Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Major Studies
Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry - Cannabis Report
CannabisThe Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs - 1972
2. Cannabis and Its Effects
PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE AND DRIVING
Psychomotor Performance
The effects of cannabis on psychomotor skills depends upon dose, the subject's past history of use (and probably his experience with the task while 'high') and the nature of the sensory, cognitive and muscular components involved in the task studied. The "set and setting" are also undoubtedly important, as well, but have not been adequately studied in this context.
Mayor La Guardia's Committee found that apparently large doses of oral or smoked cannabis impaired hand and body steadiness and choice reaction time. Simple reaction time and maximum tapping speed were little affected. The decrements were generally dose-related, and persons with past cannabis experience showed less impairment in performance than did those who had not taken cannabis before."' The fin@dings of decreased hand and body steadiness and impaired complex reaction time have been recently confirmed, as well as the observation that experience with the drug may reduce or eliminate the impairment."'-"',"' There is some suggestion that cannabis may slightly alter ocular-motor (eye movement) function,"' although the general significance of such an effect is unclear.
More complicated psychornotor skills, requiring an integration of continuously changing visual and muscular feedback and motor control have recently been studied. Weil and co-workers tested cannabis-naive subjects with two different doses of smoked marijuana and an inactive placebo. Performance on a task requiring muscular co-ordination and attention (Pursuit Rotor Test) declined as dose increased. No effect was seen with the high dose in a small group of experienced cannabis users."' Carlin and associates found no significant cannabis effects in experienced cannabis smokers on pursuit rotor performance, either while the task was being learned, or after the subjects' tracking abilities had improved and stabilized with practice."' Manno and associates found a dose-dependent impairment of pursuit tracking performance in a group which included both experienced and cannabis-naive individuals. A tracking impairment due to cannabis was demonstrated in three separate studies, although a dose-dependent relationship was evident only when the drug was administered on a body weight basis. Marijuana and alcohol together produced significantly greater impairment of tracking performance on one of the four stimulus patterns tested than did either drug alone. There is some suggestion that boredom and attentional factors played a significant role in these deficits."'.'9" 398,399AW)
Crancer's group found no cannabis effects on a laboratory-simulated driving task.'T' This study will be discussed in more detail below. Similarly, a recent study in Alberta found no marijuana-related impairment on a "pilot simulator" laboratory apparatus designed to assess "muscular complex coordination" skills."' Rafaelsen and associates, in a preliminary report of their cannabis and alcohol driving simulator research, noted no drug effects on 1@ start time". but both drugs increased "brake time"."' Again, attention problems were implicated in the brake time delays. Binder reported that marijuana increased response latency in a laboratory tracking task."
The Commission has investigated the effects of various doses of high . purity THC, marijuana and alcohol on several psychornotor abilities in experienced users of these drugs.2" "' _" Both the upper cannabis and alcohol (.07% blood alcohol level h.a.l.) doses produced subjective effects reported to be generally comparable to those typically experienced when 'high' or 'stoned'. (Although most subjects felt that the dose produced effects that were at least as intensive as their normal experience with the drug, others reported that they felt less 'high' than usual.) Simple tracking and complex tracking (involving the addition of a foot choice-reaction task and occassional polarity reversals if, the control device), tapping speed, and some automobile driving tasks were studied. The driving data will be discussed separately below.
Maximum tapping speed was unaffected by cannabis.' In the first hour after drug administration, alcohol and, less consistently, the upper marijuana dose resulted 5 in a decrease in simple and complex compensatory tracking performance. " The interaction of low marijuana and low alcohol (.03% b.a.l.) in combination typically resulted in more error in complex tracking than either low dose treatment alone. An additive drug effect was not as evident in simple tracking. A more detailed analysis of the various components of tracking error (discussed in Annex A of this chapter) suggests that the mechanisms of the effects of marijuana and alcohol on this task are somewhat distinct. Speed of reaction to tracking control polarity change tended to be slower with the higher dose of alcohol, but not with the other drug conditions. During complex tracking, whenever a number appeared on an electronic tube positioned above the tracking screen, the subject was required to push either a left or right pedal, or continue pushing a middle pedal with his foot, depending on which of three numbers was presented. No warning signal was given. This task was designed to assess both secondary attention and response time. Marijuana did not significantly change choicereaction time, but alcohol reliably decreased response speed. The drugs did not cause subjects to miss signals or respond at the wrong time any more often than with placebo, suggesting rio drug effects on the level of attention required to perform this task. The effects of low alcohol and marij . uana in combination on choice-reaction were not significantly different from the effects of alcohol alone. No reliable drug effects were seen on psychomotor performance when the subjects were retested four hours after smoking. The additive clecremental effects of alcohol and cannabis on psychomotor performance suggested in this study and by Manno and associates... may be of social importance because of the increased use of these drugs in combination.
The effects of long-term chronic use of cannabis on psychornotor functioning has not been adequately explored. In William's study, subjects smoked large quantities of marijuana daily for more than one month. No gross effects were noted on muscular co-ordination, although on one test of mechanical ability there was a tendency for increased speed but less accuracy as time went on."@` The lack of a control group and statistical analysis limits the conclusions that can be drawn from this study, however. In a report of a prison study in Egypt, Souief found a tendency for inmates arrested for hashish use to perform less well on psychomotor tests than did prisoners who had never taken any illicit drugs ( 1,689 subjects were tested ).584.4 1 4 In two
1
studies of chronic heavy nwrijLlana users and matched controls in Jamaica, I I t.7,
Bowman found no evidence of significant psychornotor impairmen Other studies of chronic and sub-chronic use are underway which ma be of value here. but the relevant data have not yet been presented."' 189,281A'S, 4
Auto"lobile Driving
Although there are clearly a multitude of valid reasons for interest in the effects of cannabis on psychornotor skills, concern has perhaps been greatest for possible adverse effects on automobile driving. While laboratory studies of psychornotor skills and attention are of considerable interest in this regard, the predictive validity of such tests with respect to actual driving has not been demonstrated, and generalizations must be made with great caution.
Compared to most behavioural tasks studied in the laboratory, automobile driving is an extremely complex phenomenon. Certain isolated elements of the overall behavioural patterns involved have been explored, and some are reasonably well understood in abstract experimental conditions. However, the relative importance of various perceptual, cognitive and psychomotor responses in general driving and (of greater significance ultimately) in traffic accidents and fatalities is not clear. Although it would seem obvious that gross impairment in any of a number of essential functions would affect driving ability, little is known as to the actual causes of traffic accidents, and small defects in one or more components might not result in significantly increased accidents or injuries.
Many popular assumptions as to essential driving skills, which may on the surface seem valid, have not been supported by studies of driving behaviour. It has been shown that bad drivers (i.e., those with a large number of moving violations) actually had faster reaction times, performed better on a number of visual perception tasks, and were more knowledgeable about traffic laws than individuals with better driving records.","' Fergenson found that drivers with high accident rates were slower in a ch '
__@@c - @c4iori time test than non-accident drivers, but those with many traffic violations and no accidents performed best."' Currie has argued that elementary psychomotor functions, like simple reaction time, are generally not significant factors in accidents, but that judgemental faculties such as the perception of danger are more important. i 47, It would seem that such factors@-a-s-d-r-iver--a-ttitudes, risktaking traits, general judgement, aligtilion and susceptibility jq__d@istraction, and a variety of other variables which are very difficult to measure undernatural conditions. may be more significant in contributing to automobile accidents. Waller stresses that both laboratory and epidemiological data are needed in this area. 14' Non-experimental information of value can be gained 1
from studies of users' attitudes, experiences and driving records, and by systematic investigation of accidents. Data in these various areas will be discussed below.
Hypothetically, there are many ways in which a drug might change some component of the driver's car handling or traffic negotiation abilities. A drug Might, for instance. damage his ability to assess risks, or to integrate the complex feedback involved in car handling. It could subtly impair the driver's Psychomotor co-ordination or simply make him fall asleep. The drug could
alter his perception of the roadwav or change the way lie evaluates the intentions of other drivers. or it might perhaps interact with a particular situation in the environment, regardless of the driver's skill and motivation, A drug could very well have drastic, disabling effects on driving ability and yet have little effect on accident rates if people tended not to drive after using the drug. A drug could have an effect on driving and accidents, but cause few injuries, perhaps because it would induce its users to drive more slowly and thus be involved mostly in minor accidents. (Driving slowly, however, may cause difficulties for others in fast-moving traffic.) A drug might have no effect on psychornotor functions, yet increase risk-taking or aggressiveness in a way which leads to a greater incidence of accidents and injuries.
As noted above. cannabis has a variety of perceptual, cognitive and psychomotor effects which are dose-dependent. General psychomotor skills, such as tracking ability, complex reaction time, etc., may be only slightly or not at all impaired at low doses, while higher doses often produce a more definite effect. It has been shown that cannabis can affect attention and judgement, and, if the dose is sufficiently large, can produce considerable perceptual distortion. On the other hand, cannabis does not normally seem to increase aggression and apparently often reduces it. In all, it would seem likely that under some conditions, cannabis might have adverse effects on driving, and that any such effects would vary as a function of dose and a variety of other factors.
Attitudes of Users Towards Driving
A number of surveys of regular cannabis users indicate that at least half
111.248,25 1.27@.41 11481 A
have driven while under the influence of cannabis. significant proportion of these persons feel that their driving is impaired by the drug, and many generally refuse to drive after using cannabis. Others deny any impairment. Many indicate that they compensate for initial difficulties and, in fact, are more careful and, consequently, safer drivers when 'high'. It has even been suggested that because of the tranquilizing effects attributed to cannabis. low doses might improve driving performance in some nervous individuals under certain conditions of tension or stress. Other observers have expressed concern over the possible effects on driving of "flashbacks" or recurrences of intoxication effects in the absence of recent drug use.
Klein and associates studied college students' attitudes to cannabis and driving, and found that infrequent and former users tended to downgrade their driving-related perceptual and psychornotor abilities with marijuana more frequently than did chronic users. In addition, non-users and infrequent users tended to disapprove of the use of marijuana by airplane pilots and commercial and private automobile drivers more consistently than did
311
chronic users. Whether these attitudes reflect a differential sensitivity to marijuana effects. possibly including tolerance, or perhaps some attempt at rationalization by chronic users. or other biasing factors (either positive or negative) is not clear. The authors also presented a series of case historic examples where marijuana use was allegedly involved in crashes or poor
Experimental Studies of Driving Skills
Experiments of drug effects on certain driving tasks, or on simulated or putative components of actual driving behaviour, may answer certain specific questions regarding cause and effect in the experimental context, but they generally lack documented predictive validity with respect to performance under normal conditions of driving. In any experimental research on driving, of either the laboratory driving-simulator or driving-course type, some components of 'real' driving will be absent. In most laboratory simulator tests there are simulated demands on both the car handling and traffic negotiation functions, but actual vehicle control is lacking and many of the normal lines of feedback to the driver do not exist. In a simulator, the driver generally only uses vision (and perhaps hearing), while in real driving he receives feedback through his bodily senses (kinesthetic and vestibular) as to the consequences of his control movements. When automobiles are used in a controlled driving course, the driver receives normal feedback on performance, since he is handling a real car, but he does not have to cope with traffic or dangerous situations. Drug effects on real traffic negotiation are rarely studied for safety reasons. In either kind of test, the risks and payoffs involved are quite different than in normal driving, and in most experimental tests there is no risk in poor performance at all, except perhaps to the subject's self-esteem. On the other hand, subjects are always aware that they are "performing" and under observation. In most testing of driver behaviour there is a limited and arbitrary choice of roadway and vehicle characteristics, so that interactions of driver factors with different aspects of the roadway and vehicle, which may be of the most interest, are not seen. The problem of validating any experimental tests against driving performance under normal conditions has not yet been solved, and the relative value of laboratory simulator and testtrack driving measures is a matter of dispute.
In 1969 Crancer and co-workers from the Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles published a study of marijuana effects on a laboratory driving simulator. 1 15 Scores on a very similar task had previously been shown to correlate slightly with subjects' driving records. The overall performance of 36 regular cannabis users tested with a single dose of marijuana was not different from control, although there was less careful monitoring of the speedometer under the drug, and "driving" tended to be slower." The main study was followed by two cursory investigations. Four subjects were retested with approximately three times the original dose and none showed a significant change in performance. Furthermore, four marijuana-naive subjects were tested after smoking enough marijuana to become 'high' (equal to or greater than the amount used in the main experiment). No significant change in scores occurred with the drug in these subjects either.
The investigators cautioned that the study does not necessarily indicate that marijuana will not impair driving:
However. we feel that. because the simulator task is a less complex but related task, deterioration in simulator performance implies deterioration in actual driving performance. We are less willing to assume that non-deterioration in
1 45
simulator performance implies non-deterioration in actual drivin . tP. 854]
In order to obtain some standard reference point for the study, and to ascertain the sensitivity of the performance task to known drug-induced impairment, the subjects were also tested under a single dose of alcohol, designed to produce a blood alcohol level (b.a.l.) corresponding to the legal standard of presumed driving impairment in Washington (O. IO% b.a.l.). The actual b.a.l. achieved was 0. I I%, a relatively high dose."' The average number of errors under alcohol was significantly greater than that acquired under either the no-drug or marijuana conditions. The Crancer study has been widely quoted and distorted in the literature and is often referenced to demonstrate that marijuana does not affect driving-a conclusion not drawn by the original investigators.
H. Kalant has pointed out that comparisons between the drugs must be made with caution due to the single doses used in the main stud@_-' He also suggested that, even though it would not have been easy for the subjects to fake good driving performance under marijuana, an anti-alcohol bias, sometimes seen in marijuana users, could have resulted in poorer performance in the alcohol condition. The study has also been criticized for comparing a heavy alcohol dose with a mild cannabis dose. However, Crancer apparently gave rather large quantities of marijuana, although the actual potency of the material used is in question. In another laboratory, marijuana from the same supply was found to be much weaker than originally
5 2 1
estimated.
As noted earlier. Rafaelsen's group found that "socially relevant" doses of cannabis taken orally increased "brake time" (and apparently the number of missed signals) but had no effect on "start time" in response to the appropriate driving signals in their laboratory driving simulators 1 5 The U.C.L.A. group has released very little information about their drivingsimulator research. but has suggested impairment due to marijuana in some
155.11 1
other apparently driving-related tasks. Other general studies of psychomotor skills of possible relevance to driving have been discussed above.
The Commission has conducted an initial investigation of the effects of two levels of smoked marijuana and a single dose of alcohol on a limited range of
15 1
automobile driving tasks in 16 regular users of both drugs. Subjects' ratings indicated that the upper cannabis dose and the alcohol (.07% b.a.l.) generally produced effects comparable to their typical levels of "highness" or intoxication achieved with these drugs. Subjects were tested under all conditions and received first a drink and then a smoke in each session, one of which was a placebo on experimental drug days. In the control session, the subjects were given a disguised non-alcoholic drink and a "joint" of thoroughly extracted marijuana placebo. Subjects were tested for threequarters of an hour on a driving course (marked out with wooden poles and plastic cones) on which they were required to perform a number of manoeuvering and parking tasks requiring good psychomotor control and judgement. Six consecutive laps of the 1. I mile track were completed on the first test trial. Three hours after smoking, subjects were tested again on half as many laps.
The low marijuana dose and placebo conditions were not different in terms of the number of oles or "road cones" hit. Both the higher marijuana dose
and the alcohol condition produced small increases in "hits", which were reliably different from placebo, but not significantly different from each other, The higher cannabis dose resulted in a slight (7%) but consistent decrease in driving speed. This latter effect is in agreement with other less formal data. 144, 3" braving speeds in the other drug conditions were not significantly different from those of the placebo conditions. Efficiency of handling was noted by a within-car observer. Awkward or superfluous driving manoeuvers ("rough handling") tended to be greater under both drug conditions, but only the alcohol scores were significant. No substantial drug effects on the driving measures were detected on the second trial three hours after drug administration.
Thirteen of the 16 subjects were experienced in driving in normal traffic after smoking cannabis or drinking alcohol, while three had never done so. Of the 13 experienced subjects, all but one reported having driven when feeling at least as "high" as they felt when getting the lower cannabis dose, while seven reported having driven when feeling at least as "high" as they did after getting the higher cannabis dose. Eleven of the 13 subjects had driven when feeling as "high" as they felt after the alcohol dose. In both the alcohol and upper cannabis conditions, the subjects rated their driving ability as lower than they did after placebo. Moreover, they felt that driving took more effort after either drug, and that normally they would be less likely to drive when feeling as they did.
Faking poor performance under the alcohol condition seems unlikely in the present study. To begin with, subjects' attitudes were carefully explored in interviews; none displayed any sign of hostility towards alcohol, and all were intermittent drinkers. Furthermore, some subjects thought they were receiving both drugs in the alcohol or high-dose marijuana conditions. In addition, the alcohol impairment among the marijuana users on these tasks was comparable to that displayed by a similar group of 12 non-marijuanausing alcohol subjects in a secondary study, in which cannabis was not mentioned.
Considerably more experimental work is needed to elucidate the exact nature of the effects of cannabis on driving skills, including the examination of a variety of other performance and risk measures, as well as dose-response and drug-interaction effects (especially with alcohol). Important questions regarding high-speed freeway decisions and manoeuvering, for example, as well as susceptibility to distraction and reaction to unexpected events under conditions of relaxation, stress, fatigue, or boring long-distance driving should be explored. Some of these conditions are not easily amenable to controlled experimentation. On the basis of the Commission study, one cannot assert that cannabis does or will cause automobile accidents or the contrary. It does demonstrate, however, that marijuana, in acute doses within the range commonly consumed by some individuals in North America today, can produce measurable impairment of short duration in some driving tasks which are, in some respects, not unlike the effects of alcohol in quantities commonly used. More specific comparisons of the effects of these drugs on driving cannot be made on the basis of these data. Additional investigation is clearly indicated.
Previous claims that cannabis has no effect on driving skills (based largely on a misinterpretation of Crancer's ),vork). and poorly supported statements that experienced cannabis users can "come down", and completely control, or compensate for all the effects of the drug when necessary must clearly be modified." On the other hand, there is no evidence from available experiments for the notion that social cannabis use produces a disasterous loss of judgement or psychomotor control. Our research suggests that until further data are available. driving while under the influence of cannabis should be avoided.
As described in an earlier section, a pilot study which suggested that cannabis might increase visual glare-recovery time by several seconds received wid@ publicity."' Considerable concern has been expressed that night-time driving problems might be caused by such a sensory effect. However, the trend reported in the original report was not statistically significant. An investigation by the Commission of the effects of cannabis on recovery of dim-light visual acuij@y after bright glare" and a more comprehensive study by Moskowitz 115 have also failed to find any major changes. To date, no adverse effects of cannnabis on visual glare-recovery, after-image retention, or dark-adaptation time have been demonstrated.
Driving Records
Waller has stressed that tests under experimental or laboratory conditions alone can give no definitive conclusions regarding highway crashes."' Epidemiological data regarding actual driving conditions is needed as well. There have been several studies of the driving histories of identified marijuana users. McGlothlin and associates investigated the records of marijuana users who volunteered for an LSD experiment and found them to
have traffic violation and accident rates which were not significantly greater 11 5
than non-users. Klein's group found that chronic cannabis users admitted to more frequent traffic violation charges than non-users," but it was not ascertained whether or not these occurred while under the influence of the drug. In Haines and Green's study, pone of 81 regular users who had driven when "high" (many of them regularly) "...has ever incurred physical harm of has been involved in an auto accident when stoned"."' Crancer and Quiring found arrested male marijuana users to have more traffic violations and accidents than a control group, while in the marijuana arrestees as a whole (including females) the violation rates were not significantly elevated."' As the authors point out, arrested users are not representative of the general population of users in society and there is no way of determining whether or not the excess accidents occurred while the users were under the influence of the drug. Even within the group studied, the reasons for deviant driving are unclear. The authors state, "The most obvious causes of a poorer driving record might be increased driving exposure, physiological impairment from using drugs. and character disorder."
Several other studies strongly suggest 7 t hat personality and social factors may account for poor driving records. Waller investigated the driving records of 231 persons convicted for illegal drug use (usually cannabis) it, California. and found the group to have more documented traffic law
violations. hut no more accidents than other drivers. Many of these delinquent drivers began "illegal drug use... only after they were already known as 'negligent operators'." Consequently, drug use was probably not a cause of the violations, but more likely reflected a general tendency to take risks and ignore the law."' The author later concluded that, with other factors controlled marijuana use alone was probably not related to excessive crash
risk.'-"
For maximum gain, future investigations of driving records should take into account such variables as age, sex and social characteristics of the subjects, pre-drug-use behaviour and personality, the frequency of cannabis and other drug use, overall driving exposure (both with the drug and without it), and the presence or absence of intoxication or drug-induced impairment at the time of the violation or accident of interest.
Accident Investigations
Several anecdotal reports, case histories or other stories implying marijuana involvement in accidents or poor driving have appeared in the literature .51,93,3*).663 The significance of even verified isolated reports is difficult to ascertain. Waller points out in his recent review of drugs and driving:
Anecdotes or individual case histories can suggest relationships and mechanisms in specific instances. They can give no indications, however, as to the frequency with which relationships exist. The event described may be commonplace or quite rare. 64' [P. 1479]
Unfortunately, due to the lack of convenient and reliable chemical techniques for quantifying or even detecting cannabinoids in body fluid or tissues. it has not yet been possible to objectively compare the occurrence of cannabis use in drivers who have had accidents with those who have not. Such controlled surveys of fatal and non-fatal accidents, and of drivers both 11 at fault" and "victims", have been of major importance, for example, in clarifying the role of alcohol in traffic accidents (see Borkenstein's work 14 ). Similar studies focussed on the detection of cannabis and other drugs, as well as alcohol, in persons involved in accidents, should be initiated once the appropriate biochemical tests have been developed for cannabinoids. Recent advances in detecting cannabinoid metabolites in the urine may provide some qualitative assistance in this area.
. In order for epidemiological studies of this type to yield reliable information about a drug's potential traffic hazards, the incidence of the use of the drug in the driver population must be fairly substantial. Such investigations are clearly not sensitive to driving conditions which are relatively infrequent at the time of the study. It would appear that in most parts of Canada the present coincidence of cannabis use and automobile driving in the general population is probably too low for the detection of Possible cannabis-related traffic hazards using this research technique. Such studies might be feasible in parts of British Columbia or California, for example, or in other areas or countries where regular cannabis use is quite common.
Conclusions Regarding Traftic HaZards In his 1971 review of the literature, Waller cautiously concludes that the use of mari' be associated with a substantial increase in crash Juana may not I
risk."' Similarly. Nichols, in a major review of the broad area of drugs and
highway safety prepared for the United States Department of Transport in 1971, concluded that the existing data do not confirm the hypothesis that drug use (other than alcohol) is presently a major factor contributing to I 1 17' Both investigators stress that important gaps
highway crashes and fatalities. exist in our present knowledge, and that no definite statement can be made at the present time regarding the possible role of cannabis in accidents.
While Commission experimental findings do not invalidate the guarded conclusions of Nichols and Waller, both the demonstration of some, even limited, driving impairment due to cannabis, and the evidence suggesting that cannabis and alcohol have additive detremental effects on certain psychornotor skills, indicate that a cautious approach should be taken in interpreting the present, very limited epidemiological data regarding cannabis and traffic accidents. Continuing changes in the frequency and patterns of use of cannabis (and other drugs, including alcohol), in addition to improved research techniques, may substantially alter the epidemiological picture in the future. These changes must be carefully monitored and documented.
ADVERSE PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTIONS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
The term adverse reaction, as traditionally applied to the medical use of drugs, refers to significant undesirable or negative side-effects of the drug. The distinction between main or desired effects and the multitude of other side effects which the drug may have is not absolute in any sense, and the application of these terms generally depends on the conditions of drug use. In the medical use of drugs, the desired and undesired effects are relatively easy to define in a specific treatment context, although the labels may change with the aims of the therapy.
Drug adverse reactions in the medical context are not at all unusual. In one recent study in Montreal, a total of 524 psychiatric patients experienced 730 adverse reactions to psychotropic drugs administered them for therapeutic 1@5
purposes. This represents an overall incidence of close to 10% of the more than 5,000 patients studied over a one-year period. Predominant adverse reactions included central nervous system effects, behavioural effects and autonomic physiological effects.
In the area of the non-medical use of drugs, defining adverse reactions becomes considerably more complicated. With cannabis, for example. personal and social attitudes and norms often dominate in the interpretation of drug effects. What may be a desirable or pleasurable effect to one individual in a certain situation may be considered an adverse response or a side effect in another situation or to another individual. For example.
cannabis effects that are Subjectively considered "psychedelic" or "peak" by certain persons are often defined as "psychotic" by others. Feelings of increased sensitivity to humour, reported by some users, may be viewed as ,,unnatural hilarity" or "loquacious euphoria" by other individuals. What some would consider "exploration of inner consciousness" might alternatively be called "escape from reality". Clearly, the labelling of certain aspects of a drug experience as adverse, neutral or positive is often a function of individual and social constructs and concepts of normality, morality and reality, and generally implies a definite value judgement beyond the objective
21 2
reporting of behaviour and experience. In a survey of physicians regarding adverse reactions to LSD, one respondent stated, "From my understanding of the effects, I would consider all reactions to LSD as 'adverse' regardless of the immediate subjective response."'2' Clearly, not all LSD users or other observers share this opinion. As Bialos indicates, in discussing some of the difficulties with defining marijuana adverse reactions:
... drug users, the non-drug user friend, the professional clinical observer, the researcher, the law enforcement official, and the middle-aged, middle-class citizen may all have different criteria for defining the syndrome.,, [P. 8 1 9]
Tart has proposed two criteria for selecting what he believes would be unequivocally negative effects:
I ) The effect is clearly unpleasant, 511
(2) it has no redeeming value, other than as a possible lesson to the user.
While most observers might agree in principle with the approach, considerable conflict among individuals would undoubtedly arise in the application of these criteria in many practical situations.
Even if agreement is reached as to whether a particular drug-associated condition is positive or negative, in practice one is often left with the difficult task of determining whether the behaviour or condition under consideration is in fact a response to the drug, whether the drug use is the result of the condition, whether the two are merely randomly coincident, or if a combination or interaction of these possible situations might exist. Some observers contend that only those with serious psychiatric disorders become heavily involved in non-medical drug use, while others might argue from the same data that the drug is primarily responsible for the pathology. Alternatively, some investigators have suggested that the "cannabis psychosis" often noted in Eastern literature, for example. is merely endogenous schizophrenia occurring in the drug-using population. independent of drug use.
In spite of these ambiguities, a number of rather specific concerns have developed regarding possible adverse psychological reactions to cannabis. Some of these alleged effects, which will be examined in detail below, include acute adverse reactions such as depression, anxiety, panic or psychotic-like, short-term responses cannabis augmentation of pre-existing neuroses. character disorders and adjustment problems; functional psychoses. in which cannabis might serve as a precipitating or complicating factor; long-term changes in personality, behaviour or life style associated with chronic use (for example, the so-called "amotivational syndrome"); a specific "cannabis
psychosis" or dementia of a chronic nature caused primarily by the drug@ and "Ifashbacks" or recurrences of previous drug effects.
Because of the potentially serious nature of these alleged acute or chronic effects and the current vociferous controversy regarding both the validity and frequency of such occurrences, the literature concerning adverse reaction will be revieN@ed in considerable detail below.
ADVERSE PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO CANNABIS IN THE EAST AND IN NON-INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES
A vast literature exists describing complications of chronic cannabis use in the Middle and Far East, where the drug has been consumed for centuries. Generally, moderate use seems to be the rule, with little evidence of harmful effects in the majority of users. However, cannabis has long been implicated in serious psychiatric problems in some chronic heavy users, who reportedly constitute a population similar to the derelict skid-row alcoholics of this continent. There are a variety of problems with interpreting these reports and generalizing their conclusions to North American conditions of cannabis use.
t7
It has often been said that many of these countries are underdeveloped scientifically and medically as well as economically. Consequently. few studies exist which are even marginally adequate by present scientific standards of clinical research. As discussed earlier. medical and psychiatric diagnostic and treatment practices vary greatly from country to country. In addition, in most non-industrial countries, psychiatric institutions are grossly understaffed and suffer from a serious lack of modern treatment and diagnostic facilities. The majority of subjects in most of the Eastern studies were illiterate, impoverished and malnourished. Furthermore, the potency, form, and mode of administration of cannabis (and the presence of other psychotropic drugs), as well as the extent, patterns of use and social and religious meaning, differ greatly from conditions in North America.
The 1971 United States Health, Education, and Welfare Marihuana and Health report states that:
In evaluating the significance of overseas studies of the relationship of cannabis use to mental deterioration, it is important to recognize the comparatively low level of attention that can be paid to psychiatric illnesses and to the fate of the mentallv ill in countries where life for the bulk of the population is one of marginal survival and there are more pressing public health problems. Here crippling chronic illnesses long since eliminated in the West are still endemic, and mental hospitals and trained psychiatrists do not rank high on the list of national health priorities. Yet some of the most widely quoted studies in the literature on marihuana and psychosis have originated from poorly staffed and maintained psychiatric hospitals. operating with a minimum of professionally trained psychiatrists."' [P. 1241
In spite of these limitations, certain studies clearly merit attention and mav provide clues as to possible consequences of increasing cannabis use and of changing patterns of consumption in the West.
A number of articles in the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth. reported that cannabis was responsible for 20 to 50 per cent of the
rnental hospital admissions in India. Egypt and other Eastern and Middle
I
Eastern countries.'2' _"2 A different picture has been presented by other researchers.
The Government of India, in 1893, appointed the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission to investigate and report on the economic, social and medical aspects of the cannabis (hemp drugs) situation in India. 215 The different forms of the drug. bhang, gan a and charas (hashish), were to be studied separately. The Commission was asked to "...ascertain whether, and in what form. the consumption of the drugs is either harmless or even beneficial as has occasionally been maintained." Although the inquiry, in many respects, does not meet modern optimal research standards, it remains one of the most thorough general studies of cannabis ever conducted.' 1 3.320,433
In investigating the effects of hemp on mental health, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission found much of the medical testimony and hospital records and reports defective and unreliable. In many instances, the primary hospital data regarding the patients' histories and diagnoses were taken from the "descriptive role" which was generally filled out prior to referral to the asylum. often by non-medical personnel such as policemen or magistrates. The Commission stated:
It may well seem extraordinary that statistics based on such absolutely untrustworthy material should have been submitted year after year in the asylum reports. It is extraordinary and cannot be fully justified. [P. 236]
The Commission concluded:
In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind .... It is otherwise with excessive use. Excessive use indicates and intensifies mental instability .... It appears that excessive use of hemp drugs may, especially in cases where there is any weakness or hereditary predisposition. induce insanity. It has been shown that the effect of hemp drugs in this respect has hitherto been greatly exaggerated, but that they do sometimes produce insanitv seems beyond question .... Viewing the subject generally. it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. [P. 264]
Since this report. many observers have challenged the conclusion that even excessive use can be a major cause of "insanity".' @'6.231.406,458 On the other hand. two Indian members of the original Commission felt that a stronger statement should have been made. and indicated that the majority of medical witnesses felt that the use of hemp drugs was deleterious. They recommended that both charas and ganja be prohibited but that the use of bhang should continue to be permitted. Their dissenting opinion is summarized by the following statement:
I believe that the injurious effects of the hemp drugs are greater and their use more harmful than one would naturally suppose to be the case at-ter reading the concluding portion of Chapter X111 of our Report. although I think I should say that the facts elicited bV Our inquiry do not go to support the extreme opinion field hv some well-intentioned people that these drugs in all their forms and in everv case are hi-hiv pernicious in their effects. [P. 374]
In a series (if articles. Chopra and associates have discussed mental and physical effects of chronic cannabis use India .1211 11 ' MUC I 0
2 2 1 f their data is hased on a StUdv of over one thousand cannabis users. The major proj . ect represents one of the few attempts to investigate a large group of cannabis users who were not selected from an obviously pathological or deviant population (that is. not psychiatric patients or prison inmates). The researchers report that among regular users of the potent ganja and charas a small percentage suffered from serious psychiatric disorders, and that minor emotional problems, including impairment of judgement and memory, were observed in these subjects. According to the authors, a significant proportion of this group had pre-existing neurotic tendencies which may have contributed to their problem of drug use. In some instances, cannabis use was seen as an attempt at self-medication in response to these disorders rather than as the cause. Heavy users were often observed to show marked inactivity, apathy and self-neglect. The majority of those who took small doses of any of the cannabis preparations felt that the overall consequences of their drug habit were harmless or beneficial. while the majority of those who chronically took heavy doses, thought the practice harmful. These subjective judgements were generally consistent with the clinical observations reported.
In a separate study, the Chopras 121.121 carried out a survey of:
Toxic insanitv cases in all the important Indian mental hospitals between 1928 and 1939 .... X series of 600 cases ... were thus collected for study with a definite history of indulgence in the use of cannabis drugs .... Analytical studies of these 600 cases of cannabis insanity revealed that, although it was comparatively easy to elicit a historv of a cannabis habit from such patients, it was often difficult to ascertain whether this narcotic was the primary cause of insanity or indulgence in it was only secondary to the existing mental disorder. 1 21 [Pp. 4-29]
Four hundred cases were found in which the authors felt that the cannabis habit was the only clear cause of insanity. In the remaining two hundred cases. a variety of other factors such as heredity or indulgence in other drugs, were considered important as well. They describe a variety of acute mental disorders which they feel are attributable to the use of cannabis drugs. including confusional, maniacal, depressive and delusional disorders. Chronic disorders were less common but reportedly took the form of a toxic mania. schizophrenia or dementia. Unfortunately, no control group of nonusers of similar socioeconomic background was studied by the Chopras in this series of investigations. but their data do allow some comparisons within the types of users studied.
Recently, G.S. Chopra reported on 200 cases of psychotic reactions to cannabis seen between 19@3 6 8.123 The subjects fell into three main categories: Group I (341-7c,) no previous history of mental disorder; Group 11 (61%) most were on the "threshold of psychosis"; Group III (5%) chronic psychotics with cannabis intoxication superimposed.
Dube has conducted a general epidemiological study of health and mental illness in a North-Indian town and surrounding rural area."',"' General drug use was very low in this district. Significantly more psychiatric disorders were found among the cannabis users than among the non-drug-using subjects. Although the author does not conclude that drugs were the direct cause of the
path 0 logy observed in these cases, fie has described elsewhere Li cannabis toxic psychotic reaction with schizophrenia-like features, and a dull lethargy in some chronic users."'
A few cases of cannabis-associated anxiety or psychotic reactions of varying duration have also been recently reported among North Americans visiting or living in India.2" The Commission has been informed of several such occurrences. as well."' These cases have typically involved the use of very potent cannabis materials under generally unusual, unfamiliar and. in some respects, stressful circumstances.
A Moroccan study by Roland and Teste (also presented by Benabud in 1 95 7 4@ ) has received considerable attention in discussions of "cannabis - 29 psychosis"-@ The report. based on a study of hospital records, provides a variety of subcategories of psychotic reaction to cannabis. The majority of cases were reported to be acute reactions to "sharp toxic overdose" associated with heavy use and were not as long-lasting as functional psychoses. The average duration of hospitalization was about six weeks. The investigators also felt that heavy cannabis use may mobilize or aggravate schizophrenia in predisposed individuals and may also interact negatively with malnutrition, alcoholism and other disorders. The problem chronic users in this study smoked enormous quantities of cannabis. "The average number of pipes smoked is between twenty and thirty, but figures of forty to fifty are not infrequent." A similar and more recent report has been presented by Defer and Diehl. 151 Other authors writing on the Moroccan situation include Sigg and Chris toZoV.5K III in these studies, the majority of the severe chronic problems occurred in illiterate and impoverished slum dwellers. Moderate users, especially in the country districts, showed little sign of untoward effects.
After visiting some of the hospitals involved in the above reports, Mikuriya has challenged the validity of the clinical and diagnostic data in Morocco."' Few of the patients were seen by professional psychiatric personnel. diagnoses and case histories were often not based on adequate information, and many standard neurological and physiological tests and post mortern facilities were unavailable. Murphy states that:
... the clinical data which he [Benabud] presents are unclear, and it is not easy to infer from his paper just what characteristics or patterns are taken as distinguishing a cannabis psychosis from the acute toxic states associated with malnutrition and endemic injection .451 [P. Io j
In Egypt, Soueif studied two groups of hashish users, and two control groups of non-users.@` While hashish takers were found to be more anxious than the controls, no significant differences were found in other personality variables. No cases of psychosis or serious deterioration were noted. Moderate negative correlations were obtained between the amount of hashish consumed and the number of hours worked per day. Soueif is presently conducting a much larger study of imprisoned hashish smokers but has not vet published a full report.' 11.114 Preliminary information suggests more lrnPairment in cognitive and psychomotor function in these individuals than in non-hashish-using prisoners.
Bouquet of Tunisia argued that chronic intoxication with hashish leads to
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet