Underground: Counterculture, Science and the War on Drugs

From 1961 to 1995, cannabis went underground in law and culture while it came into the lab in science. The US made it a Schedule I drug and declared war on drugs. Growers answered by moving the plant indoors and breeding it harder. And chemists found the lock in the brain that THC fits, and the keys the body makes for that lock.

Three stories run side by side in this chapter. One happens in laboratories in Jerusalem, St. Louis and Cambridge. One happens in courtrooms, in Congress and in a DEA hearing room. One happens on the road from Istanbul to Kathmandu, in Amsterdam cafés and on California hillsides. They rarely touch. Yet each one pushes the others.

Who found THC, and how?

In 1963, a young chemist in Jerusalem needed hashish and had no legal way to get it. Raphael Mechoulam told the story himself, decades later. The administrative head of his institute knew a very senior police officer. Mechoulam went to police headquarters, had a cup of coffee with the officer in charge of stored drugs, and left with 5 kg of confiscated hashish, presumably smuggled from Lebanon.

With his colleague Yehiel Gaoni, he ran the hashish through column after column of chromatography. They separated about 10 compounds, most of them unknown. Mechoulam later wrote that his first publication on cannabinoids described the structure of cannabidiol (CBD). It appeared in Tetrahedron in 1963. The next paper, in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1964, reported the isolation, structure and partial synthesis of the active constituent of hashish. Their paper used an older numbering. Today we call that molecule delta-9-THC.

Gaoni and Mechoulam were not the first to work on these molecules. Roger Adams published a 1940 paper on synthesizing a tetrahydrocannabinol with marihuana activity, in a series titled “Structure of Cannabidiol”. What the 1964 paper gave the world was a pure, known molecule with a known structure. Our science history post explains the difference between isolating, identifying and making a compound.

1964 · , Jerusalem, Israel

Gaoni and Mechoulam isolate THC and assign its structure

Yehiel Gaoni and Raphael Mechoulam report the isolation, structure and partial synthesis of the active constituent of hashish in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, volume 86, pages 1646–1647. Today the molecule is called delta-9-THC.

Evidence Scientific study Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Gaoni and Mechoulam 1964, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 86:1646–1647
• Mechoulam 2023, Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 63:1–13
• Adams and Baker 1940, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 62:2405–2408 (earlier THC synthesis)

What did the new federal law do?

While chemists worked, US law moved fast. On December 22, 1965, Timothy Leary drove across the bridge at Laredo, Texas, with his two teenage children and two other people. Mexican officials apparently refused them entry. At the American inspection area, a customs inspector saw what looked like marijuana seeds on the car floor. A jury convicted Leary under two federal marijuana laws, including the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. On May 19, 1969, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. Complying with the Act’s transfer-tax paperwork would have forced him to incriminate himself, and that violated his Fifth Amendment privilege. The ruling did not legalize anything. It did undercut the tax law that had been the main federal tool since 1937.

May 19, 1969 · , Washington, DC

Supreme Court reverses Leary's conviction

In Leary v. United States, the Supreme Court holds that the Marihuana Tax Act's transfer-tax rules, applied to a person who could incriminate himself by complying, violate the Fifth Amendment. It reverses Timothy Leary's conviction.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (1)

• Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), decided May 19, 1969

Seventeen months later, Congress passed a new law built on a different idea. Public Law 91-513 carries the date October 27, 1970. Its Title II is the Controlled Substances Act. It sorted drugs into five schedules and listed “Marihuana” in Schedule I, the most restrictive group. Section 601 of the same law created a commission to study marihuana. Our 1970 deep dive walks through the text.

October 27, 1970 · , Washington, DC

Congress lists marihuana in Schedule I

Public Law 91-513, dated October 27, 1970, includes the Controlled Substances Act. Section 202 lists "Marihuana" in Schedule I. Section 601 creates a commission to study marihuana.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (2)

• Public Law 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (1970)
• House Report 91-1444, including the Egeberg letter of August 14, 1970 (reprinted in a 2020 Ninth Circuit brief)

Myth check Exaggerated

The claim: “Schedule I was always meant to be temporary.”

In August 1970 a health official urged keeping marihuana in Schedule I "at least until the completion of certain studies." He added that the Attorney General could move it later. The law has no expiry date, and the commission's report could not change the schedule by itself.

Sources (2)

• House Report 91-1444, including the Egeberg letter of August 14, 1970 (reprinted in a 2020 Ninth Circuit brief)
• Public Law 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (1970)

The commission reported in March 1972. Its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer, a former governor, titled the report Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Its core recommendation was narrow: possession of marihuana for personal use, and casual distribution of small amounts for no profit, would no longer be offenses. Sale for profit would stay a crime. The report also chose a policy of discouraging use. It did not call cannabis harmless. It said the drug’s relative potential for harm “does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.”

Nixon did not wait for the report. On May 1, 1971, he told reporters he was against legalizing marihuana, and that even if the commission recommended it, he would not follow the recommendation. After the report, on March 24, 1972, he said he opposed legalization, and that he did not believe in criminal justice built on a philosophy that something is “half legal and half illegal.”

March 22–24, 1972 · , Washington, DC

Shafer Commission recommends ending penalties for personal use

The Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse recommends that personal-use possession and casual non-profit sharing no longer be offenses. It keeps sale for profit criminal and urges discouraging use. Nixon rejects the possession change on March 24, 1972.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding (1972), including p. 130
• Nixon news conference, March 24, 1972
• Nixon news conference, May 1, 1971

Myth check Exaggerated

The claim: “Nixon was told cannabis was safe and ignored the evidence.”

The Shafer Commission did not call cannabis safe. It said harm to most users did not justify punishing them, kept sale for profit a crime and urged discouraging use. Nixon said in May 1971 he would reject legalization, and in March 1972 he rejected the possession change.

Sources (3)

• Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding (1972), p. 130
• Nixon news conference, March 24, 1972
• Nixon news conference, May 1, 1971

Nixon had already framed the fight. On June 17, 1971, he called drug abuse “America’s public enemy number one.” On July 1, 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration opened its doors, after a message in which he said his administration had declared “all-out, global war on the drug menace.” That same year, Oregon became the first state to replace criminal penalties for small amounts of cannabis with a fine of up to $100. Eight more states followed by 1978, according to one review of the first decriminalization wave. Washington hardened while some state capitals softened.

Where did the hippie trail lead?

Take a different road. By the mid-1960s, young Westerners were riding buses and hitchhiking east from Istanbul through Tehran, Herat and Kabul to Kathmandu. BBC History Extra describes Afghans who were welcoming, drugs that were “commonplace and usually tolerated”, and hippie hotels along Kabul’s Chicken Street. Kathmandu’s Freak Street went further. Nepal had licensed and taxed cannabis since its Intoxicants Act of 1961. About 30 shops in the capital served the visitors, according to James Fisher’s study Cannabis in Nepal: An Overview.

That ended on July 16, 1973, when Nepal’s government revoked all licenses to grow, buy and sell cannabis. Fisher lists three pressures: alarm among Nepal’s own middle class, pressure from the United Nations, and pressure from the United States. The New York Times reported the closure of the capital’s drug bazaar that August. The overland trail itself closed in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan blocked the route.

July 16, 1973 · , Kathmandu, Nepal

Nepal revokes all cannabis licenses

Nepal's government revokes all licenses to grow, buy and sell cannabis, ending the system its 1961 Intoxicants Act set up and closing the shops that served hippie-trail travelers. James Fisher lists Nepali alarm, UN pressure and US pressure as causes.

Evidence Written record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (4)

• James Fisher, Cannabis in Nepal: An Overview
• New York Times, The Drug Scene in Nepal Is, Like, Fading (August 13, 1973)
• BBC History Extra, The Hippy Trail
• CNN, The Hippie Trail: an interactive history

Genetics moved too. Afghan broad-leaf seeds reached North America and Europe several times from the late 1970s into the 1980s, Robert Clarke and Mark Merlin write in their 2016 review of cannabis breeding. Breeders were about to put them to use.

In the Netherlands, tolerance grew from the ground up. Around 1972, a “tea house” called Mellow Yellow in Amsterdam was among the first commercial cannabis outlets, according to a Dutch study of coffee shop policy. In 1976, the Dutch revised their Opium Act. The new law split drugs into two lists, one for “unacceptable” risks and one for cannabis products. Possession of 30 g or less was dismissed or treated as a petty offense. Official guidelines in 1979 let prosecutors skip small-scale sales if the seller followed rules such as no advertising and no hard drugs. Lawmakers had not planned for coffee shops. Case law applied the same tolerance to them anyway.

1976 · , Amsterdam, Netherlands

Dutch Opium Act splits drugs into two lists

The Netherlands revises its Opium Act in 1976. Cannabis products go on a separate list, and possession of 30 g or less is dismissed or treated as a petty offense. Coffee shops, which the law did not plan for, are tolerated under 1979 guidelines.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Coffee Shops and Compromise (Erasmus University Rotterdam repository)
• Dirk Korf, An open front door: the coffee shop phenomenon in the Netherlands (University of Amsterdam)
• Transnational Institute, Cannabis Regulation in Europe: Country Report Netherlands

Faith joined in. Rastafari began in Jamaica in the 1930s, after Haile Selassie’s coronation on November 2, 1930. Scholar Susannah Crockford writes that for Rastas ganja is a sacrament, likened to Christian communion. Our Rastafari post tells that story with the voices of practitioners.

A smaller legend starts in San Rafael, California. In fall 1971, a group of friends who called themselves the Waldos say they met at 4:20 p.m. by a Louis Pasteur statue to hunt for a cannabis patch near Point Reyes. They never found it, the Associated Press reports, but the number stuck. This is participant memory. Our 420 post separates what is documented from what is told. In 1974, a smuggler-turned-publisher named Thomas King Forçade launched High Times in New York, a magazine that argued for ending prohibition.

What did the war on drugs do to the plant?

Cutting off supply changed what growers grew. In September 1969, Nixon’s border program Operation Intercept began searching traffic from Mexico. A State Department memo from the time says tourist traffic was “down to a dribble”, and Mexico protested. Within three weeks, a softer Operation Cooperation replaced it.

Mexico became the next target. In late 1975, Mexico began aerial paraquat spraying of cannabis fields, with US support. A law review study says American money paid mainly for the aircraft. Then the poison came home. In March 1978, US tests found paraquat in 13 of 61 marijuana samples from the Southwest. A study in the American Journal of Public Health projected that 150 to 300 smokers a year would inhale a dose judged hazardous, although doctors recognized no clinical cases of paraquat poisoning among smokers. Congress limited US funding for spraying herbicides likely to harm users.

1975–1978 · , Mexico

Paraquat spraying in Mexico, with US aid

In late 1975, Mexico begins aerial paraquat spraying of cannabis, with US support. In March 1978, US tests find paraquat in 13 of 61 Southwest samples. Congress then limits US funding for herbicides likely to harm users.

Evidence Scientific study Confidence Medium (2 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Landrigan et al. 1983, Paraquat and marijuana: epidemiologic risk assessment, Am. J. Public Health
• Boe 1985, Paraquat Eradication: Legal Means for a Prudent Policy?, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review
• New York Times, Warnings About Tainted Marijuana Alarming Users (April 18, 1978)

Meanwhile, North American growers pulled out male plants. Without pollen, females make no seeds and pour their energy into resin-rich flowers. Clarke and Merlin put the start of this practice in the early 1970s, and a Humboldt County timeline dates sinsemilla growing there to the mid-1970s. The method itself was old. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission’s 1894 report defined ganja as the flowering tops of female plants kept from setting seed by destroying all the male plants. Californians did not invent sinsemilla. They scaled it and bred for it.

The breeding used what trade routes had delivered. In the early and mid-1970s, Clarke and Merlin write, growers crossed Mexican or Jamaican plants with later-ripening Colombian, Indian, Panamanian and Thai ones. After Afghan seed arrived, crossing it with tall tropical types made shorter, earlier, resinous plants. Our landrace post covers the plants themselves.

Then the helicopters came. In 1983, eradication work that had grown since 1977 got a name: the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, or CAMP. A state report records raids from August 15 to October 19, 1983 on 524 sites in 14 counties. Teams seized 64,579 plants, using helicopters from the California Army National Guard and US Customs. A peer-reviewed study of Humboldt County says that in the years of heaviest eradication, cultivators went indoors to escape helicopter detection. Clarke and Merlin tie the rise of indoor growing to prohibition pressure, better lights and high prices together.

1983 · , Humboldt County, California

California launches CAMP

The Campaign Against Marijuana Planting names a state-federal eradication effort that began in 1977. Its 1983 raids hit 524 sites in 14 counties and seize 64,579 plants. A peer-reviewed study says growers moved indoors to avoid helicopters.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• California Department of Justice, CAMP 1983 report (Cal Poly Humboldt Special Collections)
• Meisel, Corva and Pachmayer 2023, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations
• Cal Poly Humboldt, Cannabis Research Collection: CAMP Reports

Out of this pressure came a famous plant. Skunk #1 came from a California “skunk” variety, likely a hybrid of Colombian, Afghan and Mexican plants. By Clarke and Merlin’s account, breeders selected and bred it for nine growing seasons until it bred fairly true from seed. By 2000, Dutch sinsemilla varieties were mostly built on three Pacific-coast lines: Northern Lights, Skunk #1 and Haze. Accounts differ on the year the California seeds crossed the Atlantic, from the late 1970s to 1985, so we leave it open. High Times staged the first Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam in the late 1980s. High Times’s Michael Kennedy dates it to 1987. Other accounts say November 1988.

1970s–1980s · , Northern California and the Netherlands

Growers remove males and breed hybrids

Growers pull male plants to make seedless sinsemilla, a method an 1894 report documents in India. In the 1970s they cross imported landraces. Breeders select Skunk #1 for nine seasons. Dutch seed firms later build on California lines.

Evidence Scientific study Confidence Medium (2 of 3)

Sources (4)

• Clarke and Merlin 2016, Cannabis Domestication, Breeding History, Present-day Genetic Diversity, and Future Prospects, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 35:293–327
• Chouvy 2019, Cannabis cultivation in the world: heritages, trends and challenges, EchoGéo 48
• Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893–94 (full text)
• Cal Poly Humboldt, Marijuana timeline (mid-1970s sinsemilla; 1983–84 indoor growing)

Myth check Exaggerated

The claim: “Skunk #1 was the first cannabis hybrid.”

A 2019 review calls Skunk #1 "the first modern cannabis hybrid." Yet growers had crossed Mexican, Jamaican, Colombian, Indian and Thai plants since the early 1970s, and Skunk #1 itself came from a hybrid variety. Its claim to fame is nine seasons of selection until it bred fairly true from seed.

Sources (2)

• Clarke and Merlin 2016, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 35:293–327
• Chouvy 2019, EchoGéo 48

Could a patient get cannabis from the government?

Yes, a few could, and the story shows how odd the system was. In 1975, police found cannabis plants on the patio of Robert Randall, a glaucoma patient in Washington, DC. In 1976, D.C. Superior Court Judge James Washington found him not guilty by reason of medical necessity. Randall then pushed the government to supply him. A Wisconsin archive finding aid says the marijuana came from a University of Mississippi farm and reached a pharmacy near his home as cigarettes. In 1978, the settlement of Randall’s lawsuit created what became the Compassionate IND program.

The program never claimed cannabis worked. A government filing, quoted in a 1999 court opinion, said single-patient INDs “cannot establish the scientific efficacy of new drugs”. Fewer than 100 patients joined. In 1992, after a wave of applications from AIDS patients, the first Bush administration closed it to new applicants. A few patients kept getting monthly tins of rolled cigarettes for decades.

1976–1992 · , Washington, DC

Randall wins a medical-necessity ruling

A D.C. Superior Court judge finds glaucoma patient Robert Randall not guilty by reason of medical necessity. A 1978 lawsuit settlement creates the Compassionate IND program. It closes to new patients in 1992.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence Medium (2 of 3)

Sources (4)

• Robert C. Randall Papers finding aid, Wisconsin Historical Society
• Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
• Congressional Research Service, Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies (RL33211)
• New York Times, For a Very Few Patients, U.S. Provides Free Marijuana (1999)

Presidents did not agree on the problem. On August 2, 1977, Jimmy Carter asked Congress to eliminate federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce. He wrote that penalties against possession of a drug “should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”

August 2, 1977 · , Washington, DC

Carter asks Congress to end federal penalties for one ounce

President Carter asks Congress to eliminate all federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (1)

• Carter, Drug Abuse Message to the Congress, August 2, 1977

The 1980s went the other way. DARE began in 1983. In a September 14, 1986 address, Nancy Reagan told the story of a group of children in Oakland and her answer, “Just say no.” A 2003 federal review found that six long-term evaluations showed no statistically significant long-term effect of the DARE elementary curriculum on illicit drug use. On October 27, 1986, the President signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. For marijuana, 100 kilograms or more triggered a prison term of at least 5 and at most 40 years. Our Reagan-era post goes deeper.

October 27, 1986 · , Washington, DC

Anti-Drug Abuse Act sets marijuana minimums

The President signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. For marijuana, 100 kg or more brings a prison term of at least 5 and at most 40 years. DARE began in 1983, and a 2003 GAO review found no significant long-term effect on drug use.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Public Law 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986)
• Reagan, Address to the Nation on the Campaign Against Drug Abuse, September 14, 1986
• GAO-03-172R, DARE Long-Term Evaluations (2003)

At the end of that decade, a DEA hearing reached the opposite conclusion. On September 6, 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young found that “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” He recommended moving it to Schedule II. The New York Times reported the ruling the next day. The DEA Administrator, John Lawn, rejected the recommendation on December 29, 1989. A federal appeals court in 1991 asked for an explanation of three of his criteria, a final order followed in 1992, and a 1994 appeals decision upheld it.

September 6, 1988 · , Washington, DC

DEA judge finds marijuana among the safest active substances

DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young recommends moving marijuana to Schedule II. The Administrator rejects it on December 29, 1989. A final order follows in 1992, and the D.C. Circuit upholds it in 1994.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence Medium (2 of 3)

Sources (3)

• New York Times, Judge Urges Allowing Medicinal Use of Marijuana (September 7, 1988)
• Francis L. Young, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Docket 86-22 (September 6, 1988), PDF copy
• Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA (D.C. Cir. 1994)

Voters in San Francisco tried a third route. In November 1991, they approved Proposition P with about 79 percent of the vote. It asked California to let doctors prescribe cannabis. It had no legal effect, and it came as the federal government prepared to end its compassionate program.

November 1991 · , San Francisco, California

San Francisco voters back medical cannabis

San Francisco voters approve Proposition P with about 79 percent of the vote. It urges California to let doctors prescribe cannabis. It has no legal effect, and the federal compassionate program is about to close.

Evidence Law or court record Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Washington Post, Compassionate Marijuana Use (November 12, 1991)
• Ballotpedia, Dennis Peron (Measure P approved by 79 percent)
• East Bay Express, Pot Pioneer Peron Remembered (79 percent)

How did scientists find the lock?

Now go back to the lab, because the science was not waiting for the law. By the 1980s, researchers had a puzzle. They had THC, and they knew it changed the mind. They did not know how.

In Allyn Howlett’s lab at St. Louis University, William Devane and colleagues took a synthetic cannabinoid called CP-55,940 and tagged it with radioactive tritium. They watched it stick to membranes from rat brains. The sticking was saturable and reversible, and THC and related compounds knocked the label off in order of their potency. In November 1988, the Molecular Pharmacology paper described a cannabinoid receptor in rat brain. In 1990, Matsuda and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health cloned the DNA that encodes it.

November 1988 · , St. Louis, Missouri

A cannabinoid receptor is found in rat brain

William Devane and colleagues in Allyn Howlett's lab tag a synthetic cannabinoid, CP-55,940, with tritium. It binds a saturable, reversible site in rat brain, and THC competes for it. The paper appears in Molecular Pharmacology 34:605–613.

Evidence Scientific study Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (2)

• Devane et al. 1988, Molecular Pharmacology 34:605–613 (PubMed 2848184)
• Mechoulam 2023 (Devane's path from Howlett's lab to Jerusalem)

A lock raised a better question. Mechoulam put his reasoning this way: “As receptors do not exist for compounds present only in a plant, we looked for the endogenous molecules.” Devane, by then a postdoctoral researcher in Mechoulam’s Jerusalem group, and Mechoulam drove to Tel Aviv to buy pig brains. The team extracted a fatty molecule, 0.6 mg from 4.5 kg of brain, and worked out its structure. In 1992 they published it as anandamide, after the Sanskrit word ananda, “bliss”. The paper stopped short of a big claim. It said only that the molecule “may function as a natural ligand for the cannabinoid receptor.”

December 1992 · , Jerusalem, Israel

Anandamide, the body's own cannabinoid, is identified

Devane, Hanuš, Mechoulam and colleagues isolate arachidonylethanolamide from pig brain and name it anandamide, from the Sanskrit ananda, bliss. It binds the cannabinoid receptor. The authors say it may function as a natural ligand.

Evidence Scientific study Confidence High (3 of 3)

Sources (3)

• Devane et al. 1992, Science 258:1946–1949
• PubMed 1470919
• Mechoulam 2023 (pig brains, 0.6 mg from 4.5 kg, the name)

THCAnandamide2-AGCBD

CBD. Made by the plant. Does not fit the main slot well. It acts in other ways, and research on how is still going.

Previous

1963

CBD gets a shape

In Jerusalem, Mechoulam and Shvo work out the structure of cannabidiol from 5 kg of confiscated hashish. A plant molecule now has a known shape.

Step 1 of 7

Next

In 1993, Munro and colleagues at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge cloned a second receptor, now called CB2, found in macrophages in the spleen. In 1995, Mechoulam’s team reported a second body-made molecule, 2-AG, isolated from canine gut, while Sugiura’s group at Teikyo University in Japan reported it as a possible ligand in brain. By 1995, the scientific picture was one lock, a second door and two keys. Scientists found all of them while the plant itself sat in Schedule I.

This part of the story sounds like a happy ending. It is only the start of the next question. A lock and a key are not a diagnosis. Binding a receptor in a rat’s brain does not show that a given product helps a given person. The science told us what cannabinoids touch. It did not tell us who will benefit. Law and medicine are about to argue over that.

Check your understanding

3 questions. Pick an answer in your head, then open the question to check it.

1 What did the 1988 paper by Devane, Howlett and colleagues report?

1. AA cannabinoid receptor in rat brain
2. BThe body's own cannabinoid, anandamide
3. CThe chemical structure of THC
4. DA second receptor, CB2

Answer: A. A cannabinoid receptor in rat brain

They tagged a synthetic cannabinoid and showed it bound a specific site in rat brain. Cloning came in 1990, anandamide in 1992 and CB2 in 1993.

2 What did the 1972 Shafer Commission recommend about possession?

1. ALegalize the sale of cannabis
2. BStop treating personal-use possession as an offense, but keep sale for profit criminal
3. CMove cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II
4. DDouble the penalties for possession

Answer: B. Stop treating personal-use possession as an offense, but keep sale for profit criminal

The report said personal-use possession and casual non-profit sharing would no longer be offenses. It kept sale for profit a crime and urged discouraging use.

3 Why can we not say 1970s Californians invented sinsemilla?

1. ACalifornians did invent it in the early 1970s
2. BThe 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission already described ganja made by destroying the male plants
3. CDutch growers invented it in 1976
4. DIt began with the breeding of Skunk #1

Answer: B. The 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission already described ganja made by destroying the male plants

An 1894 report defined ganja as female flowering tops kept from setting seed by destroying all male plants. Californians scaled and bred it.

1. 1What did the 1988 paper by Devane, Howlett and colleagues report?

   AA cannabinoid receptor in rat brainBThe body's own cannabinoid, anandamideCThe chemical structure of THCDA second receptor, CB2
2. 2What did the 1972 Shafer Commission recommend about possession?

   ALegalize the sale of cannabisBStop treating personal-use possession as an offense, but keep sale for profit criminalCMove cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule IIDDouble the penalties for possession
3. 3Why can we not say 1970s Californians invented sinsemilla?

   ACalifornians did invent it in the early 1970sBThe 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission already described ganja made by destroying the male plantsCDutch growers invented it in 1976DIt began with the breeding of Skunk #1

0 of 3 answered

The next chapter opens in 1996, when the doors that closed in these 34 years begin to swing the other way.