{"id":6488,"date":"2018-03-07T22:04:20","date_gmt":"2018-03-08T03:04:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lcpllutzlivetotell.org\/?p=6488"},"modified":"2019-08-08T12:38:49","modified_gmt":"2019-08-08T16:38:49","slug":"6488-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/?p=6488","title":{"rendered":"LaGuardia Committee Report on Marijuana"},"content":{"rendered":"

LaGuardia Committee Report on Marijuana<\/h4>\n
\n

Under the influence of marihuana changes in personality as shown by alterations in test performance
\nare slight. They are not statistically significant and indicate only tendencies or trends. Moreover, the
\ndrug effect is not always in proportion to the amount taken, nor are the changes consistently in one
\ndirection. In many instances the effect of small doses (2 cc.) or of marihuana cigarettes is the opposite
\nof the effect of larger doses (5 cc.) (2)<\/h6>\n
(2) While sufficient experimentation has not been made to validate the finding, it should be noted that
\nthe personality changes produced by 2 cc. or marihuana cigarettes are almost always in agreement in
\ncontrast to the changes resulting from the ingestion of 5 cc. The 2 cc. Dosage apparently more nearly
\napproximates the amount a person would take if left to his own devices.
\nThe personality changes observed when the subject is under the influence of 2 cc. of marihuana or
\nmarihuana cigarettes demonstrate that the subject experiences some reduction in drive, less
\nobjectivity in evaluating situations, less aggression, more self-confidence and a generally more
\nfavorable attitude toward himself. These reactions can be ascribed to two main causes, namely, an
\nincreased feeling of relaxation and disinhibition and increased self-confidence. As the drug relaxes
\nthe subject, the restraints which he normally imposes on himself are loosened and he talks more freely
\nthan he does in his undrugged state. Things which under ordinary circumstances he would not speak
\nabout are now given expression. Metaphysical problems which in the undrugged state he would be
\nunwilling to discuss, sexual ideas he would ordinarily hesitate to mention, jokes without point, are all
\npart of the oral stream released by the marihuana.
\nAt the same time that he verbalizes more freely, there is a reduction in the individual’s critical faculty.
\nThis is probably due both to the intellectual confusion produced by the drug and to the less exacting
\nattitude his feeling of relaxation induces. He holds himself less rigidly to the standards of his
\nundrugged phase and does not drive himself to achieve. He is satisfied with himself and willing to
\naccept himself as he is. This self-satisfaction undoubtedly helps produce the feeling of self-confidence
\nwhich allows the subject to come out more freely in fields which he formerly avoided. This increased
\nconfidence expresses itself primarily through oral rather than physical channels. Physically the
\nsubject reports pleasant sensations of “drifting” and “floating” and he allows himself to become
\nenveloped in a pleasant lassitude.
\nAfter the administration of larger doses of marihuana (5 cc.) the pleasurable sensations appear to be
\noutweighed by concomitant feelings of anxiety’and, in some cases, of physical distress, such as
\nnausea. Under these circumstances, for many subjects there is little increase in confidence but rather
\nheightened insecurity which precludes outgoing reactions and tends to evoke generally negativistic
\nattitudes to most stimuli.
\nIt is important to note that neither the ingestion of marihuana nor the smoking of marihuana cigarettes
\naffects the basic outlook of the individual except in a very few instances and to a very slight degree.
\nIn general the subjects who are withdrawn and introversive stay that way, those who are outgoing
\nremain so, and so on. Where changes occur the shift is so slight as to be negligible. In other words
\nreactions which are natively alien to the individual cannot be induced by the ingestion or smoking of
\nthe drug.
\nAlthough in most instances the effects of the drug are the same for the user and the non-user, there are
\nsome differences both in kind and extent. Where the effects for the two groups are in the same
\ndirection they generally are more marked in the case of the non-user. This is not unexpected in view
\nof the non-user’s lack of habituation to the drug action. For the nonuser his present experience is a
\nstrange, even hazardous one, and the uncertainty and anxiety attendant upon this impairs the sense of
\nwell-being which the drug produces in the user. Thus the non-user frequently feels-less secure when
\nhe is “high” than he does normally and is less well adjusted than he is in ordinary circumstances.
\nWhen the productions of the undrugged marihuana user are studied, certain personality traits which
\nserve to differentiate him from the non-user and from the “average” individual can be discerned. As a
\ngroup the marihuana users studied here were either inhibited emotionally or turned in on themselves,
\nmaking little response to stimuli in the world about them. People with this type of personality
\ngenerally have difficulty adjusting to others and are not at ease in social situations. This withdrawal
\nfrom social contacts apparently finds little compensatory or sublimating activity elsewhere. These
\nsubjects did not have a desire or urge to occupy themselves creatively in a manner which might prove
\nsocially useful. They showed a tendency to drift along in passive fashion and gave a good portion of
\ntheir attention to relatively unimportant matters. These men were poorly adjusted, lonely and
\ninsecure. As indicated by their history they seldom achieved good heterosexual adjustment.<\/h6>\n
CONCLUSIONS<\/h6>\n
1. Under the influence of marihuana the basic personality structure of the individual does not
\nchange but some of the more superficial aspects of his behavior show alteration.
\n2. With the use of marihuana the individual experiences increased feelings of relaxation,
\ndisinhibition and self-confidence.
\n3. The new feeling of self-confidence induced by the drug expresses itself primarily through
\noral rather than through physical activity. There is some indication of a diminution in
\nphysical activity.
\n4. The disinhibition which results from the use of marihuana releases what is latent in the
\nindividual’s thoughts and emotions but does not evoke responses which would be totally
\nalien to him in his undrugged state.
\n5. Marihuana not only releases pleasant reactions but also feelings of anxiety.
\n6. Individuals with a limited capacity for effective experience and who have difficulty in
\nmaking social contacts are more likely to resort to marihuana than those more capable of
\noutgoing responses.
\nFamily and Community Ideologies
\nAdolph G. Woltrnann, MA
\nAt the outset of the study it seemed worth while to supplement the quantitative data by some
\nqualitative procedures of the projective type which might throw light on the social reactions of the
\nindividuals who were being studied. One of the methods that has shown its possibilities, particularly
\nin its use with children, is the play technique in which the individual is permitted to give free
\nexpression to some of his unconscious motivations in a way that is not immediately apparent to him.
\nThe limitation of this technique is the fact that it is highly interpretive, but it has the advantage of
\npermitting observations of the subject’s personality reactions in problem situations.
\nSuch a study was accordingly carried out on 18 subjects in the early part of the investigation.
\nMETHOD
\nTwo situations were studied: one, subsequently to be referred to as the family set-up, in which toys
\nwere used to build an apartment or home, and another, subsequently to be known as the community
\nset- up, in which a second variety of toys were used to construct a town setting.
\nThe Family Set-up
\nThe equipment used in this part of the study consisted of a box of household toys of the type available
\nin the ten-cent store, including beds, dressers, chairs, tables, sinks, a stove, a bathtub, a wash basin, a
\npiano, lamps, flower boxes, a telephone, doll sets of a man, woman, boy, girl, and maid, and, in
\naddition, several small wooden slats which were intended to be used as room partitions.
\nThe box of toys and materials was presented to the subject with the following directions: “Here are a
\nnumber of toys which can be placed in such a manner that a house can be built from them. You are
\nsupposed to be this doll (man). Go ahead and build yourself a house or apartment. You may use as
\nfew or as many toys as you wish. You may also make believe you are a bachelor or a married man
\nwith or without a family.”
\nThe Community Set-up
\nIn studying the community set-up the following items were employed: eighteen wooden houses, trees,
\ncars, trucks, fire engines, an ambulance, a radio police car, a railroad train, airplanes, and numerous
\nfigures representing men, women, and children from different walks of life. All these toys were
\nhanded to the subject at the same time with the instruction to build a town or city. As in the family
\nset-up, no further help or suggestions were given.
\nThe actual method of handling these materials allows for two approaches. In the free method the
\nsubject is encouraged to play with any toy and to create and act out any situation that the nature of the
\ntoy suggests to him. No help, clues, or hints are given. In the controlled methods either the subject is
\ntold to create a specific pattern or his responses and reactions to a predetermined particular situation
\nare elicited. Both methods were used in this study.
\nAfter the subject had completed either his family or his community set-up and answered questions
\nregarding certain situations about which the examiner had questioned him the following points were
\ninvestigated: ( 1 ) subject’s marital status, both real and assumed; (2) type of home he built for himself
\n(number of rooms, type of furnishing); (3) subject’s assumed occupation; (4) monthly income and rent
\nwhich he posited; (S) his reaction to attempted burglary; (6) his reaction to his wife’s and his own
\ninfidelity; and (7) the attitude he would take toward civic problems if given a position of
\nresponsibility such as mayor. In addition, the examiner appraised the subject’s neatness and
\norderliness in his home and community setup. The experiment was given first when the subject was
\nundrugged and then when he was under the influence of marihuana.<\/h6>\n
FINDINGS<\/h6>\n
Results were collated in terms of the type and frequency of responses to different situations both
\nbefore and after taking marihuana and in terms of number of items (toys) employed in the set- up, as,
\nfor example, in the case of the home situation, the number of rooms the subject thought necessary for
\nhis apartment and the amount of rent he thought he ought to pay and its relation to the income he
\nposited for himself; in the case of the community set- up, the number of times the subject provided for
\nambulances, firemen, and policemen; in the case of the subject’s reaction to burglary, whether he took
\na passive or a resistant attitude toward the burglary and whether he assumed the burglar had
\nabsconded with most of the property and so on; in the case of his attitude toward his wife’s adultery,
\nwhether he thought he ought to divorce her or try for reconciliation; and, when the subject was
\nunfaithful, whether he thought his wife ought to forgive his delinquency.
\nIn most cases comparisons between responses or reactions showed little difference in attitude before
\nand after the ingestion of marihuana and therefore it would not be too profitable in this short summary
\nof the work to present all the data obtained. However, by way of illustrating the type of material
\nprocured, the following tables are given:
\n(TABLE 20)
\n(TABLE 21)
\nThe majority of the patients, though unmarried in real life, assumed families and responsibilities in
\nthe play situation, and in a free situation acted out family activities and ideologies. These figures
\nreveal that, on the average, the subjects when under the influence of the drug tended to build
\napartments with somewhat fewer rooms. The impression of the examiner was that this was due
\nprimarily to the subject’s desire to get through with the task as quickly as possible in order to return to
\nhis room to rest and sleep.
\n(TABLE 22)
\nA “make-believe” sickness or accident necessitating the use of an ambulance was the most frequently
\nobserved play pattern. When the subjects were under the influence of the drug the incidence of the
\nambulance and the police was considerably less than it was when they were in the undrugged state.
\n(TABLE 23)
\nThe most frequent form of passive reaction to his wife’s infidelity was that the subject would pack up
\nand leave home. The aggressive reactions consisted of ordering the wife out of the home in three
\ninstances, jailing the wife and lover in one instance, throwing the wife out in one instance, killing the
\nlover but leaving the wife unmolested in one instance, and beating up the lover and leaving the wife
\nunharmed in one instance.
\nThe following are examples of subjects’ responses to the adultery situation. When he was facing the
\npretended situation before taking marihuana, one subject immediately left his house, borrowed money
\nfrom his employer, and traveled to the West Coast. After he arrived there he proceeded to drink and in
\ndue time became a derelict on the Barbary Coast. When asked about his children he said, “That’s
\nclosed with the rest of the chapter. Let her ardent lover support the children. I take on an assumed
\nname. Others might get a divorce and custody of the children but in my case my home life would be a
\nclosed chapter.” After the administration of marihuana he still showed a passive attitude, but, having
\nassumed the role of a psychologist, he felt obliged to act accordingly. At first he considered divorce
\naction, but since that would deprive the children of a home, he finally forgave his wife. Then he
\nstopped in his contemplations, looked at the examiner and said, “Why do I become altruistic? . . .
\nThat’s beyond me . . . Maybe I become a martyr . . . I commit an act of martyrdom.” Another subject,
\nwhen in the undrugged condition, ordered his wife out of the house and later divorced her. In the
\ndrugged state customary procedures were reversed. The subject went to his parents and remained
\npassively at home while his mother unsuccessfully tried to bring about a reconciliation.
\nThe subject’s attitude toward adultery did not change in the drugged state. The data in Table 24
\nillustrate the fact that ingestion of marihuana generally does not alter the subject’s basic attitude.
\n(TABLE 24)
\nPractically all the subjects approved of saloons. Gambling was rejected because it deprives wives and
\nchildren of money and leads to trouble. A heavy loser may try to recoup his losses through holdups,
\nand fights and homicide may develop from quarrels. Prostitution was condoned by about 5O per cent
\nof the subjects both before and after the ingestion of the drug, but the use of marihuana was frowned
\nupon more often when the subject was undrugged than when he was in the drugged state.
\n(TABLE 25)
\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
\nEighteen subjects who participated in the marihuana study were subjected to the play situation with
\nthe idea of seeing whether the pattern of play or the ideas investigated were materially altered in
\nconsequence of the ingestion of the marihuana. Among the ideologies which were appraised were: (1)
\nattitude toward family set-up; (2) attitude toward different occupations; (3) attitude toward income;
\n(4) attitude toward situations ordinarily calling for aggression, namely an attempted burglary of his
\nhome and sexual infidelity on the part of his wife; (5) attitude toward authority.
\nIn general the subject’s attitude toward family and community ideologies as manifested in play did not
\nchange markedly as a result of the ingestion of marihuana. The subjects (in play) were not intolerant
\nof infidelity or aggressive toward lawbreakers either before or after the ingestion of marihuana. On
\nthe whole the initial passive reactions already observed in other parts of the study were likewise
\nobserved in the play situation experiment. The only very definite change as a result of the ingestion of
\nmarihuana was in their attitude toward the drug itself. Without marihuana only 4 out of 14 subjects
\nsaid they would tolerate the sale of marihuana while after ingestion 8 of them were in favor of this.
\nAnother significant manifestation in the play situation pertains to the construction of the community
\nset-up. In general the community was less orderly and well organized when the subjects had had
\nmarihuana. It is probable that this poor organization may be ascribed to the generally indifferent
\nattitude and lack of motor coordination already observed in the more controlled studies.
\nOn the whole, the experiment with play technique gave less information as to the effect of marihuana
\non subjects than had been hoped for. This may have been due to the incompleteness of the method
\nemployed or possibly to the fact that this technique is designed to give data about the basic
\npersonality of the individual rather than such alterations in it as might be caused by pharmacological agents.<\/h6>\n
\n

Retrieved from: https:\/\/medicalmarijuana.procon.org\/sourcefiles\/laguardia.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LaGuardia Committee Report on Marijuana Under the influence of marihuana changes in personality as shown by alterations in test performance are slight. They are not statistically significant and indicate only tendencies or trends. Moreover, the drug effect is not always in proportion to the amount taken, nor are the changes …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6490,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cannabis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6488\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lutzlivetotell.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}