Russell, I understand that because of your connection to Patients Against Ignorance and Discrimination on Cannabis, you want to discourage ignorance and discrimination on cannabis so I will apologize for using the word "totally" to qualify common. I did not mean it to imply "wholly" but more as in "yeah, dude, it happens." My bad on the inappropriate colloquialism. Dr. Pfaus, however, culls from empirical evidence when he talks about how the bong impacts the shlong (again, especially in men who keep a basal amount of THC in their systems). Sorry if that contributes to pot's troubled reputation, though I hope you will also consider sending a letter to that fellow in our issue last week wearing the marijuana-leaf contact lenses, because he's a way bigger menace to your cause, I think. Seriously, you pot smokers seem to suffer the same kind of representation issues as the poly community.

You also bring up a debatable point about the effects of "aphrodisiacs." Keep in mind that aphrodisiac does not necessarily equal erection. Many people mistakenly call Viagra an aphrodisiac when it merely facilitates erection physiologically. The more appropriate definition of an aphrodisiac is something that makes you horny, in turn making your sex organs all hard and/or greasy. You seem to be suggesting that the chemical properties in pot give you a boner rather than perhaps relaxing you, which then facilitates a boner. I got Pfaus back on the horn to talk a little about why desire augmenters, both in definition and effect, can be so subjective.

"One person's aphrodisiac is another's dysfunction," he says. "Alcohol can inhibit and/or disinhibit depending on the absence or presence, respectively, of sexual inhibition. THC in pot would work the same way. For someone who might [experience] situational premature ejaculation due to being way too aroused, THC could allow him to sustain his erection longer. For someone always in a haze of lethargy, THC would do the opposite. Individual differences in baseline sexual functioning are always important." Consider the fact that you also might actually be having better erections at 39 than you did at 19 because you have more sexual experience. This would have nothing to do with your THC intake and everything to do with that fact that you're a grown-ass man who's had a dick since there was one in the White House.

Another inconsistent component in the use of aphrodisiacs is faith. "Belief is an incredible motivator and baseline changer because of the power of the placebo effect," says Pfaus. "Numerous studies have shown that if people believe there is alcohol in a drink, they will act more drunk than those who are not told the same thing. And it goes the other way. The brain is a powerful occasion setter for physiological events. So I would imagine that even if THC or alcohol or any other drug had no effect whatsoever, so long as the person believed it would have an effect, it would indeed have the desired effect."

Pfaus offers this scenario: you put Spanish fly into someone's drink (interestingly, this drug is like Viagra in that it doesn't make you horny but does encourage erection, albeit in what sounds like a nasty and painful way). You believe it will make that person horny so you start acting flirty, waiting for the drug to take effect. The other person is drinking alcohol with the ground up bug in it, which might make them more open to your advances. Next thing you know, you're effing your brains out all due to the alleged aphrodisiacal effects of a drug that does little more than irritate the urethral passage and cause genital inflammation.

"I love the power of suggestion in both the suggester and suggestee," says Pfaus. "I am a real stickler for baselines and belief. Get rid of them as influences before talking about a strictly pharmacological action of a drug. No one really can. Drugs are like any other priming stimuli in the brain. They just get there faster, stay longer, and don't require much in the way of social skills to obtain."

Love bits