California School _H_e_a_l_th_ t 19GB, ~, 40-54.

PSYCHEDELIC DRUG USAGE:PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

BY

GARY FISHER. Ph.D.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

In the Task Force report on Tarcotics and Drug Abuse stated that public andand Drug Abuse of the President's Com- professional education in the field ofmission on Law Enforcement and Ad- narcotic and drug abuse was totally in­ministration of Justice, Blmn (1967) adequate. Concerning drug use andpoints Oll t the large credibility gap de- abuse, they felt that misconceptions,velopC'd by those agencies which' have misinformation and persistent fallaciesbeen responsible for educating the continued to prevail. The Commissionyoung on the effects of dangerous drugs. was critical of the federal governmen tHe states, in that measures have not been taken to

"Review of some of the texts and pam- correct this state of affairs which hasphlet materials that have been employed in existed for a ·eonsiderable period of time.the past, and casual ulterviews with stu- ComJ)lexities in EUectsdents, suggest that much of this material That an individual's response to a par­may be out of date and blatantly incorrect, tieular dnlg is a function of at least hisbut also conducive to ridicule and conse- physiology, his psychology, and the socio-quent counter-rcactions among the nowoftcn wcll-inf0n11cd youngsters. Demands cultural situation of which he is a partnot to usc malijuana bascd on arguments is now well recognized by many scien­against sin or self-indulgence may not be tists working in the drug field (e.g.,appropriate to sophisticated secular and Barber, 1967; fogal', 1966; Savage, Ter­metropolitan areas. Arguments against use rill & Jackson, 1962). Reviewing the.based on claims of dramatically deleterious placebo effect in medical research giveseffect which are contrary ,~o what is known some runt of the importance of thecannot command respcct. psychological factors to drug reactions.Blum goes on to point out that if a per- In the practice of medicine, Honigfeld .suasive approach is going to be used (1964) estimates that between 20% andwith an interested and infonned target 40% of prescliptions \\'littcn by physi­group then opinion and data which ad- cians are intended to have a placebo'dress themselves to both sides of an ar- eITect rather than some specific physio­gument arc most likely to be taken se- logical one. vVhen one reviews the un­riously. Educational attempts to contTol toward effects of placebos, includingextra-medical drug usc most present a rashes, anxiety states, nausea, dian-hea,rational approach which is based on mental aberrations of all variety, it isobjective, realistic and scientific apprai- amazing that legislation has not beensal of the numerous variables which eon- passed making the possession of a pla­tribute to any specific results from drug ceho illegal!usage. The evaluation' of such educa- 0 innate conflict exists between wha ttional programs n1ust of course be is heneficial for an individual and wha tstudied, and tho educator must he in is beneficial for his society in that if oneconstant contact witll changing concH- is creatively developing his potentials,tions reslllling in additional information he inherently cannot do this at the ex­so that he will not fall behind the de- pense of his society because his societygree of sophistication of his charge. is part of his environmcn.t, \\ hose actll-

The 1967 Commission on Narcotics alization makes it possible for him to

California School Health\

actualiz ~ himself. Because the individualand his environment (society) are OIlC

unit, w llat is good for him is good forhis cnvi ronment and what is <Toad for, 0

his environment is good for him. Thisconcept is organismic in that individualand society are seen as contiibuting toeach others' fulfillment.

If society is perpetuating practiceswhich are alien to complete experientialand lIni fled being, then the' individualwill sufT r. Equally tnlC is the fact thatif a.n individual is indulging in practices~vlu~h are limiting his complete function­mg 1Il flilfillin<T his CaIJahilities then sa-

o 'ciety will suffer.

Thera/Jeu/ie UsesTI10 proponents of psychedelics point

out that the vast body of research thathas been can-ied out to explore the thera­peutic efficacy of the psychedelics hasdemonstrated their effectiveness as apsychotherapeutic tool. They point outthat if these drugs are used underproper medical supervision and ade­quate oontrol, subjects are likely to haveexperiences \\'hich are psychologicallymeaningful to them and which ha\ e longterm efTeets. ''''hen lIsed properly, Sav­age and Stoloroff (1965) claim that thehazards "can be reduced to negligihleconsideration." This altitude is sharedby many othcr investigators (e.g., Blew­ett and C}1\vc!os 1958· HaIreI' 1965·Mogar, 1966). " , , ,

The lack of epidemiological researchwith rcgard to illicit psychedelic usagehas been pOinted out by many peopleinvestigating the effccts of ,these drugs.It is currently popular even for the pro­ponents of LSD to state that they onlyfavor the usc of these mat 'rials undermedical' or otherwise properly profes­sionally .supcrvised scttings. It must bepointcd out that there is no evidencethat the tmto\vru:d effects of LSD underlay or non-supervision is any greater thanthat under medical and/or professionalsupcrvision. It is true that individuals

Winter 1968

'~.:.'.have been hospitalized for psychosesand other dysfunctional bchavior follow­ing use of psychedelics, but the 1'ate ofuntoward effects for non-professionallysupervised drug experiences is as yet un-known. -

That the standard American analyticpsychiatric-medical model is not har­moniolls to the production of the psyche­delic experience 'is recognized by n1•.:myprofessionals who have had experiencewith the psychedelics. It has even beensuggested that the typically trainedpsychiatrist is the least appropriate p('r­son to be administering the psychedelics.The hippie community has taken theEastern «guru" (spiritual guide) nlodcland the affinity of Eastern religion andthe psychedelic expeIience has beenwidely discussed (eg., Bric~-nlan, 1967;Huxley, 1954, 1962; Van Dusen, 1961).The Tibctan Book of thc Dead, a reli­gious book used by Tibetan Buddhistswith those who are dying, has been ad­apted for use in LSD sessions (Leary,Alpert and :M tzner, 1964). ' ,

,Many of the more mature and respon­sihle individuals within the hippie move- ,ment recognize the abuse of these nla­terials by young people and attempt totrain them in the productive use ofpsychedelics in the role of guru, takingthe role of therapist when dealing \\riththose who have subsequent untoward ef- ,fects. It has been suggested that a new«discipline" is needed, that of the onowho "sits" with the onc who is takingLSD. Laura Huxley (1968) has sug­gestcd that the determination of thisindividual is more important tklll thedetennination of the one who takes thedrug.

HoIrer (1965) in a long I' 'vic\\' of LSDconcludedUsa far there have been no thcr'1pcuticstudies in whieh LSD has been used as apsychedelic agent where similar successrates were not found. It is odd that therehave been no negative papers."

It is interesting to observe that some

41

of Ill· arly \\'orkcrs with LSD wcre onlyawar of its PS} chotomimctic cfFect­that is, its ability to produce psychosis­like sl:ltes. HofFcr and Osmond who ini­tial d much of the work descdbed th~ircady rationale as follows:"'v\ c hoped that a frightful experience whichmodel ~d the worst in natural delirium. tre­me/lS could persuade our alcoholic patientsnot to drink any more, and so avoid deliriumtremens. But by 1957 it was apparent thatevcn though many of our patients werehelped by LSD, it was not its psychoto­mimctic activity which was responsible. Inspite of our best efforts to produce such anexperience, some of our subjects escaped.into a psychedelic experience." (Hoffer1965) ,

O. mond and Huxley. coined the wordpsych ddic meaning "mind-manifesting"simply because they discovei'cd that peo­ple were having transcendental expe­riences and discovering insights throughexpansion of their consciousness.

In the treatment of intractable neu­rotics, encouraging results have been re­ported. In a group of 36 subjects, all ofwhom had failed to respond to otherforms of treahnent and who were candi­dates for leukotomy because of such..extreme tension, 14 had complete recov­eries and 7 were improved with treat­ment (Sandison, 1954; Sandison, Spencer.a~d 'Vhitelaw, 1954). In a larger seriesof 94 neurotic subjects who had not re­sponded to a variety of earlier treat­ments, 65% were improved after LSDtreatment ( Sandison and VVhitelaw1957). '

In the review of LSD treahnent ofalcoholics by ten different investigators,of a total of 245 subjects for which fol­low'up data \vere available, 70% wereconsidered improved. In a larger sampleof over 1,000 alcoholic subjects, Hofferand his CO-\vorkers concluded that LSDwas hvice- as effective as any other treat­ment program (Magar, 1966).

Some work has been done with incar­cerated felons with promising results

42

(Leary, ~·Iet?;11er &.\Vcil, 1965). Sul-:>jcctswel;e 32 inmates in Concord State Prisonwho met with one clinical psychologistbi-weckly for six weeks. T\\o of thetwelve sessions were group drug (1:> sylo­cibin) experiences, with the therapisttaking the drug with the inmates. 0 thermeetings 'were devqted to discussing rna­tClials emerging from the drug sessions.The criterion for success was decrease inrecidivism. Expectancy rates for recidi­vism with tltis group was that 64%would return within six months after

. parole. However, at six month follo'Vllp,30% of those on parole had retmned, 6for technical violations and 2 for newoffenses. These results are very drarnaticwhen compared with other rehabilitationprograms conducted in prison stu. dies.In addition, it is interesting to note thatalthough almost all plisoners were semi­literate more than half of thenl had mys­tical experiences. (In this Wliter's ,,",arkwith autistic and schizophrenic children,he was amazed to discover mystical ex­pCliences occurring with this group andalso amazed to learn of their ability tocommunicate verbally such experienceseven though thes~ children did not typ­ically speak.)

Two studies differ markedly with. re­spect to the manner in which a numberof variables, thought to be inB.uen­tial in detennining response to LSD,were handled. The first study byMcGlothlin, Cohen and McGlotl1lin( 1967) examined the effects of LSDwhen given to non-motivated subjects in

.a neutral and atherapeutic enviromnentwhereas the study by Savage, Fadin1ari,~/Iogar and Allen (1966) studied the ef­fects of highly motivated subjects in anenvironment maximized to producebeneficial effects.

In the McGlothlin study the subjeetswere not motivated to take LSD, did notknow if they were actually going to begetting LSD in the expeximent, did nothave any particular set established or

California School Health

('\pcclations about the effccts LSD\\'01 dd have. In addition, the cxperi­111l'llters played a ncutral role both inlllal lhe) did not ~lIggcst 10 the subjectlIla t he \vas going to have any particularn'~ponsc and in that they did not haveall)' preconceived notions about whatthe actual response of the subject wouldbe. Of the many expCliments reportedon the usefulness of LSD, perhaps thisres arch is one of the best examples ofdispassioned interest on the part of theinv ·stigators.

The subjects were normal graduatemale studentS who had responded to ana<.lvcrtiscment for paid experimentalsuhjects. 0 mention of psychedelicdrugs was made-in the advertisement.Of the 155 subjects, 73% had only casualknowledge of LSD, and 15% had neverheard of it (The research was begunin 1964, before LSD became popularlyknown.) These students were told theymight- or might not receive LSD and1~1% expressed enthusiasm over the pos­sibility of receiving the drug, 23% ex­pressed concern over the safety of thedrug, and 63% were simply curious asto what the effects might be, having noexpectation of lasting effects, eitherbeneficial or detrimental. A total of 72subjects, equally divided into threegroups, were used. One group received20 mg. of amphetamine, another groupreceived 25 meg. of LSD and the thirdgroup received 200 meg. of LSD. Of the24 receiving the high dose of LSD onlyone subject was terminated because ofan untoward reaction to the drug.

At a six-month followup, half of theLSD subjects reported a greater under­standing of self and others and a greaterintrospection and reflectiveness. A thirdof the LSD subjects reported that theywere less easily disturbed by frustratingsituations, that they had a greater toler­ance toward those \vith opposing view­points, and llad a tendency not to takethemselves so seriously.

Winter 1968

In addition, 70% of these suhjcctsstated that the experience was a dra­matic and intcresting one, whereas onlyS% stated that they found it unpleasantand disturbing. Fifty-nine percent re­ported positive, lasting effects after sixmonths with 17% claiming pron ouncedlasting, positive effects on personalityfunctioning. .

These investigators gave a pletl10ra ofpsychological measures before and sixmonths after the LSD experience andconcluded that these individuals whoplace emphasis on structure and control.«gener~lly had no taste for the experienceand tend to respond minimally if exposed.Those who respond intensely tend to pre­fer a more unstructured, spontaneous, in­ward-turning (though not socially intro­verted) lives and scored somewhat higheron tests of esthetic sensitivity and in1agina­tiveness. They also tend to be less aggressive,less competitive, and less conforming."

\Vhat is noteworthy about this re-o search is that when these subjects took

LSD in a neutral envir{)lID1ent \vith noparticular set or -expectation in 0 terms ofresponse to the drug, a considerable pro­pOltion had beneficial effects whereas avery small percentage had an unpleasanteffect. Only one subject was terminatedfrom the e:-.:periment because of his un­toward reaction which was described asan unrealistic, grandiose reaction \vhichslowly subsided. Consequently, it \vouldappear that when normal subjects, 'vith­out any particular expectation, take LSDthe likelihood of their having beneficialeffects is fairly good and the likelihoodof having lasting untoward effects isextremely small.

In sharp contrast to the methodologyof the ~/lcGlothlin study is the study ofSavage, Fadiman, lvlogar, and Allen(1966). These subjects were highly mo­tivated to take LSD as evidenced by thefact that each had to wlite an extensiveautobiography which was then used asa basis for weekly interviews of up toeight weeks; each was required to par-

43

l i ipatc in cxtell -ive, psychological tcst- ing and open communicalion \\lilh thcseillg; each was gh cn carbon dioxide. ther- members; more cnjoymcnt and intcrcst:IPY at the end of each intcr icw hour;' in one's work; greater a)Jility to modifyand each had to pay the medical costs ' one's own behavior on the basis of ob­of treatment. Evcn aftcr such extensi e servation of that behavior; improvementpr paration, only 60% of the patients in friendship patterns and general rela­were actually chosen to be given the tions, with non-intin1ates.drug. Of 77 individuals receiving LSD, In 'addition, bet\veen 60% and 75%l wo thirds were described as being typ- of these patients were ratcd as improvedieal of an outpaticnt psychiatric clinic on the following sub-scales: personalcaso load, whereas one third seemed habits, health, religious activities, sexual"relatively nOllllal in tcrms of defense pattcrns and fear. Six percent of theslructure and supcrficial adjustment to sample was rated ,as worse on the f~I­

life, but complained of lack of pmvose, lowing sub-scales: health, cating habitslack o.f meaning in life, or a sense of lack and preferences, fears, and nlaniage.of fulfillmcnt." The dosage level used was These untoward reactions revolveds rnc\vhat comparable to that employed around' greater fatigue and n1ild indi­by :McGlothlin in that dosage was frOIn gestion, weight gain or weight loss,200 to 300 lncg. of LSD with 200 to 300 ,greater awareness of fears, and three pa­lng. of mescaline sulphate "one hour bents had difficulty in their marriages.later if nccessary." A difference between the ~/lcGloth1in

At six months' interval, the subjects and the Savage studies is that in thewcre re-evaluatcd on the psychological fonner study there ,vere very little dif-,instnllnents as wcll as evaluated on a feI'ences on psychological measures be­number of other ratings. On global staff tween pre-drug and post-drug scoresratings, 46% of the subjects wcre consid- whereas in thc latter study there wascrcd to bc moderately or markedly im- ' considerable improvement in psycholog­provcd, 37% were considered mi.nimally ical adjustment as reflected on the'improved, whereas 17% were considered psychological tests between pre-drugunchanged and only one was considered and post-drug scores.worse. A compmison of these hvo studies

On a scale consisting of 433 questions would indicate more bene£cial resultsconcerning behavior change, 75% of the from LSD when the subjects are highlypatients were rated as improved in the motivated for psychedelic treatment andfollowing areas: the ability to utilize where the total setting is one of positivedremTI matelial; attending and involving expectation that the psychedelic treat­oneself in leisure and entertainment ment will be beneficial. In addition, inareas for its own sake ratller than as spite of Savage's subjects' being psychi­distraction; greater interest in work itself atric cases, only a very small percentagewith less need for status and reoognition reported tlle occurence of dysfunctionalfor one's work; improved relations in behavior, following psychedelic treat-

fi b ment.marriage as exempli ~d y fewer quar-rels, greater. communication, greater \-\lith respect to the dangers of psyche-shared interests and activities, and gen- dclie treatment, Savage stated:

1 f "The issue of safety has been debated forera satis action with the marriage; nearly a decade without resolution. Our owngreater self-confidence; and grcater ca- feeling is that LSD used properly is an im­pacity to tolerate and integrate negative portant addition to therapy and that LSDand positive feelings; increased ability to misused is a velY dangerous drug and thatrelate to family members witll more shar- l(;mg-term adverse reactions have occurred

44 California School Health

:111<) will OCCUI" in persons taking it. \Ve makea sharp distinction between psychedelict IlI'rapy and ingesting LSD, IJ1escaline, orn·latcd substances. Used \ ith ordinary cau­l it 1Il, by persons trained in their use, we(ill{) the substanccs safe and valuable in thefr,III1cwork describcd here."

The'induction of a "psychosis" is reacli­Iy stated as one of the harmful effectsof I,SD. Recently papers commenting onnaturally OCCUlTing psychedelic expeli­<.:11<:CS in non-drug induced psychosishave appeared (e.g., Do\\ ers & Freed­man, 1966; Laing, 1967; i\Iogar, inpress). That a psychosis can be usedproductively and meaningfully has beenknown by those in the arts and religion(e.g., Docstevsky, 19·1-1; Hemi, 1923;1h.'sse, 19:29.) It is not an uncommonohservation by those who have hadnl t I nerOllS drug e:q)eriences that them().~t "productive" sessions, i.e., thosemost effective in subsequently changingth'ir lives, were those sessions whichwero PS} chotomimetic-i.e., hell ("bum­mers" in current hippie parlance). Oftenthese hellish expeliences are but mereprophetic revelations detailing the endstage of a path that one is vigorouslypurslling. Thus the motivation for changeis intense.The Politics of Drugs

Effects of t'farijuana.: Research studiesinvestigating the physiological additionto malijuana have found that it is notaddicting (Chopra & Chopra, 1957; Siler,1933; \Vi]]iams, 19-16). There are appar­ently no long-term physical effects re­sulting fr·om the use of marijuana in theUnited States (Fliedman and Rothmore,1946). It would also appear thatbhang, the mild form of cannabis usedin eastenl countries, is also "harmless al­though excessive use will cause suscepti­bility to disease" (\Valton, 1938). Onework"'r felt that cannabis could cause apsychotic reaction but that this wasquite rare. (Bromberg, 1934; Bromberg,1939).

In Eastern countries, excessive use of

Winter 1968

..

the much stronger preparations of can­nabis apparcntly can cause psychosisand 0 erall physical and men Lal dete­rioration. However, with the use ofmarijuana in tbis country it is the gen­eral consensus that there is not a can­nabis psychosis syndrOlne and that theuse of marijuana will not cause a psy­chotic reaction in a well integrOatcd per­sonality (Allentuck and Bowman, 1942).

\\ ith respect to the effects of maIi­juana, Dr. James H. Fox, Acting Chiefof the Center for Studies of arcoticsanel Drug Abuse of the .J. ational Insti­tutc of 11Iental Health, has said of maIi­juana"It does not lead to mental degeneracy, itdoesn't disturb the brain cells as far as weknow; it is not habit forming as it is usedhere in the United: States, that is does nottherefore fall within the general categoly ofdrugs, as in the terms of the \Vodd HealthOrganization, that would lead one to believethat it is an addicting dmg. I don't believethat it is." (Ginsberg & Fox, 1966).

The 1962 \Vhite House Conference on .Narcotic and Drug Abuse stated:"It is the opinion of the panel that theh, zards of marijuana per se have been exag­gerated and that long criminal sentencesimposed on an occasional user or possessorare in poor social perspective,"

The report of the President's CrimeCommission in 1967 made a strong rec­ommendation for revising 111aIijuanalaws and in addition made a strongrecommendation that a comprehensiveresearch program should be underta.kenas to the efFects of marijuana.

To the question of whe~1er or not hethought marijuana should be legalizedFox stated that he felt that it shouldnot, on two grounds. One, was that anofficial from Lebanon told him that they\Vcre concerned about malijuana addic­tive possibilities in the Ncar East andseoondly, that he didn't knO\v what wasgood about it. Fox, as chief of a researchcenter on dnlgs should be aware thatno one has been able to demonstrate

45

scienl i lIcal1y whether marijuana has sub­stantial beneficial effects because re­seardl to investigate the possible effectshas lK n prohibited. If l1uuijuana is amild psychedclic, and if the bulk of evi­dClIco demonstrates that the str6ngerpsy<:l\l'dclics are beneficial there is somelogic ill postulating that there could beben ,fits derived frOIn the mild psyche­delic, Tnmiju.ana.

Ginsberg (1966) is rather poetic aboutthe lIsefu]ness of marijuana. He states:"Altholl. ' h most scientific authors who pre­sent their reputable evidence for the harm­lessncss of marijuana make no claim [or itssmprising usefulness, I do make that claim.~larijl1ana is a useful' catalyst for specificoptical and aural aesthetic perceptions. Iapprehcndcd the structure of certain piecesof jazz and classical music in a new mannerunder the influence of marijuana, and theseapprehensions have remained valid in yearsof normal consciousness. I first discoveredhow to see Klee's Magic Squares as thepaintcr intended them (as optically three­uimensional space structures) while high onmarijuana. I perceived (<<dug") for the firsttime Cezanne's 'petit sensation' of spaceachieved on a two-uimcnsional canvas (bymeans of advancing and receding colors,organization of tJiangles, cubes, etc. as thepainter describes in his letters) while look­ing at The Bathers high on marijuana. AndI saw anew many of nature's panoramas andlandscapes that I'd stared at blindly with­out even noticing before; through the useof marijuana, awe and detail were madeconscious. These perceptions are permanent- any dcep aesthetic experience leaves atrace, and an idea of what to look for thatcan be checked back later:'

This description of this effect of mari­juana is, of course, very similar to thosemany descriptions of such experiences asreported by nU111erOUS .subjects with thestronger psychedelic agents.

The PoJJlllm- Press, Legislatorsaml Public Opinion

In 1965 Savage and Stolaroff, lament­ing the popular press' coverage of LSD,

46

L------------~~----

cite 11 articles on LSD which appearedin national magazines in which a sensa­tionalistic attitude was taken emphasiz­ing the dangers and ha1111f.ulness of thesedrugs.

Savage and Stolaroff point out thatthis type of press coverage left"the reader' unaware that there had beennumerous studies of these agents as treat­ments for neurotic disturbances, and thatencouraging success has resulted from theiruse. These substances show such promisefor deepening the understanding of mentalphenomena, clarifying the many complextheories of personality, dynamics and be­havior, and permitting rapid solution ofemotional difficulties."

Ginsberg (1966) points up the tre­mendous influence of the press in form­ing public opinion and points out someof the sequelae which he considers to bea consequence of the type of newspaperreporting that is done.

A' famous incident is that of the fiveyear old Brooklyn girl who ate a sugarcube of LSD which she found in the ice­box of her home. The New York Post,April 6, 1966, headlined "Girl Eats LSDand Goes vVild." The story emphasizedthe dangerous effects of LSD statingseveral people had died as resul t of LSDboth from committing suicide becauseof .the hallucinations produced by thewugs and others because of the toxiceffects q,f the drugs. In fact, no knowndeaths have occurred from tm.icity fromLSD. In fact, the suicide rate as relatedto LSD use is extremely low.

A systematic study of LSD inducedsuicide by Cohen (1960), \\ ho collectedinformation from 44 investigators onsome 5,000 patients and experimentalsubjects who received LSD or mescalineon some 25,000 occasions, reported thaton the patient sample the attempted sui­cide rate was 1.2 per 1,000 cases and forcompleted suicides 0.4 per 1,000 cases.

California School Health

."

guilty as the promulgator of the lie. Aslong as man's unconsciousness is excitcdby man's inhumanity to man, storiesemphasizing that inhumanity \vill con,.,tinue to be given top billing.

That a great body -of JiteraUlfC re­,porting on the psycho-therapclltie ef-fcctiveness of psychedelic drugs isavailable is totally ignored. That theindividuals who are in charge of theeducation of children obtain thcir infor-mation from the popular press is unfOliu­nately true. Few counselors, health edu­ca.tors, and teachers take the h·ouble todiscover the original articles in the pro-fessional periodicals reporting the re­sults of research on psychedelic drugs.

jVlcGlothlin (in press) does not feelthat collection of additional evidence onthe' relative harmlessness of malijuana

, would be effective'in changing laws. HeHe feels that a modification of the mari­juana laws would depend nl11ch more ona change in public attitude ~nd tl1at thispublic attitude is velY much dependenton the type of infornlation that is re­ported in the popular press., Blum and Funkhauser (1965) con­ducter a selies of interviews with 50CalifOlllia state legislators in 1964 whowere sitting on committees which processdrug legislation. The oonclusions of that

'shidy were:"Drug abuse is considered to be a majorsocial threat by the majority of Californialegislators. Holding key positions of knowl-

, edge and power with respect to drug issues,their reaction to this threat, renee ted inpresent law and practice, is to try to influ­ence human conduct through punishmentand confinement, measures which arethought to contain rather than to solve theproblem. Treatment is considered, but forthe most part is limited to within-institution'programs. ~bny lawmakers feel that thepresent approach is inadequate and a fewthink it inhumane. Although many proposalsfor new legislation called for more of thesame, in the sense that harsher laws andstronger controls are advocated, a minorityof legislators are actively interested in new

\

For the xpcl"imental subjects there wcre110 attemptcd or complctcd suicides.

Thus, the newspapcr was rather gross­ly inaccurate in rcporting the facts. Inaddition, the Post's story of this inci­dcnt one clay later continued with the,lill " «LSD Girl Clinging to Life." Thestory statcd «the blonde little Brooklyngi r I was reported' still in vcry criticalcondition 18 hours after doctors pumped'h 'I" stomach and treatcd her for con ul­sions." Quoting a hospital aide, thestory said «light now it is at the graveor serious stage, very critical. Silent, inan apparent coma, her face pale anddrawn, glucose was being fed intra-\ cnously into her right ann, both wrists.wcre lied to the crib bars wi th gauzeso she could not thrash about."

Ginsberg reports that when he madeinquiries to the New York Post inan attempt to find out who wTote thestory was told that «the city editorwanted it souped up a little bit. I knowit's not true, but who cares. It's just a .news story, what are you getting so madabout, Ginsberg?" (Ginsberg & Fox,1966). After the blatant initial newsdrama subsided, the facts of the caseappeared to be that the child afterbeing admitted to the hospital, was~)l.ac d on the critical list because phys­ICIanS had not previously had a case ofa child who had taken LSD. She 'waskept under close observation to Shldyany untoward effects. Apparently, no un­toward effects occurred and she was re­leased. Ginsberg claims tl1at on thebasis of this type of reporting law en­forcement agencies bought pressure onlegislatures to pass prohibitive ICCTisla-

. 0

hon concellling these dnlgs and thatpuhlic support is engendercd for thistype of legislation. .

That the man in the street takes anuncritical eye toward what he is tolddocs not place pressure on the mcdia toreport accurately and objectively. Saidsomewhat more simply, ilie reader is as

Winter 196847

approaches. Their willingness to exploreand inno\'ate is not rcDectcd, according tothe reports of all the legislators, in the opin­ions of the electorate."The public is generally said to be stronglyin raVOf of punishment and confinement'lI1el, in their own eyes, a good many. legis­lators are more liberal than the people theyrC'prcsent. Prcsent positions on legislativealtcl11atives in the handling of drugs andllscrs varv according to the drug under dis­cussion. 'About LSD, for example, manyh;l\'e no present convictions and are quiteopen to informed proposals. The hard coreone-third will stand by the present tightcontrol laws. \Vith marijuana, a far milderdrug than LSD, but one about which publicopinion is strong (and incorrect) present.punitive positions are already firm; and forreasons of conviction or political savvy, mostlegislators would oppose any effort to makemarijuana use legal. Concomitantly, mostlaw makers are quite ready to remove thednll1k from police purview provided thatthey are convinced that a treatment pro­gram would work and not be too costly."For those considering new approaches, thechoice of sources for information is a mat­tcr of real importance. \Ve .find that on mat­ters of drugs it is to the medical man, espe­cially to organized medicine, and to thev:lrious Inw enforcement associations andbureaus that the legislators would tum.Only a few spontaneously consider aca­demic people: psychologists, sociologistsand psychiatrists. evertheless, about halfof the legislators in our sample had respectfor the potential value of research of humanbeh:lvior."

Politicians generally enact legislationwhich they .feel will increase their pop­ular support. In 1966 legislation was en­acted in California against LSD andother hallucinogens. Politicians obvi­ously feel that the public is very muchagainst the widespread use of such dnlgsand obviously these opinions are influ­cnced almost plimalily by the popularmedia., Shlclies do not seem to be avail­able detailing the attitude of the publicwith regard to the basis and treabncntof drug dcpcndency.

The IIarris Survey (1966) on public

48

explanations of crime revcaled that mostindividuals saw crime as being the prod­uct of early environment, broken homes,poor upbringing, and untoward socialconditions. Only S% of those intcnicwcdspoke in motivational tcrrns, that is, thatpcople commit crimcs for the pleasuregaincd, or that they \vere innately bad.Of interest is that 76% of those samplcdfavored working with young poople asa means to crime reduction whereas only

'16% proposed greater police activity. Inaddition 77% favored rehabilitation ap­proach to those involved in criminal actswhereas 11% wanted these people to bepunished. If these data have any rele­vance for public attitude toward drugabuse, it would scem that the public istaking a nlorc humanitarian and rehabili­tative attitude rather than a strictlypunitive one.

That the press emphasizes the dangersof psychedelic drugs as a service to the'community is an argumcnt typicallyoffered. The popular press does not,however, emphasize the association be­tween violence, destructiveness and theuse of the drug, alcohol. ~·1any shldiesdemonstrate the relationship betweeningestion of alcohol and subsequent de­structive behavior.

Of the 49,000 traffic deaths and 10,000homicides recorded in United States dur­ing 1966 alcohol is estimated to havebeen a factor in half the cases. Selzerand \Veiss (1966) found 65% of 72 'dIivcrs responsible for fatal automobileaccidents were drinking and 40% werealooholics. 1cCalToll and Haddon(1962) report similar data. ~,foore (1966)reported that of 508 homicides that hestudied one ·or both parties had beenchinking in 64%. of the cases. Cole,Fisher and Cole (in press) found thatin 112 female murderers, alcohol andnarcotics had been involved in 50% and10% respectively of the h0J11icidcs. Cil-'lies (1965) reported the same involve­ment of alcohol in homicides in Scot­land.

California School Health

hdore the committee on \Vays :111<1). reans of the United States 1Iotlse ofReprcsentatives, where Dingle asked, "Iam wondering jf the marijuana addictgraduates into a heroin, opimn or co­caine user?" to which Anslinger replied,"No, sir, I have not heard of a case ofthat kind ... I think it is an entirelydifferent class. The marijuana" addictdoes not go in that direction." (1937).

Lindesmith (196.5) details at greatlength the unceasing harassment by theFederal Burcau of arcoties of all thosepeople - lawycrs, judges, criminologists,sociologists, ph) sicians-who have taken

" a position toward narcotic addition -otherthan the criminal and punitive position ­espoused by the Bureau.

Cannabis was eonsiderecl for inter­national control at the Inten1ational

"Opium Conference in 1912 at the sug­gestion of the United States and since'Vorld \Var II the United ations h~s

assumed responsibility for the interna­tional" control of drugs. An expert com­mittee on "addiction-producing drugswas organized under the \Vorld HealthOrganization (\VnO). In 195.5 \VHOwas requcsted to prepare a scientificevaluation of cannabis. The \VHO docu­ment stated that cannabis was a dan­gerous drug from every point of viewincluding physical, mental, social andcriminological. This has remaincd theprimary document for the Commission on

Jarcotic Drugs, which is under the Eco­nomic and Social Council.

The United ations publishes t1le«Bulletin on Jareotics" and supposedlyreports the results of rescarch of factualobservations on the use and effects ofVaIious drugs. In each issue it is statedthat opinions expressed in articles arenot necessarily those of the United Na-

"tions. However, in 1961 the Commis­sion's position on cannabis was ques­tioned by a representative frOln theNetherlands who notcd that several ar-

"ticles had appeared quoting responsible

.\ IcClothlin (in prcss) in commentingor I lhe attcmpt by the Bur('au of ~ar-

'u( ic..:s to link criminal activities with theliSt· of 111arijuana, stateti that if the re­lalionship betwcen criminal activity antialcohol for 1966 wcre detailed in thes; me way as the rclationship betwcenmarijuana anti crime, this information\\'01 dti fill the Unitcd Nations BullctinOJ narcotics for the ncxt eight ycars. Ifnl'\\ spapcrs dctailed the association be­twc '11 the lise of alcohol and destructiveh ']lavior in human beings they would!lave no r·oom for any other ncws.

insbcrg, in 1966, had observcd thatlhe politics of malijuana in the lateHnO's \\'cre being reenactcd with LSDin the late 1960's. In his book, The fifllr­derers, Anslingcr, the former chicf ofthe arcotics Bureau, stated:"~J lIch of the irrational juvenile violence andkilling - is traceable directly to hempintoxication. I kncw that action had to betaken to gct the proper control legislationpasscd. By 1937, under my direction, theBllreall launched two important steps. Firstthe legislation planned to seck from Con­gress a ncw law that would place marijuanaand its distribution directly under federalcontrol. Sccond, on radio and at majorforullls such as that presented annua]]y bythe :-\ew York IIcrald Tribunc, I told thestOlY of this evil weed of the fields andriver beds and roadsides. I wrote articles formag. zines; our agents gave "hundreds oflectllres to parents and educators, social andcivie lQaders. In network broadcasts I re­ported on the growing list of climes of mur­der and rape. I descIibed the nature ofmarijuana and its close connection to hash­ish, I continued to hammer at the facts."And in another Bureau report (1938)this statelnent appears:"The arcoties section recognizes the greatdanger of n1aJijuana due to its definite im­pairment of the mentality and the fact thatits continuous use leads directly to the in-sane asylum. 7

' "

In sharp contrast to these statements isAnslinger's answcr" to RepresentativeJohn Dingle's question at the Hearing

Winter 1968 49

professional persons to the effect that . use of opiates is discontinued, No sllchcannabis "addiction" was "no wors.e than symptoms are associatcd with marijuana. Thealcoholism." (1961). In answcr to this .. desired dose of opiates tcnds to increascthe Commission rCaffil111Cd its position over time, ~ut this is not true of marijuana.that cannabis abuse was a form 'of drug Both can lead to psychic dependence, butaddiction and that any publicity to the so can a,ny subs~?nce that alters the state

, I .1' d 1 . of conSCIOusness ( 1967)contrary was Jl1IS eaUl11g an ( angerous. . . .11). 1965 the Commission again took cO<T- \Vith respect to the relationship bc-nizance of the raised Clllcstions of tl~e tween n1arijll~na and crime and vio-harmfulness of cannabis nnd stated: lance, the Commission notes:<crl1lC representative of the United States "The Medical Society of the County of New(Anslinger) found reason once again to de- York has stated flatly that there is no evi­plore the publication of the United Nations dence that marijuana use is associated withBullctin on Narcotics of an article which crimes of violence in this country. Therecould be uscd for propaganda against con- are many similar statements by other re­trolling cannabis." (1965). sponsible authorities. The 1962 Report of

Anslingcr was apparently disturbed the President's Ad Hoc Pancl on Drug Abusebecause an article questioned the rcla- f?ulld the eVidc,nce inadequate to substan­tionshiI) betwce ." 1 . ti d tmte the reputatIOn of marijuana for inciting

, , n Cllmll1a ac on an . people to anti-social acts. The famouscannabIS and It was argued that fllhlre Mayors' CommI'ttee 011 '·1 .'. ,"..' 1 1 }.1 < ~, aIlJual .., ap-a~ lic es s 10U u not run counter to the pointed by .Mayor LaGuardia to study thealms pursued by the Commission. vVith marijuana situation in ew York City, didrespect to reseaich on cannabis, the not observe any aggression in subjects toCommission stated: whom madjuana was given. In addition,«\Vhile rescarch would continue on ccrtain there are several studies of persons wIlD aretechnical aspects, such research could not, b?th c01~fe~sed marijtiana users and con­so far as the Commission was concemed vIct~d cnmma."ls, and these reached the con­alter the basic fact that the use of cannabi~ elusIOn. that a positive relation between usewas harmful and that the drug should ac- and cnm~ ~annot b~ established, One likelyconlingly continue to be controlled with the hypothesIs~,that, gIven the accepted tend­strictness envisaged by the Narcotics Treaty, ency of marIJuana to. relcase inhibitions, theincluding the 1961 Convention. _ This sub- e~ect of the drug wIll depend on the indi­ject. should no longer appear on the (Com- vIdu~l and ~he circumstances. It might, butmission) agenda as the 'question' of can- certamly .wIll n?t necess~rily or i~evitably,nabis, There could be no question but that lead to ag?ressIve behavlOr or CrIme. Thecannabis presented a danger to society, al- response WIll depend r~ore on the ~nd!vidualthough more and more people were at- t~an on. the dru~, ThIS hypothe.,s 15 con­tempting to cas~ doubt upon the necessity slstent wIth the eVI?enCe that ~1:1I"ijuana doe~of con~rolling the substance." (1965). n~~6~lter the basIc personalIty stlUcture.

\ \ lllle the Bureau' of Tarcotics vora- ( ).ciotlsly pursues the marijuana user be- The Commission goes on to state thatcause he is such a threat and danger to there is no evidence that marijuana usedthe safety of society, the President's 1Je'~ se leads to use of addicting drugs,Commission on Law Enforcement on pomts out the fact that basic research onNarcotics and Drug Abuse has made the marijuana '1las been almost non-existent"following statement: but does. point out the social cultural";\1aJijuana is equated in law \vith the 'opi- asp~cts ~f malijuana and heroin usc. TIleates, but the abuse characteJistics of the two Cahfonlla arrest data show 18,000 mari­have almost nothing in common. The opiates juana arrcsts in 1966 compared to 7,000produce dependence, ~-farijuana does not. in 1964, whereas the number of heroinThe withdrawal sickness appears when the .and other narcotic arrests was about the

50 California School Health

.':lIlW (2600) for hath yC'ars (1966). The available for a considerable' pcriod of(;oJlll11ission recommends that the Ta- time in the Unitcd States and no legalI iO/l:ll Inslitute of Ment:ll Health should measurcs were taken to prevent their saledevise an~ cxecute a plan of resean.:h or distribution. TIle very disturbing(,o\"('ring all aspects of marijuana ·use. effect of the hippies on the AmericanJ)rll.

u$ aJld Values society is related to these phenomena.

The drug that a culture uses is inti- Perhaps it is not drug taking which is so1Il;(t<'ly connected with the \ alues that offensive to the members of our societyare dominant in that culture. In the East, but rather the values that have evolvedtil ~ drug of choice is marijuana; in the from the use of. these drugs. The aban­\Vcst, the drug of choice is alcohol. In donment of the valuQs of the matezialis­Eastern religions and philosophy, the tically oriented achieving society is whatintrospcctive, the mcditative and indi- has constituted the threat to the Estab-idllal path to enlightenment and release lishment.

from the cares of the earth is empha- \Vhen the hippies proclaim that whensiz d. l\farijuana typically produces a all of man's activities which are Olientedqui ,t state of reverie in which contem- toward achieving goals which have theirpJation and meditation is facilitated. It .basis in a materialistic value ..... systemdocs not typically induce socialization rather than a humanitarian one, arc de­and active interaction. Religion and phi- structive~ meaningless and un fulfilling,Iosophy, of course, have to do with giving . anger and rcsentment are quickly en­meaning to life experiences. In the West, gendered. The ClUTcnt hippie slogan ofwithin the Christian Judaic tradition, an «drop out" simply means dropping outemphasis on "work" is emphasized and of activities which support the currentsubscquently activit)', ambition and . normative value system. TIle proponentsachievement are the hallmarks of moral- of the drop out ethie apparently feel thatity. «Works" here is used in the Christian' this action wiII more elIeetively changesense of acting out one's goodness. Alco- . the current value system rather thanhoI, as opposed to malijuana, typically . working within the Establishment to'induecs activity, acting out - and, rather: effec.t the change in that value system.than acting out goodness, aggressive, Brickman (1967) in commenting on thedysfunctional, and anti-social acts are relationship between the psychedelicCommon. In \VestelTI culture, aggressive- expelience and the ethic of non-violenceness and competitiveness are highly in the hippie, writes:valued. '«The psychedelic episode forces an acknowl.

Carstairs (195·-1) has observed that in .edgment of the phenomena of his own deathIndia alcohol was used b the aggressive and he accepts it. This drastic emotional ex­Rajputs, and marijuana by the passive perience then leads to a symbolic rebi~thBrahmins and that this choice was a and a development of a new self, whIchfunction of basic differences in the cul- ?ffinning de~th, no longer needs to external­tIl I t' IJ 1 " lze destructIveness. A new non-violent sub-ura :va .ues. n commen mg on -:lu.x e~ s culture is then created on the foundation of

descnptlon of the .effects of ~lescah~le In an intensively subjective emotional experi­Doors of Perception; Carstalrs belIeves ence of extinction of the dualistic death­Huxley to be unrealistic to think that the. denying ·self."westerner would substitute mescaline for' Blumer (1967) in studying Californiaalcohol in that the effects produced by juvenile .dnlg users, primarily from Jowermescaline do not coincide with the basic' class minority groups, found that thevalues and desires of the cultural mem- aggressive, undisciplined behavior prob­bers. Peyote and mescaline have been lem juvenile preferred alcohol whereas

Winter 196851

.'

the marijuana user \\ as not aggressive.The jun.-nilcs who used Inarijuana didnot engage in dclinqucnt behavior.Tile Future:

~ran, throughout his history, has util­ized drugs for the multi-various reasonsdescribed earlicr by Barber (1967). I-Iux­ley (19.54) speaks of the «immemorialconnection between religion and thetaking of drugs." He states:"The urge to h'anscend self-conscious self­hood is ... a principal appetite of the soul.\"hen men and women fail to transcendthemselves by means of worship, good worksand spiritual exercises, they are apt to' re­sort to religious surrogates ... The practicesslud ied can be observed in every region ofthe earth, among primitives no less than .among those who have reached a high pitchof civilization. \Ve are, therefore, dealing notwith exceptional facts, which might justi­llably be overlooked, but with a general, a~ld

in the widest sense of the word, a humanphenomenon, a kind of phenomenon whichcannot be disregarded by anyone who istrying to discover what religion' is, and whatare the deep needs which it must satisfy."111e best statement of the integrationand effective utilization of psychedelics

for the growth and evolvement of boththe individual and his society is given inHuxley's Island (1861).

Ginsberg complained that Dr. God­dareI, the Commissioner of the Food andDrug Administration, had made thestatement that the claim that people havereligious experience with psychedelicagents was "pure bunk."

Fox, in defending Goddard, claimedGoddard had been misquoted and "whathe said in truth was that those who sayindividuals who take LSD - expandtheir mind - this is pure bunk becausethere is no e\ idence to Sllhstantiate it."(Ginsberg & Fox, 1966). That the COlTI­missioner of the FDA and that the Chief:of the Research Division which sup-posedly conducts scientific studies onthese materials can state that there is no

.evidence to substantiate that conscious­ness expansion occurs wi th psychedelicagents when the professional literatureabounds with such evidence and whenthousands of people who take psyche­delics know that their consciousness isexpanded leaves a credibility gulch sowide as to be almost unbridgeable.

REFERE ICESAbramson, H. A. (Ed. J The tlse of LSD~al1dpsychotherapy, New York: Josiah ~lacey Foun­dation, 1960.

AIll'nluck, S. amI Bowman, K. M. «TIle psychi­alric nspccts of marijuana intoxication." Am.. ].Psycllia t., 1942, 99, 248-25l.

AnsJingcr, H. J. and Oursler, \V. The Uurder­crs: The Story of the Narcotic Group, NewYork: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy, 1961.

Barber, B. Drugs and Society. Ne,~ York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.

Blewclt, D. B. nnd Chwclos, . Hom/book forthe therapeutic use of LSD-25: Individual anaGroup P;ocedrJres. },timcographed, Regina,Saskatchcwan, 1958.

Blum,-R. H. Task Force Report: Narcotics andDmg Abuse. President's Commission on LawEnforcement and Administralion of Justice,\Vashington, D.C., 1967.

Blum, R. H. and Funkhauser, Mary Lou, Legis-

52

lators on. social scielltists and a social issue: areport and commelltary on some discllssions withlaw makers about dl'llg abuse, Stanford Univer­sity: Institute for the study of human problems,1965.

Blumer, H. The 'Vorld of ]1Ir;cllile-Drug Use.ADD Center Project, Final Report, Universityof California Press, Berkeley, California, 1967.

Bowers, ~L B. and Frcewn:m, D. X. "Psyche­dclic expcrienc~ in acute l)sychosis." Arch GenPsychiat, 1966; 15,. 240-248.

Brickman, H. R. "The Psychedelic 'Hip Scene':Rchlrn of the Death Instinct." Paper presentedto the 8th "'estern Divisional ;\fecting, Ameri­can Psychiatric Association, Los Angeles, Oc­tober, 1967.

Bromberg, \V. "~larijuana, a Psychiatric Study."}.A.M.A., 1939,113, 4-12.

Bromberg, \V. ";\farijunna Intoxication." Am.]. P~·ychiat., 1934, 91, 303-330.

California Criminal ~tatistics, Drug Arrests in

California School Health

· .

(:lJli!OrJlia, 1966, Department of ]\I~licc" State·tlf California Printing Office, Sacramento, 1966.

Clr)itairs, G. ~f., Dam and Dhang, "Cultural1".1 ·tors and Choice of Intoxicants.". Quart. J.Stllelies on Alcohol, 19.51, 15, 220-237. .

Clillpra, 1. C. and Chopra, R. N. "TI1C Use ofc'lIl11abis Drugs in India." Bulletin on Narcotics,I !J:>7, 9, 1-29.

Cohen, S. "LSD: Siue Effects and Complica­lions." J. Nero. Ment. Dis., 1960, 1.']0, 30-10.

Cole, K. E., Fisher, G. and Cole, S. S. "\VomcnWho Kill: A Socio-Psyehological Study." Arch.CCIl. p~·!Jcltiat., in press.

Commission on 1 arcolic Drugs, Report of the](jlh Session, E/3512, E/C . 7/111, April­~ray 1061, United ations.

Commission on Narcotic Dmgs, Report of the20lh SeSSion, Nov. 20-Dcc. 21, lQ6.5, C/1140,E/CN. 7/488 United ations.

Docstevsky, F. "Notcs from Underground" inWhite Nights and Other Tales. ~ew York: fae­~ rillan, 1914.Fisher, G., and Castilc, D. "Interim report onres areh project: an investigation to detcnnineth .rapcutic effectiveness of LSD-2.5 and Psylo­cibi n on hospitalized severely emotionally dis­turbed children." Unpublished manuscript, Fair­view State Hospital, Costa ~Icsa, Calif., Feb.10, 1963.Freedman, A. ~L, Ebin, E. V. and \Vilson, E. A."Alltistic Schizophrenic Children: an expcri­nWllt in the usc of D-Iysergic acid diaethylamide(LSo-2.5)." Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 1962, 6,203-213.

Frcidman, H. L. and Rothmore, ~1. ]. "Mari­juana, Factor and Personality -Evaluation andArmy ~1ental Adjusbnent." ]. Clin. Psycho­pat/JUl., 1946, 7 and 8, 765-782 and 221-236.

Gillies, H. "~Iurder in \\ cst Scotland." Brit. J.Psychiat., 1965, 111, 1087.

Ginsberg, A. "The Great ~farijuana Hoax."The Atlantic, Novembcr, 1966, 104-112.

Ginsberg, A. and Fox, J. H. "Seminar on 1fari­juana and LSD Controls." National StudentASSOciation Convention, University of Illinois,Aug. 24, 1006.

IIarris Survey, San Francisco Examiner, July,1966.

II('arings before the Committee o~ \Vays and}.leans, U.S. Housc of Representatives, 75thCongress, First Session, April-~lay, 1937, Hemp}.Iarijuana Hearings, p. 24.

Henri, R. The Art Spirit. Philadelphia: Lippen­cott, 1923.

Winter 1968

Hcssc, J. Steppc1lwol/. New' York: F. Ungcr,1929..

Hoffer, A. "o-lyscrgic acid diethylamide (LSD):review of its present status." Clin. P/wrmacol.Thera]]., 1065, 6, 183-2.55.

lIonigfcJd, G. "Non Spccific Factors in Treat­ment; I, Review of Placebo Reactors; II, Re­view of Social Psychological Factors," Dis.·",Terv. Syst., 1964, 2.'5, 145-156 and. 225-239.

Huxley, A. The Doors of Perception, New York:Harper, 1954.

Huxley, A. Island~ Toronto: Clarkc, Irwin,1962.

Huxley, Laura. This Timeless Moment. NcwYork: Farrar, Strauss, 1968.

Krippncr, S. "Consciousness expansion and theextcnsional world." ETC: A ret;iew of generalsemantics, 1965, 22, 463-474.

Laing, R. A. The Politics of Experience. NcwYork: Pantheon, 1967.

Leary, T. ct a1. "A new behavior change pro­gram using psilocybin." PSljchotllcrapy; Theory,Research, and Practice, 1965, 2, 61-72.

Leary, T., Alpert, R., and ~ret.,mer, R. The Psy­chedelic Experience. New York: UniversityBooks, 1964.

Lennard, H. L. "Proposed Progr:un of Researchand Socio Phamlacology." Unpublished paperpresented at symposium on Psycho biologicalapproaches to Social Behavior, II:u-vard ~lcdical

School, April, 18-20, 1063.

Lindesmilh, A. R. The Addict and the Law.Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1965.

~layors' Committee on }'larijuana. New YorkCity, Cattell Press, Lancaster, Pa., 1944.

~rcCarroll, ]. and Haddon, ,V. Jr. "A con­trolled Shldy of fatn! automobile accidents, NewYork City." ]. Chron. Dis., 1962, 15, 811-826.

~IcGlothlin, \V. H. "Toward a Rational Viewof }'Iarihuana" in Simmons, ]. L. (Ed.), Jfari­lwana. Los Angeles: Brandon House, in press.

~IcGlothlin, \V., Cohen, S. and ~1<:Glothlin, M.S., "Long-lasting effects of LSD on noo11a1s."Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 1967, 17, 521-532.

}'fender, L. and Farctera, G. ., Cobrinik, L."LSD and U~fL treatment of hospitalized dis­turbed children." Recellt Adv. in Biol. PSYChillt.,1963, 5, 84-92.

~lender, L., Goldsclu11idt, L., and Sanker, S.D. V. "Treabnent of autistic, schizophrenic chil­dren \\ith LSD-25 and U~lL-491:' Recent Ado.in BioI. PStJchiat., 1962, 4~ 170-177.

53

..... ,

Savnge, C. nnd Slolaroff, N. A. "Cbrifying thcConfusion regarding LSD-25." J. Nero. MCllt.Dis., 1965, 140, 218-221.

Selzer, 1\1. L. and \Veiss, S. "Alcoholism andTraffic Fntnlity: Study in Futility." Am. J.Psyclliat., 1966, 122, 762-767.

Siler, J. F. "M::Uijllana Smoking in Panama."T{,e Hili/a!'y Slifgcon, 1933, 73, 269-280.Simmons, J. Q., Lciken, F. ]., Lovas, Q. I.,Schaffcr, B., and Pcrlolf, B. "Modification ofautistic bchavior with DSD-25." Am. J.Psychiat., 1966, 122, 1201-1211.

Traffic ;n. Opium and other dangerous drugs.Report of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,1938.

Van. Duscn, \;y. "LSD and the enlightenmentof Zen." Psycllologia, 1961, 4, 11-16.

\Valton, R. P. Uariillona: America's new drugproblem. Lippencott, New York, 1938.'White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug I

Abuse, U.S. Government Plinting Office, \Vash­ington, 1963.

\ViIliams, E. G. "Studies on Marijuana andPyrhcAyl Compound." Public Hlth. Rep., 1946,61, 1059-1083.

\Volfe, P. O. Marijuana in Latin America: TheThreat it Constitutes. Linacre Press, \Vashing­ton, D.C., 1949.

\Volfe, P. O. "The Physical and Mental Effectsof Cannabis," 1Vorld Health Organization,APD/56, E/CI .7/L 91, March 17, 1955.

~fogar, R. E. "The Psychedelic Drugs andHIlJllan Potentialitics" in alto, H. A. (Ed.)ExploTatil:es ill lIlIman Potentialities, Spring­field, Illinois: C. C. Thomas, 1966.

Mognr, R. E. "Psychedelic States and· Sc1tizo­phrenin." J. Existential Psychiat., in press, nndin Anronson, B. and Osmond, N. Psychedelics:Their Uses and Implications. New York:DollbIedny, in press.~ foore, H. A. "Legal responsibility and chronicalcollOlislll," Am. ]. Psyc!liat., 1966, 122, 74~-756. .l\ cw York Post, April 6, 1966.President's Commission on Law Enforcementand Adminisuation of Justice, The Challengeof Crime ill a Free Society, U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office, \Vashington, D.C., 1967. .Rolo, A., Krinsky, L. \V., Abramson, H. A'

tGoldfam1, L. "Preliminary mct110d for studyof LSD with children:' Internat. J. NeuropSlJch.,196.5, 1, 552-555.

Sandison, R. A., "PsycholOgical Aspects of theLSD treatment of the ncuroscs," J. Ment. Sci.,"1954, 100, 508-515.Sandison, R. A., Spcnccr, A. and \Vhitelaw, J.D. A. "The therapclltic value of LSD in mentalillness." J. .'tent. Sci., 1951, 100, 419-50.7.Sandison, R. A. and \VhitcIaw, J. D. A. "Further.Studies in the thcrapcutic value of LSD onmental illness." J. Men. Sci., 1957, 103, 332-343.Savagc, C., Fadiman, J., Mogar, R., nnd Allcn,Mary Hughes. Internat. J. Neuropsych., 1966,2, 241-254.