Not to be nit picky but "Hasheesh" is not a narcotic. It is a form of
cannabis.  Strictly speaking. 

On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:57 -0400, Robert E Stewart wrote:
> Go to cndc.ucr.edu (no www needed) and bracket your inquiry to,  say, 
> 1861-1868 and  search "Hasheesh." There are a dozen references in the  
> newspapers, and remember that the venerable SF Bulletin isn't included  on that site. 
> They knew it was narcotic, but it appears to have been in common  usage. 
> Consider today's American attitude toward cigarettes compared to the  image I 
> have of my uncle, a surgeon in WWII Europe, lighting a cigarette for a  
> wounded man on a stretcher. His own children, born postwar, said "That can't be  
> Dad"  because of the cigarette. No one ever said Twain was not a man of his  
> time.
>  
> Bob Stewart
>  
> 
> In a message dated 9/10/2013 11:58:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> No  single experiment could yield valid results unless it is conducted over 
>  m=
> any years. There are too many strains of the stuff - and each affects  the 
> us=
> er differently
> 
> --- I have it from a reliable  source.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Hal  Bush <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Larry, I think I am correct is  stating unequivocally that more than a few
> > on this LIST have already  performed that experiment.
> >=20
> > More usefully:  the old  Hoffman thesis about MT's possible sexual
> > adventuring in the mining  camps and then SF was based to a large extent 
> on=
> 
> > speculations  about the "counter-cultures" already at work in those 
> regions=
> .
> >  What do we actually know about marijuana usage at the same time, and  
> those=
> 
> > same places?  For instance, as the reporter on theatre  in SF, I would
> > imagine that he was at least around the stuff, and knew  the smell, etc.
> >=20
> > just thinking out loud here, --Hal  B.
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Lawrence  Howe <[log in to unmask]> 
> wrote=
> :
> >=20
> >>  Peter--
> >>=20
> >> I don't know if this is true, but it might  explain why some of my 
> student=
> s
> >> =3D
> >> claim that  Twain reads funnier under certain conditions.  Before anyone 
>  o=
> n
> >> =3D
> >> this list performs this experiment  oneself,
> >=20
> > --=20
> > Prof. Harold K. Bush
> >  Professor of English
> > 3800 Lindell
> > Saint Louis  University
> > St. Louis, MO  63108
> > 314-977-3616 (w);  314-771-6795 (h)
> >  <www.slu.edu/x23809.xml>