On Being Stoned
Charles T. Tart, Ph. D.
Chapter 4. One Hundred and Fifty Experienced Marijuana Users
APPROXlMATELY 750 QUESTIONNAIRES were sent out. Of those returned
by the cutoff date several months later, three were rejected because
of high scores on the validity scale, as explained earlier, and
several others were rejected because the respondent indicated
that he had been intoxicated with marijuana while he was
filling out the questionnaire. A number of partially completed
questionnaires were also returned with notes that they were just
too long for the user to complete. Verbal comments by students
around campus also indicated that the primary reason they had
not completed the questionnaire was its length. One hundred and
fifty usable questionnaires were left. Thus the 150 respondent
users are a verbal lot, sufficiently motivated to help science
that they would fill out a lengthy questionnaire.
As the data below will indicate, this is primarily a young, student
population. How representative it is of any other specific population
is unknown.[1] As the
primary purpose of the present study was to discover the major
experiential effects of marijuana intoxication, to study the effects
of some important background variables, and to specify the range
of phenomena, rather than produce exact figures for a specified
population, this lack of knowledge about the generality of the
present sample is not a serious drawback. Again, however, the
reader should be cautioned against overgeneralizing the exact
figures presented later.
Some further comments should be made about generalization of the
effects in this study to other populations. In terms of the model
for drug intoxication effects presented earlier, it is clear that
the intellectual level, social learnings and expectations, and
values of a given population may strongly affect what they will
experience during marijuana intoxication. The present sample is
highly educated (in college or already graduated) and intelligent,
is coping successfully with modern American culture (by virtue
of most being in college or holding down a Job), and thus may
be fairly representative of what Americans who have made a fair
adaptation to the Establishment may experience when intoxicated
with marijuana. It probably is poorly representative of what happens
when slum dwellers, depressed minority groups, or people in different
cultures use marijuana, or what happens when the mentally ill
use marijuana. Remember, too, this is an experienced group, so
the effects reported are not applicable to those who are just
beginning to use marijuana.
IMPORTANT BACKGROUND VARIABLES
Area of Residence
The residential area of the users was determined by inspection
of the postmark on the returned questionnaire. The users were
from California for the most part (67 percent), some from the
East Coast of the United States (11 percent), and the remainder
from various miscellaneous or undetermined locations.
Age
Age was distributed as shown in Table 4-1. The vast majority of
the users were in the 19-30 age range.
TABLE 4-1
AGE DISTRIBUTION
| AGE RANGE | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| 16 or younger | 1% |
| 17-18 | 10% |
| 19-20 | 23% |
| 21-22 | 22% |
| 23-24 | 16% |
| 25-30 | 15% |
| 31-40 | 7% |
| 41-50 | 5% |
| 51 and older | 1% |
|
Occupation
Occupation was classified into six categories, shown in Table
4-2. The majority (67 percent) of the users were students, with
academics and mental health professionals being the next largest
classifications.
TABLE 4-2
OCCUPATION
| OCCUPATION | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| Students | 67 % |
| Academics, Teachers | 7 % |
| Mental Health Professionals | 6% |
| Professionals, other | 5 % |
| Non-professional | 15% |
| Unclassifiable | 1 % |
|
Note—The percentages in this table do not add up to
exactly
100% due to rounding errors and/or some
users' skipping the question.
Sex, Marriage, Offspring
It was possible to identify 49 percent of the respondents as men
and 27 percent as women. However, on a number of questionnaires
in the first distributions, the blank for sex of the respondent
had been inadvertently left off, so 23 percent of the users could
not be classified. Of the whole group, 71 percent were single,
19 percent were married or living with a semi-permanent mate,
8 percent were divorced, and I percent were widowed. Most (81
percent) had no children.
Educational Level
Table 4-3 shows the educational level of the users. This is a
highly educated group, the vast majority having at least some
college training and 21 percent having some graduate education.
Political Affiliations
Table 4-4 presents the political affiliations of the users. Most
indicated no affiliation or Democrat.
TABLE 4-3
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
| EDUCATIONAL LEVEL | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| High school | 6% |
| College, 2 years or less | 35% |
| College, 4 years or less | 37% |
| MA degree or some graduate training | 13 % |
PhD, EdD, or MD degree or graduate training
beyond the MA level | 8% |
| Unclassifiable | 1 % |
|
TABLE 4-4
POLITICAL AFFILIATION
| POLITICAL AFFILIATION | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| Democrat | 24% |
| Republican | 5% |
| Left-wing | 5% |
| Right-wing | 0% |
| Miscellaneous | 23% |
| No political affiliation indicated | 43% |
|
Religious Affiliation
Religious affiliation is presented in Table 4-5. Most users did
not give any affiliation. Of those who did, the psychedelic churches
(i.e., those advocating the use of psychedelic drugs as part of
their sacraments) such as Timothy Leary's League for Spiritual
Discovery, and various Oriental religions, such as Subud, were
almost as frequent as traditional affiliations.
TABLE 4-5
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
| RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| Protestant | 11 % |
| Catholic | 4% |
| Jewish | 11 % |
| Oriental, mystical | 5% |
| Psychedelic churches | 7 % |
| No affiliation | 60% |
|
Arrests
One question asked whether the users had ever been arrested and,
if so, for what and whether they were convicted. Twenty-five users
(17 percent) indicated they had been arrested, and the various
offenses are summarized in Table 4-6.
TABLE 4-6
ENCOUNTERS WITH THE LAW
| NUMBER OF USERS |
|---|
| TYPE OF OFFENSE | ARRESTED | CONVICTED |
|---|
|
| Political and Nuisance Offenses | 6 | 3 |
| Traffic Violations & Parking Tickets | 5 | 4 |
| Drunkenness or Illegal Possession of Alcohol | 3 | 3 |
| Miscellaneous Misdemeanors | 4 | 1 |
| Third-degree Burglary | 1 | 0 |
| Possession of Marijuana | 5 | 2 |
| Selling Marijuana | 1 | 1 |
|
The category "Political and Nuisance Offenses" includes
being arrested for participating in civil rights demonstrations,
loitering, and trespassing.
Five of the users had been arrested for possession of marijuana,
and one for selling marijuana.
All in all, the users are a generally law-abiding lot except for
their use of marijuana.
Personal Growth
The users were asked, "Do you regularly practice any sort
of meditation or other non-drug discipline for spiritual or personal
growth? If so, what?" The responses are tabulated in
Table 4-7. Irregular or non-disciplined practices labeled "meditation"
or "contemplation" by the users were put in the "informal
meditation" category here.
TABLE 4-7
GROWTH PRACTICES
| DISCIPLINE | PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| Informal meditation | 16% |
| Formal meditation, oriental form | 13% |
| Formal meditation, occidental form | 3% |
| Conventional psychotherapy | 2% |
| New therapies (encounter, Gestalt, etc.) | 5% |
| Other disciplines | 5% |
| None | 57% |
|
Note.—The percentages in this table do not add up to
exactly
100% due to rounding errors and/or some
users' skipping the question.
Marijuana Use
A number of questions dealt with the overall use of marijuana
by the group. Responses to "How long have you been smoking
pot or hash?" are presented in the first column of Table
4-8. Most of the users have smoked marijuana from one to two years,
but some have used it for more than eleven years. If we take the
midpoint of each category (assume fifteen years for the eleven-plus
category), this group of users represents a total of 421 years
of marijuana use.
The users were asked their average frequency of use in all the
time they had used marijuana. Users with less than six months'
experience were Instructed to skip this question. Monthly or Weekly
use are the modal patterns in this group, as shown in Table 4-9.
By an approximation, described fully in Chapter 5, these figures
may be combined with length-of-use figures to give an estimate
that this group of 150 users has used marijuana approximately
37,000 times altogether.
Asked for their frequency of use in the preceding six months (the
time base over which effects were to be rated), the users replied
as shown in the second column of Table 4-9, with Monthly and Weekly
use still being the modal responses. The Total and Last Six Month
frequencies of use do not differ significantly from each other.
The respondents use marijuana about as often now as they ever
did.
TABLE 4-8
USE OF MARIJUANA AND ALCOHOL
| LENGTH OF USE | MARIJUANA
PERCENTAGE OF USERS | ALCOHOL
PERCENTAGE OF USERS(a) |
|---|
|
| </=6 months[b] | 3% | 3% |
| </=1year | 21% | 2% |
| </=2 years | 34% | 7% |
| </=3 years | 19% | 14% |
| </=4years | 6% | 11% |
| </=5 years | 4% | 10% |
| 6 to 10 years | 5% | 17% |
| 11 years or longer | 6% | 21% |
| Never used alcohol | | 13% |
| No response | 2% | 3% |
|
(a) The percentages in this column do not add up to exactly 100%
due to rounding errors and/or some users' skipping the question(s).
(b) </= means less than or equal to.
TABLE 4-9
FREQUENCY OF USE OF MARIJUANA AND ALCOHOL
| MARIJUANA | ALCOHOL |
|---|
| FREQUENCY OF USE | TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
OF USERS | LAST 6 MOS.
PERCENTAGE
OF USERS | TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
OF USERS | LAST 6 MOS.
PERCENTAGE
OF USERS |
|---|
|
| Occasionally | 7% | 11% | 33% | 40% |
| Once/month or more | 35% | 28% | 34% | 26% |
| Once/week or more | 40% | 42% | 21% | 12% |
| Almost every day or more | 16% | 19% | 2% | 7% |
| No response | 3% | 1% | 11% | 15% |
|
Note.—The percentages in some columns of this table do not add
up to
exactly 100% due to rounding errors and/or some users' skipping
the question(s).
Other Drugs
The users were asked how often they had used various major psychedelic
drugs before starting to use marijuana, after starting
to use marijuana, and during the last six months. Table 4-10 presents this
data. The category "psychedelics" was presented on the
questionnaire as including LSD, mescaline, peyote, psilocybin,
DMT (dimethyltryptamine), and DET (diethyltryptamine). Other drugs
are listed separately.
TABLE 4-10
FREQUENCY OF USE OF OTHER DRUGS
| BEFORE USING
MARIJUANA | AFTER USING
MARIJUANA | IN LAST SIX
MONTHS |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| TIMES USED | TIMES USED | TIMES USED |
|---|
| DRUG | 0 | 1-5 | 6+ | 0 | 1-5 | 6+ | 0 | 1-5 | 6+ |
|---|
|
| Psychedelics | 76% | 15% | 3% | 27% | 38% | 31% | 51% | 33% | 11% |
| Exotic Psychedelics: | | | | | | | | | |
| STP (DOM) | 49% | 3% | 0% | 45% | 7% | 0% | 45% | 7% | 0% |
| MDA | 49% | 3% | 0% | 46% | 5% | 1% | 45% | 7% | 0% |
| PEACE | 48% | 3% | 0% | 46% | 4% | 1% | 44% | 6% | 1% |
| Amphetamines or Methedrine | | | | | | | | | |
| (orally) | 58% | 8% | 6% | 35% | 22% | 15% | 42% | 15% | 15% |
| (injection) | 51% | 3% | 0% | 47% | 4% | 3% | 50% | 3% | 0% |
| Hard Narcotics | 30% | 1% | 1% | 25% | 5% | 3% | 25% | 7% | 0% |
|
Note.—The percentages in this table do not add up to exactly
100% due
to rounding errors and/or some users' skipping the question(s).
With chi-square analyses of the distributions, the respondents
have used major psychedelic drugs and oral amphetamines[2]
more frequently since starting to use marijuana (p < .001 for
each comparison). Contrary to popular myth, use of hard narcotics
is quite low and does not show a statistically significant increase
from before to after marijuana use.
Psychedelic Drugs and Marijuana
The users were asked, "Do you think your experiences (if
any) with any of these other psychedelic drugs have affected or
changed the quality of your experiences with pot? If yes, how?"
Twenty-eight percent of the users replied that there had been
no change in their marijuana experiences as a result of taking
other drugs, 26 percent that normal marijuana phenomena were more
vivid or could be experienced more easily, 12 percent that new
experiences were possible on marijuana that were not available
before, and 3 percent that their marijuana experiences were not
as satisfactory or enjoyable any longer. Differences in marijuana
effects between users and non-users of psychedelic drugs will
be investigated in detail in later chapters.
Marijuana and Alcohol
The 150 users were asked, for comparison purposes, "How
long have you been drinking alcoholic beverages in sufficient
quantity to change your consciousness (i.e., drinking to get 'tipsy'
or drunk rather than just having a little wine or beer with meals
for the taste)?" The second column of Table 4-8 presents
their replies. The respondents have clearly been using alcohol
to alter their state of consciousness much longer than marijuana
(p < .001), a difference that may represent desirability, but
more likely represents the easier availability of alcohol to young
people at the time the respondents were growing up.
The users were also asked about their frequency of use of alcohol
for changing their state of consciousness, and this data is presented
in the third and fourth columns of Table 4-9. For both total use
and usage in the last six months, marijuana has been used more
frequently (p < .001 in each case).
To further investigate feelings of preference for marijuana and
alcohol for altering consciousness, the users were asked, "If
pot were as available legally as alcohol, about what percentage
of the time would you choose alcohol to alter your state of consciousness
rather than pot?" Table 4-11 shows that the users generally
would choose marijuana in a free-choice situation. Supporting
this is a suggestive tendency (p < .10) for the respondents
to be using alcohol less frequently in the last six months than
in their total alcohol-drinking career.
TABLE 4-11
USE OF ALCOHOL RATHER THAN MARIJUANA
PERCENT OF TIMES ALCOHOL WOULD BE
CHOSEN RATHER THAN MARIJUANA | PERCENTAGE OF USERS |
|---|
|
| 0%, Never | 43% |
| </=25% | 37% |
| </=50% | 13% |
| </=75% | 2% |
| </=100% | 3% |
|
Note.—The percentages in this table do not add up to exactly
100% due to rounding errors and/or some users' skipping the question.
SUMMARY
In general, we may describe our 150 users as a predominantly young,
highly educated group of California college students, with a high
interest in self-improvement (meditation or therapy), considerable
experience
with other psychedelic drugs, and little experience with narcotics.
Most of them used marijuana once a week or more during the six-month
period covered by this study.
Footnotes
1. It is my personal impression from informal
and teaching contact with many students that the sample, while
rather avant garde for 1968, would be fairly typical now. A Gallup
poll taken as this book went to press reported that 42 percent
of college students polled said they had used marijuana, compared
with only 5 percent when the same question was asked in 1967 (see
Newsweek, January 25, 1971, p. 52). (back)
2. In retrospect, asking about oral amphetamines
was poorly done, as the question does not distinguish the typical
college student who uses low doses to help himself study from
the high-dose user who wishes to radically alter his state of
consciousness. (back)
DRCNet Library |
Schaffer Library