The late 1960s and early 1970s have seen an enormous and well-documented increase in the use of marihuana and hallucinogens such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) among college students and in middle-class circles. Gallup surveys show that the following proportions of the college student population had ever used marihuana: in spring 1967, 5%; in spring 1969, 22%; in December 1970, 42%; and in December 1971, 51%. Similar increases in hallucinogen use occurred: in spring 1967, 1%; in spring 1969, 4%; in December 1970, 14%; and in December 1971, 18%.1 Studies of the U.S. adult population have found that while 4% of the population had tried marihuana by Oct. 1969, 11% had tried it by March 1972.2 Here is evidence of one of the most striking social changes to occur in America in the 1960s.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the phenomenon is that the possession and use of marihuana was completely illegal during these years. Furthermore, it occurred among a basically law-abiding white middle-class population. Thus, an increasingly large minority of the college population decided to disobey laws that had the support of more than two-thirds of the adult U.S. population.3

That the increasing use of drugs has been a growing concern to the American public is obvious: laws against drug users are popular and pass through Congress with minimal opposition. Gallup finds that "few proposals have been so overwhelmingly unpopular as the proposal to legalize the use of marihuana."4 But public concern apparently extends only to drugs such as marihuana, hashish, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, barbiturates, and tranquilizers. Many psychoactive substances that are used to excess by society are not seen as part of the drug problem. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, caffeine, aspirin, and No-Doz are rarely considered drugs by the average American. True, alcohol and tobacco are seen as problems in America, but only as distinct from the drug problem.5

Implicit in the definition of the "drug problem" are social assumptions, which are seldom recognized. In reality, certain drugs are defined as problems because certain values that society considers important are disobeyed or ignored; yet the same drugs may be beneficial when other values are referred to. Barber indicates that many psychoactive drugs have been developed and utilized in ways that seem beneficial when judged by values of health; they cure disease or restore physical or psychological health.° But many psychoactive substances, including amphetamines, barbiturates, tranquilizers, and aspirin, while possibly beneficial in low doses, can be quite harmful to physical and mental health when used in high dosages.'

Indeed, the history of drugs that have become problems demonstrates that many substances originally promoted as harmless or even beneficial, such as heroin and cocaine and more recently amphetamines and barbiturates, have come to be regarded as more harmful than beneficia1.5 Even the highly stigmatized drugs, cocaine and heroin, would probably not be particularly harmful if used only as directed by a doctor. But drugs are not always used in the way doctors direct nor by the persons to whom drugs have been prescrjbed. In many cases of drug consumption the line between prescribed usage and unwitting misuse is exceedingly thin; questionable, too, are the casual prescriptive practices of some doctors.9

Federal and state governments have not remained neutral on the issue of drug consumption. They have passed laws designed to restrict drug consumption to medical use. Although these laws are not particularly clear about what constitutes "medical" use, most prescriptions made by doctors are considered legal or medical. Almost all other kinds of drug consumption are considered abuse. The American Medical Association (AMA) states that "drug abuse [is] taking drugs without professional advice or direction."19 A recent federal law has the term "abuse" in its title (the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) and regulates substances according to their "potential for abuse."11

The concept of abuse as used by the AMA and federal law carries connotations of excessive and harmful consumption of drugs, which is not explicitly part of the definition. Thus, the isolated use of one or two amphetamines and the consumption of ten tablets per day for a year are both branded abuse if taken without a doctor's advice; yet both are "medical" if obtained with a prescription. Surely, such a polemical and value-laden term as "abuse" is too inclusive to be scientifically useful in trying to understand various degrees of drug use.

A. DEFINITION OF TERMS: NONMEDICAL AND ILLICIT

What is needed is more-neutral terminology and careful definitions. The terms "nonmedical" and "illicit" better suggest what is "wrong" with certain kinds of drug use. Nonmedical drug use is undesirable because both individual doctors and the AMA classify certain kinds of drug use as wrong or not, according to accepted medical practice.' 2 The term "illicit" implies that certain kinds of drug use are wrong because federal and state laws define certain drug-related acts as part of our criminal law. In addition, these laws are supported by a large majority of the nation's population," so in some respects, we can say that drug use is illicit because it is disapproved of by society. Thus, the use of the terms "nonmedical" or "illicit" does not imply that there is anything naturally wrong with such drug consumption. Rather, medical and political elites, with the support of the public, have defined particular kinds of drug consumption as undesirable or criminal.

It is important to distinguish "legal" from "illicit" drug use in order to develop scientifically useful indicators of illicit drug use, the major focus of this book. The following five criteria, obtained from federal drug legislation and the opinions of important medical experts, will permit us scientifically to define "illicit" drug use:

(1) Using substances defined as illegal by federal or state laws, including cannabis (marihuana or hashish), heroin, cocaine, and hallucinogens. 14 While most laws, because of constitutional restrictions," do not prevent the use of these substances, the laws against possession are clearly intended to prevent use.
(2) Using a drug, with or without a prescription, with the specific intention of gaining euphoria, or getting "high." Jerome Jaffe, in a widely cited medical textbook, states that "the use of medically prescribed barbiturates to induce sleep is permissible, but the self-administration of the same amount of barbiturate to induce euphoria in a social situation would be abuse" in the United S tates. 16
(3) Using such prescription drugs as amphetamines, barbiturates, and tranquilizers in a manner inconsistent with medical directions (e.g., in larger doses or more frequently than recommended by a physician).17
(4) Possessing an illegal or prescription drug obtained from a nonmedical or nonpharmaceutical source." Thus, drugs obtained free or purchased from friends or drug dealers are definitely against federal law.
(5) Giving and especially selling an illegal or prescribed drug to another layman are clearly against the law and subject the offender to severe penalties. 19

By applying these five criteria to drug-related acts, one can classify persons as engaging in illicit drug use, purchase, or sale according to information that respondents voluntarily provide in questionnaires.

An important point in understanding illicit use, although not taken into consideration by the law, is the degree of involvement with various drugs. The seriousness of a user's involvement is generally held to be in direct proportion to (1) frequency of use, (2) proximity in time of most recent use, (3) the use of highly stigmatized drugs (cocaine and heroin), and (4) the number of different drugs used." All of these factors are essential to differentiating between regular and less-regular use of any or all illicitly used drugs. Once information on patterns of illicit drug has been obtained, an examination of why certain persons use drugs and use them heavily is possible.

Central to this book is a demonstration that the present laws governing drug-using behavior in America have an important impact upon patterns of drug use. In particular the laws that make the possession and sale of cannabis illegal play an important role in recruiting people into and maintaining "drug subcultures." The evidence will demonstrate that involvement in these subcultures rather than the use of drugs should be the focus of public concern. Yet, because of present drug laws the use of drugs and subculture involvement are highly correlated, both in fact and in the public mind. Thus, drug use is mistakenly blamed for certain outcomes that subculture involvement and present drug laws probably cause. If drug laws governing cannabis were altered to legalize marihuana on a restricted basis, fewer people might become highly involved in drug subcultures than do so at present.

Why drug laws, especially marihuana laws, exist in their present form is controversial,' but it is clear that such laws have gained considerable Public support since enactment in the 1930s. Thus, an attempt must be made to know more about the rationale and theories behind present drug laws.

B. THE OFFICIAL POSITION

There is a definite reason for stressing the importance of drug laws and the definitions used by medical elites in regulating various drugs. These laws and medical opinions provide some insight into the theories implicit in present drug laws.

Unfortunately, examination of the drug literature demonstrates that it is difficult to find a coherent set of concepts that provide a theoretical understanding of drug use. The clearest attempt to formulate basic concepts is found in "Drug Dependence."22 This essay contains a series of definitions of dependence on different kinds of drugs, an unannotated review of the literature, and some allusions to psychological and social factors that may affect or be altered by drug use. Other short articles in a wide variety of journals constitute attempts at some kind of theory.23 However, trying to connect the anecdotes, a few statistics, the growing experimental evidence, and the many assertions about what drugs do to a person's physique, psychology, and involvement in society to some kind of meaningful theory is an almost impossible task. The best summaries of such theories are by authors opposed to the present laws.24 Nevertheless, for purposes of identification and comparison, reference will be made to authors and books as proponents of the official position if they arrive at conclusions that support or might be used to support the present drug laws.

Although each chapter of this book details theories held by the supporters of the official position, two of the main theoretical assumptions of this position will be noted at the outset. One is that passing laws that prohibit the possession or sale of various substances and the efficient enforcement of such laws will control or prevent persons from using or abusing drugs. There is contained faith in the ability of legislators to provide the laws and funds necessary to allow police to cope efficiently with illicit drug use. The one serious attempt to stop marihuana smuggling, Operation Intercept, was eventually called off because of the large economic and political costs. It may have caused a minor shortage of marihuana, but it appears to have had no influence upon the increasing marihuana use by college students.25

The second basic assumption is that the use of drugs is responsible for a large number of negative outcomes. Thus, the official position holds that the more frequent the use of marihuana or other drugs, the greater becomes the use of other dangerous drugs; the involvement in criminal, sexual, and aggressive behavior; and the inability to perform well in school. While the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) is willing to admit that social and psychological factors may influence the link between the use of marihuana and unfavorable outcomes, it maintains that such social and psychological factors cannot fully explain the association.26 This assumption is most amenable to empirical testing. In almost every substantive chapter in this book the assumption that the use of marihuana or other drugs is a cause of bad outcomes will be tested and found deficient.

C. PARENT CULTURE AND PEER CULTURE

This book will attempt to prove empirically a sociological theory of drug use. Specifically, it is a theory of socialization into progressively more unconventional groups. It is basically directed toward understanding illicit drug use among middle-class American adolescents. However, since the data is limited to a sample of college students, the theory cannot be generalized to all adolescents in the United States.

A reading of the literature on deviant or delinquent behavior suggests that there are three theoretically important cultural or subcultural standards to which middle-class and perhaps lower-class youth may orient themselves: the parent culture, the peer culture, and drug subcultures. These concepts are related to, and overlap, each other; differences between the three cultures are not absolute.

A demonstration of the theory entails statistically analyzing empirical measures of these concepts. While there may be many other subcultures in both adult and adolescent societies, these three cultures are central to an understanding of illicit drug use in America. To anticipate the basic theoretical argument, we suggest that students who are deeply committed to the parent culture are very unlikely to use drugs, while those who are committed to the drug subculture are likely to use a wide variety of drugs. Involvement in the peer culture provides a transition between the parent culture and drug subculture for many students.

The starting point in our study is the parent culture. This culture defines what middle-class American adults want children and college students to do in various spheres of life." Of course, there may be many different subcultures in the adult population that have conflicting views of what youth should do.28 Despite diversity in the adult population, it is probable that the vast majority of middle- and perhaps lower-class adults would agree with many of the following expectations. The parent culture thinks that high school and college students should try to go on to the next higher educational level; do well in school; attend classes; respect teachers, authorities, and laws; abstain from sex before marriage; avoid tobacco, alcohol, and the nonmedical use of drugs; avoid involvement in crime and violent behavior; attend religious services; and respect the property of others.29 This abbreviated list of expectations outlines some of the types of behavior that this book will try to measure empirically.

There is continuing pressure on adolescents from parents, teachers, and other adults to conform to these standards. Although the sanctions applied to violations of these expectations differ widely, it is probable that all American youth experience considerable pressure toward conformity to adult values. It is not surprising that large proportions of the youth population do conform to these expectations.

One may refer to students who abide by such parental cultural standards as "conventional," in a relatively value-neutral sense. The term "conventional"
does not mean that students have never broken a law or done something against adult wishes. Rather, conventionality is a matter of degree. Conventional students are less likely to violate adult expectations than "unconventional" students.

Unconventional students are those who frequently ignore or violate parental cultural standards: they use alcohol or cigarettes at an early age, engage in premarital sex, avoid religious services, and use drugs. The term "unconventional" is used in place of "deviant," "immoral," "delinquent," and other terms generally equated with "being bad." Similarly, the term "unconventional behavior" will here be used in precisely the same manner as Robert Merton's definition of deviance: conduct that departs significantly from norms." In the present context the norms are those that the parent culture has set for the adolescent, teenager, or college student.

Yet the parent culture does not completely dominate all adolescents. Indeed, it structures the social world of the average teenager into highly age-graded institutions known as schools. Except for his parents and teachers, the average American youth has minimal contact with adults.

This segregation of youth has produced the peer culture." Its essential characteristic is that an adolescent spends large amounts of time interacting with peers of his own sex, age, and grade in school. The peer culture has developed and emphasizes several crucial norms: (1) A person must be loyal to his friends and attempt to maintain his group association. (2) Social interaction with the peer group should be conducted in locations where adult social controls are relatively absent. Thus, the peer culture is found among youth who "hang out" on a street corner or a drive-in, who "drive around" with friends, who visit with each other between classes, etc. (3) Within each peer group, there exists a veiled competition for status and prestige within the group. 32

The concepts of peer culture and peer group are closely related. A particular adolescent may belong to a group of relatively close friends, which can be considered his peer group. However, such peer groups do not exist in isolation; they are part of a wider phenomenon, the peer culture. Individuals experience the peer culture through involvement in a particular peer group.

The general norms and values prescribed by the peer culture will produce similar behavioral outcomes among widely different peer groups. Thus, persons who are highly committed to peer groups in a small town, an upper-class suburb, a black ghetto, or a working-class urban area are more likely to exhibit certain kinds of unconventional behavior (such as theft, drug use, and speeding) than other adolescents in their own community who are less, or not at all, involved in such peer groups.

An adolescent may belong to a peer group that is not strongly affected by peer cultural norms and values: a peer group that spends most of its time in a parent's home or going to school-sponsored activities may be unlikely to be involved in unconventional behaviors.33 Such a peer group is committed to, or controlled by, parental cultural influences rather than peer cultural.

The concept of peer culture is continuous. A person can be classified as highly, somewhat, or little involved in the peer culture according to the amount of time, emotional investment, and commitment he makes to his peer group. Basic to the argument of this book is the hypothesis that students who spend a great deal of time with their peer group in relative isolation from adult controls are likely to engage in a wide variety of unconventional behaviors. In other words, the greater the peer cultural involvement, the greater the involvement in unconventional behavior.

Unconventional behavior will emerge from peer group participation because of the norm of veiled competition.34 To the individual, a crucial measure of success lies in what his friends (peers) think of him. Yet, there is continued competition for prestige within each peer group. Despite a democratic ethos maintaining that the peer group has and wants no leader, the competition for prestige in the group is concealed "under a veneer of non-competitive good-fellowship and fun."" This competitiveness leads individuals in the group to experiment with new forms of behavior. Such "operating innovations"36 frequently depart from what adults want adolescents to do but are an important way by which an individual can claim a higher status within the group. If a particular innovation, such as the smoking of marihuana, is done by one person in a peer group and no negative consequences such as arrest or poor health occur, the person can claim a higher status within the group. Such activities are likely to be repeated, with others in the group participating. Once patterns of activity develop, "they generate their own morality, norms, standards and rewards."37 Patterns of action that may not have been permitted at an earlier time become tolerated, then accepted, and perhaps even demanded of those participating in the peer group.

Behavioral innovations like marihuana use almost never originate with the innovator; they are copied from role models observed in the mass media or some group outside the individual's own peer group." Role models may appepl to individuals in a wide variety of different peer groups. Because peer cultural norms support innovations and defiance of adult authority, new forms of unconventional behavior are quickly copied by other peer group members and may become a common activity of the group. If this activity becomes acceptable to a wide variety of peer groups, it may be said to have become institutionalized in the peer culture. Thus, peer culture norms and values operating through many different peer groups can and do provide a mechanism by which technological innovations such as portable phonographs, transistor radios, and powerful cars are desired by youth and by which rock music and drugs become acceptable to discrete segments of the population. More important for our purposes, the peer culture provides a means by which behavioral innovations become institutionalized activity. (Chapter 3 will show how marihuana use has become one of the activities common in the peer culture.) Further, persons highly involved in the peer culture are more likely than the less involved to engage in such institutionalized activities as drag races, minor theft, parental disobedience, party-going, frequent dating, and sexual intercourse.

The peer culture also provides the basic norms and values supporting several distinctive adolescent subcultures such as those centered around gang delinquency, violence, or theft.39 The peer culture norms and values and the recruitment of highly peer-oriented youth provide the basis for the organization of such subcultures. Detailed examination of such subcultures must here be restricted to the drug subculture.

D. DRUG SUBCULTURE

An understanding of drug use requires a narrower concept than the peer culture, but one that is related. The concept of drug subculture satisfies this requirement. This concept emerges from the intellectual development of the subculture tradition in delinquency research" and from those who have attempted to apply the subculture concept to drug use.41 Although there is no clear and concise definition of a subculture, an elaboration upon Wolfgang's definition will suffice. He states that a subculture "is composed of values, conduct norms, social situations, role definitions and performances, sharing, transmission, and learning of values."42 The term "drug subculture" will herein refer to those conduct norms, social situations, role definitions and performances, and values that govern the use of illegal drugs and the intentional nonmedical use of prescription drugs. Excluded from, although related to, this concept of a drug subculture are norms and values governing the medical use of drugs, the use of drugs for dieting and sleeping, and the consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, and tea.

The most important elements of a subculture are the values and conduct norms. Values are here understood to be shared ideas about what the subgroup believes to be true or what it wants (desires) or ought to want.43 For example, some of the values used to justify the illicit use of drugs include the belief that drugs increase creativity and self-understanding, and makes a person more sociable or relaxed. Even though a majority of drug users may not endorse such values, those involved in drug-using groups are more likely to believe such ideas than the noninvolved.

Conduct norms are even more crucial to understanding a subculture. Conduct norms are those expectations of behavior in a particular social situation that are attached to a status within the group.44 There is one conduct norm central to participation in the drug subculture: Thou shalt smoke marihuana. Data in Chapter 4 demonstrate that a person all of whose friends smoke marihuana is very unlikely to abstain from marihuana. Other, less strongly held conduct norms are that a member should share (or sell at cost) his drugs with friends and be willing to experiment with certain hard drugs. But, for present purposes, the most important conduct norm separating noninvolvement from marginal involvement in the drug subculture is the expectation that a person will use marihuana. Thus, if a person regularly uses pills but will not try marihuana, he is probably not participating in the drug subculture.

An attempt will be made to show empirically that two similar, but separate, drug subcultures exist in colleges in the New York metropolitan area, and perhaps in American society, and that they share the marihuana conduct norm as an indicator of beginning participation. However, the hard drugs that increasingly regular participants begin using after marihuana are different in each subculture. To anticipate our argument in Chapter 7, marihuana users in the white drug subculture will be turned on to hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine, while those in the black drug subculture will take up cocaine and heroin.

Until it is demonstrated empirically that these two drug subcultures exist, reference will be made to "drug subculture" in the singular. Since many of the inferences made about social processes are probably similar in each subculture, use of the singular term is justified. It should be kept clearly in mind, however, that most inferences about the drug subculture apply mainly to the white drug subculture because of the nature of the sample obtained for analysis in this study (see Chapter 2).

An individual experiences the drug subculture through participation in a specific social group. For example, if a person is, or wishes to become, a member of a group that smokes marihuana, the person will be expected to use marihuana. The status of "participant" in the group means that when the particular social situation of marihuana smoking arises, the person will be expected to abide by the group norm; his role performance is actually to use marihuana. This conduct norm does not apply when the group is not smoking marihuana. Behaving in accordance with the norm does not necessarily „wan that the person agrees with all the beliefs and values of the group or subculture. Thus, the person may smoke marihuana primarily because he wants to remain an in-group participant even though he may not agree that marihuana is beneficial or that it increases sexual pleasure, creativity, relaxation, self-understanding, or sociability. However, repeated participation in this group and in marihuana smoking will increase the probability of his agreeing with such values."
But a subculture is more than just the behavior of a few persons in an isolated group. The basic idea of subculture extends beyond individuals or particular social groups to a wide variety of social groups. Different groups may have very little or no contact with each other, but they may behave in a similar fashion because they abide by the same conduct norms and share similar values. Thus, groups as diverse as Hell's Angels, college sororities, Haight-Ashbury hippies, midwestern high school students, Manhattan professionals, and black street-corner youths are participants in the drug subculture when each group is involved in the activity of smoking marihuana. The only thing that such diverse groups may have in common is the marihuana conduct norm and perhaps values or beliefs about marihuana. If for some strange reason a midwestern high school student who smokes marihuana found himself with a Harlem street-corner group in which a "joint" was being passed around, the student would know what to do without being told. He could recognize the joint as a marihuana cigarette, realize that he is expected to smoke it, know how to inhale, recognize the effects, comment on quality of the drug, and espouse beliefs that would be familiar to the blacks.

The concept of drug subculture is independent of interaction within a particular group or even many different groups. The subculture refers to conduct norms, values, and customary patterns of behavior that are widespread in certain segments of society. These conduct norms and values are available to anyone or any group who wishes to abide by them. Attempts to follow these conduct norms and values will lead to similar behavior (e.g., smoking marihuana) in widely different groups in widely different locations (assuming that marihuana can be obtained). Even though the drug subculture is conceptually independent of particular persons and groups, the conduct norms and values would soon disappear if no one or no group interacted in accordance with such norms and values.

How then, does the drug subculture relate to the parent culture and peer culture? The drug subculture is both different from and dependent upon the norms and values governing the use of drugs in the other two cultures.46 The parent culture uses prescription drugs in a semimystical belief that taking a drug will provide the solution to almost any ordinary everyday problem." Drugs are used to loose weight, get to sleep, pep one up, and ease depression when the obvious solutions of reducing food intake, getting proper amounts of sleep, and relaxing are rejected by adults for various reasons.

In addition, both the parent and peer cultures stress the consumption of cigarettes and alcohol for reasons virtually indistinguishable from the values in the drug subculture governing the use of marihuana. Thus, alcohol is consumed to "feel good," "get drunk," "increase sociability," and "loosen restraints." Cigarettes help a person "relax," "enjoy life," and "gain prestige" (this is the message of cigarette ads). It is doubtful that the present drug subculture could have emerged in a culture in which certain substances were not used in a manner similar torthat of alcohol and cigarettes in America.

Likewise, the drug subculture is an outgrowth of the peer culture. The drug subculture is highly dependent upon the conduct norms of the peer culture that regulate the loyalty of an individual to his peer group, stress that peer group activities be kept semisecret from adults, and permit a person to gain status in the peer group by being the first or the best at doing something that might be disapproved of by adults. Many individuals highly involved in the peer culture appear to be likely candidates for participation in the drug subculture.

Like the peer culture concept, the concept of the drug subculture is continuous; individuals may be viewed as not involved, somewhat involved, or very involved in the subculture." It will be demonstrated that it is the depth of involvement in the drug subculture and not the frequency with which a person uses marihuana or drugs that is basically responsible for the undesirable outcomes attributed by the official position to use of marihuana.

This study will attempt to use the concepts of peer culture and drug subculture in both a theoretical and empirical, or statistical, sense. A good theory must be empirically testable. The criteria of testability allow the theory to be challenged by the data and thus be exposed to the risk of failure.49 Throughout the book, operational definitions of the major theoretical concepts will be developed. As an indicator of what the official position means by marihuana use and drug use, the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index and the Multiple Drug Use Index will be employed. An indicator of peer culture participation will be the Peer Culture Index, and of drug subculture participation, the Illicit Marketing Index. Relating these various indices to each other in predicting some dependent variable will enable us to test various theories.
Developing an empirical measure of the drug subculture concept encounters two basic problems. First, students are likely to confuse what they are expected to do in a specific situation (the conduct norm) with general beliefs and values about what they should do. Thus, respondents are not likely to agree with the conduct norm that they should use marihuana when among marihuana-using friends. Students will confuse this norm with the value that no one, including close friends, can dictate what the individual will do. Yet many respondents who deny that friends have anything to do with their use of drugs are probably affected by their peer's use of marihuana. Hence, it is generally more rewarding to infer what the conduct norms might be by measuring the respondent's behavior rather than by developing questions that attempt to tap attitudes about what students think should be done in certain situations.

Second, it is virtually impossible to measure the respondent's actual drug-using behavior without violating the student's privacy and anonymity: As a result, the present study depends heavily upon the respondent's self-report of drug use. But this reported behavior, although accurate in a majority of cases, may be untruthful in some cases. A basic problem of such self-reported data is pressure toward conformity to various cultural and subcultural conduct norms. Thus, heavy drug users may be likely to underreport drug use due to parent culture pressure against drug use. But the same person may respond to conduct norms within the drug subculture by overreporting his use of drugs. In the literature on deviant behavior, both kinds of untruth have been noted. Blum, studying drug sellers, found that about half of the respondents felt that other drug dealers would brag about or exaggerate their income from drug sales;" unfortunately, Blum could not validate the respondent's earnings. Gold, studying delinquent behavior among juveniles, compared information given by the respondent's friends with the respondent's self-report. He found that about 17% of the respondents concealed a crime to which a friend was an eyewitness." Everything considered, the underreporting of drug use by respondents in the present survey is probably more common than overreporting, especially when the subculture's suspicions of survey research is considered. Several ways of dealing with the problems of underreporting, overreporting, and sample biases are discussed thoroughly in Chapter 3.

E. PLAN OF THE BOOK

Having briefly outlined the theory this book will attempt to prove, it is necessary to impose some organization upon the following chapters, which may not seem closely connected at first reading. Chapter 2 discusses why and how a sample of 3500 college students in the New York metropolitan area was obtained. Although the sample is biased in the direction of heavy drug use, Chapter 3 shows that other drug surveys using more representative student samples obtain results parallel to the findings of the present sample. It also develops indicators of illicit drug use. The Frequency of Cannabis Use Index and the Multiple Drug Use Index are operational indicators of what the official position refers to as marihuana use and drug use. This chapter also develops the Peer Culture Index and shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the use of marihuana among those who were highly peer-oriented in high school, thus demonstrating that marihuana use has entered the peer culture.

Chapter 4 attempts to answer the question, Why do students use marihuana? It suggests that a large number of background factors are significantly related to the use of marihuana. But these background factors are highly correlated with, and increase the probability of, gaining friends who use marihuana. It is marihuana use among one's friends that primarily determines the respondent's use and regularity of marihuana use.

Chapter 5 demonstrates that the more frequent the use of marihuana, the greater the probability that the respondent will sell cannabis; no other factor strongly affects this relationship. Information on drug buying and selling yields the Illicit Marketing Index, which measures the degree of participation in drug dealing. In addition, it is suggested that this index is a more powerful indicator of participation in the drug subculture than measures of drug use.

Chapter 6 deals with several possible explanations of whether and why marihuana use leads to heroin use. Several theories held by the official position are shown to be either wrong or misleading. It is concluded that it is not marihuana use but involvement in drug selling by which students gain intimate friends using heroin and other hard drugs and hence begin themselves to use hard drugs.

Chapter 7 attempts to extend subculture theory; it sets forth the hypothesis, and provides empirical evidence, that there may be two different subcultures of drug use on college campuses in the New York metropolitan area. These subcultures appear to be structured along racial lines, as previously noted. The processes by which college students are recruited into, and become increasingly involved in, their respective subcultures are virtually identical for both races, as are the processes by which students become involved in drugs of the racially opposite subculture.

Chapter 8 demonstrates that the official position's concern about marihuana use and drug use as an important factor in explaining juvenile delinquency, crime, militancy, and sexual behavior is misleading. When drug dealing is held constant, the regularity of marihuana use appears to be an almost unimportant factor in explaining these activities, although the use of three or more hard drugs appears to have some effect upon these outcomes.

Chapter 9 shows that measures of drug use are significantly, if weakly, related to low grades and difficulties in college. However, when participation in drug dealing is held constant, the relationship is negligible.

Chapter 10 demonstrates that the police are fair, but not very efficient, in apprehending drug offenders. Police are "fair" in the sense that they stop or arrest persons who are heavy drug sellers and not simply heavy drug users.

Chapter 11 attempts to specify more clearly the concept of drug subcultures and indicate how the data provide evidence of various conduct norms and values in the subculture. In addition, it tries to bring into focus the effect of laws making marihuana possession and sale a criminal act.

The book concludes that if public officials wish to regulate drug consumption and drug subcultures effectively, there must be serious discussion of making marihuana legally available, although on a restricted basis. But before arriving at such important conclusions, the evidence must be presented. We turn first to a description of the sample selected for analysis.

REFERENCES

1. For a summary of the first three Gallup surveys, see "Latest Findings on Marijuana," U.S. News and World Report, Feb. 1, 1971; for the 1971 survey, "Gallup Finds a Continued Rise in the Use of Marijuana and LSD on Campuses," New York Times, Feb. 10, 1972.
2. Gallup Poll, "One Young Adult in Eight Has Tried Pot," Princeton, N.J.: American Institute of Public Opinion, Oct. 25, 1969. "Poll Finds Surge in Marijuana Use," New York Times, March 26, 1972. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 38, indicates that 15% of those eighteen and older had tried marihuana by August 1971. We will henceforth refer to this National Commission report as the Shafer (the Commission chairman's name) Report.
3. Shafer Report, Ref. 2, p. 155. Also Gallup, "One Young Adult in Eight." Ref. 2.
4. Gallup Poll, "Public Opposed to Legalizing Marijuana," Princeton, N.J., American Institute of Public Opinion, Oct. 23, 1969.
5. Joel Fort, "Social Problems of Drug Use and Drug Policy," International Journal of the Addictions, 5 (June 1970), 322.
6. Bernard Barber, Drugs and Society, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967, pp. 166-169.
7. Henry Lennard et al., Mystification and Drug Misuse, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971, p. 9; Nathan B. Eddy et al, "Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 32, 1965, pp. 724-730; and Julius Wenger and Stanley Einstein, "The Use and Misuse of Aspirin: A Contemporary Problem," International Journal of the Addictions, 5 (Dec. 1970), 757-775, show many dangers from excessive aspirin consumption. Monroe Lerner and David Nurco, "Drug Abuse Deaths in Baltimore, 1951-1966," International Journal of the Addictions, 5 (Dec. 1970), 707, show that between 1951 and 1966, 12% of all drug-related deaths were caused by narcotics, 7% by aspirin (salicylates), and 76% by barbiturates and other sedatives.
8. Charles Terry and Mildred Pellens, The Opium Problem, New York: Bureau of Social Hygiene, 1928, pp. 75-85. Sigmund Freud used and recommended cocaine during his early career: Lennard, Ref. 7, pp. 3-5. For analysis of the harms of amphetamines and barbiturates, especially in Scandinavia, see Nils Bejerot, Addiction and Society,
Springfield,    Charles Thomas, 1970, pp. 28-82.
9. Lennard, Ref. 7, pp. 24-37.
10. American Medical Association (AMA) Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Council on Mental Health, "The Crutch that Cripples: Drug Dependence" (pamphlet), Chicago: AMA, 1968, p. 2.
11. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513, Oct. 27, 1970, signed by President Nixon on Nov. 2, 1970.
12. AMA, Ref. 10.
13. Shafer Report, Ref. 2, p. 155.
14. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Ref. 11, Section 202.
15. Although laws against the use of drugs still exist in some states, a Supreme Court decision, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), held that laws criminalizing the use of or addiction to narcotics are a "cruel and unusual punishment" and hence unconstitutional. Thus, laws regulating the possession and sale of drugs have become the major means of controlling drug use.
16. Jerome Jaffee, "Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse," in Louis S. Goodman and Alfred Gilman, eds., The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 2nd ed., New York: Macmillan, 1958, p. 285.
17. Ibid.
18. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Ref. 11, Section 404(a).
19. Ibid., Section 401.
20. These factors seem implicit in the concept of abuse, although they do not appear to have been carefully developed previously. Relatively similar dimensions have been utilized to measure seriousness of alcohol use: Don Cahalan, Ira H. Cisin, and Helen M. Crossley, American Drinking Practices, New Brunswick, NJ.: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1969, pp. 10-17.
21. Alfred Lindesmith, The Addict and the Law, New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1967, pp. 3.34, 222-242, and Howard S. Becker, Outsiders, New York: Free Press, 1963, pp. 129.163, suggest that our drug laws are due to the "moral enterprise" of the Bureau of Narcotics and its forerunner, the Treasury Department. However, David F. Musto, "The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937," Archives of General Psychiatry, 26 (Feb. 1972), 101-108, suggests the Bureau of Narcotics resisted making marihuana illegal, but grassroots support from local police and political pressure forced the regulation of marihuana. Also see, David Musto, Narcotics and America: A Social History, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press (in press).
22. Eddy et al., Ref. 7, pp. 721-733.
23. Harry J. Anslinger and William F. Tompkins, The Traffic in Narcotics, New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1953, p. 22. Edward Bloomquist, "Marijuana: Social Benefit or Social Detriment," California Medicine, 106 (May, 1967), 352. Henry L. Giordano, "Marihuana—A Calling Card to Narcotics Addiction," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 37 (Nov. 1968), 2-4. A recent and fair attempt to summarize findings and present basic ideas: Leo E. Hollister, "Marihuana in Man: Three Years Later," Science, 172 (April 2, 1971), 21-24.
24. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970. John Kaplan, Marijuana: The New Prohibition, Cleveland: World Publishing, 1970. Lester Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971. Joel Fort, The Pleasure Seekers, Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.
25. "Operation Impossible," Time, Oct. 17, 1969, p. 47, indicates that Operation Intercept was designed to force the Mexican government to start a program to control smuggling of marihuana. Also see Life, "Marijuana: The Law vs. 12 Million People," Oct. 31, 1969, pp. 27-31. The use of marihuana use continued upward, even in 1969; see U.S. News and World Report, "Latest Findings on Marijuana," Ref. 1, p. 27.
26. Eddy et al., Ref. 7, p. 729. Anslinger and Tompkins, Ref. 23. Giordano, Ref. 23.
27. Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955, pp. 80-135, refers to middle-class values as roughly equivalent to the parent culture concept used here.
28. Milton Yinger, "Contraculture and Subculture," American Sociological Review, 25 (Oct. 1960), 625-635, mentions several different adult subcultures in America. Herbert J. Gans, Levittowners, New York: Random House, 1967, pp. 24-31, mentions three class-related subcultures to be found in a new suburb.
29. Ibid. For information about adult opposition to premarital sex, see Ira Reiss, Social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967, p. 27.
30. Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet, Contemporary Social Problems, 2nd ed., New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966, p. 805.
31. The peer culture concept used here is different from the use of the same term by Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Rebellion in High School, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964, pp. 163-168. Our understanding of peer culture is similar to his concept of adult-orientation: p. 110. Our basic understanding of the peer culture concept is parallel to the notion of youth culture developed in two essays by Edmund W. Vaz, Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency, New York: Harper and Row, 1967, pp. 131-147, 207-222.
32. Ibid., p. 211-214.
33. Stinchcombe, Ref. 31, pp. 121-122 shows that those who reject the importance of early marriage, smoking, and cars are most likely to participate in school clubs, and rank parents above friends. Vaz, Ref. 31, implies that participation in school clubs and activities increases the probability of delinquent activities but does not demonstrate so empirically.
34. Ibid., p. 214.
35. Ibid., p. 134.
36. Ibid., p. 214. Vaz borrows this concept from Robert Dublin, "Deviant Behaviour and Social Structure," American Sociological Review, 24 (Apr. 1959), 152.
37. Vaz, Ref. 31, p. 214.
38. Edwin Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principals of Criminology, 8th ed., Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1970, pp. 75-77. This theory of differential association assumes the importance of contact with criminal role models, as does Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942, p. 165. The importance of mass media role models for middle-class youth, especially through rock music and political protest songs, has been discussed by Ralph J. Gleason, "Like a Rolling Stone," American Scholar, Fall 1967, reprinted in Glen Gaviglio and David Raye, Society As It Is, New York: Macmillan, 1971, pp. 115-126. See also Marvin F. Wolfgang, "The Culture of Youth," in President's Commission on Law Enforcement, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 147.
39. Cohen, Ref. 27, pp. 24-32, discusses the delinquent subculture. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin, "Subcultural Differentiation," Delinquency and Opportunity, New York: Free Press, 1960, pp. 161-186, discuss three different kinds of subcultures that are likely to emerge in different urban neighborhoods. However, empirical research has been unable to locate clear examples of these three subcultures: James F. Short, Jr. and Fred L. Strodbeck, Group Process and Gang Delinquency, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 10-15. For an understanding of Violence, see Marvin E. Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti, The Subculture of Violence, London: Travistock, 1967, pp. 95-163.
40. Cohen, Ref. 27, pp. 24-32. Cloward and Ohlin, Ref. 39, pp. 1-10. Wolfgang and Ferracuti, Ref. 39, pp. 95-163.
41. Howard S. Becker, Ref. 21; "Becoming a Marihuana User," American Journal of Sociology, 59 (Nov. 1953), 235-242; "Marihuana Use and Social Control," Social Problems, 3 (July 1955), 35-44; and "History, Culture and Subjective Experience: An Exploration of the Social Bases of Drug-Induced Experiences," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 8 (Sept. 1967), 163-176. James T. Carey, The College Drug Scene, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Harold Finestone, "Cats, Kicks and Color," in Becker, ed., The Other Side, New York: Free Press, 1964, pp. 281-297. Goode, Ref. 24, pp;,21-25, 183-202.
42. Wolfgang, "The Culture of Youth," Ref. 38, p. 146; see his broader discussion of a subculture in the Subculture of Violence, Ref. 39, pp. 99-113.
43. Ibid., p. 113.
44. Ibid., p. 101. This definition of conduct norms is more precise than the original definition by Thorsten Sellin, Culture, Conflict and Crime, New York: Social Science Research Council, 1938, pp. 22-32. Cloward and Ohlin, Ref. 39, p. 7, note that a group must be organized around a central activity to qualify as a delinquent subculture. We suggest that the group exerts a great deal of pressure on its members to participate in such an activity. More than anything else, the participants in the drug subculture are expected to use marihuana.
45. Wolfgang and Ferracuti, Ref. 39, p. 102.
46. Ibid., p. 100.
47. Lennard et al., Ref. 7, pp. 10-15.
48. Wolfgang and Ferracuti, Ref. 39, p. 103.
49. Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969, p. 226.
50. Richard Blum, The Dream Sellers, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972, p. 19.
51. Martin Gold, "Undetected Delinquent Behavior," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 13 (Jan. 1966), 31-34.