"Marijuana Use Among the New Bohemians" was published in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 2, no. I (Fall /968): 79-92. Copyright © 1968 by David E. Smith, M.D. Reprinted with minor changes by permission of the publisher and the author.
The cursory look at the arrest statistics for marijuana possession and sale in most of the American states suggests that use of the drug is increasing enormously. The traditional shape of marijuana demand and distribution seems to have shifted, beginning sometime in the early 1960s. A partial explanation of the shift is that potential youthful users were no longer convinced that marijuana's effects were harmful. For decades there has been some dispute over the drug's effects. The reports published by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics described marijuana's effects as very strong, often leading to violence, often accompanied by nausea at the early stages, creating wild hallucinations, fostering wild erotic outbursts subjecting the user to a loss of moral control, resulting in a loss of will power so that any farfetched suggestion was likely to be followed, creating vast distortions in time and space, and often causing the user to blank out—either on the scene or retrospectively, so that whatever weird behavior occurred was forgotten the following day.' Others reported that marijuana's effects were mild, and led to affability, high but pleasant spirits, mild distortions of time and space that were considered pleasant, increased sensitivity to taste, musical sounds, colors, and touch, and a mild release of some inhibitions?
So long as the stories of marijuana's association with criminality, opiate addiction, and the like were believed, or considered distinct possibilities, the demand for marijuana remained relatively low outside specific ethnic and racial groups in low income areas. These beliefs about marijuana constantly declined in importance as more and more persons were exposed to the experience of users. In the early 1930s in the United States such exposure was limited to Mexican-American communities, a handful of Negro ghetto areas, and a few jazz bohemian circles. In the late 1940s and early 1950s experience with marijuana seemed to spread rapidly in northern ghetto areas. Soldiers in Korea and Japan during the early 1950s were also exposed to heavy marijuana use. However, neither the knowledge of the pleasant effects of marijuana use nor the rejection of previous beliefs about it penetrated to broad numbers of the middle class until the 1960s.
The disregard of official warnings and traditional sanctions against drug use has indeed reached epidemic proportions in many communities, if one can believe official arrest and seizure figures. This is a nationwide phenomenon, though California seems ahead of the nation in this respect. The trend of drug arrests has reached a point that has numerous consequences in the style of drug use and the policies of law enforcement.
In California from 1962 to 1966, arrests for narcotics ( except marijuana) and other dangerous drugs remained about equal, 1put marijuana arrests for adults increased from 3,291 to 14,293 and for juveniles from 248 to 3,869.
These enormous increases are not spread equally throughout the population but are concentrated among the young and among Caucasians.3 This trend is also reported in many other states.4 These statistics merely illustrate a trend that, because of its size and extent, cannot be attributed to the numerous quirks in law enforcement and in crime statistics, which often invalidate small short-term statistical changes. The statistics do not specify the extent of drug use because there is no easy way of determining what percentage of users get caught.
At the present time there are no good estimates concerning rates of marijuana use. The pressure is mounting to treat use as harmless. This has the effect of making official figures even more unreliable. Courts are often reluctant to prosecute many offenders, and the police practice of freeing marijuana users as bait for bigger game raises the question of just what the arrest figures actually represent. If we assume conservatively that arrest figures represent ten percent of those who use the drugs, then the estimated number of California users in 1967 would be 320,000 persons. This is certainly considerably more than Kolb's national estimate of 5,000 users in 196215
Increasing use seems to have generated a contagion effect. The more users, the less viable the official line on marijuana and to a lesser extent on other drugs. The less respected the rationale for such sanctions, the greater the experimentation. Greater experimentation increases the number of those who use, and makes it easier for novices to obtain drugs. The more varied the user groups, the less any potential user has to change his identity to begin using. The more users, the more jobs open for drug traffickers, and the more sellers will operate among their own kind; the more they blend with their clientele, the more difficult it becomes to catch them. This leads to the perception to the seller, or pusher, of less risk, hence the greater desirability of pushing the drug. Over time the contagion effect reaches a point where serious doubt about official positions is replaced by contemptuous disregard.
Widespread use of marijuana has generated a number of different scenes. There are young and not so young scenes, lower-class and middle-class scenes, organized and free-lance scenes, calm and frantic scenes, supercool and calculatingly uncool scenes. No one knows all the scenes or how many people are in any one scene. This poses major problems for the social scientist interested in portraying life styles associated with marijuana use. The simple mapping problem involved—what are the brute landmarks of the universe we are discussing—is enormous.° One way sociologists have characteristically developed information on activity that is considered deviant by the larger community is to ask those involved in the activity what significance it has for them? Hence apart from official statistics, another source of information on marijuana use is the users themselves. The diversity of drug scenes and the fear of public exposure usually limits these explorations. Often users may conceal information because they do not trust the questioner or because they may know only part of the scene in which they find themselves.
By asking people what marijuana use means to them and by observing their activity in social situations of use, one may draw attention to the settings within which the behavior occurs. This has the result of broadening any investigation of drug use to encompass the context of use, i.e., description of values, outlooks, and life styles within which this particular activity fits.
At least three major marijuana-using groups among college-age persons can be distinguished in and around Berkeley. One could be characterized as experimenters or occasional users. The role drugs play in their lives is very minor. If one were to list the characteristics of this group, it might look like a description of the student body generally. Another group can be classified as the "weekender." He is distinguished from the experimenter by virtue of his more secure arrangement with a supply source. In short, his use, though controlled, is systematic. The weekender is likely to see himself as a radical politically and usually has been a participant in some kind of political action in the recent past. He tends to view marijuana and alcohol in the same general terms. His views of marijuana are essentially an extension of attitudes about alcohol. One takes drugs primarily for "kicks." The third general orientation is that of the "head." He is most easily distinguished from the weekender by the frequency and extent of his drug use. We will examine some of the values associated with this style of marijuana use more thoroughly in the ensuing discussion.
One starts with the assumption in this view that educational, political, and social structures are beyond correction. They are unresponsive to change because of their rigidity and inflexibility. What should a person's response be in the face of this diagnosis? The conclusion reached by many is that the problem of how one relates to the social order is fundamentally a moral one. The only change for which one can work is change within one's self. Massive change comes only from individual transformation. This is a precondition for improving the world.
This situation has led to the growth of what can be characterized as a new bohemianism among college age youth, which evidences both continuities and discontinuities with its historical antecedents. Persons involved in the movement see themselves as part of a subversive tradition that has always existed in America. Though they may not be writers, they see themselves as descendants of Emerson and Thoreau. They characteristically come from the middle class, just as previous generations of literate subversives have. Consequently, recent immigrants, second-generation persons, and minority group members are not to be found among them in substantial numbers.
The new bohemians celebrate originality in art and personal life. Authenticity is highly valued. Conventional society is rejected because originality and spontaneity are stifled. This is similar to the earlier bohemians. Voluntary poverty is also embraced, not as an absolute good but as a way of maintaining one's purity and of learning detachment from material goods. The emphasis on mutual aid and sharing points to an attempt to develop a sense of community that would be impossible to achieve in conventional society.
The new bohemians are different from previous generations of beats in their absolute numbers.° The message they are trying to communicate is appealing to a larger and larger group of disaffected young people. The way their values are communicated represents something novel. Values are still communicated in painting, poems, or novels of limited circulation. But a new vehicle for the dissemination of their beliefs has appeared. Rock and roll music is the framework for the new values.9 A kind of lore is beginning to develop. It is enshrined partly in the poetry of the songs they listen to and sing. The lyrics of folk rock constitute the main body of oral tradition among the new bohemians. They have incorporated it as their own. It gives them a sense of solidarity with a wide range of people in our society. The popularity of these songs is a partial indicator of the appeal of this new movement. There is every indication that the diffusion of this new life style is likely to increase in the future rather than decrease. Its centers are in and around colleges and universities characterized by their academic excellence.
Drugs seem to be used more frequently among these young people because of their accessibility. There is a general consensus among them that the effects of marijuana and LSD are pleasurable. Combined with this is a more discriminating attitude on the drugs' alleged evil effects. Official sanctions against them do not serve as a deterrent since the new bohemians consider the laws punitive and based on misinformation. There is also the sense that the risks in taking drugs are slight and diminishing. Drugs chosen are primarily marijuana and hallucinogens. The so-called harder drugs like heroin and amphetamines are generally rejected because their effects are thought to be desensitizing. The use of drugs in this new bohemian setting is strikingly different from previous beat scenes if for no other reason than that more drugs are available today because of scientific breakthroughs in creating new substances. What was formerly a small and isolated phenomenon among bohemians is now taking on mass proportions.
There has been some shift in the range of heroes in this new group. No longer is it the primitive alone, though the American Indian is certainly revered. The proletariat is not viewed as the only true source of values. The kinds of jobs preferred by the new bohemians suggest the change in orientation. Artistic work is still preferred above all else, but increasing acceptance has been given to low level bureaucratic jobs. The low level bureaucrat who survives and maintains his integrity has always been acceptable; now he seems to have been elevated to a heroic role. Another hero who has emerged is the one who manages to survive very well and beat the system at its own game, e.g., various rock and roll singers who flaunt society's values and make a great deal of money doing it. This indicates a shift in the value attached to voluntary poverty. Poverty is good in its demonstration that one can live without a lot of material things, that one can be detached from them. It is no longer necessary to take upon oneself the condition of the most outcast in the population to achieve truth. The other heroes are somewhat similar to those celebrated by the earlier beats. Those who exemplify by their works or life the value of existential choice, like Camus, are admired.
A most striking difference between today's bohemian and the beats of the late 1950s is in mood. The strain of pessimism or morose bohemianism is completely absent. They share with their earlier counterparts the diagnosis of society as absolutely corrupt, but the new bohemians are not despondent because of it. Rather the whole movement seems to be animated by a profound optimism. This is probably related to the discovery of the hallucinogens. The feeling is that mankind is on the verge of a major development in human consciousness and that its occurrence is inevitable. Hence the lack of interest in rearranging the social structure. The feeling is that the next stage of human development will be radically different from the present one and that it is impossible at this point to anticipate it.
An impartial look at the values associated with this new movement is difficult because so much of what is celebrated is antithetical to middle-class values. The use of certain kinds of drugs (but certainly not alcohol or cigarettes) is considered popularly to be in opposition to fundamental American values. Drug use seems to be opposed to the values of self-restraint, independence, sobriety, earned pleasure and leisure, and sexual propriety. Descriptions of young people involved in this movement have tended to distort the meaning drugs play in their lives. The significance they attach to drugs can only be ascertained within a broader context of shared values. What are some of these values?
Probably the most important value celebrated by the new bohemians is related to the choices one makes. Choice is a precondition of morality. There is likewise an emphasis on seeing a very wide range of human behavior as open to the operation of choice rather than being determined. Even in situations that appear very confining there is still room for choice. New bohemians do not see themselves as victims to whom things happen. Choice gives one the unlimited freedom to change, to make of oneself what he wants to be. This view rejects the unconscious. Man is not a plaything of the unconscious since he creates what he is. Consequently there is a rejection of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and conventional clinical psychology as simply ways of suppressing nonconformity. One is not victimized unless he wills it. A young man who has flunked out of college will view the event, in retrospect, as an act that he willed. He did not flunk because he was in the grip of something larger than himself, but because the whole idea of "having to do something" is seen as deceitful, a way of reconciling one's behavior with an external standard and excusing it. This kind of thinking also extends to the use of the opiates. Drug addiction is seen as a matter of choice—a person in that condition chose it. If he had willed otherwise, he would either not use the drug or he would have stopped. They do not accept the view of the "junkie" as a victim in the sense that he is compelled to use drugs, but as a person who chooses to be a victim. Choices are seen as private matters, in that one is not justified in choosing for another. It is bad behavior either to try to make choices for others or to ask them to make yours.
Such choices can be interfered with in a number of ways. The demands of people to be given authority is a touchy point. On whatever grounds the demand is made—tradition, office, or charisma—these young people are reluctant to let others make up their minds, to plot courses of action, or lay down lines of discipline. Thus there is a great disrespect for tradition as a guideline for present action whether in politics, dress, or manners. There is likewise great disrespect for authority claimed on the basis of office or similar institutional attachment. Perhaps the most acceptable form of authority is that based on personal attributes—charisma.
Choices are made in the context of a benevolent universe. Mass society may be corrupt but the forces that regulate the universe are benign. There is the recognition that there are forces operative in the universe that are not visible. These forces, however, are not placated, as in the lower class, nor exploited in a coldly calculating way, as with the middle class. Rather one attunes to them. The new bohemians come from backgrounds that give them a sense of being able to control their own destiny, so there is a certain confidence attendant upon their choice. The person who exercises choice in a wide variety of situations takes risks but is not likely to be destroyed by forces over which he has no control.
The choice element is much broader than middle-class decision making. Middle-class decisions are limited to "making it" in the conventional world, to striving for mobility. This is the only way in which middle-class choice is operative. It is linked to ambition. From the new bohemian point of view, ambitious people create coercion and misery. Middle-class choice is restless, anxious, unhappy.
To the middle-class person the new bohemian seems to be one who is not decisive. This he would deny. His choice is related to searching for true values, for exploring his own mind and those of others. The passivity perceived by the middle-class person involves a choice. It is a response to the coerciveness of institutions and a decision not to collaborate with them. The major choice is made to drop out of conventional society and opt for independence in personal relationships. This is viewed not as withdrawal but as the first step in exploring those facets of the world and freeing the self from mass society.
The young people involved in this new movement do not characteristically come from religious backgrounds, yet they do reveal a strong spiritual orientation. Allen Ginsberg was the first to insist on the religious character of the earlier beats; the same thing can be said of this new group.
The religious dimension in the movement is most obviously expressed in the strong attraction to certain features of Zen Buddhism, which also find their counterparts in Christianity. The Zen influence does not come directly from the Orient today any more than it did for the earlier beats." What the present generation of bohemians seems to find most attractive in Zen is the idea of the holiness of the personal impulse and the dramatic role of the Zen lunatic. The lunatic is the perfect expression of the bohemian commitment to spontaneity and authenticity. His counterpart in the Christian tradition is the holy fool as depicted so forcefully by Dostoyevsky.
There is also a pronounced sense of the sacred. The world in which we live consists of a number of forces that are alien to middle-class values. These forces are by and large benevolent. We should strive to make ourselves aware of them, to open ourselves to them, to become attuned to them.
The reality perceived by these young people is different from that which is usually referred to by the term. There are two realities, both of which must be discovered: the pseudo-reality and the real reality. The pseudo-reality refers to the façade, the performance, the roles, the games, the rules, the routine. This is perceived to be a phony and superficial mode of being. More importantly, the games are restricting and prevent the individual from realizing his true self, his wholeness, or the meaning and value of life. What is important is that one discover the faces and see them for what they are—dull unconscious restricti6ns on the real self and impediments to the development of consciousness, of awareness of self, others, and the world. Perception of the true reality or the real reality enables one to reject material gains, middle-class status, and the institutional means for gaining these ends. These goals are replaced by a new one, the experience of really being, or having being. Having being, the experience of being in the real scene, leads to an understanding of the true meaning of existence, to the truth of life, to the real-reality.
This openness, which permits one to perceive the true reality, leads quite naturally to a deep reverence for nature and other persons. The reverence is connected with the sense that the world of men, animals, and plants—all living things—is inextricably bound together. It is almost as if all living things were part of one body.
The new bohemians seem to have a distinctive attitude toward time. The focus of interest is on the present, which is to be enjoyed, not some future good. The mind has to be really free of plans and calculations if one is to enjoy the present. Closely linked to this attitude is the disavowal of ambition. Ambition is rejected because it keeps people working for some future status and makes them ignore the present. The daily round of new bohemians is quite unscheduled. A considerable amount of time is spent just "hanging out." This may involve a search for thrills, excitement, and stimulation. It may involve engaging in interesting conversations or improvising word games. Empty time is partly filled with excitement and partly filled with waiting. Waiting for what? Waiting for the happening. The happening is an episode, an occurrence, or an event. It may involve conversation that reveals insight about oneself, the world, or the political order. It may entail encountering "beautiful" people, that is, persons who are spiritually attractive and loving people. It may refer to the giving and receiving of love. Nothing is likely to happen to you, you are not likely to experience a "happening," however, if you are not open to it. The language the new bohemians use reveals the importance attached to the happening. When greeting another" person, rather than ask "What have you been doing lately?" as if worth were measured in terms of achievement, they ask "What has been happening to you?" or "What has been happening to your mind?"
Finally, within this evolving social movement there is a pronounced emphasis on mutual aid. This flows from the fact that identity is not developed in terms of the possessions a person has or the property he owns. Property, food, and drugs are shared. In this, of course, they are like their earlier counterparts living by the code of the small compact group faced with the problem of survival in a hostile world."- The response is to establish a community of love and to try to extend beauty into an ugly world. This can be done by telling people how beautiful they can be or by telling them they are basically good. Many small communes attempt to do this by passing out leaflets, buttons, or food.
What Does This Phenomenon Represent?
The persons involved in this new development consider themselves to be part of a general social movement. They feel it is beginning to take shape. At present there is little indication of where it is going. It tends to be unorganized; there is little official leadership or recognized membership. Progress toward whatever the goal seems to be is uneven. But of one thing these young people are sure: it represents an extraordinarily powerful force.
A new social order is presumably envisioned where honesty, authenticity and self-realization are possible. The rapidity with which this movement is spreading, if we accept increasing drug use as a sign of it, is due to the widespread dissemination of its beliefs among the many persons who are receptive to them.
Certain conditions must be present for a social movement of this sort to develop.12 Among the most important of these conditions is the unavailability of other means to express protest or grievances among a population suffering from some kind of strain. Alternative means for reconstituting the social structure are perceived as unavailable. The age group that constitutes the recruits for this movement—those approximately between 18 and 25, despite their largely middle-class status—ranks low on wealth, power, prestige, or access to the means of communication. Their experience consequently is one of deprivation, not in any material sense, but a deprivation of participation. The disaffection springs from a sense of powerlessness in the face of inflexible political structures. This is the condition that generates the sense of disillusionment described earlier.13
The economic forces that set the stage for this movement are related to our advanced stage of industrialization, which has dramatically changed work practices. Old skills have become obsolescent, and reeducation in a person's career has become an imperative. This has had the effect of lengthening the time between basic schooling and desired employment among a group of persons always noted for its questioning attitudes and profoundly moral stance on social issues.
At the same time work practices are undergoing profound changes, the characteristics of our population and its concentration have been shifting. Internal migration and shifts in population composition generally produce strains that precede the generation of movements of this sort. The concentration of population in large cities, which is a post-World War II phenomenon, combined with the increased birth rate after the war provided the context for this new movement." The increase in birth rate shifted the proportion of youths to adults significantly. The mixing of unlike populations in larger cities further contributed to the strain. One fundamental factor in the rise of religious movements is the sudden coming together of unlike elements in the population representing different stages of assimilation."
The direction this movement will take depends on the response of the larger community through its agencies of social control. If consistent and firm repression is the reaction, then it is likely to be driven further underground and possibly eliminated. This does not seem a likely outcome at this point for several reasons. The resources necessary to repress the movement are more than the community is prepared to expend—in short, public opinion is not favorable to it. Firm repression does not seem likely because decision makers are too ambivalent about the movement: it is composed of their children. But finally, firm repression does not seem likely because the movement strikes responsive chords in many older people. There seems to be among all parts of our community a general vague dissatisfaction with the quality of our lives. This movement speaks to that.
If the agencies of social control respond to the movement with a certain amount of flexibility, then we can expect another kind of evolution. When channels are open for peaceful agitation for change and a patient and thorough hearing is given to grievances, then the larger community's response is essentially an accommodative one. This would require some initiative on the part of the agencies of social control: legislators, universities, and colleges. If we have learned anything from intergroup relations, it is that contact between community officials and the new bohemians should not be patronizing—any contact initiated must be on an equal basis and demonstrate a sympathetic regard for the values that the new bohemians hold. There is a certain urgency in doing this because of increasing disaffection of young persons and the widening cleavage between them and adults. Any initiative exercised by community leaders requires a willingness to listen and a desire to understand. This may create the first break in the insularity of the new movement. The key theme in the young person's response to the larger community is its hypocrisy. Its hypocrisy is flagrantly announced in three areas: the Vietnam War, the unequal status of black people in the United States, and the punitive laws on marijuana. Any discussion must proceed on the assumption that the war be stopped immediately, that the larger white community demonstrate some openness to black demands for equal opportunities, and that marijuana legislation be eliminated or liberalized.
Another possible outcome, at least theoretically, is that the sources of strain that generated this movement will be eliminated. This is not likely to happen, even if we wished it, because our knowledge is inadequate to the task of reorganizing the social structure in such a way as to eliminate the sources of strain. If we were able to do it, the movement would disappear because the new world envisioned by young people in the movement would already be here.
Whatever the outcome it seems to me we shall all be the better for taking seriously the call to slow down, to live our lives instead of enduring them, to open our eyes and really see what is happening around us and in us, to respond to beauty, to humanize our large-scale social structures and yes, if you will, to love one another.
1 See Bouquet (1944) and Munch (1966).
2 This is the conclusion reached by the LaGuardia Report: The Mayor's Committee on Marihuana (1944).
3 The average age, even of adult arrestees, is decreasing. The changes in the radical composition of arrestees are illustrated by statistics of juvenile marijuana arrests for 1964 and 1965. White arrestees increased 118 percent from 342; Mexican-American increased 15 percent from 335; and Negroes increased 41 percent from 336.
4 New York State, in 1966, seized 1,690 pounds of marijuana, compared with approximately 100 pounds in 1960. In New York City narcotic felony arrestsduring the first 8 months of 1967 were running 44 percent above the same period in 1966. In the two counties that Long Island comprises, Nassau and Suffolk, the increase of drug arrests approximated that of California. Narcotics arrests in Nassau rose 117 percent in 1966 and through May 1967, appeared to be moving toward another 50 percent rise. The average age of arrestees decreased from 22.7 in 1966 to 20.6 during the early part of 1967. For Suffolk, narcotic arrests increased in 1967 approximately 60 percent; half the arrestees were age 16 to 21.
5 "The reason marijuana has so little crime-producing effect in the United States as compared with alcohol is simply this: 70,000,000 of our people are alcohol drinkers, 5,000,000 are definite alcoholics, and only 5,000 are marijuana users." Kolb (1962).
6 Geis (1968) deplores the paucity of epidemiological data on marijuana use and presents a cogent summary of what is presently known about extent of use in various populations.
7 This is the method employed by Lindesmith (1947), Becker (1953), and Blumer (1967).
8 See the descriptions of earlier beat scenes by Lipton (1959), Rigney and Smith (1961), and Polsky (1961).
9 This is one of the points made by Gleason (1967) in his essay on rock music.
10 Tallman ( 1961 ), commenting on Kerouac's Dharma Burns, states that "it is an obvious attempt to adjust the practices, flavor, and the attitude of Zen to an American sensibility." P. 226.
11 What Holmes ( 1960 ) has said about the beats can be said just as accurately about the new bohemians: ". . . their response is a return to an older, more personal, but no less rigorous code of ethics, which includes the inviolability of comradeship, the respect for confidences and an almost mystical regard for courage—all of which are the ethics of the tribe, rather than the community, the code of a small compact group living in an indifferent or hostile environment which it seeks not to conquer or change, but only to elude." P. 22.
12 See Smelser (1963), chapter three, for his discussion of strains that precede movements of this kind.
13 Such deprivations are relative to expectations. By an absolute measure, groups which are drawn into value-oriented movements may be improving . . . improvement on absolute grounds ( may) involve deprivation on relative grounds; for the same group, with their new gains in one sphere ( e.g., economic, cultural) is often held back in another (e.g., political)." Smelser (1963), p. 340.
14 Hauser (1960) points out that about 122 million people lived in urban places in 1960—some 68 percent of the total population as contrasted with 56 percent in 1950. The major shift took place during World War II and is expected to continue.
15 Gillin (1910-11) earlier pointed out that one fundamental factor in the rise of religious movements is "the heterogeneity of the population of any social group . . . or its social unlikeness which results from the imperfect assimilation of population elements suddenly brought together. . . ." Pp. 2.40-41.
BECKER, H. 1953. Becoming a marihuana user. American journal of sociology 59:235-42.
BLUMER, H. et al. 1967. Add center project final report: the world of youthful drug use. School of Criminology, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
BOUQUET, JR. 1944. Marihuana intoxication. Journal of the American medical association 124:1010-11.
GEIS, G. 1968. Social and epidemiological aspects of marijuana use. See above, pp. 78-90.
GILLIN, J. L. 1910. A contribution to the sociology of sects. American journal of sociology 16:236-52.
GLEASON, R. 1967. Like a Rolling Stone. The American scholar 36 (Autumn) :555-63.
HAUSER, P. 1960. Population perspectives. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
HOLMES, JR. 1960. In Krim, S., ed., The beats: a gold medal anthology. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications.
KOLB, L. 1962. Drug addiction: a medical problem. Springfield. Illinois: Charles Thomas.
LINDESMITH, A. R. 1947. Opiate addiction. Evanston, Illinois: The Principia Press of Ill.
LIPTON, L. 1959. The holy barbarians. New York: Julian Messner, Inc.
Mayor's committee on marihuana. 1944. The marihuana problem in the city of New York. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: The Jacques Cattell Press. MUNCH, JR. 1966. Marihuana and crime. United Nations bulletin onnarcotics 18, no. 2.
POLSKY, N. 1961. The village beat scene: summer 1960. Dissent 8, no. 3 (Summer) :339-59.
RIGNEY, F. J., and SMITH, D. 1961. The real bohemia: a sociological and psychological study of the beats. New York: Basic Books Inc.
SMELSER, N. 1963. Theory of collective behavior. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
TALLMAN, T. 1961. In Parkinson, T., ed., Casebook on the beats. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.