Marijuana. John Hudak

effects produced by smoking. For marijuana tourists staying in hotels that ban smoking, edibles provide an avenue to enjoy marijuana without having to hand over a cleaning fee to the clerk at the front desk.

      Edibles can be misused (overconsumed), but seasoned consumers largely avoid such trouble. Another legitimate concern with edibles is accidental ingestion by children or by adults who do not know a food product is infused with THC. Despite those risks, edible marijuana products are becoming a significant portion of the consumer market.

      In addition to products designed for smoking and eating are a significant number of marijuana-based technologies that, while not invented recently, are new to a lot of American consumers. One that is rapidly growing in popularity is “vaping,” which is similar to smoking but involves the ingestion of vaporized marijuana. There is no smoke and no burning of the product. It is less harsh on the lungs and has no secondhand effects. Vaping usually involves a mechanized, often battery-powered device that looks like a pen or (ironically) a Breathalyzer and that can heat either flower or oil extracts of cannabis. The contents are heated to a high enough temperature to bond with water vapor, but not high enough to combust. The burning process involved in smoking can reduce the amount of THC and other cannabinoids that can be ingested. More of the cannabinoids are preserved by avoiding combustion and using vaporization as a means of ingestion. In marijuana-legal states, vaping is growing in popularity because it remains a bit more discreet than smoking, can be ingested more slowly with reduced loss of product compared to burning, and allows the user to avoid the lingering scent in the air and on clothing that are characteristic of smoking.

      Similar to smoking or vaping is “dabbing,” or consuming ultra-concentrated extracts, or dabs, from marijuana. Usually a waxy resin or oil that is very high in THC content is either burned or vaporized, emitting a potent blast of inhalable product. Dabbing requires a “dab rig,” which often looks like a less sophisticated bong. Using a dab rig involves heating a surface, such as a ceramic or metal plate, and touching the dab to that heated surface (holding it with a nail or some long tweezer) while the user inhales. (The legal market has driven product innovation in all areas, including dab rigs to create sophisticated, advanced, and visually appealing devices.) The user need not consume much, and the effect is fast and powerful. The benefit, particularly for medical patients seeking pain relief, is the rapid, potent onset of the effects. However, some people report that dabs are more potent than they wish. Others, even in a recreational setting, prefer the dabbing experience to standard vaping or smoking.

      Then there are tinctures of marijuana, which are typically cannabinoid-laden oils that are administered orally via a dropper. Tinctures can be used recreationally by including significant levels of THC or they can be used medicinally using THC, CBD, or some balanced combination of the two. In this case, cannabinoids such as (most commonly) CBD, THC, tetrahydrocannabolic acid (THCA), cannabinol (CBN), and others are extracted from plant parts, purified, and often bonded with oil. Many of these cannabinoids are associated with the effective treatment of multiple conditions, but the anticonvulsive properties of cannabinoids make tinctures more common in the treatment of epilepsy-related conditions, especially in children, as well as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), and other such illnesses.

      Several other vehicles of delivery are more often associated with medical uses of cannabis than recreational uses. Cannabis in capsule form is common in states where the use of medical marijuana is legal, heavily regulated, and pharmaceutical in nature and where only a limited number of products is allowed. The technique does preserve some of the optics of medicine for patients seeking a discreet means of taking the substance their doctors recommend.

      Some patients use a variety of patches that transfer cannabinoids into the system in discreet ways, including transdermal patches. In addition to discretion, transdermal patches confer the benefit of a steady time release of cannabinoids into the system.

      Another delivery means is the sublingual strip, which patients place behind the lip or under the tongue. Although this method does not provide the same time release that a transdermal strip does, it provides patients an additional discreet vehicle of delivery. Transdermal patches and sublingual strips can provide relief for patients who suffer from nausea, who prefer not to smoke, and whose nausea symptoms eliminate edibles as an option.

      An entire volume would be needed to cover all of the cannabis-delivery products available for sale in the states that have some form of legalized marijuana. For medical or therapeutic purposes, ointments, creams, lip balms, salves, massage oils, moisturizers, and hundreds of other products exist. The development of ever more products is driven by both producers and consumers. Producers want to make “the next big thing” in marijuana—the product that strikes gold, goes viral, and makes its inventor rich. For consumers, the goal is basic: to get cannabinoids into their system in the most desirable and effective way possible. Those forces together have created a booming corporate industry that is pumping billions of legal dollars into the U.S. economy annually.

      What’s in a Name?

      Throughout this book, I use the terms “cannabis” and “marijuana” somewhat interchangeably. At times, I use “cannabis” to describe the plant (Cannabis sativa or C. indica) and “marijuana” to describe the harvest of the cannabis plant and the consumer products derived from it. That choice is a personal one; the distinction has no formal basis, although I have read and heard others assert that the distinction should be maintained.

      Those choices, however, mask a controversy that I feel must be addressed. Many individuals, especially those in the cannabis advocacy community, refuse to use the word “marijuana” and prefer to use “cannabis” exclusively. The level of commitment to that terminology became apparent to me at a 2015 conference on the topic where a speaker said he preferred “not to spell cannabis with an m.” At first, I didn’t get what he was saying, but then I realized he meant he refused to utter the word “marijuana.”

      The argument made by some who are opposed to the word “marijuana” is that it is a historically racialized term that has been promoted by scholars, government officials, and the media to turn public opinion against both the substance and entire groups of people. This statement is not far-fetched. Historically in the United States, words, music, products, and behaviors have been labeled in ways that explicitly or implicitly inject race into their usage. That racialization of language has affected African Americans and immigrant groups from Mexico, the rest of Latin America, Asia, Ireland, Italy, eastern Europe, and elsewhere. This book will, in part, tell that story.

      Originally, “marijuana” (also spelled “marihuana”) comes from Mexican Spanish, and in the early twentieth century it was used as a colloquial or slang term to describe cannabis. However, during and especially after the Spanish-American War, American resentment toward Mexicans and Mexican immigrants exploded. Tensions, particularly along the southern border of the United States, were quite high and the response was predictable: media stories vilified entire groups of people, negative portrayals of Mexicans appeared in entertainment venues, and race-baiting language seeped into the rhetoric of politicians and government officials. Martin Lee notes in the prologue of Smoke Signals that the word “marijuana … was popularized in the United States during the 1930s by advocates of prohibition who sought to exploit prejudice against despised minority groups, especially Mexican immigrants.”10

      As Mexican immigrants streamed across the border, Americans were increasingly uncomfortable with their new neighbors. It was easy to heap blame on the new immigrants for a variety of problems in society, including crime. And one stereotype was “Mexicans using marihuana.” Media outlets began reporting crimes committed by Mexican immigrants using that image. The change in language around the term “marijuana” was so stark that a National Public Radio report noted: “This disparity between ‘cannabis’ mentions pre-1900 and ‘marihuana’ references post-1900 is wildly jarring. It’s almost as though the papers are describing two different drugs.”11

      This war of words was reflected not only in the public news media but also in official language. Government officials also gladly participated. Harry Anslinger was one such government official. As head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Anslinger served as the nation’s top drug cop from 1930 to 1962. His passion for drug prohibition