Pmg. Neuro-Psychophormacol. 6 Bid. Psycbiot. Printed in Great Britain. Ali rights reserved

02?~58~6~0 $0.00 + .50 @ 1990 Pergamon Press plc

1990, Vol. 14, pp. 885-902

MULTIDIMENSIONAL BEHAVIORAL MARIJUANA THOMAS H. KELLY, RKHARD W. FGLTJN, CLEEZVES. ~

EFFECTS

OF

and ~W.~~

Division of Behavioral Biology Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.

(Final form, May, 1990)

Abstract Kelly, Thomas H., Richard W. Foltin, Cleeve S. Emurian and Marian W. Fischman: Multidimensional Behavioral Effects of Marijuana. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. & Biol. Psychiat. 1990, 14: 885-902. 1. Five groups of three healthy adult male volunteers (n=l5), all reporting occasional, controlled marijuana use, gave written consent and participated in residential studies lasting 6 to 15 days. 2. Subjects smoked marijuana cigarettes (0, 1.3, 2.3 or 2.7% THC, w/w) at 0945, 1330, 1700 and 2030 every day, and each subject received both active and placebo marijuana cigarettes in 2-5 consecutive day phases, with placebo and active doses presented in an alternating fashion. 3. In comparison with placebo, active marijuana produced a variety of effects on measures of human behavior, including increases in food consumption and errors on psychomotor tasks, decreases in bouts of tobacco-cigarette smoking and verbal interactions and no changes in rates of task performance, time spent under social conditions or social cooperation. 4. Dimensions of human behavior were differentially sensitive to the effects of smoked marijuana. 5. The simultaneous measurement of multiple dimensions of human behavior is a useful procedure for determining dose potency following marijuana administration. Keywords: Laboratory,

Cooperation. Eating Behavior, Human, Marijuana, Social Behavior, Tobacco Cigarette Smoking.

Abbreviations: Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST), Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Vigilance Task (VIGI).

Performance,

Marijuana

Residential

(MJ), Placebo

(PBO),

Introduction Despite a substantial body of research concerning the effects of marijuana on human performance, knowledge of the conditions under which marijuana alters performance are poorly understood (Jones 1987). It is clear that when relatively large marijuana doses 885

886

T. H. Kelly et al,

are

administered,

performance specific

dimensions

across

studies.

marijuana are

human

performance

deterioration,

the

of

Performance

well

the

exact

Thus,

specific

that

decrements

but

understood.

the

apparent,

necessary

performance

administration,

not

deteriorates;

doses

reliably

are

disrupted

appear

to

by

of

which

marijuana

degree

of

nor

the

are

within

consistent

several

hours

performance

disruptions

this

the

disruption,

marijuana’s

marijuana-induced

under

neither

produce

dissipate

time-course

while

conditions

however,

to

of

effects

in performance

disruption

occurs

are

are

not

well

understood.

Although other

fewer

than

prevalent.

For

lethargy

and

example,

Smith

absence

of

behavior

et al 1974,

appear

to

and

repeatedly which

lack

changes

of control

over

standardize

smoking

marijuana

Nemeth-Coslett 1989). concurrent 1987b, drug

1986),

et

subjects

Higgins

and

effects

well

studies

or determining

measures

are but

(Jones

1987).

THC

certainly

they

are In

addition,

of

McGlothin

and

on human

demonstrated and

effects

on human human

the

1985,

on verbal

is monitored social

behavior

by

behavior

performance,

the

Mendelson

behavior

an

humans

have

conditions

been under

subjects

marijuana’s

to marijuana

exposure

1984),

and

to

behavioral

is

since

smoke

smoke,

that

amounts

this

issue

topography

for THC of THC

is

an

most

to a large

variability

of compensation

differing

is the

influenced inhalation

marijuana

effects

(Heishman

important

common by

difficult

doses

content

the

extent is

in

is

across

by

subjects

et al

1988,

(cf

Chait

one

the potency of an administered dose include taking such as heart rate (Heishman et al 1988, Foltin et al

1986) al

other 1988,

behavioral

for

always such

measures,

Nemeth-Coslett

concentrations

useful not

of

Smoke

indicates

et

also

including

proposal

self-administered in

are

of marijuana

effects

changes

behavior,

understood.

containing

measures, Stitzer

the

(Mello

are

of

symptoms,

the verbal

Marijuana’s that

of to

of marijuana’s

in which

drugs

Evidence

assessing

(Heishman

output

human results

repeatedly

reports

measures

exposed

1986)

for

physiological

doses, subjects.

not

is common. al

work

of

1985,

effects

have

Also,

context

with

Exposing

cigarettes

Strategies

in

of

evaluating

dose.

studies

(Jaffe

social

as

are

in

across

and

use

of the

contingencies

for drug administration. topography (Henningfield

subjects

of

occur

difficulty

marijuana

Marijuana-induced

but

clusters

with

investigations

classes

1986).

major

procedure inhalation to

Stitzer

of

led

et al 1973).

other

demonstrated,

these

One

from

aspects

contradictory

users

decreases

Zeidenberg

differ

descriptions

et al 1974).

on the

on and

marijuana

monetary

Miles

marijuana confusing

heavy

associated laboratory

depending

of

reported,

repeated

marijuana-induced

(Babor

effects

chronic

by

et al 1976, differ

(Higgins

while

1968),

maintained

Mendelson

the been

in

syndrome”

1968,

behavior

of have

inactivity,

“amotivational West

studies

performance,

in blood

demonstrating correlated measures

et al

samples the

with can

be

such

as

1986,

Higgins

(Barnett

presence

of

marijuana’s intrusive

et al

and 1985).

biologically

other to

subjective-reports

freely

Stitzer These relevant

behavioral

effects

moving

research

Multidimensional

An be

alternative

to

means

determine

various if

a

measures range

were

marijuana

a variety The

to

whether

be

of

of this

a profile and

to

marijuana’s

and

for

a strategy sensitive

paper

behavioral

is to review

the

effects

on

human

to with

the

be possible

humans

from

these

on

a diverse

effects

of

living

in a

behavioral

studies

range

multiple

only effects

the

results of

and

marijuana’s

continuous

utility

would

to which

and

effects

potential

would

measures

dose behavior

degree

investigating

control

marijuana’s

discuss

been

of

the

Such

environmental

of

by

differentially we have

marijuana

measures

be determined

years,

of performance

purpose

determined,

investigation

several

multiple

dose.

measures

past

of an administered on

might

887

effects of marijuana

dose

by a given

designed

observation. can

the

laboratory

determine

potency

behavioral

Over

on

the

of

altered

other

available.

residential

the potency

effects manner,

were

of

of defining

the

In this

performance.

behavioral

in order

of

measures

measures

in

the

behavior.

Methods Subiects

Fifteen

healthy

lasting

6

to

marijuana

(no

fewer

than

and

continued

Environment

were and

(Brady

et al 1974). identical

sleeping

bathroom,

kitchen and

exercise

throughout

the

laboratory

between

subjects

contact

Output

from

adjacent

control

dressing

and

Livingston

video room. bathroom

1982)

for

provided

studies use

and

of

psychiatric

regular

tobacco

studies.

research

designed

connected

exchange

A room.

of

games,

supplies

intervals

by a common

facilities.

facilities.

environmental

extended

apartments

an exercise videotaped

for

over

efficiency

board

laundry

and

the

as

and

displaying for

Subjects

medical

behavior

of six rooms

allowed

areas.

in

controlled

reported

in the

laboratory

furniture,

and

audio

passed Eight

human

workspace

lounge

the

participated

reported

participating

equipped

a bathroom,

used

and

of

consisted

equipment

three,

month),

participate.

residential

computerized

a television

contained

a

were

room,

facilities,

per

of

subject

Center

in

facility

of a recreation

contained

to

observation

rooms

and

each

episode

Research

The

groups

to do so while

conducted

private

in studies,

consent

continuous

Three

the

1 smoking

smoking

studies

system,

to

written

programming

consisted

volunteers,

Prior

gave

Programmed

The

male

days.

and

evaluations, cigarette

adult

15

common The

kitchen,

social

recreation

puzzles,

movies.

corridor.

with

a

The

area room

videogame

exercise

room

Two-way cabinets located and materials without direct

staff.

equipment

located

were

continuously

throughout monitored

the

facility except

projected while

to an

located

in

A computerized observation program (Bernstein and structure for continuous recording of each subject’s

T. H. Kelly et al.

000

behavior

in

limited due

external

sources,

mail,

and

clocks

subjects

or

computerized

protocol

telephones,

remained

watches

in the

were

system

subjects

residential but

when

and

research

staff

To

minimize

variability

compliance.

newspapers,

available,

communication

between

and

radio

facility

subjects

activity

and

for

the

duration

received

changes

television

time

were

were of the

prompts

not study.

via

the

occurred.

Consumotion

All

subjects

drinks,

candy

variety

of items

provided

a

throughout

were

given

bars,

cake

list

to

of day.

eat

supply

type

and

All

food

items

return

all

their

influence

Food

consumption chips,

items, item

in

cake

that

were

the

items,

Each

room

in

portions were

and

to

were

food

reporting

analyzed

as

daily

intake

from

food

that

be

consumed

were

given

Subjects

were

the

system. required

receptacle

end

of

hoarding. had

each

no

to

located day

A previous

procedures

an

to report

communication

at

for food

also

required

subjects

list items

substitute.

a food-trash

removed

to control

the

additional

were

computer

these

box

beverages),

consumed

Cigarette

and

the

they

The were

Subjects

of

a cream

and

day.

subjects from

study.

soft

to

study

measurable

consumption.

in the microwave

Tobacco

via

receptacles

the number

and

juices,

each

items

Subjects

wrappings,

uneaten

at 0900 order

request.

sugar

bread,

In addition,

to

any

monitored,

consumed

reports that

was

items

water, was

fruit,

throughout 2345;

upon

color-coded

and

Trash

demonstrated

of

in

of food food

tea,

items

wrappers

rooms.

on daily

consisted

all

and

cuts,

daily.

allowed

unchanged

provided

cold

fresh

changed

were

0900

coffee,

including

and

was

and

was

were

provided

the accuracy

chips,

consumption

of

were

color-coded

(unpublished)

bars,

food

quantity

private

validate

box

instant

that

list

items,

box

items

between

food

of

instructed

potato

meal

libitum

unlimited

of food

in the food

The

ad

in the daily

the

items,

frozen-meal

contained were

a box

presented

the

allowed

in

Communication

consumption

available,

Food

form.

of food

to

No

categorical

to issues

with

oven,

could

while

meals

at least

preparing

one

consisted

item

that

snacks of

all

required

meals.

Snacks

preparation

(candy

and

without

items,

including

preparation

snack

(heating

an

a sandwich).

Smoking

the

facility,

pressure

sensors

connected

tubing. cigarettes

Subjects

were

provided

electrical

through

with to

assigned

the

exception

color-coded a

specific

appropriately-colored signals

timed

and

recorded

by

allow

the

research

staff

could

smoke

tobacco

for

the

a computer to

and

monitor

cigarettes

color cigarette

duration

of

each

generated in

and

was to

holders.

the

facility.

smoking

with flexible

all

tobacco

pressure

electrical

adjacent

except

with

smoke

The These

in an

equipped

holders

required

puff. with

the

bathrooms, cigarette

tones

compliance

anywhere

of

plastic

control system.

in

sensors

signals

bathroom

were

room

to

Subjects areas.

Multidimensional

behavioral

effects of marijuana

889

Subjects had no access to matches, and all cigarette lighters were under camera surveillance for additional insurance of compliance with the smoking procedures. Subjects had access to their preferred brands of tobacco cigarettes and were allowed to As a safety precaution, smoking was smoke ad li~itu~ between 0900 and 2400. prohibited during sleeping hours, and lighters were removed during this interval. Dailv Schedule Each day was divided into a private work period, from 0945 to 1700, and a social During the private period, subjects were required to access period, from 1700 to 2345. work on any of four available tasks at all times, except for one optional thirty minute lunch break that could be taken at any time during the work period. Two tasks, a digitsymbol substitution task (DSST) and a vigilance task (VIGI) were presented on the The DSST task consisted of 9 random 3-row by 3-column patterns of computer screen. The asterisks and dashes (one asterisk per row) displayed across the top of the screen. patterns were labeled l-9 from left to right across the screen, and the label was A randomly generated number, between 1 and 9, centered directly below each pattern. displayed in the center of the monitor, indicated which of the 10 patterns displayed at the top of the screen should be emulated by the subject on a particular trial. During each trial, subjects were required to press only the keys in a 3-row by 3-column keypad that corresponded to the positions of asterisks in the appropriately labeled pattern. Three responses were required per trial (one response in each row), and a new randomly generated number was displayed in the middle of the screen immediately after each trial. Following the completion of 25 trials, a new random pattern of dashes and Subjects determined the rate of DSST asterisks was displayed at the top of the screen. trial completion, and performance during successive 25 trial sequences was monitored. The VIGI task required subjects to observe a counter located in the middle of the computer screen. The counter increased by one or two units once every 1.25 seconds. Subjects were required to press a key whenever the counter increased by two units, rather than one. This occurred on a random basis on 10% of the trials. Correct key presses resulted in the presentation of a “HIT” message on the screen. If the key was not pressed within 1.25 seconds after the counter increased by 2 units, a beep was presented and the message, “MISS,” was flashed on the screen. A key press occurring when the counter increased by only single unit resulted in a beep and the message, “FALSE ALARM,” presented on the screen. Numbers of trials, hits, misses and false alarms were measured when subjects performed this activity. Two non-computerized tasks, a bingo-chip sorting task and also available during the private period. Subjects were approximately 7360 plastic bingo chips of varying colors and place the chips into separate compartments according to color

a word sorting task, were provided a container of designs and instructed to and design. The number

T. H. Kelly et al.

890

of chips sorted during the time subjects pa~i~ipated with this task was measured, without regard for sorting accuracy. Subjects were also provided with an unlimited supply of 8.5” X 11” sheets of paper containing randomly-generated 7 digit nonsense Each sheet contained a different randomly-generated list words, placed in two columns. of words. Subjects were instructed to cut out each individual word and sort it alphabetically. The number of words sorted during the time subjects participated on this task was measured, without regard for sorting accuracy. During the private period, subjects were required to participate on one of these four Subjects were free to switch among tasks at any time; however, if tasks at all times. subjects paused for greater than five minutes without engaging in a task, they were prompted to do so. Access to bathroom facilities was unrestricted. During the social period, subjects had access to the recreational activities available in the social area, including computer video games, board games, exercise equipment, and videotaped movies. In addition, subjects had access to a variety of recreational activities, including reading, model building, writing, and artwork, that were available only in their private rooms. Mariiuana Subjects were given marijuana cigarettes to smoke at 0945, 1330, 1700 and 2030 Cigarettes were smoked immediately before and mid-way through both the each day. private and social periods each day. All cigarettes on a given day were either placebo or active (1.3, 2.3 or 2.7% THC, w/w, provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse). Cigarettes were smoked using a uniform puffing procedure in which panel lights signaled five consecutive puffs, one per minute, each consisting of five seconds of inhalation followed by 10 seconds of sustained breath holding and 10 seconds of exhalation. This marijuana administration procedure produces reliable increases in both heart rate and THC blood levels (Foltin et al 198713). Each subject received both active and placebo day phases, with placebo and active phases marijuana cigarettes in 2-5 consecutive presented in an alternating fashion, and all three subjects in a study received the same Order of exposure to active and placebo cigarettes was varied across doses each day. studies. Behavioral

Contingencies

In two studies, the amount of time subjects spent on work tasks during the private period and on recreational activities during the social period were measured for six Placebo and active marijuana were each administered for three consecutive days. Based on the amount of time subjects consecutive days during this baseline period. spent on each activity, a hierarchy of response probabilities was determined for each

Multidimensional

Hierarchies

subject. both

placebo

required

and

to participate

obtain

access

to

contingency that

participate amount

on

from

and

social

periods.

three

studies,

by

Subjects hour

for

in

arbitrarily the

social

$6

for

the

in a cooperative

option,

randomly choose they

were

were

allowed

order

Data

to

all

activities time

to

option

allowed

to change tasks

on

the

area

allowed By this

distributed time

contingent during

the

Change

activities the

private

in

the

private

participating

on the

chip-sorting

task,

period,

activity,

highest

activities.

and

$2

per

participating and

studies

were

both

established

social

or

restricted.

for

two

work varied

intervals.

and

contingent

was

day

not

to

same

The

the

the

the

instrumental

the

phases

the

In

one

to

choose

selecting

the

option,

time

equally

was

for

only

the

for

reading

described

probability

in was

above,

activity

it

during

As in the previous studies, subjects were required to activities in order to earn time to access the contingent

whenever

to change

participate

social

Under

earnings

During

activity.

were

was

option,

on

activity

either

was

to

in order

activities

were

of money

participating

activities.

fashion.

cigarette

task.

of four

conditions.

three

instrumental

designated

the

over

activities

amounts for

was

subjects.

the

probability

DSST

subjects

second

on

probability

activities

to

established

contingent

perform

administered

marijuana

instrumental

to these

distributed either

the

instrumental

time

second

again

in order

activity)

baseline and

were

according

contingency

lowest

within

subjects

occurrence,

contingent

during

periods

period,

of occurrence

the

the

to

social

by a factor

instrumental

required

spent

hour

accessing

However,

the

not

were

area

the

(i.e.,

performed as

on

activity)

intermediate-probability

different

on

as

that

probability

to

per

social

for

selecting

was served

probability

spent

activity

low

time low

time

were

subjects

access

of

instrumental

and

period

activities.

The

high

the

on

(1965).

active

chosen

participate

Premack

and

paid

observed

by

of time

participating

activities

of

placebo

paying were

probability

that

marijuana

amounts

during

highest

activity

access

active

the

the

lowest

and six-day

with

amount

Subjects

private next

with

probability

the

for the

task

(i.e.,

activities

baseline

period

was

that

activity;

measured

In

the

Over the

891

effects of marijuana

separately

phases.

established

highest

subjects.

Placebo

and

the

of time

contingent

the

activity

conditions

recreational

among

on

the

increase

baseline

determined

marijuana

procedures

subjects

during

and

were

active

behavioral

earned

to all

subject,

options at any

on

based

time,

three

while

the

were

of

earning

could

participating

individuals

earn on the

in a study.

By

fashion.

Under the activities were

Subjects were required to low-probability activity, and

As in the

they

options subjects

low-probability

chance. on

time.

but

high-probability

earned

the

on

participated at any

two

option,

in a non-cooperative

participating

they

between first

previous

required

studies,

to have

subjects

earned

time

in

activities.

Anslvsis

Mean

daily

responses

(e.g., caloric intake Statistical periods).

during

by

individual placebo

significance

subjects

and of

the

active

were drug

manipulations

calculated

phases

during

were

for the

determined

each

manipulation

private using

and

social

repeated

T. H. Kelly et al.

892

measures

analysis

within

each

of

Results

variance.

were

displayed

by

averaging

across

subjects

manipulation.

Results

Mariiuana

and Food

Effects

of

consumption of the the

marijuana from

day.

analysis (potato more episode. et al

snacks

that

cakes),

chips,

the

as

meals the

result

of

increases to

are

analyzed

on active

presented during

marijuana increased occurred

in

the days

snack in

Fig

private than food

sweet

1.

Total

caloric

and

social

periods

on placebo consumption.

solid

snack

days, and Further food

items

sweet

fluid (soda pop, fruit juice) or solid savory Increased snacking occurred as a result of items. from consuming larger amounts of food per snack

crackers) rather than

in the number

No changes

were

greatest

opposed

snacking,

consumption

occurred was

peanut-butter

frequent

food

and

intake

consumption

indicated bars,

on

Greater

increased

(candy

Consumntion

of meals

or intake

during

meals

were

observed

(Foltin

1988).

1750

1

Private

Social

1500

A

1250

E s

1000

0

750

!2B!.!G

E 500

0

PBO

I

MJ

250 0

Snacks

Meals

Snacks

Meals

Fig 1. Food intake from snacks and meals during the private and social periods, averaged across days in which placebo (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana was administered, for six Intake from meals consisted of all items consumed when at least one item subjects. required preparation, and intake from snacks consisted of items that did not require These data were presented in Foltin et al Error bars represent one SEM. preparation. (1988).

Multidimensional

Mariiuana

and

Effects

of

summarized and

an

Fig

average on

on

2.

of

tobacco

cigarette

smoked

an average

that

marijuana

administered.

cigarette

smoking

and

incidents

of tobacco

successive

were

On of

marijuana

days

tobacco

in

smoking

(Kelly

administered

it

marijuana immediately smoking

between

was active

shown

when between

that

the

marijuana

were

were delayed cigarettes

unchanged

cigarettes

in

between

subjects

tobacco

in

active

decreases

pauses

administered,

intervals

not

tobacco

cigarettes

active

also

data

marijuana

after

successive

were was

to the

of extended

are days.

effect

increased

observed

was

this

relationship

as a result

when

Inter-tobacco-cigarette was

also

smokers

marijuana

intervals

although

temporal

occurred

active

inter-puff

days, were

the

of eight

on active

In addition

intervals

administration,

which

cigarette

Average

administered.

occasions

behavior

of 13 times

marijuana

examining

smoking

smoking

cigarette days

By

marijuana

administered.

marijuana

was

smoking

days.

smoking

cigarette

tobacco

administered.

placebo to placebo

inter-tobacco-cigarette was

start

on

as opposed

time

Behavior

the

marijuana

the

Smokine

893

effects of marijuana

Subjects 16 times

active

to the 2,

Cigarette

marijuana in Fig

decreased related

Tobacco

behavioral

if on

no

active

et al 1990).

Tobacco Cigarette Smoking Topography 60

50

40

30

20 I

I

10

0

Number of Cigarettes

Fig 2. Number of tobacco cigarette averaged across days in which placebo for eight subjects. Error bars represent al (1990).

Inter-Puff Interval (Seconds)

smoking bouts and mean inter-puff intervals. (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana was administered one SEM. These data were presented in Kelly et

T. H. Kelly et ai.

894

Mariiuana

and Task Performance

The effects of marijuana on DSST performance are presented in Fig 3. Changes in DSST performance were reiated to the time that the task was performed after marijuana administration. Fig 3 presents data from performance during the 15- minute interval that immediately followed active and placebo marijuana administration. On average, subjects completed 25 three-response trials per minute, and made one error every 50 trials, during this interval on days in which placebo marijuana cigarettes were Overall rate and rate of correct responding were not changed during administered. however, error rates were increased by 40%. active marijuana administration; The magnitude of marijuana’s effect on error rate decreased over time following drug administration.

Digit-Symbol Substitution Task 80 50

3

E

s

40

8 ti

30

,Q 0. 6

20

E $ iii CL

10

0

-10

Total Trials

Errors

Correct

Trials

Percent change from the total number of baseline (placebo marijuana) digitFig 3. symbol substitution task trials, correct trials, and trials containing errors, averaged Error bars across days in which active marijuana was administered, for nine subjects. represent one SEM.

No changes in VIGI accuracy or rates of chip or nonsense word sorting were observed relative to performance observed following following active marijuana administration, placebo marijuana administration.

Multidimensional

Mariiuana

and

During

the

social

the presence subjects

Social

spent

in if

conversation

was

defined

as

social amounts hours and

two

observed activity hour

per

day

as

Fig

in

was

and

Watching

that

social

895

was

total

co-active

time

(social

interactive,

in

the

total

marijuana

decreased

by

the

was

interaction

same

the

amount

most

of

frequent

of time

and

in in was

in

the

as the active

approximately six was in interaction social

the by

spent as well

placebo

spent hours

however,

time

conversation

under

amount

administration;

considered

subjects

in

of time

Social

behavior),

subjects approximately four

change

marijuana

movies

and

of

was

without

administration,

of which

co-action

amount

conditions

the amount

A subject subject.

time

present

in social

as was

another

social

subject

placebo

Active

to

and the

spent

conditions.

listening

No

active

videotaped

recorded,

additional

behavior,

increased

subjects

was

in or

co-action.

changed.

that

subject

interaction,

During social

of time

4 presents

one

behavior

following was

1988).

defined

social

when

talking

at least

hours

amount

additional

conversation

conditions.

engaged

the

one

actively

with

of

marijuana

period,

co-action.

area

effects of marijuana

Behavior

of at least

conversation

behavioral

behavior distribution

approximately (Foltin

recreational

and activity

was of three

Fischman during

co-action.

Social Behavior 420

FElcl l-l

380

q MJ

300

240 180 120 80

Total

Interaction

Co-Action

Fig 4. Total time during the social period spent in the social area in the presence of one or two additional subjects (total), and amount of the total social time spent in conversation (interaction) or without conversation (co-action), averaged across placebo (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana days, for six subjects. Error bars represent one SEM. These data were presented in Foltin and Fischman (1988).

Mariiuana

and

Time

in Low-

and

Hieh-Probabilitv

Activities

T. H. Kelly et al.

696

Fig

5

presents

changes

instrumental

and

contingent

placebo

active

and

presented

observed On

placebo

subjects

during

both

the

However,

decreased

during

marijuana

days

small

the

the

on

1989,

(during

periods

increased

1990). the

on

the

the

magnitude

period),

the

social

of

both are time

that

in were

introduced. observed

activities period, were

on

was

on

active

of marijuana’s

changes

the

decreases activities

were

to

instrumental

during

Although

private

similar

periods

amount and

contingencies

in

under

social

contingent

was

time

placebo,

the

activities

when

change

and in

high-probability

of

and

increases

engaged

introduced,

private

instrumental

social to

period,

et al.

occasion

across

relative

private

(Foltin

and

spent

were

the

days,

in

direction

subjects

from

marijuana

low-probability

private

that

contingencies

Data

participated

days,

marijuana days.

observed

the

time

active

was

in

when

placebo

of

time

conditions.

On

participated

amount

baseline

activities

marijuana

separately.

subjects the

from

effect

consistently

subjects.

Time in Activities

3

150

5

100

g ii ._ B

50

Private

I

Social

a

i! a 5

-50

z

-1oc

$ s 6

-150

instrumental Activity

Contingent Activity

instrumental Activity

Contingent Activity

in minutes, from the amount of time subjects spent on the lowFig 5. Change, probability and high-probability activities under baseline conditions during the private and social periods following introduction of task contingencies, for six subjects. Task contingencies required subjects to spend time engaged in low-probability (instrumental) activities in order to gain access to the high-probability (contingent) activities. Results were averaged across days in which placebo (PBO) or active (MJ) marijuana was Error bars represent one SEM. These data were presented in Foltin et al administered. (1989, 1990).

Marijuana

In

and

studies

Coonerative

of

cooperative

Behavior

behavior,

subjects

chose

the

cooperative

option

of

time

Multidimensional

earning,

in

which

time

cooperative

option,

in

even

conditions

under

generated socially

amounts

isolated,

choices

for

cooperative

options. subjects

generated

the

option.

were

for

subjects’

no changes

equally

the

non-cooperative

all

related

to

option;

time

choices

were

when

subjects

influenced

by

when

the in

the

social

all

non-

subjects,

would

have

subjects

were

amounts

of

time

cooperative

and

non-

greater

for

relative

the

variables.

option

the

time

non-cooperative

opted

or non-cooperative

to option

relative by

resulted

whereas,

earnings,

in cooperative

the

activity choice

over

distributed

However,

subjects.

cooperative

this

relative

subjects,

not

high-probability

the

three

of

directly

the

all

was

choice for

897

effects of marijuana

among

earned

time

on

opted

shared

the

of

When

greater

Clearly,

time

which

participating

earnings,

was

which in

greater

generated

produced

earned

behavioral

option

non-cooperative Active

choices

under

marijuana

any

of these

conditions.

Discussion

Marijuana

Effects

Investigations importance series

of

of

studies

Marijuana’s (1989,

1990) and

in

subject. in in

between the

preference

social

activities differences periods.

any

during

these

may

Marijuana’s the

between In addition,

social

and

instrumental

was

time

it is possible

factors

in

difference (some

the

less

periods

contingent there

spent

for time

were activities

there

was

during

during

the

time

large

baseline period.

instrumental

showed

alternating

the

a

social

between

subjects

between

effects

was

activity

activities

all

period,

of their

subjects, on

social

majority

probability

during

the

between influencing

probability

a clear

not

subjects

difference

been

During

for

co-workers

factor

highest

in

and

probabilities

most

and

activities,

Foltin

activities

consistent,

that

this

response

spent

the

private

the

For

differential and

from

situational

spent

contingent

have

the

results

contingent

periods.

subjects of

conditions,

in

private

area.

activity

demonstrated

situational

periods.

one

and as

The

of

and

work be

area

social

not

work

activities

period.

social

however, was

single

lowest

and

amount

(i.e.,

importance

difference

conditions, the

repeatedly effects.

instrumental

may

instrumental

period,

Under

tasks). and

the

activities

for

the

in

probability

private

contingent

in

the

social

relative

social

baseline

activities

conditions)

on and

the

the

activities

difference

spent

have

of drug

behavior.

activities

across

drugs

for

human

private

that

of

support on

time

the

Under

participating

the

on

suggested

participating

four

further

low-probability effects

effects

as determinants

effects

across

marijuana’s

Factors

factors

effects

high-

highest

behavioral

adds

varied

During

the

marijuana’s

example,

and

Situational

of situational

determining

every

and

a clear among

all

of

the

probabilities

the private period than during and contingent on instrumental probably during

a difference

related the

to

private

in baseline

the and

relative social

probabilities

T. H. Kelly et al.

898

of

engaging

in

demonstrated

work

that

recreational

activities,

the

period,

private

because in

they

across

the

baseline

they

they

effects

on

social

and

private

and

social

Marijuana’s current

studies,

social

settings,

but

investigators from

between

our

Mariiuana

behavior)

and

effects

not

change

smoking

effects

were

report

Not

with

drug

of drug

all

of

throughout

the

marijuana-induced were observed

related

to

differences

in

across

the

probabilities,

also

observed

only

of tobacco

in

verbal

Fischman

responding

1988). following

1973).

An

that

verbal

interaction

In

even

in appear

earlier

that

the

study,

absence

to be

to marijuana

in

decreasing

et al

interaction prior

spent

by

administration. behavior

factors.

subjects

and

suggested

social

marijuana’s

behavioral

to

to

between

intervals

in

of

related

administration.

smoking

et al

effects, of

bouts

the

time

marijuana cigarette

cigarettes

This

were

time-course

1987b)

however, in

were food

related

and

to time

consumption

the time of marijuana administration. inter-puff intervals during tobacco smoking

of

of the next tobacco resulted in a net

day.

et al

marijuana’s

tobacco

marijuana

per

marijuana

addition,

initiation cigarettes

(Foltin

administration.

following

is

on verbal

1986).

increases

in mean tobacco

rate

drug

successive

which

cigarette delayed the of four marijuana on heart

of In

time.

related

time

time

immediately

over

were

during

the

observed

of

cigarette

(Nemeth-Coslett

independent

related

dissipated

of marijuana

decreases during each

of time

(Foltin

emitted

were

amount

effects

day,

on

to situational

interaction

Zeidenberg

social

are

related

social

marijuana

occasions the

Marijuana-induced

administration.

1987a)

al

task

effect

in

the effects

et

effects

were

DSST

smoking

in the number

consistent

engaged

of Administration

the

the

1986,

that

Since each marijuana administered. smoking bout, daily administration decrease

During primarily

subjects

amount

decreases

co-active

behaviors

Increases

bouts

in

of

Stitzer

following

engaged

on

cigarette

on

(Foltin

Time

on the co-action

reported and

Marijuana’s

and

and

administration.

been

to be

nature

increasing

similarly (Higgins

rarely

errors

administration,

and

Marijuana’s contingent activities

and

those

appears

the

behavioral

in

also

no effect

of alternative

Marijuana’s

behavior had

did

Effects

Increases

have

had

work

ecology.

instrumental

also

study

activities

period,

natural

maintaining

altered

administration. range

may

both

exclusively.

work

social

the

between

to

almost in

the

in

contingencies

laboratory

subjects

marijuana to the

during

marijuana have

subjects

however,

while

unpublished

access

engaged

performed

periods

in

social

administration

report

so,

previous

activities

subjects

distribution

marijuana

(verbal

marijuana

to do

private

on

In the

Other

concurrent

periods.

effect

interactions

that

regularly

or

probabilities,

A

given

recreational

likely

time

activities.

were

selected

is

instructed

that

differential

recreational subjects

it

were

activities

and

when

bout

on

active

marijuana

of

were

marijuana observed

In addition, smoking bouts days,

and

the

Multidimensional

magnitude

of

effect

did

characterization

Clearly, behavioral

not

of

Effects

Results

and

from

are related

the

intervals

of

in

of time

DeDendent

these

to type

amount

studies

time

which

time. had

to perform smoking

in

verbal

interaction

marijuana

administration.

effects

and

decreased

social

produced

minimal

effects

for providing

example,

varies

across

would

use

behavior

of

well.

Other

(Bamett

et but

1987).

strategies,

such

using

drug

1988),

1985),

effects

or

are

useful are

results

indicate

of contextual

not

from the

always

relative

factors

verification

and

dose

of dose,

separating

from

indices,

like 1986,

presence

can these

the

factors

DSST

studies.

changes

in

is For

social

performance.

effects

on

across

studies,

rate,

human

et

al

blood

1987b, samples relevant

measures it may

as

collecting

of biologically

assessed

two

on

information

in

dose.

of food

other

behavioral

be

a profile

This

Foltin

measures,

a given

cigarette

increased

heart

concentrations with

that

in human

marijuana’s

of behavioral

tobacco

errors

potency

the

potency

daily

drug

Stitzer

of

DSST choice

to produce

of

THC

potency

during

marijuana

changes

correlated

a variety

errors

independent

or on subject

dimensions.

of

demonstrating

amount

increased

required

and

the

day,

indicate

of results

physiological

measuring

for

that

evaluation

(Higgins

directly

measures

of any

as

decreased and

results

consistent

comparisons

precisely

absence

measures

more

the

these

contributions

to engender

were

in

By presenting

more

than

for

al

al

performance

during

behavior

studies,

interpretation

advantages

of

et

on other

some

subjective-reports Heishman

These

at doses

only

the

decreased

current

interaction

doses

multiple

offers

and

increased

bouts

throughout

consumption

effects

marijuana

smoking

of social

In the

that

be required

food

behavioral

above,

marijuana

bouts

subjects.

for the

larger

while

amounts

established.

marijuana’s

cigarette

patterns,

a reference

it appears

behavior

be

that

As discussed

smoking

increased

among

consumption but

indicate

or competitive

can

the

marijuana’s

administered,

on total

effects

to

of

tobacco

within

Marijuana no effect

cooperative

and

was puffs

marijuana’s

doses,

following

measured.

successive

successive

performance,

clearly

being

marijuana

between

The

time

time-course

also

between

of administration

useful

over

Measures

of behavior

task

task

change

899

effects of marijuana

measures.

Mariiuana

the

the

behavioral

(Jones

be possible

If so, the relative across studies. In is problematic.

Conclusions The

analysis

conditions. completely topography under

which

of

First,

the

behavioral

the behavioral

different as opposed measures

effects

marijuana

effects

to the

frequency

were

of

measures

collected

marijuana

being were

produced

of tobacco must

was

collected

also

dependent

were on

smoking. be

considered.

on

at

important.

tobacco Second,

least

For

cigarette

smoking

situational

Marijuana’s

three

example, factors

effects

on

900

T.H. Kelly

et al.

social behavior were highly dependent on the conditions under which the behavior was measured. Finally, pharmacological variables related to marijuana administration were critical. For example, the effects of marijauna on DSST performance varied across time, likely as a function of the marijuana’s time-course of action. A residential laboratory in which multiple measures of human behavior can be collected under a wide range of situational factors under a variety of marijuana administration conditions provides an ideal setting in which to investigate the behavioral effects of this complex drug.

Acknowledgement This research was supported by Grant DA-3476 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (M.W. Fischman, PI.). The assistance of Jerry Locklee, Michelle Woodland, Lisa King, Maryanne Byrne, Andrea Rose, Patti Pippen and Jeffrey Rachlinski is gratefully acknowledged.

References BABOR, T. F., ROSSI, A. M., SAGOTSKY, G. and MEYER, R. E. (1974) Group Behavior: Verbal In: The Use of Marijuana: A Psychological Inquiry, J. H. Mendelson, A. M. Interaction. Rossi, and R. E. Meyer (Eds.), pp 61-72, Plenum Press, New York. BARNETT, G., LICKO, V. and THOMPSON, Marijuana. Psychopharmacology a, 5 l-56.

T. (1985)

Behavioral

Pharmacokinetics

of

BERNSTEIN, D. and LIVINGSTON, C. (1982) An Interactive Program for Observation and Analysis of Human Behavior in a Long-term Continuous Laboratory. Behav. Res. Methods Instrumentation l4, 231-235. BRADY, J. V., BIGELOW, G:, EMURIAN, H. and WILLIAMS, D. M. (1974) Design of a Programmed Environment for the Experimental Analysis of Social Behavior. In: ManEnvironment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. 7: Social Ecology, D. H. Carson (Ed.), pp 187-208, Environmental Design Research Associates, Milwaukee. CHAIT, L. (1989) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol Content administration. Psychopharmacology 98, 5 l-55.

and

Human

Marijuana

Self-

FOLTIN, R. W., BRADY, J. V.. FISCHMAN, M. W., EMURIAN, C.S. and DOMINITZ, J. (1987a) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Social Interactions in Small Groups. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 20, 87-93. FOLTIN, R. W. and FISCHMAN, M. W. (1988) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Human Social Behavior in Small Groups. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. a, 539-541.

Multidimensional

behavioral

901

effects of marijuana

FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., BRADY, J. V., BERNSTEIN, D.J., CAPRIOTTI, R.M., NELLIS, M.J. and KELLY, T.H. (1990) Motivational Effects of Smoked Marijuana: Behavioral Contingencies and Low-Probability Recreational Activities. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 53, 5 19. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., BRADY, J. V., KELLY, T.H., BERNSTEIN, D.J. and NELLIS, M.J. Behavioral Contingencies and High(1989) Motivational Effects of Smoked Marijuana: Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 34, 87 l-877. Probability Recreational Activities. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W. and BYRNE, M. F. (1988) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans Living in a Residential Laboratory. Appetite 11, 1-14. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., PEDROSO, J. J. and PEARLSON, G. D. (1987b) Marijuana and Cocaine Interactions in Humans: Cardiovascular Consequences. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 28, 459-464. HEISHMAN, S. J., STITZER, M. L. and BIGELOW, G. E. (1988) Alcohol and Marijuana: Comparative Dose Effect Profiles in Humans. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 31, 649-655. HENNINGFIELD, J. E. (1984) Behavioral Pharmacology of Cigarette Smoking. In: Advances in Behavioral Pharmacology, Vol. 4, T. Thompson, P. B. Dews and J. E. Barrett (Eds.), pp 131-210, Academic Press, New York. HIGGINS, S. T. and STITZER, M. L. (1986) Psychopharmacology 89, 234-238.

Acute

Marijuana

Effects

on Social

Conversation.

JAFFE, J. H. (1985) Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse. In: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th ed., A.G. Gilman, L.S. Goodman, T.W. Rall and F. Murad (Eds.), pp 532581, MacMillan Publishing, New York. JONES,

R. T. (1987)

Drug Abuse

Profile:

Cannabis.

Clin. Chem. 33, 72B-81B.

KELLY, T.H., FOLTIN, R.W., ROSE, A.J., FISCHMAN, Marijuana Effects on Tobacco Cigarette Smoking 252, 934-944. MCGLOTHIN, W.H. and WEST, Psychiat. 125, 370-378.

L.J. (1968)

The Marijuana

MELLO, N. K., and MENDELSON, J. H. (1985) Operant Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 235, 162-171. MENDELSON, Acquisition

M.W. and BRADY, J.V. (1990) Smoked Behavior. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.

Problem:

Acquisition

An Overview.

of Marihuana

Amer.

J.

by Women.

J.

J. H., KUEHNLE, J. C., GREENBERG, I. and MELLO, N. K. (1976) of Marijuana in Man. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 198, 42-53.

Operant

MILES, C. G., CONGRAVE, G. R. S., GIBBINS, R. J., MARSHMAN, J., DEVENYI, P. and HICKS, R. C. (1974) An Experimental Study of the Effects of Daily Cannabis Smoking on Behaviour Patterns. Acta Pharmacol. et Toxicol. 34 (Sup. 71, l-43.

T. H. Kelly et al.

902

NEMETH-COSLETT, R., HENNINGFIELD, J. E., G’KEEFFE, M. K. and GRIFFITH S, R. R. (I986) Effects of Marijuana Smoking on Subjective Ratings and Tobacco Smoking. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 25, 659-665. PREMACK, D. (1965) Reinforcement Theory. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 13, D. Levine (Ed.), pp 123-180, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. SMITH, D. E. (1968) Acute and Chronic Toxicity 47.

of Marijuana. J. Psychoact.

Vol.

Drugs 2, 37-

ZEIDENBERG, P., CLARK, C., JAFFE, J., ANDERSON, S.W., CHIN, S. and MALITZ, S. (1973) on Memory, Speech and Effect of Oral Administration of A9 tetrahydroca~nabinol Results with Four Normal Human Volunteer Perception of Thermal Stimulation: Subjects, Preliminary Report. Comp. Psychiat. 14, 549-556.

Inquiries

and reprint requests

should be addressed

Thomas H. Kelly, Ph.D. Division of Behavioral Biology Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 600 North Wolfe Street Houck Building, East-2 Baltimore, Maryland 21205 U.S.A.

to:

Multidimensional behavioral effects of marijuana.

1. Five groups of three healthy adult male volunteers (n = 15), all reporting occasional, controlled marijuana use, gave written consent and participa...
1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views