cab and jump out.” He was discharged as improved in his own custody about 12 hours after admission.

A common type of intoxication is indicated in the following case:

A 38 year old Negro, admitted April 13, 1934, with history that he had run out of the house poorly clad and that he had smoked ‘artificial’ cigarettes. He was confused on admission, was dazed in appearance and disoriented. He described a lightness of the head, dizziness and seeing star-shaped figures before his eyes after smoking a ‘doped’ cigarette. He was apprehensive on examination. On the second or third day after admission, apprehension had disappeared and he was discharged as recovered, being clear, composed, but unable to account for his earlier excitement.

It is not uncommon to find the history of admixture of other drugs or alcohol in Cannabis intoxication. Frequently alcohol intensifies the Cannabis symptomatology.

A 27 year old man of old American stock, admitted on June 18, 1933, at his own request. He had been a chronic alcoholic and displayed definite evidences of psycho-

Page 75

pathic makeup; had marked inferiority because of his eyes and body structure. On admission he appeared to be apprehensive, a little excited, spoke coherently and relevantly. His experiences were rather clearly set forth--“I was down on the water-front. A fellow gave me an Egyptian cigarette to smoke . . . it was hashish. About an hour afterwards I began to see things. I’d see things flying in the air. This made me laugh and I’d laugh at things not worth laughing at. Then I began to see green and other colors flowing before my eyes. Then things got black. I imagined people were following me and I screamed in my hotel and got kicked out. I still see red lines in front of my eyes and other different colors all stuck together. Then I began to hear bells that would get fainter and fainter and then start again. Imagined someone was after me all evening. I thought I heard footsteps and saw people ducking in and out of doorways behind. me. At the time I said to myself maybe it all affect my eyes. I seen a big splotch in front of me - it was scarlet- very bright, exceptionally bright. It contracted, then faded away. I knew all the time it was due to hashish.”

The second group comprises cases of toxic psychosis due to or initiated by Cannabis. There may be other

Page 76

toxic agents present, as alcohol, other drugs, infective or other endogenous elements. Disordered sensorium, excitement and agitation, retardation, blocking with emotional rigidity, hallucinations, sensations of somatic change, delusional experiences may appear in the toxic psychosis. The psychosis lasts from weeks to months. Often the mental picture crystallizes out into a schizophrenic or manic depressive psychosis after several weeks or months (see paradigm). At the onset .of the illness what can be considered characteristic Cannabis symptom- atology is discernible. As the underlying functional psychosis develops, the toxic elements recede.

A boy of 16, admitted February 27, 1934, with statement from the family that for two months he had been depressed, apprehensive, worried, scratching his hands in a nervous manner, prayed constantly. He complained that somebody read his thoughts. On admission was well developed and showed no physical signs. Patient was agitated, depressed, talked constantly in a bizarre manner about the devil influencing him, etc. Said: “I felt lightly when I was walking - as if I weighed only 10 pounds. I felt like running my whole body was light. I felt like jumping. As if I was walking on air. I felt happy. Then I saw yellow lights all around me. I saw blue and green

Page 77

too. The colors were more bright than usual. There are just masses of colors - sometimes I see a black cross with everything red behind it. That means there is a God. He is helping me. The devil knows the evil thoughts in me.” This agitated condition improved and patient was discharged about 3 weeks after admission as a psychosis due to drugs; acute hallucinatory episode.

Patient was readmitted August 1st of that year with a picture of a depression with schizoid features. On this admission there were no evidences whatever of the sensory illusions and somatic feelings that he had previously when he smoked Marihuana. He was transferred to the state hospital, where he remained four years, being diagnosed as Paranoid Schizophrenia with Catatonic Features. There he was restless and overactive. He had a marked push of speech, expressed ideas of reference and religious delusions and was manneristic. Said: “I figured the devil was trying to pull me away from God so I cut a cross on my arm. Physically I am the same, but mentally I am another person. ...I feel that people influence me by touching me - like injecting dope.” Later he was manneristic, grimaced, was untidy, repeated practically all questions asked, answered briefly and usually vaguely and would say, “I don’ know exactly,” or “I don’t

Page 78

know.” He remained dull, apathetic, indifferent and mute until the present time.

The personality factor is of undoubted importance in this group of individuals. After the toxic state passed off in these patients in whom the intoxication reaches deeply enough into the personality, a basic psy-chotic state developed. At times, the toxic features are in the background, the personality reactions being pre-dominant. What the inner relationship is between Cannabis and the onset of a functional psychotic state is not always clear. From our observation, the inner reaction to somatic sensation seems to be vital. Such reactions consisted of panic states which disappeared as soon as the stimulus (effects of the drug) faded. It is generally known in psychopathology that when the perception of our own bodily sensations is disturbed we are liable to be profoundly affected psychologically. Disturbances in perception of the body-model (Korperschema), which is built up of kinesthetic, tactile, visual and other stimuli, and integrated into the core of the personality, elicit some type of reaction. Such disturbances act as a blow to the ego, invoking defensive reactions of anxiety, apprehension, projection, etc., which approach or are schizophrenic in their clinical manifestations. The

Page 79

following case illustrates these points:

A 20 year-old colored man admitted February 22, 1936. He is said by his mother to have been ‘nervous’ for some time, said he wanted to die, wanted to kill himself. Prior to admission his mother caught him with a bottle of lysol. He had been depressed and despondent. He was a boy of superior intelligence as measured by the Army Alpha test. On admission he stated that he used Marihuana for several months and during this time he had heard people talking about him They said’ “Oh, what an ugly boy. How mean-looking he is.” For four months, August to October, 1935, he smoked three to four cigarettes a day until he began to feel ill. At first Marihuana made him happy. Then he felt that he made a peculiar noise in his throat; ate once a day; was unable to sleep; and experienced auditory hallucinations. The hallucinations started four months ago and increased gradually. He thought his face was changing. He looked thin, mean, and ugly; he became self-conscious. He felt that every-one in the neighborhood knew it. He stated at times he seemed speeded up, but his mind was keenly alert with the development of the ideas of reference, he became self- reproachful, apprehensive and fearful.

He was then transferred to a state hospital on March

Page 80

13, 1936, where he stated his hallucinations had disappeared and his emotional reaction improved. After three months he was discharged to his home; within five months he was readmitted to Bellevue Hospital, where he had gone in a state of panic, and from where he was re-committed to a state hospital. He was tense, uneasy, still retained ideas of reference, acted oddly at home apparently in response to his delusions. Diagnosis on second admission to State Hospital was Dementia Praecox Paranoid Type, which was made about two years after the onset of the original illness.

Some cases showed the manic-depressive reactions, but these were in the minority. It is perhaps to be expected that schizophrenic-like psychoses are more common because individuals who take to drugs have some deep inadequacy to start with. The cyclothymic personality is less prone to require the drug.

A man of 28 who was brought to the hospital by his mother on February 13, 1938, with the history that he had been smoking reefers for some time. A year ago he had an episode, was not hospitalized and improved from it. On admission patient was confused, restless, apprehen- sive. He engaged in violent daydreamings. At times he appeared to be reacting to hallucinations. He said he

Page 81

“had a big head.” He became talkative, euphoric, elated and overactive after a day or so. He said: “The best thing for me to do is. . . you look fine. I’ve got to look like you . I know what it is . . . when a Buick and a Packard get together.” His speech was distinctly flighty, his behavior panicky; was constantly restless. Would cry, sing, talk.

He was transferred to a state hospital on February 24, 1938. There his condition persisted and he became somewhat depressed, but showed promise of recovery a few months after admission. Diagnosis at State Hospital was Manic Depressive Psychosis, Manic Type.

Mixed reactions merge with the toxic psychoses. These reactions vary clinically, some occurring in chronic alcoholics, some in schizophrenics and some in psychopathic personalities, and in all of them Marihuana usage was a factor. It can be clearly seen that aside from the direct toxic effect of the drug, the personality of the patient plays a tremendous role in psychotic states following Marihuana usage.

A Cuban, age 34, who was admitted on March 6, 1938, to Bellevue Hospital. He had been taking Marihuana for one and a half years. He had jumped in front of a south-bound subway train without injury. He was very depressed, dull, lackadaisical, despondent in attitude.

Page 82

He was definitely under productive but still strongly suicidal. He described taking one cigarette every day of Marihuana for a year and a half because it took his worries away. For some time he had been conscious that people were looking at him He feels that his body is heavy all the time. Sometimes he hears deceased persons talking to him. He sees lights at times. At times he sees a photograph of a strange person.

His friend corroborated the history, stating that he had been in this depressed condition for 3-4 years. He had a work-house sentence for 2-3 months for Marihuana. He was transferred to a state hospital March 18, 1938. At that time he was dull, preoccupied, but lost his hallucinatory and delusional trends. The State Hospital diagnosed him as Schizophrenia, Hebephrenic Type (?) and he was released after two months.

In some cases the drug makes relatively little difference in the content of the psychosis. It is for the clinician to determine how much Marihuana influences the clinical picture. In South Africa, where dagga (equivalent of Marihuana) smoking is very widespread, a diagnosis of Marihuana psychosis is made in any “toxic psychosis where there are very good grounds for assuming addiction to dagga smoking.” It is felt that there should

Page 83

be more exact criteria, as we outlined above, for a diagnosis of Marihuana psychosis, by which we mean the presence of disordered sensorium, characteristic colored visual hallucinations, time changes, subjective and somatic feelings. One is apt to over-estimate the place of Marihuana in the causation of a psychotic picture.

A white man of 28, admitted January 23, 1938, to Bellevue Hospital with a history that he was in a state hospital in Arizona for 3 months about two years ago and one in Indiana for 9 months four years ago. “I was smoking this Marihuana weed (at time of admission to State Hospital in Arizona). I ran around the desert for a time, ran out nights and one day knocked on a door and told a woman I was Dillinger. I tried to see how much water I could walk in. I was just like hypnotized and walking in my sleep. Sometimes I feel like something’s controlling me. Sometimes I feel just like I’m talking to somebody with my mouth closed. I just ask them a question with my brain and they answer. Sometimes it’s a man, sometimes it’s a woman’s voice; it just works in my temple. I think it’s imagination. It’s just like a dream. People stare at me. Sometimes I see different colors. I had that years ago - just like a light coming towards me; it’s not a light, it’s an arc.

Page 84

His effect was flat and he was dejected and slow-speaking. Showed blocking and evasiveness on. sex experiences. Had ideas of reference and persecutory ideas.

He was transferred to a state hospital, where he was noted as being preoccupied, under productive and somewhat dissociated. He stated that he had some sort of seizures that were not really fits, but that when he had them if he had a sword he would not mind cutting everybody’s head off. He also believed if anybody got killed near the place where he worked he would be blamed for it. Said that when he looks in bright lights he sees visions like all sorts of different colors, blues, whites, and these seem to blind him. A diagnosis was made of Dementia Praecox, Paranoid Type, and he was still in State Hospital after five months.

In psychopathic personalities, those with deep inferiorities, use of drugs is a method of supporting the ego. In these cases Marihuana does not always produce the desirable effect. Apparently it is not strong enough to affect the problems which have involved deeper layers of the personality. Such individuals adopt heroin or morphine very soon after a short experience with Marihuana. The experience of drug addicts seen at the Court of General Sessions confirms this. Persons addicted to

Page 85

heroin, morphine, cocaine or opium never return to Cannabis. Such individuals are admittedly psychopathic in that they need an increment of drug to make their lives tolerable, In the next case, the use of Cannabis represented the attempt of the patient to overcome his sexual inadequacy. In this respect the social psychology of the drug is a factor, since Marihuana is popularly supposed to free sexual inhibitions.

A white man, age 23, admitted to Bellevue Hospital on March 31, 1938, with a history that he felt unworthy and thought he had a venereal disease. He held ideas of infidelity against his wife and was assaultive. Threw a four month old baby across a room. He turned gas jets on. On admission he was rambling, talkative, evasive, depressed, self-absorbed and had somatic complaints.

He said: ’I was sentenced to the Workhouse for 4 months for smoking Marihuana. I knew then I was not satisfying my wife and I thought it might help. A year ago some friends gave me the weed, I smoked several. I felt calm and liked to listen to music - very happy - exhilarating feeling - that’s all.”

In the hospital he was talkative, discussed his problem in detail and showed some depression, which improved. The infidelity ideas and his sexual inadequacies concerned him most. He was transferred to a state hospital with a

Page 86

diagnosis of Psychosis with Psychopathic Personality; Cannabis usage a factor.

Often Cannabis intoxication represents a stage in the incipiency of a psychosis. The patient who is developing a functional psychosis strives in the incipient stage to overcome the unconsciously perceived difficulties. In this sense Marihuana usage represents a healthy reaction tendency, even though the mechanism may be unknown to the patient. The next case illustrated this problem. A boy who had made a successful adjustment on a moderate level of social attainment began to show schizoid behavior shortly after the usage of Marihuana. The process continued to a psychotic state. What role did the drug play? Could the psychosis have begun without the drug? Was the use of Cannabis the patient’s attempt to cure his developing psychosis? These are problems needing careful judgment and study and wide clinical experience.

A young Negro, 20, admitted October 2, 1936 to Bellevue Hospital with a history of having been dull, indifferent for some time. Insisted upon keeping the windows closed, would not leave the house, but denied he heard voices. Would masturbate openly and made sign with fingers, and actions were decidedly peculiar. Mother states she caught him. smoking a sweet-smelling

Page 87

cigarette with a white man and soon after got a history from his playmates that he had been smoking Marihuana cigarettes for a long time.

Observation in the hospital confirmed his withdrawn, retarded attitude. Psychometric gave an IQ. of 75 with rating of Borderline to Dull Normal Intelligence. Was pre-occupied on ward; difficult to obtain his attention; evasive; offered many excuses for closing window and putting out lights. About 10 days after admission he appeared a little more alert and cheerful. He was discharged in custody of mother as Incipient Schizophrenia (?) or Psychoneurosis, Reactive State, on October 13, 1936.

He was readmitted a year later, October 15, 1937. At that time mother gave a statement that for past year, since he left hospital, he had been dull, staying in the house in a ‘deep study.’ He seems to listen; does not say anything’. At one time he beat up an old man in the house who, he said, called him names. Prior to admission he had attacked a woman for no apparent reason. Sleeps day and night. Often looks as if he is in a dream, Changed personality reactions for more than a year. For two weeks distinctly worse.

On admission he was sluggish, dull and lethargic, spoke in a quiet, low voice, showed empty affect, but was

Page 88

intact in intellectual functions, memory, comprehension, orientation. He was transferred to the State Hospital on October 20, 1937, where he was evasive and dull. He showed no interest in the surroundings and did not mingle with the other patients. He expressed mild ideas of persecution and of electricity, was evasive and suspicious. He said some people called him bad names across the street. Believes that an attempt was made to harm him. “I sometimes have a funny feeling in my legs (electricity).” Their diagnostic impression included the possibility of Dementias-Praecox, Paranoid Type.

Gradually he acquired an interest and socialized with other patients. At all times he was neat and tidy in personal appearance and habits. He improved after five months and was ready for parole.

Now, so much for the psychopathic. We now come to the criminology.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: I thought we would cover that in another subject.

We will now adjourn for lunch and come back at 1:30.

(Thereupon at 12:20 o’clock p.m., a recess was declared, the conference to resume discussions at 1:30 p.m.)

Page 89

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The conference was resumed at 1:30 o’clock p.m., pursuant to the taking of a recess at noon.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Gentlemen, the Conference will be in order. We may very well start with the general discussion on the pharmacological phases of the problem, and you can direct your questions to Dr. Munch, Dr. Loewe, or Dr. Bromberg.

MR. WOLLNER: Dr. Munch, I would like to ask you, in respect to the statement made by Dr. Walton that Cannabis has been used as a relief during labor in the Far East, are you familiar with that general picture?

DR. MUNCH: Yes. I think that the product that is actually used there is not Cannabis itself, but one of these peculiar mixtures of datura and opium and hashish and other things.

Some of the reports refer to the women smoking the cigarettes for a period in labor, but they are not in agreement with the information I have gotten from the Mexicans or out in Nevada, for example, where they have tried it and found it of no value.

On the isolated tissues the solutions of the drug have no effect, or have a very mild, quieting action.

If I remove the alcohol, they have little effect,

Page 90

which means that the active principle is not sufficiently soluble in water to produce an action. So that I do not believe the action is very definitely therapeutic. It is more psychological, I believe, than it is physiological.

MR. WOLLNER: Who is Willis? One of them refers to the fact that Willis recommends its use in tedious labor where the patient is restless.

DR. MUNCH: Let me look at my copy of this book.

MR. WOLLNER: It is on page 156.

DR. MUNCH: Did you say “Willis”, Mr. Wollner?

MR. WOLLNER: Yes. On page 156, “EFFECTS DURING LABOR”. It starts out, “Willis recommended”.

DR. MUNCH: Willis has written a book on obstetrics and gynecology, but I cannot give you the reference to it right now.

MR. WOLLNER: All right.

DR. MUNCH: But he is one of the authors in that field. However, the work I was referring to more particularly was done by Watt (?) and Breyer-Brandwijh, which [sic] I believe is the co-author of the publication on poisonous plants in South Africa. I have had correspondence with Watt along that line.

Page 91

He refers to it in the last paragraph there after South Africa.

MR. WOLLNER: The reason I ask you that question is because of Dr. Bromberg’s remarks, which I interpreted as being indicative of the production of a hypersensitivity. Am I wrong in that, Dr. Bromberg?

DR. BROMBERG: A hypersensitivity?

MR. WOLLNER: On the part of an individual who uses Marihuana; that is, an increased agility.

DR. BROMBERG: The effects I refer to are on a motor activity. You refer to those, I presume?

MR. WOLLNER: Yes.

DR. BROMBERG: By which we mean the promptness to move either aimlessly or purposefully; that is, in acute intoxication the smoker is apt to dance around and move or wave his arms, or go through movements that are more rapid than he would move ordinarily; move his chair, knock it across the room, talk to people, show a general output of activity.

Many of those prisoners whom I have contacted state that they rather slow up or would rather be quiet during this period. There are two effects, in other words.

The hyperactivity is not universal. The great, ex-

Page 92

treme activity results in assault, throwing people around. This is similar to what you see in certain types of alcohol intoxication, so-called pathological intoxication, where a few drinks set a man off into a rampage, breaking things, throwing things around, and fighting. I think maybe men come in on that more than women because of the basic physiological pattern. They are more active anyhow. This refers to women, does it not?

MR. WOLLNER: Yes, sir.

DR. BROMBERG: Certainly the effects are not uniform and cannot be counterbalanced.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Doctor, regarding these 31 admissions out of 100,000, I think it would be interesting to know just what period they cover. Are they of recent origin, or are they scattered pretty well throughout the years? The reason that I bring that up is that the mental hospital at Burma showed, with the increased illicit traffic in Marihuana, the total admissions of insanity cases rose from .87 to 4.35%. I am wondering whether we can expect an increase in such cases, and also whether these 31 cases are more or less of recent origin.

Page 93

DR. BROMBERG: I can answer that by saying that the admissions already in the past four years of this type of Marihuana insanity is almost twice that which it was during the first four years of our observation, that is, three years of our observation period. Of course, you can realize that many other cases go to private hospitals which pass off without regulatory medical treatment, and there are other factors so great that I would not put much reliance on these figures. I merely give them to you as true data so far as we have available.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: We have been getting some reports from various sections of the country showing cases of alleged insanity due to Marihuana which have been brought to light. For instance, there were interesting developments in a case in Findlay, Ohio, concerning a fifteen-year-old boy who showed signs of being insane. When asked about his condition he made statements that he had been smoking cigarettes, and an investigation developed the information that there were two defendants, who were brothers, who were in charge of a playground, and they had been selling drugs that is, Marihuana cigarettes, to boys around there; and we found about sixteen pounds concealed above a garage owned by them. These fellows had

Page 94

stopped selling the drug, because they noticed signs of the boys acting queer, and they became frightened. They were particularly alarmed because of what they thought was an unusual appetite for the drug. We have a questionnaire whereby we ask Marihuana users involved in our cases, all sorts of questions. As a matter of fact, I would like now to revise that questionnaire, after what I have heard here. One-fourth of those users when asked what effect the drug has on them, say, “It gives me a good appetite.” “The first cigarette makes me feel hungry.” They become hungry after they smoke, have a heavy and exceptionally good appetite. That is their answer without prompting. Yet that question does not appear in the questionnaire. We ask them --- of course, we have to take their word for what they say --- whether they notice any permanent physical or mental effects, and they make statements which confirm the opinions of Dr. Munch and Dr. Bromberg. The answers are: “I believe it has affected my nerves.” “I can not keep my mind on one thing long enough to think clearly.” “Loss of memory”; “Very bad on nerves”; “Produces twisted thoughts”; “Affects my brain”; “Dulls my head.”

Page 95

“Causes me to become deaf”. “I think I’m more intelligent.” “Makes me tired”. “Hard to think” “Headache and weakness”. “Seemingly dulls senses”; and so on. Then the question is asked: “What effects do you obtain from smoking Marihuana?” I think most of the answers confirm what has been said about the distortion of space, time, vision and hearing. The auditory sensibilities are affected. We are running into a great deal of cases which have to do with illicit traffic among musicians. The next question is, “Have you acquired tolerance?” Quite a number of the users have developed a craving for Marihuana. Some of them stop after smoking few cigarettes, and there is no sign here that they increase the number that they smoke in a day. Some of them vary between one cigarette and twenty cigarettes a day. Others have smoked it once; some have smoked it for ten years.

MR. WOLLNER: I was wondering whether it would not be better, unless there are other specific questions, to postpone this portion of the Conference, which relates to bio-assay, which pertains to a chemist, because all of those questions are related, and go on with the rest of

Page 96

the program.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: All right, unless there are questions.

MR. WOLLNER: Dr. Loewe, do you wish to say some thing?

DR. LOEWE: Among other things, I have tried Marihuana’s action on a monkey, and I went to it with great hopes because I thought really that the psychic action would come out in this patient. The observations were that the monkey reacts like the dog, and is one more of the few laboratory species which really show the ataxia action. The other observation was that the monkey required higher doses per kilogram body weight than the dog, which was somewhat unexpected, and that all of the lower doses to which I have climbed up through the ratio of higher doses did not show anything which indicated a psychic action. The monkeys do not show this type of abnormality which occurs in Dr. Bromberg’s material. MR. WOLLNER: What is the relation in the dosage per kilogram of weight of dog and human being?

DR. LOEWE: The dog dosage per kilogram of weight and the human being per kilogram of weight, are fairly

Page 97

close. The higher doses used in humans are capable of showing the slightest ataxia symptoms, which would point to the fact that the dosage is almost the same.

DR. MATCHETT: This ataxia is never apparent in humans at all?

DR. LOEWE: I have no experience; I never saw it.

DR. BROMBERG: I never saw it either.

MR. WOLLNER: Have you any observations about ataxia symptoms comparable to those in dogs as to humans?

DR. BROMBERG: No; but I have never seen a large enough quantity, certainly not the tincture or the fluid extract.

Dr. Munch can perhaps answer that.

DR. MUNCH: I have given doses up to twice that re-cognized, but I have not noticed ataxia in students.

DR. LOEWE: There is one factor which, of course, is important, and it is a fact which we notice from tobacco smoking, and that is that the dosage in the form of the cigarette is probably high enough to produce great ataxic symptoms in humans by way of the administration of inhala- tion.

DR. HERWICK: I should like to ask Dr. Bromberg, clinically, whether there is a direct physiological addiction to this; that is, are withdrawal symptoms produced or do

Page 98

you think it is purely a psychic addiction?

DR. BROMBERG: My idea of habituation on this matter is different, and there happen to be several, and we should have the thing clarified. Habituation must rest on three cases, two of them being habit forming. The first are the symptoms appearing of withdrawal of the habit forming drug. The second is that the patient develops tolerance. The third is that because he needs more drug he gets the pleasure of addiction, and all medicine agrees that there must be withdrawal. A morphine addict becomes intolerant of withdrawal. He has abdominal pains and various symptoms. When morphine is given he feels better. And that is the basis of a well known treatment. Secondly, there are the people who take increasing doses to feel well. Those two are well acknowledged criteria. In the New York County jail, the physician in charge thinks he sees withdrawal symptoms, but the offenders are not allowed to discuss the offense with anyone except counsel. They say they did smoke it, or they did not. You do not know whether the symptoms are tied up with the

Page 99

drug.

So, I dare say that there are no clear withdrawal symptoms. The thing is not settled. Patients come in after being cut off without the drug. The third is addiction of pleasure-loving, and in that category comes smoking and colorful music and things of that nature. You can say that one has to have pleasure after he becomes addicted to luxury, and that can be looked upon as a valid psychiatric observation. So I would stop there and say that we can say that in the absence of other evidence, that it is essentially hedonistic addiction.

MR. WOLLNER: Dr. Loewe, you mentioned in your experiment on dogs that you had injected some of these extracts, but, nevertheless, in most of the experiments that had been previously done, I gather, the drug had been taken orally. Of course, we know the stuff is smoked. Your introduction of injection as a method of administration raises the question in my mind as to whether we might, at some future date, anticipate the use of that on humans, in this way? Is there any possibility of this sort? Similar to that which obtains in heroin, for example?

DR. LOEWE: Only after the isolation in pure form

Page 100

I would say, because, at the present time, by use. of the extracts it will not be an element in the whole picture to introduce it by intravenous injection. It has to be injected in alcohol solution, and a slight injection introduces a bad local infection, pain, and so on.

MR. WOLLNER: Why were you impelled to use it as an injection as a method of administration, rather than giving it to your dogs orally, Dr. Loewe?

DR. LOEWE: It goes faster. In view of the long period of latency, it is much more convenient to use it intravenously injected, because the peak of the curve is reached sooner.

MR. WOLLNER: Would you conclude from that that on dogs, for example, as a medium for standardization, that they are not as radically different when the stuff is in-jected as compared to when it is administered orally?

DR. LOEWE: Probably that is true, but only to an inconsiderable extent. In a slighter extent the variations have been reported by various examinators [sic] after oral administration.

MR. WOLLNER: Will you recommend it as the preferred procedure for bio-assay.

DR. LOEWE: I am not sure that I should give the preference to the intravenous way. I have to collect more

Page 101

experiences.

DR. MATCHETT: Are the effects otherwise identical?

DR. LOEWE: Identical.

MR. WOLLNER: The curve is more rapid; I mean you achieve the peak of the curve more rapidly.

DR. LOEWE: Comparatively more rapidly. Beginning after only twenty minutes, and reaching the peak after half an hour or an hour.

MR. WOLLNER: Your experiments with mice were continued under the same circumstances?

DR. LOEWE: No. As to mice, they were injected orally only.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: We can now go on to the sociological phases. In 88 users there were 86 males and only 2 females. I do not know if that holds true generally. We might have got off the rails on the selection, but that is what those figures show. There were 47 white, 20 colored, 15 Latin Americans. The age, of course, is much younger than among opium users. Most of the users were between 17 and 35. The greatest number was between 21 and 25. I believe that was true of a survey made in New York City of the users.

Page 102

MR. SMITH: We had 100 arrests there between January 1st and October 1st that ran: 99 Negro, 60 white, and 1 yellow; and the nativity, (and this nativity includes New York City and up-state New York:) 5 Mexican, 1 Chinese, 32 Puerto Rican, 2 Greek:, some from South America, Cuba, Panama, and other places with 130 native born. Then, in addition, I have 12 other cases, which to me were more interesting, because those persons who were held for crimes other than possession, and they ran such as unlawful entry, 3 for grand larceny, in addition to their possession; 1 for grand larceny, who admits he is a user. Of course, the other possessor cases probably were users, but they are charged with possession. One with felonious assault with a pistol and possession; One, exposure of person; one felonious assault, both users; and another, felonious assault with possession; and one a wayward minor who admits, in addition to using Marihuana, that he is using heroin; one with assault and robbery, and one who was a policy peddler. They were held on other charges, rather than on mere possession charges.

MR. WOLLNER: What is the distribution in sexes, there, Mr. Smith?

MR. SMITH: I have not the age nor sex distribution on those.

Page 103

In at least four cases up-state we can show a definite connection with prostitution. In one we had a good report, not proven, but a good report that the Negro who was in possession was also running a school, teaching youngsters how to smoke Marihuana. Actually, we are not certain about the facts as to that, but that is the report that has been current with that individual.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Do you have anything on occupations of the users? MR. SMITH: We have four as musicians, two as farmers, and those two farmers were actually growing Marihuana on their farms. Many of them state “unemployed”. But where most of those that report unemployed are laborers, they usually are associated with prostitution, policy, and some of the allied types of minor grade crimes. Prostitution, to me, seemed the most evident connection.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: In our 88, the occupation runs anywhere from bartender to unemployed. There are probably 50 different occupations, musicians are second to laborers,-of the 88.

The rest were distributed throughout the various

Page 104

occupations.

MR. SMITH: I can give you a breakdown on that section. I have it here in another portion of my data. There were 5 women arrested as sellers, and 8 women arrested for possession, and 147 males arrested for possession, and 7 for selling.

MR. WOLLNER: About 10 per cent.

MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: In our geographical distribution, we show the larger number of these around New York; a few in the New England areas; a few in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, several in the Middle Atlantic States, about 5 in the South, Kentucky and Tennessee, four; Michigan-Ohio, 13, Michigan-Ohio is second to New York. And then they string out through the rest of the States, with California probably third.

MR. SMITH: In States with equal population ratios, as to the metropolitan district, as against up-state New York, our arrests for Marihuana violations in the State, excluding New York City, are about 10 per cent; 15 cases, actually, against 160. They probably will vary, though, as to the development of prosecution and apprehension, as in the various up-state cities they are just beginning to realize in the

Page 105

last year that Marihuana is a problem, and the figures for 1938 will be higher than 1937. I expect 1939 will again be higher in up-state New York, so that that ratio of about 10 percent should rise.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Dr. Bromberg, you were about to start on the sociological phases. Will you give us the benefit of your views on that?

DR. BROMBERG: The material that I have collected comes from the Court of General Sessions. This is the criminal court of New York City. Our material is limited to New York County, although it must be remembered that the courts clientele comes from many sections of the country. We must also note that there are many racial types in our material. This is important, because the British investigators have noted in India that Cannabis does not bring out the motor excitement or hysterical symptoms among Anglo-Saxon users that occurs among natives. There are several other difficulties in selecting reliable material, one being the dependence on statements from prisoners without opportunity for objective tests or other corroborative checks, as in the case of other drugs, e.g., heroin or morphine. During the routine interviews of some 17,000 offend-

Page 106

ers during six and a half years, we have come across several hundred who have had direct experience with Cannabis. Their testimony checks with experimental results and clinical experiences in regard to symptomatology of intoxication, the absence of true addiction, and the negative connection with major crime. Especially is this noteworthy among sexual offenders, and in cases of assault or murder. The extravagant claims of defense attorneys and the press, that crime is caused by Marihuana addiction, demand careful scrutiny. The cases analyzed in this study cover a period of more than six years, from 1932 to 1938. Out of over 16,000 prisoners in this six-year period, 200 offenders were convicted of drug charges or found to be users of drugs, although convicted of other charges, in the Court of General Sessions. Cases of possession for sale are handled in the Court of General Sessions which has jurisdiction over felonies. There is no distinction made in the indictment in the Court of General Sessions as to the nature of the drug sold.

Of this group of 200 drug offenders, 67 were indicated to be users of Marihuana in any degree and for any duration of time whether convicted of the crime of selling Marihuana or another crime.

Page 107

The remaining 133 offenders were morphine or heroin users. It is important to note that the only measure of Marihuana usage is the statement of the offender. Since statements of use are conceived by them to be prejudicial to their interests in court, we meet evasion and denial fairly consistently. Our most reliable source of information is from those not arrested for traffic in drugs and questioned in the routine course of psychiatric study. Now, this leaves out thousands of smokers who were never arrested, people who were never arrested, and people that we deal with who were arrested for major crimes, including the one of selling drugs. Those people were all questioned about Marihuana. Those who were arrested for selling drugs, specifically Marihuana, were questioned as to the use of it. Some of those admitted using it, and some did not. All the criminological material that we have has to be taken with a very large dose of salt, and they are either convicted by the time we see them, or about to be, and are still frightened, and want to keep their fair records clean. The only useful record which we have in which we can

Page 108

throw out and include material as it sounds reasonable to us, and it is checked, so far as the use of the sociological aspects of it, and the effect of it, and so forth, so that in the General Sessions of Criminal Court the 87 cases of Marihuana users consisted of 21 whites (native born and European extraction), 23 Negroes, 20 Puerto Ricans (some of whom are considered to be racial mixtures), 2 Mexicans, and one Negro and Indian mixture. Of the 67 studied, 46 were convicted of possession and sale of drugs, and 21 other charges. Among the 21 cases convicted of crimes other than the possession of and sale of drugs, were eight charges of burglary, five of grand larceny, three of robbery, two of assault, one each of petit larceny, forgery, and first degree murder, and none of sexual offenses. Burglary, grand larceny, and robbery, then, account for 16 of the 21 cases. There were but two sex cases of any description in the history of the Marihuana cases, in both of which sodomy occurred as previous offenses. In three cases, the individuals were what might be called constant users of Marihuana. One of these had commenced to use the Marihuana three years previous to the current conviction; another, with a sixteen year record, indicated Marihuana, had been used for fifteen years; the third referred to his use of Marihuana as

Page 109

“several years” duration. None of the offenders reported any lasting effects from Marihuana. Interrogations as to the habit-forming nature of Marihuana were all answered in the negative by the prisoners. So that in the General Sessions of Criminal Court the 67 people who were offenders were involved in selling Marihuana or gave some history of using it. Most of those people had previous charges, not including drugs, as to being criminals of other types. The largest proportion were not drug users. The next largest number had no previous connection with the 67. Fifty had never been arrested for taking any drugs. This was their first contact with the court. These were all special cases in the Special Sessions Court, which deals with misdemeanors and other cases. Here, there were 202 cases. Thirteen were there on the first charge of any kind, that being a Marihuana charge. Those things do not mean very much to me, as they simply give a certain picture, a picture of people being picked up and brought in for using Marihuana, and there is not a very heavy weighted criminal record behind them. Drug users are not Marihuana users in the main. In the Court of Special Sessions in the same picture, in the same six-year period, of approximately 75,000 in-

Page 110

dictments for all crimes, there were 6,000 convictions for possession and use of drugs. Since neither the law, the district attorney, nor the police department make any distinction between the several kinds of narcotics, their arraignments or indictments, in Special Sessions as well as General Sessions, there were no figures from which to estimate the number of Marihuana users as distinguished from the number of users of other drugs. We therefore adopted a system of sampling the 6,000 cases in order to arrive at an approximate estimation of the total number of Marihuana users who came into conflict with the law. In this sampling, we examined the records of l,500 cases, or 25 per cent of the total of 6,000. Of these, 135 were Marihuana charges. From this, it was estimated that about 540 cases, or 9 per cent of all drug cases coming to Special Sessions over a period of six years, were users of Marihuana. Analyzing this sample of 135 cases, it was found that 93 had no previous record; 8 had a previous drug charge or charges, only; 5 had previous charges, including drugs; and 29 had records not including drug charges. Among those with longer records, that is, from four to seven previous arrests, none showed progression in crime from drugs to other crimes.

Page 111

In considering all the Marihuana cases in both General Sessions and Special Sessions Courts, a total of 202 convictions, it is an impressive fact that only 30 offenders had been arrested before for drug charges. This does not argue very strongly for Marihuana as a drug that initiates criminal careers. Where there is a series of crimes committed by one individual, our records show that he passes from other forms of crime to the use of drugs. Thus, in only three cases out of our series of 67, in which an arrest associated with Marihuana was recorded, did the criminal career start with the use of Marihuana, and in 7 cases out of 67 criminal activity started with other drugs. Ninety per cent of the group is accounted for by those who (1) have no criminal record except as drug users, and (2) have a previous record from which they turned to drugs This leaves a small minority of offenders whose criminal careers started with drugs and went on to other crimes like larceny, assault, and so on. As measured by the succession of arrests and convictions in the General Sessions cases (our only method of estimation), it can be said that drugs generally do not initiate criminal careers. Similarly, in Special Sessions, only 8 had previous charges of drugs, and 3.7 per cent has previous charges of drugs and other

Page 112

petty crimes. In the vast majority of cases in this group of 135, then, earlier usage did not apparently predispose these offenders to crime, even that of drug usage. Whether the first offender Marihuana cases go on to major crime can only be ascertained by referring to the findings of the General Sessions Courts. The expectancy of major crimes following the use of Cannabis, then, is small, according to our experiences The problem of habituation of Cannabis is one of grave importance According to the statements of confirmed heroin or morphine addicts, Marihuana is not a habit-forming drug. Naturally, where it is used in conjunction with heroin, morphine or cocaine another problem presents itself. Occasionally, an astute drug peddler will adulterate Marihuana cigarettes with morphine or heroin in order to retain his clientele. Care must be exercised in evaluating the question of Marihuana habituation, so that we are not dealing with this type of adulterated Cannabis.

The medical diagnosis of habituation depends on the accepted criteria of acquired tolerance and after-effect upon withdrawal of the drug. Regarding the subject of tolerance, users of Marihuana examined in the clinic universally state that an increase in dosage is not neces-

Page 113

sary to achieve the desired effect as time goes on. The increase in cigarette consumption, sometimes noted, is simply related to how often and how long the smoker wants to experience these effects. As to the question of withdrawal symptoms, cases have never, to the knowledge of the writer, been observed systematically in an environment where control of the drug can be exercised. Although of secondary value in deciding the problem of habituation, it should be noticed that experience with experimental subjects indicates that after usage of the drug and its cessation no withdrawal symptoms are reported.

It has not been possible to observe satisfactorily Marihuana users upon their entrance into custody to establish their behavior after cessation of usage. For one thing, the law does not allow questioning of a defendant prior to trial regarding his charge. The history of the offense cannot be discussed except with counsel, but an offender can be questioned in the course of medical treatment. The fact that Marihuana cases do not request medical treatment upon their incarceration argues for the absence of withdrawal symptoms. As is well known, morphine, opium, etc., users become violently ill upon being taken in custody, away from the

Page 114

source of their drug, and are vociferous in their demands for treatment. Nevertheless, the wide discrepancies between the reports of other jurisdictions and ours in the question of addiction to Cannabis demands a serious attempt to establish the facts in the case. Up to March 26, 1938, Cannabis was classed as a habit-forming drug in Section 1751 of the Penal Code, based on Public Health Law, Article 22, Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. Due to difficulty in this Court in proving it to be a habit-forming drug (case of People vs. Williams), the Law Revision Commission, appointed by the New York State Legislature, was requested to amend the Penal Code to read “narcotic” rather than “habit-forming” drug. From a legal point of view, therefore, the problem of whether it is habit-forming or not is not vital in this and many other States, since its use as a narcotic by un-authorized persons is an offense. The writer believes it highly desirable and important that a Commission be appointed to examine the matter scientifically as was done in the case of narcosan and other reputed drug cures in 1921 at the Bellevue Psychopathic Hospital under Commissioner Patterson of the Department of Correction.

Page 115

The most that one can say on the basis of ascertainable facts is that prolonged Marihuana usage constitutes a “sensual” addiction, in that the user wishes to experience again and again the ecstatic sensations and feelings which the drug produces. Unlike morphine addiction, which is biochemically as well as psychologically determined, prolonged Marihuana usage is essentially in the services of the hedonistic elements of the personality. Those are the main conclusions I have developed from that. Then we took the cases of the Marihuana users and tried to break those down. It indicates that no murderers were found among this group of 67, not one murder committed in these six or seven years by a Marihuana user. There were no sex cases among these 67. We have, however, seven hundred odd sex cases, from first degree rape down to exhibitionism, and in the course of the six or seven years not one of them was a Marihuana user, according to history or physical examination. At the time of our examination, two of them had sex cases in their history some years before. One was sodomy, and the other some other type of offense. Of all of these people, only three called themselves

Page 116

constant users. One for three years and twelve months, and the others nine months. There is one other point which I would like to mention and that is the case of a man named Joseph Ogden who is reported among others in Mr. Merrill’s paper as having been an addict. I saw him and spent some time with him. He was a psychopathic individual. I think he had been in the State hospital at Lexington, and had had several other arrests. But nothing in his history indicated Marihuana. In other words, the newspaper accounts must be discounted. The fact of the matter was that he had not even been a drug addict, but was a homosexualist. The offender was murdered by him and shoved into a trunk. I do not know whether he disarticulated his arms or not, but he sent the trunk to the express station, and they saw blood oozing out of it, and picked him up. He told the story rather frankly. It was a horrible crime. I think Marihuana was innocent of that. I am sure of that, because I have been able to check that very carefully.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: We have observed two cases of sex crimes where we have been able to prove the connection with Marihuana.

Page 117

A boy named Perez, in Baltimore raped a ten-year-old girl, and of course he blamed it on Marihuana. It so happened that, just a year before that, Perez had been picked up by the Baltimore police for the sale of 2,500 grains of Cannabis, and got three months in jail. This sex offense happened the following year. And there is another case down in Corpus Christi that we have been able to establish, where an oil worker with a good reputation, obtained and smoked a cigarette, after which he raped his young daughter. Those are two cases that I know of in which we have proof. In the case of Perez, we do not know what else might have been wrong with him, but he was definitely a user and a seller of Marihuana. I believe that Mr. Smith has had a great deal of experience up through New York State.

MR. SMITH: We have had one case in the last two or three months, which has been of great interest to the Motor Vehicle Department. A youngster in Mount Kisco, close to New York City, was involved in an automobile accident in that village by hitting three parked cars during the evening. When he was apprehended by the police, he literally tore the officer’s blouse from his shoulder,

Page 118

and he had great difficulty in subduing him. During the evening, they first thought it was alcohol, but later the youngster admitted having used a “reefer”. From the information we obtained from him, we apprehended an individual who was growing it, and I think we picked up about six pounds. We had another case farther up-state, not as well established, but apparently pretty well shown, of the inability of the automobile driver to perceive distance and speed. So that factor will be of considerable interest to those interested in traffic control. Because of that recent case in White Plains, we have had some inquiry from the State Motor Vehicle Department, and they arc considering, I believe, the advisability of revoking the licenses of operators who can be shown to be users of Marihuana, in the same fashion that we are now able to do after showing evidence of narcotism.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Is that in your State law now?

MR. SMITH: No, sir, it is not in our State law now. In fact, I do not know if it was decided that we could get away with it, but through the Motor Vehicle Department we could, as one of the requirements in the matter of

Page 119

ability on the questionnaire in New York up-state you have to state whether or not you use narcotic drugs.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Marihuana users, when arrested, want to fight. Their motor impulses seem to be working It takes, sometimes, four or five officers to subdue a man, and they sometimes wreck the living quarters in doing so. We do not have anything like that in arresting opium users. The agents proceed very cautiously when arresting a Marihuana user.

MR. SMITH: It conflicts with alcohol which seem to be the worst cases yet, and we have had a few cases who used both. Those are perhaps the few that you have run across. Then, of course, we have those who have just been on the reefer alone.

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER, I have noticed a tendency towards more gunplay among Marihuana users than among opium users.

MR. SMITH: Than among opium users?

COMMISSIONER ANSLINGER: Yes. And there has been some gun play. The first case that we arrested under the Marihuana Act, (I happened to have been present in the Denver court

Page 120

when they brought this fellow up before the judge.) had been a user for a number of years. He was only 23 years old, but many of his arrests were for assault. I have noticed that many of these violators have a record of assault. In Wilmington, Delaware, there was the case of John Rhodes, who attacked an officer with a knife and was shot and killed resisting arrest.

MR. SMITH: I have four out of twelve in one city where the charges, in addition to possession, are assault. Continue

Top

Copyright © 1996-2008, Global Hemp, Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks are acknowledged as belonging to their respective owners.

Web site design by Eric Pollitt Design Group