Basic HTML Version
Physical
and
Psychological
Factors
1
he marijuana plant is simply
l
the lndian hemp plant
(Cannabis
sativa).
lt
has been cultivated for
centuries, mostly in developing na–
tions but also in the West, for its
fiber and rope-making products. His–
tory also records its early use in
many less developed nations for med–
ica) as well as personal and religious
purposes.
Marijuana's Jeaves, stems, seeds and
flowering tops each contain varying
amounts of THC and can be dried and
crushed into forms for smoking, drink–
ing, eating, and, rarely, mainlining into
the bloodstream. Smoking is the fastest
and most popular form to get an effect,
or"high," however.
The potency of marijuana depends
on severa! important factors. First,
there is a significant THC variation
among marijuana plant varieties.
The amount of THC will also vary as
a result of how much sun, moisture
and care any given plant receives.
Secondly, marijuana composed
mainly of the larger leaves (called
bhang)
commonly has a THC con–
tent of one percent or less (until re–
cently the amount found in most
American and Mexican varieties)
but may eontain an amount of up to
four percent (mostly other foreign
varieties). The ftower tops and small
Jeaves (called
ganja)
may contain
four to eight percent THC. The most
potent prepara tion is hashish (or
charos),
which is made from the con–
centrated secretions of ftowers and
possesses a THC content of five to
twenty percent; hashisb oil is from
twenty to ninety percent THC.
Highly important, also, is how
marijuana is used. A reaction from
January
1980
Vary
Pots Punch
smoking occurs in one to ten minutes,
with effects lasting four to six hours.
Effects from eating marijuana do not
take hold for one to two hours, but
then last up to six hours. Mainlining
into the bloodstream (fortunately not
common) packs a quick wallop and is
very dangerous.
Three other important variables
are: individual differences in metabo–
lism of the marijuana user, the phys–
icaJ condition of the user, and simul–
taneous use of other drugs.
Finally, a major factor commonly
overlooked or minimized by many
drug users is the social environment
and mental frame of mind (setting,
mood and expectations of effects) at
the time of use. A disturbing setting
or emotional turmoil may produce a
totally different effect than a tran–
quil frame of mind.
The truth is, the psychological ef–
fects of marijuana are as variable as
the range of human personality and
as complex as the factors which in–
fluence the user each time he
smokes.
It is precisely this wide variability
that produces greatly different and
sometimes conflicting results among
various scientific studies of the ef–
fects and hazards of this drug. Past
marijuana studies have generally
been relatively short-term projects
aimed at narrow objectives and the
achievement of quick results. Most
studies are also based on relatively
low numbers of users, who often have
widely different smoking or living
habits.
A further major problem with
these studies is that marijuana inves–
tigators establish different criteria as
the· basis of their research. For in–
stance, one researcher may define
heavy use as five to ten joints per
week, another as five to ten a day.
Sorne studies try to control the intake
of THC yet use marijuana with dif–
ferent THC Jevels; sometimes levels
in use are unknown.
Studies are also conducted in vary–
ing environments; results can appre–
ciably differ between street settings
and clinical, hospital or other con–
trolled settings. Studies conducted in
widely different national or cultural
settings complicate any perception of
certainties of real effects because of
different diets, living habits, endemic
health problems or job activities.
(For instance, sorne damage might
not be as noticeable in a subsistence
farming region or nation as in a fast–
moving technological society with
mentally demanding occupations.)
Finally, attributed results a re of–
ten based on the users' own subjec–
tive accounts of drug effects, which
have often proveo to be inaccurate.
It is not surprising, then, that re–
search studies come up with varying
results. And it is dangerous to as–
sume that damages do not exist–
and that the drug is safe-if one
study fails to confirm physical or psy–
chological damage indicated in other
studies. Periodically such unwar–
ranted conclusions have appeared in
newspapers and magazines.
T rue, sorne negative findings in
sorne studies have been blown out of
proportion, sensatíonalízed as fact
when they haven't been verified. Yet
what has been consistently demon–
strated about marijuana indicates
warning flags should be flying high.
29
.
....
~.
..
..