Search

The article focuses on experiences with marihuana in a sample of drug users. Public attitudes and controversy regarding marihuana currently focus around two countervailing trends, one liberal and the other punitive. On the one hand, one finds that knowledge about marihuana is relatively widespread and that an increasing number of persons have either smoked marihuana or know those who have. No less than Time magazine's 1966 Man of the Year was described as having this attribute. The emergence of the marihuana cult and "let's legalize pot" movement is a parallel development. Simultaneously there has been a demand for reconsideration or elimination of criminal sanctions against users or sellers of marihuana. In these several respects we have experienced a liberalization of attitudes. On the other hand, we find that where reasonably reliable data is available, the rate of arrests for marihuana offenses is increasing at an unprecedented rate. This pattern has been accompanied by the view that criminal sanctions be retained. Some may deplore one or the other of these trends, but trends they are. While there is disagreement among professionals regarding the dangers of marihuana use, there is general agreement that more information and research is needed.

The article presents information on the marketing implications of procedural and legal developments. One of these developments describes the Antitrust Civil Process Act. The act contains constraints on the investigatory process and states that demands must respect rules of privilege, demands must be made only on entities under investigation, and the Justice Department cannot provide information secured by their investigation to the Federal Trade Commission. Another development outlines the Drug Amendments of 1962.

This article focuses on the making of Narcotic Laws in the U.S. The new New York State laws regarding narcotics and other drugs, laws that the Federal Government regards favorably, have called for changes in our attitudes and policies regarding narcotic addiction, the flourishing business associated with it, and even addicts themselves. The new hard line has stirred vigorous debate among workers in the field, and the popular and professional media of journals, magazines, newspapers and even television. It would be pleasant though self deluding to imagine that from this debate reasonable plans and policies will emerge. It hardly ever happens that way. It should go without saying that the basis of public policy should rest on the foundation of dispassionate and thorough amassing of data and be based upon the rational analysis of that data combined with the leavening of wisdom. But in the real world policy makers and those who implement policy and programs are not made in the image of Plato's philosopher-king. We forget the importance of cultural and social beliefs, ideology, values, and even simple coincidental timing of various events or "historical accident."

The article comments on the special issue of the this journal entitled "Chemical Comforts of Man." The author had become addicted to expecting the real thing in "Journal of Social Issues," and then, when faced with the realization that he was deceived by a seemingly thorough discussion of drugs when indeed a glaring omission had occurred, he felt a typical hangover. It is bad enough that clinicians rarely consider their work as having similar properties of any industry and thus do not come to grips with the implications of such matters as the millions of dollars exchanging hands in the purchase of psychotherapy. On the legal use of drugs, the economic data on the sale of all the variety of prescribed and over-the-counter drugs are available to anyone willing to dig them up. Government in its tax structure matches the money value of smoking and drinking to the tobacco industry and to the liquor firms. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being taken and given in the illicit drug industries.

Focuses on the proposed legislation which gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the responsibility for judging the safety and effectiveness of drugs and the truthfulness of their labeling. Claim that when a manufacturer or his representative or any person in the chain of distribution does anything which directly or indirectly suggests to the physician or patient that an approved drug may properly be used for unapproved uses for which it is neither labeled nor advertised, that action constitutes a direct violation of the law.