Cannabis 1988 Mikurya & Aldrich

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Vol. 20 (1), Jan -- Mar 1988 pp. 47-53
[continued]

SELF-ADJUSTMENT OF DOSE

An important consideration in regard to the potency issue is
autotitration, the adjustment of dose by the individual user to obtain
optimal effects and avoid unpleasant ones. As noted above, cautious
titration of dose was standard practice when cannabis preparations were
used in medicine. Smoking marijuana, customary in present social use of
the drug, requires knowledge of when to stop in order to avoid symptoms of
overdose. The smoked route gives rapid feedback to the user with regard to
levels of effect because the drug goes directly to lthe brain from the
lungs, unimpeded by the gut or the liver.

Researchers for the Mayor's Committee on Marihuana (1944: 13)
were among the first to notice that experienced marijuana smokers in the
"tea-pads" of Harlem routinely practiced autotitration. The confirmed
user, they noted, "appears to be quite conscious of the quantity he
requires to reach the effect called "high." Once the desired effect is
obtained he cannot be persuaded to consume more. He knows when he has had
enough....and is everconscious of preventing himself from becoming 'too
high.'" Similarly the Commission of Inquiry inthe the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs (1972: 48) observed that "great variations in potency are usually
accommodated by the experienced user through a 'titration' of dose (intake
is reduced or stopped when the smoker reaches the preferred level of
intoxication)." For U.S. users, the National Commission on Marihuana and
Drug Abuse (1972: 166) commented: "....whatever the potency of the drug
used, individuals tend to smoke only the amount necessary to achieve the
desired effect."

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Observation of the real world of social marijuana use, where
autotitration is the norm, renders the scare tactics of the new marijuana
proponents not only inaccurate but irrelevant. There is much published
evidence about the availability of highly potent varieties of cannabis from
the nineteenth century through the present day. The effects attributed to
the new marijuana are the same ones debated for centuries in many different
cultures. The assertion that "all marijuana research to date has been
done on 1 or 2 percent THC material" (Cohen 1968) ignores several
thousand years of human experience with the drug. The old medical cannabis
extracts were stronger than most of the forms now available, though the
potency of illicit hash oils by the mid-1970's was approaching the level of
medicinal preparations available before their removal from lthe USP.

While it may be true that sinsemilla is more widely available than
10 or 15 years ago, its potency has not changed significantly from the 2.4
to 9.5 percent THC materials available in 1973-1974 (see Table I), or the
five to 14 percent sinsemilla of 1975 (Perry 1977). The range of
potencies available then (marijuana at 0.1% to 7.8% THC, averaging 2.0% to
5.0% THC by 1975) was approximately the same as that reported now. With
such a range, the evidence simply cannot support the argument by Cohen
(1986) that marijuana is "ten or more times more potent than the product
smoked ten years ago." And to say that marijuana potency has increased
1,400 percent since any date in history is patent nonsense.

It is not legitimate to imply that average low potencies represent
the full range of potencies available in reality. Neither is it valid to
cite the low end of the range then as a baseline to compare with the high
end of the range now. The claimed baseline for THC content in the early
1970's would appear to be too low, probably because confiscated, stored
police samples were utilized; and this low baseline makes the claimed
difference in potency appear to be greater than it has been in reality.
In sum, the new marijuana is not new and neither is the hyperbole
surrounding this issue. The implications of the new disinformation
campaign are serious. Many people, particularly the experienced users of
the 1960's and their children, will once again shrug off the warnings of
drug experts and not heed more reasonable admonishments about more
dangerous drugs. This is not only abusive to those who look to science,
the medical profession, and government for intelligent leadership, but will
sully the reputations of drug educators who wittingly cry wolf, and will
inevitably diminish the credibility of drug abuse treatment professionals
who pass on such flawed reports.

GO TO PREVIOUS PART INDEX HOME