University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Adolescent drug attitudes: a seven-year study on marihuana and LSD

(USC Thesis Other)

Adolescent drug attitudes: a seven-year study on marihuana and LSD

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
h a v e been used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original
submitted.
Tha following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
p ages to insure you complete continuity.
2. Whan an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the pege in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific p ages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed a s
received.
Xorox Unhrorsity Microfilms
300 North Zaab Rood
Aim Aitor, Michigan 40106
75-6454
WEST, Helene Joan, 1933- f
ADOLESCENT DRUG ATTITUDES: A SEVEN-YEAR t
STUDY ON MARIHUANA AND LSD. ]
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1974
Education, psychology
Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
© 1974
HELENE JOAN WEST
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
ADOLESCENT DRUG ATTITUDES: A SEVEN-YEAR STUDY ON
MARIHUANA AND LSD
by
Helene Joan West
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
August 197^
UNIVERSITY OF SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE O RADUATE SCHO OL
U N IV E R S ITY PARK
LOS ANOELES. C A LIF O R N IA 8 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
HELENE JOAN WEST
Dtan
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
CS.....
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express the deepest gratitude
for invaluable assistance to:
The Delta Kappa Gamma Honor Education Society for
the California and International Scholarships
which provided moral as well as financial support
to continue long-term research and scholarly
endeavors.
The Beverly Hills Unified School District under
the outstanding leadership of Mr. Kenneth L. Peters,
Superintendent, who approved and supported the
project. Special thanks are also extended to
Dr. Willard F. Robinson, Principal of Beverly Hills
High School; Stuart Silver, Assistant Principal;
the Data Processing Department and the students
who participated in this study.
C. Edward Meyers, Ph.D., Doctoral Committee Chair
man, who not only was an inspiration for excellence
in research and scholarship, but also was highly
Insightful and supportive throughout my graduate
studies at the University of Southern California.
Special gratitude is further extended to Doctoral
ii
Committee Members A. Steven Frankel, Ph.D.;
William B. Michael, Ph.D.; Leonard L. Murdy, Ed.D.;
and William F. O'Neill, Ph.D., for sharing their
special expertise, resourcefulness and thoughtful
assistance.
Gary Peskin, graduate of the Massachusetts Insti
tute of Technology, who was masterful in his pro
digious statistical compilation of the research
data.
Elizabeth Rae Clare for her significant help in
uncovering relevant resources on drug research.
David A. Thiele, M.D., for providing drug research
data and a valuable perspective.
Avner I. Feldman, M.D., for his superior editing
skill, technical assistance, and personal encour
agement .
iii
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . .......................... ii
LIST OF TABLES.................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES.................................. vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE.............................. 1
Introduction
Review of the Literature
Summary Digest
II. THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN............. 17
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Importance of the Study
Research Hypotheses
Population and Sample
Instrumentation
Data Analysis
Validity Assumptions
Definitions of Terms
Delimitations of the Study
III. FINDINGS................................ 30
Analyses of Results
Discussion of Findings
Summary
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 64
Summary
Conelusions
Recommendati ons
APPENDIX........................................ 77
REFERENCES....................................... 8l
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Reported Prevalence of Marihuana and LSD
Use by Yearly Random Samples............. 32
2. Self-classiflcatlon of Drug U s e ............ 34
3.1 Percentage of Users and Non-users by
Grade Level and Year..................... 35
3.2 Class Changes In Relative Incidence of
Drug Experimentation..................... 36
4. Percentage of Users and Non-users by Sex ... 38
5. Percentage of Users and Non-users as
Related to Earned Grade Averages .......... 39
6. Percentage of Users and Non-users in
Relationship to Favoring Legaliza
tion of Marihuana, Legalization of
LSD, and Individual Decision
Making about Drug U s e ................... 4l
7. Percentage of Users and Non-users Whose
Natural Parents Are Separated
or Divorced............................ 42
8. Percentage of Users and Non-users Who Know
Other Drug-consuming Students and
Drug-consuming Adults ................... 43
9.1 Percentage of Users' and Non-users' Reac
tions to a Friend's Use of Marihuana .... 45
9.2 Percentage of Users' and Non-users' Assess
ment of Parental Reactions to
Adolescent Drug U s e ..................... 46
10. Percentage of Users and Non-users in Rela
tion to Attitudes about Current Relevance
of Drug Education, Adequacy of Teacher
Knowledge, and the Physical Harmfulness
of Alcohol Compared to Marihuana ......... 47
v
Table Page
11. Percentage of Users and Non-users Who Relate
the Incidence of Lower (Poorer) Grades
and of Emotional Instability to Drug Use . . 49
12.1 Percentage of Users and Non-users by Primary
Reason for Drug U s e ..................... 51
12.2 Percentage of Users and Non-users by
Original Source of Drugs ................. 52
vl
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Percentage of Marihuana and LSD Use in
Graphic Form.......................... 31
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
A crucial social concern for the last decade Is the
changing cultural pattern of adolescent attitudes towards
the use of marihuana and other mind-altering drugs. The
First Report of the National Committee on Marihuana and
Drug Abuse (NCMDA, 1972) indicates that since the mid
sixties use of illegal, chemical substances has become"a
national problem."
As Johnson (1973) stated, perhaps the most note
worthy aspect of this phenomenon is that illicit use of
drugs had begun to occur among a basically law-abiding,
white, middle-class student population. This declaration
piths many of the stereotypes about illegal chemical inges
tion being prevalent primarily in urban ghettos (Simon &
Gagnon, 1 9 6 8). The dramatic shift in drug use from lower
socioeconomic levels to a middle- and upper-class popula
tion highlights a basic rationale for this research study.
Professionals in medicine, social science, and
education acknowledge that drug abuse has currently reached
epidemic proportions in the United States (Louria, 1968;
Martin, 1973). With a complex problem of this magnitude,
2
it is imperative that an understanding of its rapidly-
changing character be based on research rather than on
emotionalism, exaggeration, or polarization.
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature has been gleaned for
a primary focus on studies relevant to adolescent drug use
in white middle-class and upper-class urban communities.
A search has been made for significant, long-term trend
information on student use of marihuana and LSD. Drug
literature on pharmacology, physiological dependence,
criminality, inner city patterns, and other divergent
topics has not been covered because it is beyond the
parameters of this study.
Studies on Incidence and
Prevalence of Drug Use
Marihuana has been utilized as an intoxicant in
various areas of the world for centuries and in this
country for 75 years. Yet in only less than a decade its
use has caused major public agitation and alarm (NCMDA,
1972). This anxiety has been generated because it is the
young of our nation who have become the focal users of
illicit drugs. To gain perspective on this social dilemma,
it is necessary first to attempt delineation of its quanti
tative dimensions.
Most research on drug participation in the mid
sixties was conducted at the university level. Goldstein
(1 9 6 6) informally observed drug use on 50 campuses and
concluded through the Interview process that 15 percent of
the student population was Involved. Adler (1 9 6 6) asserted
that use of marihuana and LSD in some San Francisco Bay
Area high schools and college communities ranged up to 25
percent. Students and administrators at the University of
California at Berkeley estimated that over half of their
population experimented with mind-altering chemicals (Gold
stein, 1 9 6 6). Incidence statistics varied considerably
depending upon the source of information, the perspective
of the promuxbutor and the locale of the institution. Con
sistently, however, the highest prevalence was at sophisti
cated urban schools.
It is significant to observe the contagious nature
of chemical ingestion because the phenomenon spread rapidly
from the university campus to infect high school students.
In 1966, there was a marked paucity of scientific investi
gation at the secondary level. The California Bureau of
Criminal Statistics (1 9 6 9) tabulated 5355 juvenile drug
arrests (under 18 years) in 1 9 6 6. The juvenile arrests in
1967 Increased 175-6 percent over the prior year, which was
on a much greater relative scale than for adults (Sokol,
1973). The Bureau reported a growth rate of 115 percent
in the 1 9 6 7-68 period. The 1969 figures show a 22.7 per
cent increase over 1968, indicating that although the rates
had slowed, the frequency continued to rise. Generally,
statistics from police files and Juvenile authorities are
incomplete because they register only those persons who
have been apprehended. Arrest rates are at best only indi
cations of the lower limits of the actual abuse occurring.
One of the first research studies reported at the
secondary level was conducted by Miller (1 9 6 7) who sampled
2600 students in a Great Neck, New York high school. Find
ings indicated that 8 percent had tried marihuana and 2
percent had experience with hallucinogens. In California,
a Castro Valley questionnaire (Price, 1 9 6 7) involving
eleventh and twelfth grade students revealed that 35 percent
of the boys and 22 percent of the girls had tried marihuana
whereas 15 percent of the boys and 22 percent of the girls
had taken LSD. In that same year, a San Mateo high school
found 18 percent had used marihuana and 8 percent experi
mented with LSD (Blum, 1970). In 19 6 8, one of the largest
scale surveys conducted to date involved all students in
the San Mateo County high schools. It indicated that 32
percent of the pupils had used marihuana and more than 10
percent had tried LSD.
In the Second Report of the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCMDA, 1973)> an aggregate analy
sis of marihuana-use surveys was made on high school
5
student data. The following figures have been extrapolated
or calculated from approximately 200 surveys of American
secondary school and college students conducted in all
parts of the country from 1967 to 1972. The large differ
ences in the populations, survey instruments, sampling
methods, and operational definitions preclude precise
comparison of their results.
Year Mean Percentage of High School Students
Marihuana Hallucinogens
1967 15* 6%
1968 23* 9$
1969 6*
1970 z y f > 1 1 °
1971 25*
8*
1972
k 0 < f > 1 k < f >
Blum (1970) cautioned that high school
cannot be taken at face value because of sampling bias,
possible under-reporting and over-reporting, and the rapid
ity with which they are outdated in a kaleidoscopic youth
culture.
Studies of Patterns and
Correlates of Drug Us~
Another important research dimension in the study
of adolescent drug attitudes is identification of patterns
and correlates of drug use. Nowlis (1971) and McKillip,
Johnson, and Petzel (1973) recognized the significance of
dividing subjects into groups according to the frequency
of reported drug utilization. They acknowledged that the
experimental use of a drug is quite different from the con
tinued taking of the substance. The distinction between
occasional and regular users improves understanding of
drug use patterns.
Age or grade level has been utilized frequently as
a basis for data analysis. It is acknowledged as a crucial
correlate in numerous drug studies (Arthur, Sisson &
Nation, 1973; Fejer & Smart, 1973; Wenk, 1973)* The trend
in the literature, with some variation, generally demon
strates that the knowledge and use of drugs increase with
age.
Sex has emerged as another frequently employed
variable in drug research. In the Commission-sponsored
National Survey (NCMDA, 1 9 7 2), it is reported that until
recently twice as many males as females have used marihuana.
However, in the most up-to-date studies, the sex differen
tial appears to be diminishing. In fact, in many youthful
populations use is almost equally distributed between
males and females.
One of the stereotypic assumptions about student
experimenters is that drug users achieve poorer grades as
part of an amotivational syndrome. For college students,
7
a major inference from Blum (1970) is that drug experience
does not constitute a predictor of grades. Johnson (1973)
summarized several studies at the college level for which
the findings are mixed. He asserted that if there was a
statistically significant relationship between drug use
and grades, it was a relatively weak one.
Another correlate currently being studied by sev
eral researchers is the relationship between drug use and
parental separation or divorce. It has been conjectured
that drug use is a compensation for feelings arising from
family tensions. However, in a study of Portsmouth, New
Hampshire high school students, Wenk (1973) has found no
statistical significance between drug consumption and
broken homes.
Studies with Theoretical Assumptions
The contemporary phenomenon of youthful drug use
is a complex issue with many confounding, multi-causal
elements. In an endeavor to attain perspective, it is
helpful to synthesize known factors of adolescent drug
attitudes within a theoretical framework.
Sociological Studies of Drug Use
Drug use in the late sixties and early seventies
appears to have become a symbol of wider social conflicts
and public Issues. For youth, marihuana has come to
8
symbolize disaffection with traditional society and a
rejection of the established value system. In an age
characterized by the generation gap, marihuana vivifies
the cultural divide (NCMDA, 1972).
Paul Pretzel (1970) stated that meaningful commu
nication between the two generations has been extremely
difficult because of basic value differences. He effec
tively dichotomized drug culture values from those main
tained by "straight society." The drug culture places
higher emphasis upon (a) pleasure over production, (b)
experience over achievement and mastery, (c) passivity
rather than aggression, (d) present and immediate time
more than past and future, (e) style and form more than
content and substantive facts, (f) risk rather than
restraint, and (g) mysticism more than intellectualism.
In her study of the generation gap, Margaret Mead
(1970) distinguished between three different kinds of
culture: postfiguratlve (youth learn from their forebears),
cofigurative (both children and adults learn from peers),
and prefigurative (adults learn from their children). She
indicated that American society was entering a new period,
unparalleled in history, in whirh the young were taking on
new authority in their prefigurative apprehension of the
unknown future. No longer can an adult invoke his own
youth to understand the young of today.
9
Bruce Johnson (1973) promulgated a sociological
theory directed towards understanding Illicit drug use
among middle-class American adolescents. He postulated
that there are three important cultural or subcultural
standards to which youth may orient themselves: the parent
culture, the peer culture, and drug subcultures. Johnson
suggested that deep commitment to the parent culture was
associated with the very unlikely use of drugs, whereas
commitment to the drug subculture was likely to be related
to use of a wide variety of drugs. For many students,
involvement in the peer culture affords a transition
between the drug culture and parent culture. Central to
his theory of socialization into progressively more uncon
ventional groups are the present systems of laws governing
drug-using behavior in America. They play an important
role in recruiting people into and in maintaining drug
subcultures.
Joel Fort (1 9 6 9) emphasized the following socio
logical factors as contributing to the ever-widening pat
terns of youthful chemical consumption:
1. Living in a drug-saturated society that adver
tises, proselytizes and glorifies chemical
ingestion.
2. Overavailability of legal and illegal mind-
altering drugs.
10
3. Interrelatedness of drug use, such as the carry
over of tobacco smoking to cannabis smoking.
4. Patterning of drug-law violation established
with teen-age use of alcohol or tobacco which
makes it no more deviant to use other illegal
drugs.
5. Equating the high degree of societal anxiety,
in general, with a concomitant increase in
drug use.
6. Being routinized and dehumanized in a life that
accentuates alienation and anomie.
He asserted that drug use is multifactorial in origin
involving a complex interweaving of psychological as well
as sociological variables, including the element of chance.
There are some general social psychological the
ories that might illuminate the adolescent drug use prob
lem. Among them is Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive
dissonance in which a state of tension occurs whenever an
individual simultaneously holds two cognitions that are
psychologically inconsistent. In relation to drug use,
the peer pressure to smoke marihuana conflicts with paren
tal and legal pressure to abstain. In order to reduce the
unpleasantness of this dissonance, the teen-ager must make
a choice between being a drug-user or a non-user. The
11
direction of his choice can be related to the resolution of
internal and external role expectations as described by-
David Johnson (1973)> to whom reference was made earlier
in the literature review.
Glasser (19 6 9) theorized that today's youth are
more identity or role-oriented in contrast to the goal-
orientation of their parents. He asserted that use of
drugs is increasing mainly among young people who are fail
ing in school and are among those who see no relevance of
the educational system to their lives or to the problems
of the world.
Psychological Studies of Drug Use
Adolescent drug use and abuse are of crucial con
cern not only to adults but also to teen-agers themselves.
Inasmuch as a search for identity is part of the essence of
adolescence, experimentation with drugs has increasingly
become one more avenue for self-exploration (Keniston,
1966).
In terms of psychosocial development, the transi
tion from childhood to adulthood is fraught with many
demands. The report of a National Seminar of the Institute
for the Development of Educational Activities (IDEA) on
"High School Students and Drugs" (IDEA, 1970) described
the early and middle teens as bringing a loosening of
family ties, a diminution of parental authority, increasing
12
responsibility, and sexual maturing. Beset with anxiety,
frustration, fear of failure, inner conflicts and doubts,
the adolescent may find that drugs help promote conversa
tion and friendship, loosen inhibitions, heighten sensa
tions, and provide relief and escape.
The casual acceptance of drugs by the young may be
a reflection of their psychological identification proc
esses. Adults in this "Age of the Pill" seem to have
unwittingly provided the model for drug consumption from
their own use of tobacco and alcohol to the taking of
tranquilizers and dieting pills. The average adult con
sumes from three to five drugs a day (Fort, 1969; IDEA,
1970). Thought-provoking indeed was the point by Simon and
Gagnon ( 1 9 6 8) that contrary to being in revolt against an
older generation, the young may in fact be acknowledging
how influential a model they are.
Peer identification processes play a consistently
significant role in drug use. Johnson (1973) pointed out
that once something is known about the cannabis use of a
person's friends, background variables do not greatly
increase ability to predict marihuana consumption. Thus,
the primary factor in understanding why a college student
uses marihuana is the proportion of his friends who use it.
Research by McKillip, Johnson, and Petzel (1973) involving
urban high school students revealed very significant rela
tionships between the subjects' own drug use with parental,
13
sibling, and peer use. The highest correlations observed
were for peer drug use, followed by sibling and parental
drug Ingestion.
One of the most fundamental and prevalent positions
on the etiology of drug taking is the personality dimen
sion. Psychological or emotional disturbance appears most
frequently as a causal factor. Drug use has been viewed by
some researchers as merely symptomatic of an untoward reac
tion to emotional problems (Steffenhagen, Schmidt, &
McAree, 1971). They contended that emotional disturbance
precedes drug use rather than being an "after-effect."
Milman and Anker (1 9 7 1) did a study of factors
associated with the psychological dynamics that influence
drug use. They found evidence that emotional instability
was implicit in the high frequency of drug usage among
individuals with a history of psychiatric problems, of
unfavorable relationships with parents, and of homosexual
activities. They also reinforced the impact of peer
influence as well as the effect of use by association.
Psychological functioning as a causative component
of drug-taking behavior in adolescents was also stressed by
Sebald (1 9 6 8). He characterized some teen-age drug use as
emanating from neurotic feelings of insecurity, inadequacy,
and anxiety. This group he referred to as the "troubled
users." Other young people may become involved with
illegal chemicals as a response to collective inducement,
the encouragement and pressure exerted by the peer group.
These teen-agers he labeled the "fun users." Another
identified subgroup is the "intellectual users" who con
stitute a small minority. They purport to use drugs as a
means to heighten creativity and deepen personal insights
about oneself and the world but they still manifest serious
self-doubt. These young people are more likely to experi
ment with LSD than with marihuana. In general, Sebald has
indicated that basic preventative efforts call for medical
and psychological help rather than legislation and law
enforcement to ameliorate problems that are essentially
emotional in nature.
Summary Digest
The review of the literature was organized to
parallel the primary research concerns as promulgated in
this project. Studies on incidence and prevalence of
student drug use are critically disparate, not only as to
the magnitude of use but also as to the method of inquiry.
Some of the researchers quoted most frequently in the
literature based data on casual interviews and Journalistic
reporting. Other studies did not even specify the sampling
methodology or type of survey instrument used in generating
figures on drug use. Blum (1970) warned that high school
15
statistics cannot be taken at face value. Outdated by the
time they are printed, they are statistically affected by
sampling bias, by possible under-reporting, or by over
reporting. This statistical bias dramatizes the premium
value of long-term trend data which is markedly inadequate
in the literature.
To compensate for a paucity of trend analyses in
the research, the NCMDA (1973) had to aggregate and extrap
olate from over 200 significantly diverse surveys with
large differences in the populations addressed and the
sampling methods employed. In order to compare drug-use
trends, Johnson (1973) based part of his study upon student
memory of drug use in high school. This dearth of statis
tically reliable and valid data has served to maximize the
thrust of the current project.
Another major weakness in adolescent drug research
has been the lack of Information on the same target popu
lation for several consecutive years. This dissertation
endeavors to identify high school drug use patterns within
a single community over a significant seven-year period
from 1967 through 1 9 7 3- In many projects that extended
beyond one or two years investigators varied their survey
instruments and sampling procedures which could have con
founded results. Differences in patterns and correlates
may then have related more to methodological variations
rather than to actual changes in student drug use patterns.
16
The present study was designed for consistent, controlled
research over an extended time frame.
Theoretical conceptualizations in adolescent drug
use literature are just emerging. This author extended
primacy to budding sociological and psychological explana
tions of youthful chemical consumption. There are no
simplistic frames of reference that can readily explicate
the drug dilemma. It Is a multi-faceted problem which Is
simultaneously both a symptom and a response of the young
to social, cultural, psychological, legal, and institu
tional forces. This complex Interaction of variables
makes the generation of drug use theory even more dependent
upon valid historical research. It is to this critical
need that the present study is addressed. It was designed
and begun prior to most drug research projects at the high
school level. Its relative uniqueness lies not only in the
statistically rare, trend data on the sensitive, volatile
issue of adolescent drug use In a representative, middle-
and upper-class community, but also in the incorporation
of first-hand comments written by students to open-ended
queries. It is hoped that this dissertation will contrib
ute significantly to a needed body of research on whether
youthful chemical ingestion is a passing phase or a
reweaving of the fabric of contemporary American values.
CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Statement of the Problem
Adolescent drug experimentation emerged in the
middle sixties as an explosive and emotional issue that
challenged and perplexed adult society. The initial
attempts to comprehend the dimensions of the problem often
involved unsubstantiated estimates ranging from 1 to 90
percent. There was a dramatic need for scientific research
not only to assess the Incidence, prevalence, and patterns
of youthful drug use, but also to demythologlze the con-
commitant dilemma.
Carefully controlled studies involving use of
random samples are at a premium. For the most part, stu
dent survey information has been superficial and vulnerable
to significant sampling bias (Blum, 1970). In addition,
there has been a marked paucity of research at the high
school level because of the highly sensitive nature of
inquiry about illegal drug ingestion of secondary school
students.
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to document the emergence
17
of adolescent drug attitudes towards marihuana and LSD
during a highly significant, seven-year period from 1967
through 1973 in a white, middle- and upper-class community.
With the rapidity of change in the youthful drug scene, it
was imperative to study the problem on a historical basis.
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCMDA,
1 9 7 2) emphasized the critical importance of determining the
longevity of drug-using behavior to determine whether this
behavior was an aberrant fad or one that was becoming
rooted in the American culture.
The primary objectives of this research project
were to:
1. Describe the prevalence trends of marihuana and
LSD use in a sample student population from 1967
through 1 9 7 3.
2. Identify significant correlates of adolescent
drug use.
3. Discern patterns that can distinguish between
drug-ingesting and drug-resisting teen-agers.
4. Investigate whether the attitudes of high school
drug participants were significantly different
from non-participants.
5. Develop, substantiate, or synthesize theories
promulgated about youthful drug use.
6. Provide an opportunity for students to answer
19
open-ended queries on marihuana and LSD and to
make unstructured comments.
Importance of the Study
This research project has the following distin
guishing features:
1. It is historical, as it covers a time period
from 1967 through 1973 which was critical to
the adolescent drug problem and concommitant
cultural change.
2. It is based upon a random sample of white,
middle- and upper-class youth who represent
the preponderant socioeconomic level of stu
dent users (NCMDA, 1972; Milman & Anker, 1971)-
3. Its research methodology and instrumentation
were consistently controlled over the seven-
year period.
4. It had no refusals to participate in the survey,
which was anonymous.
5. It yielded findings which could help to fill a
research void on long-term trend information,
obtained from one representative community.
Heretofore, in order to obtain trend data,
numerous surveys with major differences in
population, instrumentation, and methodology
20
had to be aggregated for analysis and extrap
olated for trends (Johnson, 1973; NCMDA, 1973).
6. It afforded the opportunity for students to
write candid comments on use of marihuana and
LSD.
Research Hypotheses
The major hypothesis underlying this investigation
was that high school students would be shown to have mani
fested patterns of increased use of marihuana and LSD over
a seven-year period from 196 7 through 1973. Acceleration
of drug use would result in attitude differentiation
between user and non-user.
The hypotheses as presented in this descriptive,
historical study were based on inferences derived, in part,
from drug research at the college level. Otherwise, they
were developed from a consideration of the psychodynamics
related to peer pressure, adult modeling of drug use,
escape or compensation for familial problems, academic
concerns and other possible expectations associated with
chemical consumption. There was insufficient information
available in 196 7 on white, middle- and upper-class adoles
cent drug use patterns from which to develop a theoretical
framework for the following specific hypotheses:
21
1. There would be higher prevalence trends for use
of marihuana than for use of LSD by high school
students as surveyed from 1967 through 1 9 7 3.
2. There would be a different increase pattern by
three groups of drug ingestors who identify
themselves as either "casual experimenters,"
"sophisticated users" or "users dependent
upon the drug." Over the years, more ingestors
would identify themselves as "sophisticated
users."
3. There would be a positive relationship between
drug experimentation and age. Older students
would participate in the drug experience more
than would freshmen. The Classes of 1970, 1971,
1972, and 1973 would manifest an increase in
drug experimentation over their four-year high
school experience.
4. There would be no difference between the sexes
in use of marihuana and LSD.
5. There would be an inverse relationship between
drug use and academic grades.
6. There would be a positive relationship between
drug participation and the favoring of legal
ization and individual use of marihuana and LSD.
7. There would be a positive relationship between
parental separation or divorce and drug use.
8. There would be a positive relationship between
personal drug use and (a) knowing drug-using
students, and (b) knowing drug-using adult3.
9. There would be a difference in reaction to a
friend's use of marihuana between drug Inges
tors and drug resistors; the drug ingestors
would be more accepting of a friend's use than
would the drug resistors. Assumptions made by
students about parental response to adolescent
drug use would be more severe than would be
their own reactions to peer consumption.
10. There would be a more negative assessment of
up-to-date drug education and teacher knowl
edge by drug participants than by non
participants .
11. There would be a more negative assessment of
drug users by non-users than by users in rela
tion of the incidence of drug use to the occur
rence of emotional stability and of lower grades.
12. There would be a difference in evaluation of the
primary reason for drug use between users and
non-users. However, there would be no differ
ence in assessment of how students come in
contact with drugs.
23
Population and Sample
As shown In Chapter I, research by the World Health
Organization (WHO, 1 9 6 6) revealed that both the numbers of
youth using drugs and the socioeconomic classes from which
they were drawn have changed during the last decade.
There were much larger numbers of middle- and upper-class
young people among drug users than there were formerly.
Milman and Anker (1971) showed a clear, positive correla
tion between increased prevalence of drug use and higher
social class.
This study was conducted in a predominantly white,
middle- and upper-class urban community in Southern Cali
fornia. In the community selected, there was one high
school which encompassed ninth through twelfth grades.
The average intellectual endowment of the students is
higher than the national average, the mean IQ being approx
imately 112, as assessed by group tests. Since about 90
percent of the students who have been graduated have been
from this secondary school have attended college, their
attitudes towards drug use may have bearing on the contem
porary drug problem confronting higher education.
The average enrollment of pupils in this secondary
school over the time period covered was approximately 2000
students, in rounded figures. An approximate 10 percent
random sample, unstratified by grade, was drawn annually
from an alphabetical roster of all enrollees. To simplify
24
comparisons from year to year, the samples were cut ran
domly to reach 200. There were no refusals to participate
In the research In any year of the Investigation.
Instrumentation
The Instrument used in this study was an anonymous
Student Questionnaire (Appendix) with 34 items. The
queries incorporated in the survey were determined primarily
on an empirical basis, after analysis of drug research and
attitude measurement (Oppenheim, 1966; Payne, 1951; Kendall,
1954).
It was necessary to obtain approval from the High
School Principal and a District Study Committee on Health
Problems, headed by the Superintendent of Schools, in order
to conduct the research. Some modifications of the original
instrument were made in response to constructive suggestions
from school personnel. This included deleting questions
relating to the extent of specific use of marihuana and
LSD. Instead, students identified the frequency and inten
sity of their drug consumption by four categorical terms:
non-participant, casual experimenter, sophisticated user,
and user dependent upon the drug.
Administration of the survey required that students
be summoned to an empty classroom or to a large conference
room in groups of approximately 30 to 35 during the school
day. They were handed a questionnaire and pencil with the
25
simple assurance of anonymity. There were no refusals to
participate in the research.
There were no apparent difficulties for students in
understanding the questions. Only query number 18 about
the primary reason for marihuana use presented the stimula
tion to mark more than one answer. If more than one
response was given, the replies were not coded.
Over the seven-year period, there were no changes
in the questionnaire. This constancy of items was to
insure that the instrument itself did not present a con
founding variable.
Data Analysis
Data processing technology was used to facilitate
analysis of the 1400 questionnaires collected over a seven-
year period. Responses of each student who completed a
drug survey were key punched onto data processing cards,
with the exception of written comments to three open-ended
queries.
The initial step in analyzing questionnaire
responses was to distinguish marihuana and LSD users from
non-users. This was achieved by an item analysis of
answers to questions 21 and 22, which dichotomize the sam
ple into drug participants and non-participants. Other
cross-tabulation analyses were made on grade level, sex,
26
self-reported academic average, and parental separation or
divorce.
Frequency-percentage breakdowns were obtained on
all Items. In comparing users and non-users, the statisti
cal treatment employed for calculating significance was the
chi-square test. Tables and graphs were used for visual
summary presentations of research findings In trend and
comparative analyses.
Validity Assumptions
The following validity assumptions were implicit
in the investigation:
1. A 10 percent random sample of students would be
sufficient for valid generalization of findings
to the school population studied.
2. An anonymous questionnaire would afford students
the opportunity to respond more candidly to per
sonal queries on drug attitudes and use of
illicit substances, such as marihuana and LSD,
than would one requiring identification of the
respondent.
3. The frequency and intensity of student drug-
using behavior could be succinctly assessed by
use of the terms: non-participant, casual
experimenter, sophisticated user, and user
dependent upon the drug.
Definitions of Terms
Drug-uslng behavior Is often described by an array
of nonspecific, judgmental terms. In order to assess the
frequency and Intensity level or pattern of student use
with one question, the following terminology was employed
In the questionnaire:
Non-partlclpant. Students who responded that they
did not ingest marihuana or LSD.
Casual experimenter. Students who admitted their
use of drugs In question on a short-term, non-patterned,
trial basis.
Sophisticated user. Students who reported that
they used marihuana or LSD in a more intensified, long
term, patterned level with a greater degree of knowledge
based on experience.
Dependent on the drug. Students who acknowledged
that they used marihuana or LSD in a compulsive, high fre
quency and high intensity level. Discontinuance of use by
the student might produce psychological disruption or
physiological discomfort.
28
Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations which might affect the generalizabil-
ity of the results of the study included:
1. The subjects used in the survey sample were
representative of the delimited population
from which they were drawn. Although the
socioeconomic status of these students
reflected the aggregate demographic findings
from other research (NCMDA, 1973)> generaliza
tions to pupils from diverse backgrounds should
be extrapolated with caution.
2. The sample used in this study was representative
of a population with a mean intelligence quo
tient of about 112, which is significantly
higher than the national average of 100 IQ.
In addition, approximately 90 percent of the
students in the school surveyed went on to
college. Although this high college entrance
rate is helpful in comprehending the problem
confronting institutions of higher education,
it limits over-generalization of the research
findings to high school students of middle-
and upper-class communities nationally.
3. The reliability and validity of the Student
Questionnaire over a seven-year period were
empirically presumed. It was not possible to
assess under-reporting or over-reporting by-
respondents. However, these phenomena should
have been minimized by survey anonymity.
Student comments from only the 1973 Question
naire were included to support the findings.
It was necessary to delimit use of qualitative
material because of the coding difficulties
involved with 1400 surveys. In addition, it
was assumed that the most current statements
made by students would be more relevant in
assessing the latest adolescent attitudes on
marihuana and LSD.
CHAPTER III
FINDINGS
The findings for each research hypothesis as pro
mulgated in Chapter II are presented initially. They are
followed by an Interpretative discussion which Incorporates
comments made by students who completed the 1973 Question
naire. Descriptive analyses were used to determine sig
nificance for the first three hypotheses, whereas chi-
square tests contrasting user and non-user were employed
for the remaining hypotheses. Throughout this study the
"user” category combines all levels of marihuana consump
tion. Every LSD ingestor was also a marihuana participant.
Results are not in order of the questions on the
student survey. The most sensitive items about personal
drug use were imbedded within the body of the question
naire .
Analyses of Results
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 was supported by data from survey
questions 21 and 22 which are summarized in Figure 1 and
Table 1. There were higher prevalence trends for use of
marihuana than for use of LSD by high school students as
30
31
I
t
o
Pi d >
< U t o
« D
■ P
a
< u
C J
t n
a >
Pi
t o
P
26.0
25.0
20
10.5
10
*«
1967 1968
1969 1970 1971 1973 Yr.
Marihuana
LSD
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey questions 21
and 22, relate to Hypothesis 1.
Fig. 1. Percentage of marihuana and LSD use in graphic form
32
TABLE 1
REPORTED PREVALENCE OF MARIHUANA AND LSD USE
BY YEARLY RANDOM SAMPLES
Year
Marihuana LSD
Number of
Students
Percentage
(N=200)
Number of
Students
Percentage
(N=200)
1967
50 2 5.O 6 3.0
1968 52 2 6 .0
9 ^•5
1969 73 36.5 9 1+.5
1970
97
1+8.5 21 10.5
1971 93 1+6.5 19 9-5
1972 81+ 1 + 2 .5 15 7-5
1973 87 ^3-5
11
5-5
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey questions 21
and 22, relate to Hypothesis 1.
33
surveyed from 1967 through 1973* Consumption of both drugs
increased over the seven-year span.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 was supported by data from survey
questions 21 and 22 which are summarized in Table 2. There
was a different increase pattern by three groups of drug
ingestors who identified themselves as either "casual
experimenters," "sophisticated users" or "users dependent
upon the drug." Over the years, significantly more inges
tors identified themselves as "sophisticated users."
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 was supported by data from survey
question A which are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
There was a positive relationship between drug experimenta
tion and age. Junior or senior students did participate in
the drug experience more than freshmen for every year
except 1 9 7 1. In four of the seven years, seniors had the
peak percentages in drug use. The Classes of 1970, 1971*
1972, and 1973 manifested an increase in drug consumption
over their four-year high school experience. Data for this
hypothesis and for subsequent hypotheses put all three
levels of users together.
34
TABLE 2
SELF-CLASSIFICATION OF DRUG USE
Non-
Participant
Casual
Experimenter
Sophisticated
UBer
Dependent on
the Drug
No.
t
No.
$
No. * No. $
1967
150 75-0
39
19-5
8
4.0
1
0.5
1968 150 75-0 39
19.5
12
5 .0
1
0.5
1969
127
63.5
50
26-0 19
9-5
1
0.5
1970
101
50.5 57 48.5
36 18.0
2 1.0
1971 107 53-5
66
33-0 27 13-5
0 0.0
1972
116 58.O
53 26.5 27
13-5
2 1.0
1973 113 56.5 45 22.5 38 19.O 0 0.0
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey questions 21
and 22, relate to Hypothesis 2.
TABLE 3.1
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS BY GRADE LEVEL AND YEAR
Grade
Level
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
9
14.0
26.7
21 .2 3 6.O 21+.7
28.3
2 1 .6
29.7 32.3
2 6 .2 19.0
37-9
17.2 24.8
10 2 6 .0 24.7 21 .2 2 0 .0 20.5 2 3 .6 19.6 2 3 .8
26.9 35-5
2 5 .0 30.1 2 3.O 2 3.O
11 34.0 2 2 .7 30.8
250 23.3
24.4 2 8 .9 2 0 .8
21.5
22.4
15.5
19 .8 2 7 .6 30.1
12 2 6 .0 2 6 .0
26.9
1 8 .7
31-5
23 .6
29.9 25.7
19.4
15.9 40.5 12 .1 3 1 .0 2 2 .1
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question A, relate to Hypothesis 3.
L O
VJ1
36
TABLE 3.2
CLASS CHANGES IN RELATIVE INCIDENCE OF DRUG EXPERIMENTATION
As Freshmen As Seniors
Year
*
Year
*
Class of 1970
1967 15 1970
53
Class of 1971 1968
17 1971 51
Class of 1972
1969 33 1972 71
Class of 1973 1970 hi
1973
52
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey
question A, relate to Hypothesis 3.
37
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 was supported by data from survey
question B which are summarized In Table 4. There were
no statistically significant differences between the sexes
in use of marihuana and LSD.
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 5 was not supported by data from survey
question C which are summarized in Table 5. There was no
inverse relationship between drug use and academic grades.
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 6 is divided into three facets for
analysis in relation to users vs. non-users:
(a) Favoring legalization of marihuana;
(b) Favoring legalization of LSD;
(c) Favoring individual decision making to use drugs.
(a) Hypothesis 6a was supported by data from survey
question 4 which are summarized in Table 6.
There was a very highly significant relation
ship between drug participation and favoring
legalization of marihuana. Chi-square tests
for each of the seven years studied revealed
significance beyond the .001 level.
(b) Hypothesis 6b was not supported by data from
survey question 5 which are summarized in
TABLE 4
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS BY SEX
Sex
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
$
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
%
User
Non-
User
Male 44.0 50.0 46.2
54.7
46.6 51.2
48.5 51-5
43.O
52.3
46.4
59-5 48.3
54.0
Female 56.0 50.0
53-8
45.3
53-^
48.8 49.5 48.5 53-8 47.7 53-6 37.9
50.6 46.0
Chi-
squarea
0.33 0.81 O.23 0.02 0.92 3.60
0.33
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question B, relate to Hypothesis 4.
^one of the chi-squares is statistically significant.
oo
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS AS RELATED TO EARNED GRADE AVERAGES
Grade
Avgs.
1967
1968 1969 1970 1971
1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
A 6.0
8.7
5.8
15.3
11.0 11.0
11-3
19.8
15.1
26.2 23.8 21*.1
32.2 37-2
B 1 * 6 .0 58.0 6 5. 1 * 50.0
53-1 * 56.7 51.5 53-5 1*7-3
1 * 7.7 52.1* 1*9.1
1*8.3 1*6.9
C 1 * 0 .0
31.3
26.9 29.3
28.8 29.1 32.0
26.7
31.2 21*.3 21.4
23-3
17.2
15.9
D 6.0 2.0 1-9
2 .0 l*.l 1.6
3-1
0.0
**•3 0.9
1.2 2.6 1.1 0 .0
D- 0 .0 0.0
0 .0 0 .0 1. 1* 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0
F 2.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chi- a
square
2.69 3.61 0.56 3. 1*6
1*.15
0.11 0.21
Note: Hie data, which are based on answers to survey question C, relate to Hypothesis 5*
^one of the chi-squares is statistically significant.
u>
vo
Table 6. There was no statistically significant
relationship between drug Ingestion and favoring
legalization of LSD for six of the seven years
studied. Eighty-seven percent of users and 94
percent of non-users were opposed to LSD legal
ization as a composite reaction from 1967 through
1973.
(c) Hypothesis 6c was supported by data from survey
question 23 which are summarized In Table 6.
There was a highly significant relationship
between drug Involvement and favoring Individ
ual decision making about use of drugs. Chi-
square tests were significant beyond the .01
level for each of the seven years.
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 7 was not supported by data from survey
question D which are summarized In Table 7. There was no
statistically significant relationship between parental
separation or divorce and drug use.
Hypothesis 8
Hypothesis 8 was supported by data from survey
questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 which are summarized in Table 8.
There was a positive relationship between personal drug
use and (a) knowing drug-using students, and (b) knowing
I
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS IN RELATIONSHIP TO FAVORING LEGALIZATION OF MARIHUANA,
LEGALIZATION OF LSD, AND INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING ABOUT DRUG USE
Legalization of
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Marihuana i
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
i
User
Non-
User
i
User
Non-
User
Yes 84.0
31-3 86.5 36.0
87-7
26.0 92.8 40.6 78-5 355 89.3 34.5 94.3 46.9
No 16.0 66.7 13-5 64.0 11.0
73-2 7.2 57-4 17.2 59-8 9-5 61.2 57
50.4
Chi-Bquare
38. 70*** 37.47***
69.59***
56.04***
37.32*** 55. 83*** 45. 70***
Legalization of
LSD
Yes 18.0 10.7 11-5 8.7 5-5 5-5 10.3 3.0 9-7 2 .8
15.5 1-7
8.0 1 .8
No 80.0 86.7 88.5 90.7 94.5 93-7
84.5 96.0 88.2
95-3
81.0 98.3 92.0
97-3
Chi-square 1.20 0. 10 0.09 3-54 3.06 11.95*** 3-11
Individual
Decision Making
Yes 88.0
52.7
84.6
63-3 84.9 66.1 88.7
62.4 89.2 72.0
90.5 59-5 83.9
62.8
No 8 .0 44.7
13.5 36.0 6 .8
32.3
8.2 36.6 7-5 26.2
8.3
32.8 10.3 33.6
Chi-square 20.37*** 8. 06** 14.01*** 2 0. 51*** 10.49** 17.50^* 13.13***
lot*: Hie data, vhlch are Based on answers to surrey questloos 4, J, sod 2}, relate to Hypothesis 6.
**81gnificant at the .01 level.
•••Significant at the .001 level.
TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS WHOSE NATURAL PARENTS
ARE SEPARATED OR DIVORCED
Separated
or
Divorced
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
Yes
22.0 22.7 28.8
23.3
37-0 26.0 36.1 26.7 40.9 33-6
33-3 26.7 3^-5
22.1
No 76.O
77-3
71.2
75.3
6 3.O 73.2
61.9 73-3
58.1 66.4
66.7 73-3
63.2 77.0
Chi-
a
square
0.03 0.31 2.07 I.87 0.94 O.73 3.42
Note: The data, -which are based on answers to survey question D, relate to Hypothesis 7*
None of the chi-squares is statistically significant.
-pr
r o
TABLE 8
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AMD NON-USERS WHO KNOW OTHER DRUG-CONSUMING STUDENTS
AND DRUG-CONSUMING ADULTS
Know Marihuana
Using Students
1967
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
5 1
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User liter
Non-
User
Yes 92.0
65.3 100.0 76.0
97-3
78.0 99-0 86.1 97 8
8U.1 98.8 86.2 100.0 81. U
Ko 8 .0 3U.0 0 .0 22.7 l . l * 22.0 1.0 13.9
2 .1
15.9
1.2 13.8 0.0 18.6
Chi-square
11. 60*** 12. 81*** lU.il**** 9. 87** 9. 38** 8. U 0** 16.
82.8
14***
Know Marihuana
Using Adults
Yes 44.0 18.7 55-8 22.0 57-5 21.3 71.1 29.7 72.0 33-6 79-8 32.8 29.2
No 56.0 80.0 44.2 78.0 Ul.l 78.7 27.8 70.3 28.0 66. U 20.2 67.2 17.2 70.8
Chi-square 11. 16*** 19. l*»* ** 26. 27***
33-35***
27.85*** Ul. 30*** 5U.U 1***
Knov LSD
Using Students
Yes 82.0 30.7 78.8 38.0 8U.9
»•*»
88.7 U 2 .6 7U.2 1 * 0 .2 8U.5 35-3
78.2 33-6
No 18.0
69.3
21.2
60.7 13.7
6U.6
9-3 55-^
2U.7 59.8 15.5 6U.7
21.8 66. U
Chi-square 38. 15*** 23.1*6*** U 5. U 6*** 1 * 6. 17*** 22. 97*** 45. 85***
37-37***
Knov LSD
Using Adults
Yes 32.0 10.0 32.7
11-3 30.1 U.7 37-1 6.9
29.0
6.5
31.0
9-5
32.2
7-1
Ho 68.0
89.3 67.3
88.0 68.5 95-3 62.9 93-1
71.0 93*5 69.0 90.5
67.8
92.9
Chi-square 12. 08*** IO. 96*** 23.27*** 2U.77*** 16. 28*** 13.50*** 19.32***
Note: The data, which are baaed on answers to survey questions 6, 7, 8, sod 9, relate to Hypothesis 8.
••Significant at the .01 level.
***8ignlfleant at the .001 level. u>
44
drug using adults. Very high statistical significance,
usually considerably beyond the .01 level, was attained for
both marihuana and LSD.
Hypothesis 9
Hypothesis 9 was supported by data from survey
questions 16 and 17 which are summarized in graphic form
in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. There was a difference in reaction
to a friend's use of marihuana between drug ingestors and
drug resistors; the drug ingestors were more accepting
than were the drug resistors. Statistical significance
for each of the seven years was beyond the .001 level.
Users reacted primarily with "indifference" or "acceptance,"
whereas non-users mainly responded with "mild disapproval."
Assumptions made by students about parental response to
adolescent drug use were more severe than were their own
reactions to peer consumption. Drug participants and non-
participants overwhelmingly chos^ "revulsion" or "contempt"
to describe parental reaction to student drug use. For
five of the seven years no significant differences were
demonstrated between users and non-users.
Hypothesis 10
Hypothesis 10 was supported in part by data from
survey questions 1, 10, and 12 which are summarized in
Table 10. There was a more negative assessment of
TABLE 9-1
PERCENTAGE OF USERS' AND NON-USERS' REACTIONS TO A FRIEND'S USE OF MARIHUANA
Reactions
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
Togetherness 6.0 0.0
13-5
0 .0 8.2 0 .0 14.4 0.0 8.6
0.9 8.3 1.7
14.9 0 .0
Respect 0.0 0.0
1-9 0.7
1.4 0 .8 1.0 0.0
^•3 0.9
6.0 0.0
2-3
0 .0
Acceptance 40.0 14.0 30.8 12.0
31.5 15.7 30.9 16.8
35.5
19.6
36.9
10.3
37-9 17.7
Indifference 38.O
15.3
44.2 22.7 52.1 18.9
47.4
29.7
43.0 23.4 44.0 21.6 36.8
26.5
Mild Disapproval 12.0 40.7 9-6 40.0
2.7 40.2 1.0 36.6 3-2
39-3
3.6
45.7
1.1 42.5
Contempt 0.0
15.3
0.0 14.0 0 .0
7-9
0.0 10.9 1.1 12.1 0.0 10.3
2-3
8 .8
Revulsion 2.0 12.0 0.0
9-3
1.4 14.2 1.0 4.0 0.0 2 .8 0.0
6.9
0.0
2.7
Chi-squares 42.28*** 48.58*** 6 2. 18*** 6 0. o4*** 50. 86*** 70. 50*** 59. 84***
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question 16, relate to Hypothesis 9•
***Significant at the .001 level.
V J 1
TABLE 9-2
PERCENTAGE OF USERS' AND NON-USERS' ASSESSMENT OF PARENTAL REACTIONS TO ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
Reactions
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
%
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
Togetherness 2 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .8 0.0 0.0 1.1
0.9
1.2
1.7
0 .0 0.0
Respect 0.0 0.0
1.9
0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.0 0.0
Acceptance 0.0 0.0 3-8
1-3
1.4 0 .8 5-2 1.0 2 .1
3-7
3.6 2.6 8.0
0.9
Indifference 6.0
1-3
3-8 4.7 1.4
3-1 10.3
2 .0 10.8 2.8 6.0 3-4 8.0 6.2
Mild Disapproval 16.0
15.3 13-5
16.0 17.8
6 .3
24.7
10.9
23.7 14.0
35-7
12.1 27.6
23.9
Contempt 56.0
25.3 32.7 27.3
30.1 24.4
23.7
37-6
33-3
36.4 2 5.O 25.0 27.6 31.0
Revulsion 58.0
55-3
40.4
48.7
45.2 60.6 32.0 42.6 29.0
38.3
28.6 52.6 27.6
35-^
Chi-squares 5.06 1.28 7.20 14.51* 7.12
17. 67^ 5-
62
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question 17, relate to Hypothesis 9-
♦Significant at the .05 level.
♦♦Significant at the .01 level.
TABLE 10
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS IN RELATION TO ATTITUDES ABOUT CURRENT RELEVANCE OF DRUG EDUCATION,
ADEQUACY OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE, AND THE PHYSICAL HARMFULHESS OF ALCOHOL COMPARED TO MARIHUANA
Is There
Up-to-date
Drug Education!
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
i
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User U ^ r
Non-
User
i
User
Non-
User User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
Yes 8 .0 19.3 13-5 17-3 23-3
3b. 6 2b. 7 b3.6
333
b 3.0
39-3 53-b
b 2 .5 61.9
No 92.0 80.0 86.5 82.0
75.3
62.2 73-2 53-5
65.6 57-0 59.5
b5>7
56.3 36.3
Chi-square 2.78 0.20 2.58
7.31**
l.
b3 3. 32 7 .06**
Teacher Drug
KnovledgeT
32.0 78.0 3b.6 70.7
3b. 2 66.9 17-5
56.b 22.6 57-0
35.7 59-5 29.9
62.8 Yes
No 62.0 18.7 57-7
26.0 61.6 27.6 78.3 37-6 7b.2 36.b
57.1 36.2 69.O 31.0
Chi-square 3b. 13*** I 8. 38*** 20. 95***
32-55***
25. 88*** 9. 39**
2b. 20***
Alcohol More
Harmful?
80.0
•* 5 . 3
9b.2 1* 2 . 7
75-3
bO.2 86.6
5b-5 81.7
b7.7 82.1
56.9
82.6
59-3 Yes
Ho 20.0
51.3
5-8 52.0 19.2
55.1 11.3 b 3.6 12.9 b 5 .8
13-1 39-7
13.8 39-8
Chi-square 15.18 35-83 23.64 2b. 19 25.12 15. bO
lb.37
lot*: The data, which are based on answers to survey questions 1, 12 and 10, respectively, relate to Hypothesis 10.
••Significant at the .01 level.
***81gnifleant at the .001 level.
48
up-to-date drug education by drug participants than by non
participants in five of the seven years surveyed. From
question 1 in 1967* only 17 percent of all students who
took the questionnaire thought up-to-date facts about
drugs were being taught. By 1973* however, the percentage
had increased to a 55 percent level.
From question 12 relating to teacher knowledge,
the hypothesis was upheld. Drug participants did not think
teachers knew so much as they themselves did about drugs.
Statistical significance was beyond the .01 level for
every year.
From question 10 on comparing drugs, the hypothesis
was sustained. More users than non-users did believe that
alcohol was physically more harmful than was marihuana.
Chi-square tests reached significance beyond the .001 level
every year. In a composite average, 83 percent of drug
consumers believed that alcohol was more detrimental than
was marihuana whereas only 49 percent of abstainers held
the same view.
Hypothesis 11
Hypothesis 11 was supported by data from survey
questions 25 and 26 which are summarized in Table 11.
There was more negative assessment of drug users by non-
users than by users in relation to the correlation between
drug use and the incidence of emotional stability and of
tabu: 11
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS WHO RELATE THE INCIDENCE OF LOWER (POORER) GRADES
AND OF EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY TO DRUG USE
1967
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973
Poorer
Grades U M r
Non-
User User
Non-
User User
Non-
User User
Non-
User U ^ r
Non-
User User
Non-
User User
Non-
User
Yes 1 6.0
46.7 13-5 45.3
6 .8 48.8 15.5 47.5 18.3
44.9
17.9 51.7
16.1 45.1
No 7 8.0 U8 .0 84.6 46.0 84.9 44.9 80.4 44.6
75-3
48.6
67.9 37-9 75-9
4 7 .8
Chi-square
1 3.87***
1 8.52***
3 5.15*** 2 4.58***
15. 39***
2 2.15*** 17.90***
Emotional
Instability
Yes 2 6 .0 5 6 .7 17-3
49 .3 16.4
55-9 23.7 50.5 14.0 5 6 .1 21.4
55-2 17.2 46.0
lo 7 0 .0
35.3
8 0 .8 46.0 7 2 .6 39.4
62.9 41.6 79-6 36.4
6 6 .7 35-3
78.2 45.1
Chi-square 15.66*** 16.49***
26.07*** 12.57***
3 8.60*** 2 2.01***
19.57***
lot*: The data, vhlch are Baaed on answers to survey questions 2$ sad 26, relate to Hypothesis 11.
***8l0iiflcaat at the .001 level.
50
lower (poorer) grades. Statistical significance reached
beyond the .001 level for every year.
Hypothesis 12
Hypothesis 12 was supported by data from survey
questions 18 and 24 which are summarized in Tables 12.1
and 12.2. There was a difference in evaluation of the
primary reason for drug use between users and non-users.
Statistical significance was reached for every year but
1 9 6 7. Peak percentages demonstrated that non-participants
chose "to be one of the crowd" as the primary reason for
drug use. On the other hand, ingestors selected "to have
fun" as their main rationale.
In terms of how students come in contact with
drugs, the hypothesis was supported. There was no statis
tically significant difference between the perceptions of
users and non-users. Overwhelmingly, both groups selected
"friends" as the original source of drugs.
Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this section is to present an inter
pretative analysis of the major findings and to integrate
student comments made on the 1973 Questionnaire with the
discussion in order to vivify the research results.
TABLE 12.1
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS BY PRIMARY REASON FOR DRUG USE
Primary Reason
1967
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
%
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
To be one of crowd 18.0
150
9.6
17.3
6 .8 2o.8 13.4
31.7
16.1 33.6 11.9
38.8 12.6
34.5
To be different 0.0 4.0 0.0
1-3
0.0 0 .8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.9
0.0
2.7
To assert inde
pendence
2.0
6.7
0.0
6.7 2.7 3-1
4.1 1.0 2 .1
1-9
2.4 2.6 1.1 4.4
To feel superior 2.0
4-7
0.0 4.0 0.0
5-5
1.0
4.9
0 .0
1-9
2.4 5-2 0.0
0.9
To have fun 14.0
9-3 38.5 11.3
45.2 12.6 41.2 20.8 47.3
15.9 58.3
22.4 62.1 23.O
To escape 16.0 21.3 13-5
18.0 1 1 .0 12.6 8.2 10.9
4.3
19.6
8.3
12.1
5.7
10.6
For curiosity 32.0
23.3
21.2 26.0 20.5 19.7
21.6 18.8 20.4 18.7
11.9
16.4 8.0 20.4
Chi-squares
3.36
19. 07*^
2 9. 17***
15. 03* 29.11*** 2 9. 21***
33. 59^
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question 18, relate to Hypothesis 12.
♦Significant at the .05 level.
♦♦Significant at the .01 level.
ui
’ ‘’ ‘’ ‘Significant at the .001 level. 1 - 1
TABLE 12.2
PERCENTAGE OF USERS AND NON-USERS BY ORIGINAL SOURCE OF DRUGS
Source
1967
1968
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
t
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
*
User
Non-
User
Professional Peddler 0.0
3-3
0.0
1-3
0.0 2.4 0 .0 0.0 2 .1
0.9
1.2
3-^ 2.3 0.9
Acquaintance s 26.0 50.0 9-6 26.0 16.4 23.6
15.5
14.9 10.8
15.9
22.6 22.4 8.0
25-7
Friends 62.0
53.3
75-0 60.7
78.1
69.3 76.3
78.2
76.3 78.5
73-8 69.8 87.4 72.6
Parents 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 1.2
0.9
1.1 0.0
Other 4.0
2.7
3.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
5-^
0.0 1.2
0.9
0.0 0.0
Chi-squaresa 1 01
5-
14 l.79
0. 01 4 46 0.85 8 .8
Note: The data, which are based on answers to survey question 24, relate to Hypothesis 12.
^one of the chi-squares were significant.
ui
r o
53
Incidence and Prevalence
of Drug Use
The findings in this research project on the inci
dence and prevalence of marihuana ingestion from 1967
through 1973 revealed that an average of 38 percent of the
high school students surveyed across the seven years have
admitted experimentation with marihuana. The percentage
increased with time. According to the NCMDA (1973)* the
mean percentage of secondary school youth using marihuana
from 1967 through 1972 was 25 percent. One plausible
reason for the difference in incidence rates was the paucity
of drug use information in the late 1 9 6 0's at the high
school level. The NCMDA figures were an aggregate of
diverse surveys which were at a premium in the last decade.
Moreover, the NCMDA (1973) reported a 40 percent
marihuana use for high school students in 1972. This find
ing is similar to the 42.5 percent incidence found in this
study for the same year. It appears that whereas the young
people of this community were more experimental with mari
huana during the earlier years of the survey, there is now
greater concordance with the national average. The crucial
concern is that if over 40 percent of high school students
are experimenting with an illegal substance such as mari
huana, then the scope of the drug dilemma is critical.
It may be important to note that the composite
average of 38 percent use of marihuana by secondary school
students in the community under study closely parallels
college patterns. The NCMDA (1973) stated that the mean
percentage of marihuana consumption for college students
from 1967 through 1972 was also 38 percent. This greater
resemblance to college prevalence trends might be explica
ble in a sophisticated urban community where over 90 per
cent of the pupil population later would participate in
higher education.
Unlike the statistics regarding marihuana, the
findings in relation to LSD paralleled the national aggre
gate for high school students. In this study, the seven-
year average for student use of LSD was 6 percent. The
NCMDA (1973) reported a mean percentage of 8 percent for
six years from 1967 to 1972.
The different incidence rates between marihuana
and LSD and the contrasting attitudes towards these drugs
are apparent throughout the study. In terms of legaliza
tion, an average of 88 percent of users would like mari
huana legitimized as compared with a composite 35 percent
of non-users. However, in 1973> over two-thirds of all
students surveyed were in favor of the legalized use of
marihuana.
In sharp contrast was student response to legaliz
ing LSD. Over 91 percent of all students surveyed in the
seven years were opposed to the legalization of LSD. Even
55
most LSD users did not want to legalize it. These find
ings Indicate that students in this community have been
discriminating in their use and attitudes towards drugs
and that they have demonstrated knowledgeability about the
relative dangers of LSD vs. marihuana.
From the last survey administered in 1973* some
students comment about the legalization of marihuana and
LSD in response to the open-ended queries, "What do you
think of students who use marihuana?" and "What do you
think of students who use LSD?" or under "Additional com
ments . "
One male, eleventh grade user stated:
"I have found that the percentage of people who have
tried marihuana is higher than most people think.
Since almost all students in college have used or
use marihuana, it is absurd to keep this non-victim
crime on the books. I feel strongly about the legal
ization of marihuana, but I would never agree to the
legalization of LSD. LSD has been found harmful and
there is abundant proof. Evidence has shown that
marihuana is not as dangerous as alcohol."
A senior male user wrote:
"I have used 'the weed' myself and it doesn't excite
me. I feel that if a person wants to use it, it
should be legal. It's when he starts profiting from
the sale of marihuana that is uncool. I am against
all other types of drugs not medicinally used."
The open-ended comments from students show a rela
tive tolerance for marihuana use but, in general, fear and
disdain for LSD experimentation.
An eleventh grade female user remarked:
56
"I don't think differently about students who do or
don't use marihuana. It's the choice of the individ
ual. Since I have known people to 'flip out' or go
crazy on LSD, I am very much against it. I feel that
if students use it that's their choice--yet it's a
bigger choice than grass."
A senior girl, who is a non-user, succinctly summed
up the consensus of opinion:
"I think they're crazy. Marihuana is one thing but
LSD is too heavy a situation."
However, there are students who support use of both
drugs. One eleventh grade girl user commented on marihuana:
"It's all right if it's put in the right perspective.
It's a harmless giggle.'
On LSD she wrote:
"You learn a lot out of school as well as in school.
It's definitely a different experience and always
worthwhile--but not too much."
Patterns and Correlates
of Drug Use
The findings in this study suggest that the dis
tinction between occasional and regular users of drugs can
be accomplished through self-labeling. Table 2 illustrates
the rising rate of students over time who identified them
selves as "sophisticated users." The scope and persis
tence of the drug problem may be more accurately assessed
by concentrating more study on the self-labeled, sophisti
cated user who has a more Intensified, long-term patterned
level of drug use.
On an empirical basis, it would appear that drug
57
education programs should delineate and target course con
tent for students by patterns of drug use. This approach
probably would necessitate self-selection of drug study
groups and thereby would individualize instruction in a
more meaningful way. One tenth grade boy, a non-user,
wrote:
"Many students in the school are turned off by learn
ing about drugs from a teacher who knows less about
them than he does. I learned more reading about
drugs in articles and from my friends than in Health
Education."
A greater matching of knowledgeable teachers with drug
sophisticated students would provide more opportunities for
relevant learning.
This study substantiates the literature that use of
drugs on a high school level tends to increase with age
(Arthur, Sisson, & Nation, 1973; Fejer & Smart, 1973;
Wenk, 197?). However, it is important to note that this
trend is not a linear progression. Although the peak time
for use in four of the seven years was at the senior level,
it appeared that some lower classmen were former users and
classified themselves as "non-participants" when taking the
questionnaire. One example was a male tenth grade student
who commented on LSD users:
"They are wasted.' I have taken it before many times.
I now know that I was going nowhere. Acid (LSD 25)
screws up your mind. Right now I still have traits
that I don't think will leave me resulting from use
of LSD. It changes your brain, your personality,
your whole outlook--good or bad.'"
58
The trend in the early 1970's has been for drug
experimentation to filter down to the junior high school
level. In 1971* the peak percentage was in the freshman
class. If students are taking drugs at a younger age, a
saturation point on the incidence of drug use may be
reached at an earlier age. Such an occurrence might point
to a stabilization or decline for future generations of
secondary school and college students. The NCMDA (1973)
showed that experimenters who terminated drug use did not
plan to use it again.
Research has shown that sex differences in drug
use have been diminishing. At no time in this study, from
1967 on, was there ever a statistically significant differ
ence in drug ingestion between males and females. This
finding replicates other up-to-date research (NCMDA, 1973).
Although there was no statistically significant
relationship demonstrated between academic grades and drug
use, non-participants strongly held the attitude that stu
dents who t^ke drugs get poorer grades as a result. How
ever, three drug participants commented:
"All too much complaining is done about the use of
marijuana. Some say it is detrimental to a physical
or mental condition. It has not affected me, for I
maintain the highest GPA in the grade and am partici
pating in three sports. People are muttering about
things they know nothing about. This part of the
cycle should be eliminated--complaints wh3re knowl
edge is non-existent." (Male, ninth grade.)
59
"A lot of my friends use it (marihuana) and only a few
have bad grades, but it is not because they use it."
(Male, tenth grade.)
"If a person is a stable one and can handle it, then
being involved with drugs is up to them. I've been
involved with marijuana for three years (I haven't
tried anything else) and I've received straight A's
through these years. It's very obvious my grades
haven't been affected by the use of marijuana."
(Female, tenth grade.)
The contrast in attitude between user and non-user
regarding the effects of drugs on grades, which was highly
significant, appeared to dichotomize effectively the groups.
It is interesting to note that research findings favor the
user's prevalent attitude of non-interference with academic
achievement, at least in the instance of marihuana (Blum,
1970).
Sociological and Psychological
Theoretical Assumptions
At times, sociologists have portrayed adolescent
drug use as symbolic of the cultural chasm between genera
tions (Pretzel, 1970). This study seems to validate that
perception. Students depict parental views of youthful
drug use as a reaction of "revulsion" or "contempt."
Their own response which is less extreme than that of their
parents is dichotomized by use. In general, participants
indicated "indifference" or "acceptance," whereas non
participants demonstrated "mild disapproval." There
appears to be dramatic recognition of the contrast between
60
parents and students in regard to teen-age drug experimen
tation.
One comment on the generation gap from a non-using,
female senior was:
"The student is no one special compared to a parent or
teacher. I would not want to see my parents on mari
huana and LSD, but I feel marihuana is not harmful.
If our parents can drink and get loaded because of
this, then why should things be different for us?"
A girl user in tenth grade wrote:
"I feel scared of the students who are dependent on it
to function. They are setting up a situation for my
generation that will be as pathetic and difficult to
handle as alcoholics. They have a social disease.
Users for fun, occasionally, are fine."
Johnson (1973) suggested that students who orient
themselves to the parent culture are unlikely to use drugs.
An eleventh grade girl stated:
"It is not that I blindly accepted my parents' values
towards the use of drugs, I sincerely believe that
using drugs is a foolish means to escape problems.
There are many constructive projects that could be
done in the time that one wastes under the influence
of drugs."
This statement highlights some of the differences in cul
tural values between users and non-users within the same
generation.
Young people who are part of the drug subcultures
stress their cohesiveness. One senior male experimenter
said:
"Students who use marihuana are people in a class by
themselves. They stick together all the time unless
they are trying to get someone else to try it. They
are pretty cool, friendly people."
61
One may speculate that the illegality of marihuana and LSD
augments a need for stronger, social exclusivity.
Youth who were committed to the peer culture empha
sized the social aspects of taking drugs. Users designated
"to have fun" as their prime reason for ingestion, whereas
abstainers stressed "to be one of the crowd" as the main
rationale for drug use. One non-participating ninth grade
girl stated:
"I think they are curious. Their friends use it.
They see people who have used it and wonder what
kind of things to expect. Also, it is something
to enjoy like cigarettes or alcohol."
An eleventh grade female wrote:
"Almost all my friends do. I know very few people
who don't. I like my friends to get high because
if they are in a good mood so am I."
Social support also encompasses psychological
dimensions. This study vividly demonstrates the potent
peer identification processes. Overwhelmingly, "friends"
were the acknowledged source of drugs. The very high
statistical significance between drug use and association
with other students and adults who were also users rein
forces a psychosocial etiological position.
The question of emotional problems as a precipitat
ing cause of drug use is less clearly apparent from this
study. As in the findings of Wenk (1973)> no statistically
significant differences between user and non-user were
uncovered in relation to parental separation or divorce.
62
On an attitudinal level, however, there were major statis
tical differences between the perceptions of the two
groups. Abstainers tended to view drug ingestors as
"emotionally unstable" whereas most users rejected this
concept. One ninth grade male, who is a non-user, wrote:
"They are unstable human beings who can't cope with
the pressures and responsibilities of this modern
age. ' "
A non-participating, eleventh grade male stated:
"I think that they suffer from moderate to severe
emotional problems that could be cured by a doctor
rather than by escaping from them through use of
narcotics."
One of the major themes reverberating throughout
the surveys was student assertion for the rights of the
individual. Comment upon comment emphasized a strong
belief in personal choice, whether or not there was
approval of marihuana or LSD use. Two non-participants
remarked:
"They should be able to use whatever they want, Just
as adults are allowed to drink alcohol. Personal
freedom belongs to everyone. Nobody has the right
to tell someone else what to do with his or her
own body." (Male, eleventh grade.)
"I feel it is their business and I will respect them
if they will respect my non-participation. I feel
it isn't necessary but it depends on the individual."
(Female, twelfth grade.)
The drug dilemma is made more difficult by the confounding
of illegality issues with an insistence upon individual
rights.
Summary
In this research project, 12 hypotheses were
postulated. Nine were sustained, two were supported in
part, and one did not command statistical significance.
The findings in this study revealed that adoles
cents in this community have discriminated between mari
huana and LSD. Whereas between 25 percent and 49 percent
of the youth surveyed have used marihuana within the seven-
year period, only 3 percent to 11 percent have experimented
with LSD. This contrast was further demonstrated by strong
majority support for the legalization of marihuana and by
almost total opposition to the legal sanctioning of LSD.
This project investigated patterns, correlates,
and attitudes of drug use. Age, knowledge, and social
factors were significantly related to chemical ingestion.
Sex, grades, and parental marital status were not statis
tically differentiated by drug participation. Non-users
tended to hold some negatively biased attitudes towards
users.
There appears to be some evidence to indicate that
psychosocial factors may contribute to drug participation.
More in-depth research is required to substantiate a pos
sible causal relationship.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Problem
Adolescent drug attitudes in the last decade have
generated pervasive social anxieties, especially since it
is middle- and upper-class youth who have become the focal
ingestors of illegal chemicals. No longer can drug use be
identified solely with underprivileged minorities, for in
the mid-sixties use of marihuana and LSD spread rapidly
from the college campus to infect high school students like
a contagious disease. Because of the sensitive nature of
inquiry about Illicit drug ingestion by secondary school
students, carefully controlled research projects have been
at a premium.
This study was designed to document the emergence
of adolescent drug attitudes towards marihuana and LSD
within one representative white, middle- and upper-class
community. Through the annual administration of an anony
mous questionnaire over a seven-year period from 1967
through 197 3, significant trend data have been promulgated.
64
65
Analyses of the Incidence, prevalence and patterning of
youthful drug use have become critical for achieving per
spectives on the problem.
Methodology
This study was conducted in a predominantly white,
middle- and upper-class urban community in Southern Cali
fornia. It has one high school which encompasses ninth
through twelfth graders. An approximate 10 percent random
sample, unstratified by grade, was drawn annually from an
alphabetical roster of all enrollees. To simplify compari
sons from year to year, the samples were rounded to 200.
There were no refusals to participate in the research.
The instrument used in the project was an anonymous
Student Questionnaire (Appendix) with 34 items. It was
developed primarily on an empirical basis after intensive
study of drug research and attitude measurement techniques.
Data processing technology was used to facilitate
analysis of the 1400 questionnaires collected over a
seven-year period. Responses of each student who completed
a drug survey were coded on a data processing card, with
the exception of written comments to three open-ended
queries.
The initial step in analyzing the questionnaire
data was to distinguish between drug users and non-users.
66
This step was accomplished by an item analysis of two ques
tions which dichotomized the sample into drug participants
and non-participants. Frequency-percentage breakdowns
were obtained on all items. The chi-square test was the
statistical treatment employed for calculating significance
at the .05* .01, and .001 levels on hypotheses comparing
users and non-users.
Findings
The findings are summarized without reference to
the specific levels of statistical significance attained.
Precise statistics are explicitly presented in Chapter III
under each hypothesis.
1. Highly contrasting incidence trends existed for
marihuana and LSD. The seven-year average for
marihuana experimentation was 38 percent, which
encompassed a range from 25 percent in 1967 to
49 percent in 1970. The composite percentage
of LSD use was 6 percent, covering a span of
3 percent in 1967 to 11 percent in 1970. The
latest 1973 levels of marihuana and LSD use are
44 percent and 6 percent, respectively, which
reveals a decline in consumption of both drugs.
2. Students who identified themselves as "sophisti
cated users" have increased almost 400 percent
from 1967 to 1973-
3. Drug use did accelerate with age but not consis
tently in a linear progression every year. The
Classes of 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 all had
higher drug involvement as seniors than as
freshmen.
4. Incidence rates between the sexes did not reveal
significant differences.
5. Chemical experimentation did not relate in a
statistically significant pattern to self-
reported grade-point averages.
6. There is a current plurality of 68 percent favor
ing legalization of marihuana but very minimal
support, at a 5 percent level, for changing the
illegal status of LSD.
7. No positive relationship was established between
drug participation and parental separation or
divorce.
8. High statistical significance existed between
personal drug use and knowing other students and
adults who participated in the drug experience.
9. Users reacted primarily with "Indifference" or
"acceptance" to a friend's smoking of marihuana,
whereas non-users mainly responded with "mild
disapproval." Parental reaction to student drug
use was described as "revulsion" or "contempt."
68
10. Drug participants did not think teachers knew so
much as they did about drugs.
11. A significant number of abstainers believed drug
ingestors were emotionally unstable and recipients
of poorer grades.
12. Non-users chose "to be one of the crowd" as the
primary reason for drug taking. Users selected
"to have fun" as their main rationale. Over
whelmingly, both groups cited "friends" as the
primary source of drugs.
Conclusions
An evaluation of the findings in light of the
conceptual assumptions and delimitations of the study has
led to the following conclusions:
1. The scope of the drug dilemma is critical when
approximately 44 percent of high school students
have used marihuana in 1973. This statistic is
in relative, current concordance with the na
tional average. Although the rate represents a
decline from 49 percent in the peak year of
1970, the percentage of students who identified
themselves as "sophisticated users" has increased
at an accelerating rate. Their numbers have
risen from 4 percent in 1967 to 19 percent in
1 9 7 3. It is the long-term, intensified,
patterned user of drugs who Is most vulnerable
to dysfunction.
Adolescents were discriminating in their use and
attitudes towards drugs. The relatively low
incidence rate for LSD in comparison with mari
huana demonstrates selectivity and knowledge-
ability of potential dangers. Students tended
to view marihuana use permisslvely with a major
ity favoring legalization. LSD appeared to
generate critical comments and very minimal
support for statutory use.
There is a need to demythologize the drug scene.
Many non-users possessed negatively biased atti
tudes towards users such as attributing to users
both emotional instability and a low level of
scholarship--two circumstances that were not
substantiated by this research. This study also
did not support the popular notion that parental
separation or divorce was related to drug-using
behavior.
Students perceived a generation cleft in values
relating to drug use. They assessed parental
reaction to youthful chemical ingestion as much
more severe and condemning than their own. How
ever, in this study, there was little support
for the hypothesis that adolescent drug use is
70
symbolic of a student revolt and a defiance of
society's mores. Participants mainly selected
"to have fun" and non-participants chose "to be
one of the crowd" as their primary rationales
for drug use.
5. There appears to be a strong, social component
to drug use, both at its incipient stage and
with prolonged, sophisticated use. Friends
were the primary source of drugs and knowing
other students and adults who were users was
highly significant. Peer identification pat
terns contributed to a psychosocial interpre
tation of drug experimentation. The role of
the law might also stimulate the need for
social cohesiveness in drug subcultures.
6. There was a marked improvement in conveying
up-to-date Information in drug education
programs. In 1967> less than one-fifth of
the students was satisfied with the veracity
of content, whereas in 1973 a majority of
pupils was supportive of the school's drug
instruction. Over the seven-year period,
there has been a 50 percent increase in the
number of students who have been receiving
71
drug education. This increase reflects a posi
tive response by the educational community to
a critical need.
Recommendations
Based upon the findings of this study and the con
clusions drawn, the following recommendations are made:
1. The role of the law is critical in the drug
dilemma. Throughout the United States there
exists unevenness in penalties for illicit
chemical consumption. California is one of
three states where possession and use of
marihuana can be a felony. This legal circum
stance means that over 40 percent of high
school students who use marihuana are minors
risking a lifelong felony record. This severe
statuatory punishment may be more dishonored
in the breach than for observance and enforce
ment as the liquor laws were at the time of
prohibition. Rather than undermine living by
the rule of law, penalties for possession and
use of marihuana should be reduced to the mis
demeanor level. This recommendation is pro
mulgated not because the writer favors marihuana
use, but because the legal sanctions should be
more consonant with the crime. The issue of
complete decriminalization of marihuana use is
beyond the scope of this dissertation.
There is a need for enlightened, diverse drug
education programs that tailor course content
to student patterns of drug use or non-use.
The opportunity for self-selection of drug
study groups could individualize instruction
for more meaningful, relevant learning. In
general, users feel teachers know less than
they do about drugs. Therefore, students
themselves could participate as credible
teaching resources. Peer influence can be
a potent process in drug prevention programs.
Working with a cohesive, sophisticated,
subcultural drug group requires specialized
knowledge and techniques. Select teachers and
counselors should participate in drug confer
ences, workshops, and training programs to maxi
mize their skills for helping drug-conscious
youth. Strategies that encompass community-wide
resources, including parent education, can bring
better perspective on drug-use prevention and
treatment.
The magnitude of the youthful drug problem has
generated significant societal concern. There
fore, it is imperative that an understanding of
73
its rapidly changing character be based upon
research rather than irrationality. It is
recommended that incidence and prevalence
studies of drug use be continued in order to
provide pertinent information for prevention,
treatment and enforcement programs. Planners
and policy implementers need to know the cur
rent dimensions of the local and national drug
use problem in order to develop efficacious
solutions.
Although illicit drug use is a major socie
tal concern, it is still basically an individual
problem. Drug use is multi-causal. Etiological
research and theory are important in order to
gain a better understanding of the dynamics of
the drug ingestor and abstainer. There appear
to be strong psychosocial components to chemi
cal ingestion. It is recommended that the
following variables be further studied: (l) the
psychotherapeutic background of the target
population, (2) the quality of the relationship
between adolescents and parents, ( 3) the pattern
of sibling drug use or non-use, (4) the pattern
of friends' drug use or non-use, ( 5) self
assessed degree of anxiety and need for emo
tional relief, and ( 6) feelings of alienation
74
on an individual, peer or societal level.
Clinical and institutional research programs
are needed to help further identify significant
patterns and correlates of drug use. Then future
researchers can better Integrate these findings
within sociological and psychological theoretical
frameworks, such as psychodynamic theory, role
expectation, youthful rebellion and alienation,
cognitive dissonance, and leisure class permis
siveness .
In conclusion, a pertinent comment was made by an
eleventh grade male student:
"Drugs are a major problem in today's world. If we
can't find a way to keep people interested in reality,
then the system must be changed, but not destroyed.
Gradual reform from within is necessary through legis
lation and popular referendums on federal and state
levels."
Adolescent drug use requires a responsive problem
solving perspective. It is a muiti-faceted issue with
familial, educational, medical, legal and governmental
dimensions. On the basis of this seven-year study and
cumulative research by the NCMDA (1973)> it appears that
adolescent drug use may be more than a transient trend.
The persistence and prevalence of marihuana consumption
among middle- and upper-class student populations portends
a growing permissiveness and a reweaving of the fabric of
societal values. Continuous scrutinization and modification
75
of societal forces are needed in order to cope more effec
tively with the kaleidoscopic use of drugs by youth.
A P P E N D I X
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
76
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed for research purposes only. Do
not sign your name. Complete honesty in response to each item is vital.
Please answer questions A-27 by circling one alternative.
A. Grade level (a) 9 (b) 10 (c) 11 (d) 12
B. Sex (a) Male (b) Female
1. Do you think up-to-date facts about drugs are being taught to
students? (a) Yes (b) No
2. Have you received class instruction at school about drugs and
their effects? (a) Yes (b) No
3. Would you like more current information presented in school about
drugs? (a) Yes (b) No
4. Would you be in favor of legalizing the use of marihuana?
(a) Yes (b) No
5. Do you think the use of LSD should be legalized?
(a) Yes (b) No
6. Do you personally know students who have used marihuana?
(a) Yes (b) No
7. Are you directly acquainted with any adults who have used
marihuana? (a) Yes (b) No
8. Do you personally know students who have used LSD?
(a) Yes (b) No
9. Are you directly acquainted with any adults who have used LSD?
(a) Yes (b) No
C. Approximate grade average since you have entered school.
(a) A (b) B (c) C (d) D (e) D- (f) F
D. Are your natural parents separated or divorced?
(a) Yes (b) No
ID. Do you believe that alcohol is more physically harmful than
marihuana? (a) Yes (b) No
11. Do you think your parents know as much as you do about drugs?
(a) Yes (b) No
77
78
12. Do you think your teachers know as much as you do about drugs?
(a) Yes (b) No
13- Would you describe your attitude towards use of marihuana as:
(a) For marihuana
(b) Against marihuana
(c) Undecided
lU. Do you think LSD is more dangerous than marihuana?
(a) Yes (b) No
1 5. How would you evaluate the drug scene in this school?
(a) No problem at all
(b) A minor problem
(c) A moderate problem
(d) A major problem
16. Which one word would best describe your reaction if you discovered
that a friend is smoking marihuana?
fa) Togetherness (e) Mild disapproval
(b) Respect (f) Contempt
(c) Acceptance (g) Revulsion
(d) Indifference
17- How would you best describe parents' view of student drug use?
(a)
Togetherness (e) Mild disapproval
(*)
Respect if) Contempt
(c)
Acceptance (g) Revulsion
(a)
Indifference
What do you think is the primary reason students use marihuana?
(a) To be one of the crowd (e) To have fun
(*)
To be different (f) To escape
(c)
To assert independence (g) For curiosity
(a) To feel superior
19* Have you ever seriously considered using marihuana?
(a) Yes (b) No
20. Have you ever seriously considered using LSD?
(a) Yes (b) No
21. Do you consider yourself, in relation to marihuana, a
(a) Non-participant (c) Sophisticated user
(b) Casual, experimenter (d) Dependent upon the drug
22. In regard to LSD, do you consider yourself a
(a) Non-participant (c) Sophisticated user
(b) Casual experimenter (d) Dependent upon the drug
79
2J>. Do you think it should be up to each individual to decide whether
or not he wants to use drugs such as marihuana and LSD?
(a) Yes (b) No
2k. How do you think most students come in contact with drugs origi
nally?
(a) Professional peddlers
(b) Acquaintances
(c) Friends
fd) Parents
(e) Other (Please explain)
2 5. Do you think students who take drugs get poorer grades as a
result? (a) Yes (b) No
26. Do you think students who take drugs are emotionally unstable?
(a) Yes (b) No
27- Do you feel the whole drug scene is:
(a) Insignificant (d) Just emerging
(b) Overemphasized (e) A passing fad
(c) An important change
28. What do you think of students who use marihuana?
2 9. What do you think of students who use LSD?
50. Additional comments:
REFERENCES
80
REFERENCES
Adler, N. Campus drug culture. Per/Se, 1966, pp. 38-41.
Arthur, G. L., Sisson, P. J., & Nation, S. Drug survey: A
knowledge and attitude Inventory of youth in a typical
high school In Georgia. Journal of Drug Education,
1973, 1(1), 79-84.
Blum, R. H., & Associates. Students and drugs. San Fran
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.
California. State Department of Justice, Division of Law
Enforcement. Drug arrests and disposition In Califor
nia. Sacramento: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1969-
Fejer, D., & Smart, R. G. The knowledge about drugs,
attitudes towards them and drug use rates of high
school students. Journal of Drug Education, 1973,
1(4), 377-388.
Festlnger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1957.
Fort, J. The pleasure seekers. Indianapolis and New York:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.
Glasser, W. Schools without failure. New York: Harper &
Row, 1969.
Goldstein, R. 1 In 7, drugs on campus. New York: Walker,
1966.
Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc.
(IDEA). High school students and drugs: The report of
a national seminar. IDEA Occasional Paper, Melbourne,
Florida, 1970.
Johnson, B. D. Marihuana users and drug subcultures.
New York: Wiley, 1973.
Kendall, P. Conflict and mood, factors affecting stability
of response. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1954.
81
82
Keniston, K. Drug use and student values. National Asso-
clation of Student Personnal Administration, Washington,
b.c., 1966.
Lourla, D. B. The drug scene. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1968. ------
Martin, W. R. Drug abuse--The need for a rational pharma
cologic approach. In L. Brill & E. Harms (Eds.), Year
book of drug abuse. New York: Behavioral Publications,
TWT.
McKlllip, J., Johnson, J. E., & Petzel, T. P. Patterns end
correlates of drug use among urban high school students.
Journal of Drug Education, 1973> 3.(l)> 1-12.
Mead, M. Culture and commitment. New York: Doubleday,
1970.
Miller, J. L. United Press report, 1 9 6 7. Cited by R. H.
Blum, Students and drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1970.
Milman, D. H., & Anker, J. L. Patterns of drug use among
university students: IV. Use of marihuana, amphetamines,
opium and LSD by undergraduates. Journal of the Ameri
can College Health Association, 1971, 20, 98-105.
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCMDA).
Marihuana: A signal of misunderstanding. Vol. I.
Washington, D.cT: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1972.
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCMDA).
Drug use in America: Problem in perspective. Vol. II.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1973.
Nowlis, H. H. Perspectives on drug use. Journal of Social
Issues, 1971, 27, 7-22.
Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire design and attitude meas
urement . New York: Basic Books, 1966.
Payne, S. The art of asking questions. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 19(?1.
Pretzel, P. Whales and polar bears. Research and Pupil
Personnel Services Newsletter, 1970, 8(2), 5-7.
83
Price, C. Letters to parents. Castro Valley Unified
School District, California, 1967- Cited by R. Blum,
Students and drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.
Sebald, H. Adolescence: A sociological analysis. New York:
AppIeton-Century-Croft s, 196b.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. Children of the drug age.
Saturday Review, September 1968, 5^(38), 60-63, 75-78.
Sokol, J. The drug abuse problem in California. In L.
Brill & E. Harms (Eds.), Yearbook of drug abuse.
New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973.
Steffenhagen, R. A., Schmidt, F. E., 8c McAree, C. P.
Emotional stabll't^ and student drug use. Journal of
Drug Education, 1971, 1(4), 347-357.
Wenk, E. Partnership in research. Behavior Today, 1973,
4(49), 4.
World Health Organization (WHO). Drug dependence.
W.H.O. Chronicle, 1966, 20(2), 6 5-6 7.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists

PDF

The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview

PDF

Reading Rates And Comprehension As Affected By Single And Multiple-Ratio Schedules Of Reinforcement Within A Token Economy As Measured By Precision Teaching Techniques

PDF

The Psychology Of Self-Actualization Involving The Communication Of Therapeutic Counseling Skills Between Beginning And Experienced Counselors

PDF

The Effect Of Personalized Emotional Stimuli On Asthmatic Reactions

PDF

The effects of a behavior modification treatment program on a neurologically handicapped population

PDF

Relationship Between Mourner Characteristics And Factors Affecting Grief Work

PDF

The Effects Of Cognitive Style On Criterion Test Performance Of High School Students After Instruction By Audio Tape Treatments Differing In Rate And Difficulty Level

PDF

Diagnostic indices of hyperactivity and an investigation of verbal mediation training as an alternative to pharmacotherapy

PDF

Intrasensory And Intersensory Processing Of Auditory And Visual Stimuli By Regular And Disabled Learners

PDF

Sex Differences In The Organization Of Spatial Abilities In Older Men And Women

PDF

Treatment Effects On Physical Growth And Mental Development Among Phenylketonuric Children

PDF

A Behavioral Assessment Of The Reinforcement Contingencies Associated With The Occurrence Of Suicidal Behaviors

PDF

The Appropriateness Of Field And Level Of Vocational Choice As Related Toself-Concepts, Intelligence, School Achievement, And Socioeconomic Status

PDF

The Competence Of A Mildly Retarded Population

PDF

Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions

PDF

The Relationship Between Parent-Child Reciprocity And The Child'S Mental Level

PDF

Effects Of Labeling As Emr On Teachers' Expectancies For Change In A Student'S Performance

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners

Asset Metadata

Creator West, Helene Joan (author)

Core Title Adolescent drug attitudes: a seven-year study on marihuana and LSD

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Frankel, Andrew Steven (committee member), Michael, William B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-527810

Unique identifier UC11226118

Identifier 7506454.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-527810 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7506454.pdf

Dmrecord 527810

Document Type Dissertation

Rights West, Helene Joan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA