This chapter will do six things. First, it will present operational definitions of the concept illicit drug use, discussed in the first chapter. Second, it will describe two important measures of illicit drug use, the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index and the Multiple Drug Use Index. Third, it will examine the relationship between drug use and various standard demographic indices, such as father's income, race, sex, and church attendance. Fourth, it will show that patterns of drug use in subgroups of our student population are similar to patterns of use discovered by other drug researchers, suggesting that our findings may be generalized to the entire U.S. college population. Fifth, it will establish that there has been a major increase in the illicit use of drugs. Finally, it will be shown that this increase has been most striking among those highly involved in the peer culture.
 

A. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF ILLICIT DRUG USE

A respondent is considered to have used drugs illicitly if he used a substance defined by law as illegal for any citizen to possess in the United States. Drugs such as marihuana, hashish, hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin are specifically illegal according to federal law.' To measure this illicit use, respondents were asked to "indicate the greatest frequency [at any time] with which you have used each of the following substances: marihuana, hashish, LSD, other hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin." People who indicated that they had ever used one of these drugs were classified as having illicitly used that drug.

The problem of defining illicit drug use is more difficult, however, when considering the use of drugs that, as of 1971, are widely prescribed by doctors and pharmacists. Amphetamines, barbiturates, tranquilizers, legal opiates, and combinations of these drugs can be legally prescribed to patients for a wide variety of medical reasons.

Chapter 1 discussed four points that may help to distinguish between the medical and nonmedical use of prescription drugs: (1) using drugs for euphoric purposes, (2) using drugs in larger doses or more frequently than prescribed by the doctor, (3) buying drugs from illicit (nonmedical or nonpharmaceutical) sources, and (4) selling the drug. However, the illicit purchase or sale is not here included in the definition of the illicit use of prescription drugs.

To measure the first two dimensions of illicit prescription drug use, respondents were asked, "Which of these substances have you used with the specific intention of getting high: methedrine, other amphetamines, barbiturates, and tranquilizers?" Second, to determine whether students had obtained prescriptions for medical reasons but used them in a nonmedical manner, they were asked, "Which of these substances have you had prescribed for you by a physician or received during medical treatments?" They responded to a list of drugs that physicians may prescribe: methedrine, amphetamines, barbiturates, tranquilizers, cough medicines with codeine, darvon, morphine, opium, and paregoric. They were then asked, "Which of these substances have you had prescribed for you by a physician, but you used in larger doses or more frequently than directed?" Students who choose any substance in answering the last question were classified as having illicitly used that prescription drug:Thus, these two questions allow us to distinguish between those who have used drugs only as directed medically and those who have intentionally used these same drugs in an illicit manner.

However, it is not enough to know that a person has illicitly used drugs during his life. A person who has used every single drug only once is probably not a serious drug user but a heavy experimenter. One must also know something about the frequency of use of each drug, the recency of use, and the kind of drug used.

Measures of the frequency of use of various drugs appeared at two points in the questionnaire. People were asked to indicate the greatest frequency with which they had ever used each drug, but were told "do not include the use of medically prescribed drugs." The respondents could choose among ten possible frequencies, from never using the substance to using it more than once per day. As a further check on the frequency of use and to measure the recency dimension, students were asked, "How recently and how often did you usually use each of the following substances?" The response categories were divided into two time periods. The respondent was to indicate whether he had used a drug before June 30, 1969 and the frequency with which he had used the drug prior to that date. If he had used a drug at any time between July 1, 1969 and taking the questionnaire, he was to indicate how frequently he was currently using it. These two questions permitted a double check on the frequency of use of important drugs and also provided a measure of whether respondents had reduced their frequency of use or stopped using a drug in the seven to ten months prior to the administration of the questionnaire.

By relating the frequency and recency of use to the medical or illicit (nonmedical) use of the drug, one can classify the respondents into four different patterns for each prescription drug: (1) "never" used the drug; (2) "medical," used a legally prescribed drug only as directed by the doctor; (3) "illicit," used the drug to get high or in larger doses or more frequently than prescribed; (4) "marginal," responded positively to the questions dealing with the frequency of use, but failed to indicate medical use or illicit use of prescription drugs. This marginal use of drugs may include persons who have obtained pills from friends or parents to aid in studying for exams, in weight reduction, or in sleeping.

Table 3 presents the various patterns of drug use for major drugs in the study. Among prescription drugs, the legal opiates are the most likely to be used according to medical direction, while methedrine is almost never used for strictly medical purposes. On the other hand, of those who have ever tried sedatives or amphetamines less than 40% have confined themselves to strictly medical usage. Furthermore, about 15% of the sample has intentionally used these substances for nonmedical reasons. About an equally large proportion of the population has been marginally involved with these drugs.

Since Chapters 6 and 7 will analyze why students illicitly use prescription drugs, the criteria to be used in defining the "illicit" use of these drugs must be determined. When examining the use of methedrine, amphetamines, and sedatives, one could reasonably use two different criteria to classify persons as illicitly using these drugs. The "soft" criterion would combine marginal users with those who intentionally use the drug for euphoric reasons. The "hard" criterion would exclude marginal users and include only those who use the drug for euphoric purposes. This study will employ the hard criterion. Although the data are not presented, it can be shown that persons who intentionally use these drugs for euphoric reasons are much more likely to use them on a regular (monthly or more) basis than persons using them medically. Marginal users are even less likely to be regular users of these drugs than those using them for medical reasons only.' Thus, to include marginal users would weaken the definition.

For similar reasons, the use of other prescription drugs will generally be ignored. The only way of determining the respondent's illicit use of cough medicine, Darvon, morphine, and Demerol is his admission of using them in larger doses or more frequently than prescribed.3 Respondents were not asked about the use of these drugs to get high or about involvement in the illicit buying or selling of these drugs. In addition, data not presented indicate that persons who use these drugs in larger doses or more frequently than prescribed are very unlikely to become regular (monthly or more) users of these drugs, when compared to those using them as directed by a medical doctor.

In the rest of this book, then, the "illicit" use of drugs will refer to either the use of illegal drugs (marihuana, hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin) or the intentional use of methedrine, amphetamines, and sedatives to get high or use in larger doses or more frequently than prescribed by a doctor. Frequently the term "illicit" will be dropped and "drug use" employed to mean "illicit drug use" as defined here.

B. FREQUENCY OF CANNABIS USE INDEX AND THE MULTIPLE DRUG USE INDEX

In this section two important indices will be developed. Both attempt to operationalize the central idea, promoted by the official position, that the use of marihuana or hard drugs is an important factor in explaining certain outcomes (use of other dangerous drugs, crime, political militancy, poor grades, etc.) not completely explained by social or psychological factors.4

The Frequency of Cannabis Use Index attempts to measure what the official position means by marihuana use. In the early part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate "the greatest frequency with which you have ever used: (a) marihuana and (b) hashish." In the latter part of the questionnaire, students were asked, "How recently and how often do (did) you usually use marihuana or hashish?" Answers to both questions permitted a double check on the respondent's truthfulness. In comparing the question about the greatest frequency of use with the question about the recency of cannabis use, the data demonstrate that about 1.5% of the total sample were "highly inconsistent."

A person was highly inconsistent if he indicated that he had used cannabis in one question but not in the other or if he indicated a much greater use in the recency question than in the frequency question. It is probable that some of the 1.5% simply marked the wrong answer in one question or the other. Indeed, an inconsistency level of 1.5% could almost happen by random marking. This is especially true when the complex nature of the response categories on the question about the recency of cannabis is considered. Hence, overt lying on the questionnaire was probably rare.

Respondents were classified on the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index as (a) "nonusers" if they marked the "never" response in all three questions; (b) "experimental users" if they indicated in all three questions that they had used marihuana or hashish less frequently than once per month; (c) "moderate users" if they were not at the time using marihuana as often as once per week but had used cannabis at some time in their life with the frequency of once a month or greater or if they had regularly (weekly) used cannabis at one point in time but had stopped or reduced their use of cannabis; and (d) "regular users" if they were then using marihuana or hashish at least once a week. Because the definitions of experimental, moderate, and regular users are easily forgotten, other terms will be used interchangeably: "less-than-monthly users" for "experimental users"; "less-than-weekly users" for "moderate users"; and "weekly-or-more users" for "regular users."

"Cannabis use" and "marihuana use" will also be interchangeable in the following pages but will refer to the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index. In the total sample, 45% of the respondents were nonusers of cannabis; 21% less than monthly users; 16%, less than weekly cannabis users; and 18%, weekly cannabis users. Only one respondent out of 3498 could not be classified, because he had failed to answer the three questions on marihuana or hashish use.

Thus, 55% of the sample had ever used cannabis, but the sample was intentionally designed to overestimate the amount of cannabis use on college campuses in the New York metropolitan area.' Even so, the proportion of students who reported ever using cannabis is not too different from findings reported elsewhere. Goode and McGlothlin present similar levels of cannabis use in samples of social science classes.' In the spring of 1968 at a California college Blum determined that 57% had used marihuana or hashish at some point in their lives, while 16% indicated regular or considerable use." It must be noted that the levels of cannabis use in California and New York are probably higher than they are in the rest of the country.' Gallup reports that in December 1970, 44% had used marihuana and 17% were using it once per week.9 Groves and Rossi's national college student sample conducted in the same semester as the present study (spring 1970) found that 31% had tried marihuana, while 14% used it every week or two.19

Despite the biased nature of the sample obtained in the present survey, the level of marihuana use compares very well with one of the best and most widely quoted surveys of drug use ever conducted. In August 1970 (four to six months after the present data were collected), the New York State Narcotics Addiction Control Commission (NACC) conducted intensive interviews with a random sample of 7500 New York State households with persons ages fourteen and older. The results of this statewide survey were reported by Carl Chambers." With the permission of NACC, the present author was permitted to examine some of the tables upon which the Chambers report was based. Fortunately, unpublished tables present data about the drug use among college students in New York City, a population that is roughly similar to the present sample. The statewide study found that 50% of the New York City college students had tried cannabis and that 19.5% had used cannabis six or more times in the past thirty days. Thus, the incidence of cannabis use in New York City was only about 5% lower than the present sample. Although the definitions of "regular" use are somewhat different, it appears that both studies report comparable levels of regular cannabis use.

Even more impressively, both studies find similar sex differences in cannabis use. The NACC survey found that 57% of the males versus 36% of the females in city colleges had tried cannabis; similar figures for the present study reported in Graph 3.1 show that 63% of the males versus 48% of the females had tried cannabis. In addition, the NACC study finds that males are 12% more likely than females (24% versus 12%) to be regular users; this is almost precisely the same difference in regular use found in the present study (25% males versus 13% females). Further, roughly similar incidences of hard-drug use were obtained. The NACC survey found the following percentages of city students using hard drugs: LSD, 16%; methedrine, 11%; cocaine, 8%; and heroin, 1.2%. The present study yields hallucinogens, 19%; methedrine, 14%; cocaine, 8%; and heroin, 4%. Comparison of amphetamine and sedative use is not possible, since the NACC survey separates the use of drugs that have been combined in the present study.
The basic conclusion emerging from the comparison of the NACC survey with the present survey is that despite all the biases built into the study design, the present sample closely reflects the incidence of drug use among the college population in New York City. The author is at somewhat of a loss to explain such convergence when he expected a greater difference. Perhaps the actual incidence of cannabis use among city college students in spring 1970 (when the present data were collected) was 4-5% lower than in August 1970. (See the discussion of national college student drug use trends below, section D.) But it is more likely that college students attending classes in almost any department are relatively heterogeneous in terms of social background, life style, and drug use. But particular colleges attract certain kinds of students. If a researcher samples from a wide variety of institutional types, he will obtain a fairly good cross section of the entire student population in a given geographical area. Thus, the small differences in drug-use rates between the present survey and the NACC survey suggest that the relationships between variables and results reported in succeeding chapters are probably a good approximation of the actual behavior of New York City college students.

The other major variable, the Multiple Drug Use Index, is an attempt to measure what public officials mean by "drug use." This index is a combination of the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index and the illicit use of hard drugs (hallucinogens, methedrine, amphetamines, sedatives, cocaine, and heroin). The number of hard drugs that respondents had used illicitly was computed and related to the frequency of cannabis use.

Table 4 shows that cannabis use is strongly related to the illicit use of hard drugs (this finding is discussed at length in Chapters 6 and 7). The present chapter will use Table 4 to construct the Multiple Drug Use Index. Categories based on respondents' varying degrees of involvement with drugs were set up: (1) "nonuser" if they had not used cannabis or any hard drugs; (2) "cannabis only" if they had used marihuana or hashish but not hard drugs; (3) "hard drugs/1-2" if they had illicitly used one or two of the six hard drugs (about 90e/ of this category had also used cannabis); and (4) "hard drugs/3+" if they had illicitly used three or more hard drugs (all but one of the respondents in this category had used cannabis). The proportion of the total sample in each category of the Multiple Drug Use Index is as follows:

This index was originally conceptualized as a typology that would isolate "pot heads," "acid heads," and "narcotic users." However, such distinct types did not emerge. Those who were the heaviest cannabis users were most likely to use all hard drugs.

C. FACTORS RELATED TO THE FREQUENCY OF CANNABIS USE INDEX AND MULTIPLE DRUG USE INDEX

This study is most interested, of course, in why persons use drugs. Most researchers approach this question by relating (sociologists use the term "crosstabulating") many independent variables to one or two measures of drug use. Generally the independent variables are background characteristics such as sex, race, socioeconomic status, age, and religious preference. Chapter 4 will attempt to analyze further why such factors are related to drug use, by holding constant certain factors that increase our understanding of the social processes at work. The present section will restrict itself to demonstrating that (1) various background variables are related in almost the same way to the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index as they are to the Multiple Drug Use Index; and (2) that other competent random studies of drug use obtain relationships between background variables and drug use that are highly comparable to those reported here.

The graphs that follow present the relationship between each independent variable and these two indices of drug use. The number of cases may not add to the total (N = 3498) because some respondents refused or failed to indicate their sex, race, or family income and have been excluded from analysis.

Data in Graph 3.1 demonstrate that there is virtually no racial difference in the use of cannabis. Blacks are as likely as whites to try cannabis. Whites are slightly (11% versus 7%) more likely to try three or more hard drugs. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other study of a college population that has reported the relationship between race and drug use. Langrod shows that there is virtually no racial or ethnic difference in the use of marihuana among institutionalized narcotics addicts." Nor do racial differences appear among high school students or the New York State population.13

Males are more likely than females to use marihuana and to be multiple drug users. Further, 25% of the males in our sample are weekly marihuana smokers, while only 13% of the females are. Males are also almost twice as likely as females to be multiple drug users. Similar findings are reported by Blum, Gallup, Chambers, Goode, and Kaplan. 14 However, the national surveys of high school drug use find no significant sex differences.15

The data here demonstrate a positive relationship between family income and drug use. Students from the high-income families were 24% more likely to try cannabis than students from low-income families. Class-related differences are not too strongly related to the use of three or more dangerous drugs. The same conclusion obtains when father's occupation or education are related to drug use. The relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and drug use is paralleled by results from other studies. Gallup, Blum, Goode, Chambers, and Josephson show similar increases in the use of cannabis according to the SES of the parents, although the differences are not as strong as in the present study.' 6

In Graph 3.2 is found an even more striking relationship between drug use and the frequency of religious observance." Those who attend church weekly or more are much less likely to use drugs than are people who never attend church. Weekly churchgoers are 50% (77% vesus 26%) more likely to abstain from marihuana than people who never attend religous services. Further, only 4% of present weekly churchgoers, but 31% of nonattenders, are weekly cannabis users. Those who never attend church are also more likely to use multiple drugs. Only Boggs does not support this finding.18

There seems to be no relationship between age and drug use. Blum and Gallup indicate that freshmen may be somewhat less likely than juniors and seniors to try marihuana but do not indicate statistical significance.19 However, there are important age differences outside of the college population. Gallup found that 12% of young adults (ages 21-29) versus 1% of those over 50 had ever used marihuatia." Manheimer found that 49% of the males aged 18-24 and 1% of males 55 and older had used marihuana; the corresponding levels of use for females were 32% and 0% in his San Francisco area sample." In high school populations, the proportion of students ever using cannabis increases with age. 22

It is demonstrated elsewhere that many other factors such as living arrangements, college major, and high school background are significantly related to the use of cannabis and other drugs.23 The relationships between independent variables and drug use here are generally consistent with other surveys. For some variables, such as year in college, sex, and church attendance, one finds a strong relationship where another researcher finds a nonexistent or weak relationship. But such disagreements between drug researchers are rare.
Even though the studies to which the present one has been compared are based on different samples of college students, high school students, or adults, there is a remarkable similarity between such studies and the present study in the proportion of marihuana triers and weekly users as well as the strength of the relationships between certain standard variables and drug use. The conclusions to be drawn from this study, although not based on random-sample data, are certainly based on data comparable to that in other well-known studies of drug usage among college students.

D. INCREASING USE OF DRUGS AMONG HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS

Drug use has increased greatly in the past five years among middle-class college students. Blum notes about a threefold increase in the use of marihuana and LSD during a period of less than three years.24 Goode presents evidence showing that since 1967, there appears to be "a monthly increase in the percentage of college students who have tried marihuana of just under one percent. "25

If there has been an increase in drug use, the data here should reflect this increase. Although this study did not have samples at two or more different points in time from the same population, it did record the year in college of each student. One can, then, approximate a trend study by comparing students who are presently at different phases in their education. This approach assumes, of course, that about the same kinds of students are recruited each year and that comparing class in college is like comparing similar samples.26

Data on the year in college and the use of cannabis are presented iv the last part of Graph 3.2. There is no significant difference in the use of marihuana or other drugs when the four classes of students are compared. This finding was surprising to many students, especially upperclassmen, to whom the finding was presented. One dismayed senior remarked, "How can that be? When I started college, no one had heard of the drugs that freshmen today use regularly." Nevertheless, our data show no differences between freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors in cannabis use and multiple drug use. This evidence would tend to indicate that there has been no change in drug use in the last few years.

Nothing could be further from the truth, however. There has been a great increase in the illicit use of all forms of drugs; but to discover this change, one must examine, not the present use of drugs, but rather levels of use at some constant point in the past. The increase in drug use is occurring before students get to college; to measure such a change we asked our respondents to indicate which drugs they had used before graduation from high school.

Graph 3.3 shows a striking trend in the use of drugs. Take marihuana, for example. Of those who were seniors in the sample (most were in the high school class of 1966), 9% had tried cannabis, while 34% of the freshmen (high school class of 1969) had tried cannabis before graduation from high school. For comparison purposes, 53% of those who were college freshmen when they took the questionnaire, about nine months after graduation from high school, had ever tried cannabis. Thus, about 20% of the freshmen had "turned on" between high school graduation in June 1969 and taking the questionnaire in the spring of 1970. However, if the trend in high school cannabis use is projected to 1970, about 40% of the high school class of 1970 should have tried cannabis by the spring of 1970. Thus, it appears that the college freshmen sample may have a cannabis-use level that is 10-15% greater than the high school seniors behind them at the same point in time; this differential may be due to the effect of attending college or the biased nature of the Ethics Department sample.

However, the most striking feature about Graph 3.3 is the great similarity between the trends obtained from students' reports of drug use in high school and the trends obtained from national surveys of marihuana use in the U.S. college population." It appears that the students in this sample were, as high school seniors, about one year ahead of the national college population; but the rate of increase in marihuana use is just about the same in the two groups.

This is the strongest possible evidence supporting the contention that the present sample is adequate and compares favorably with data based upon national surveys. Although the actual level of drug use is higher in the sample than in the nation, this is what was expected. But the patterns of drug use and rates of change are just about identical.

These trends also hold for the use of other drugs. When the present freshmen were high school seniors (June 1969), 9% reported trying hallucinogens, exactly the same rate reported by Groves and Rossi in the spring of 1970.28 It is more difficult to make comparisons for prescription drugs. Groves and Rossi asked their students to include the medical as well as nonmedical use of "pills." Gallup presents the evidence separately for barbiturates and amphetamines. Gallup has not asked questions about cocaine and heroin use, while Groves and Rossi only report information for heroin." It is probable that college students in the New York area are somewhat ahead of the national college population in using various hard drugs.

One can conclude that since 1966 there has been a massive increase in the use of marihuana and, recently, of hard drugs. Evidence not presented here shows that this increase in drug use is not due to drug users being more likely to drop out of college." The trends in drug use among the national college population are similar to trends in the sample.

E. THE PEER CULTURE AND MARIHUANA USE

The question arises, how did marihuana use become prevalent in the high school population? An attempted answer to this question must turn to one of the main theoretical ideas suggested in the first chapter: the peer culture. The basic hypothesis holds that those who spend a great deal of time with peers in settings in which adult controls are weak are more likely to engage in a wide variety of unconventional activities than those who do not spend so much time with peers. In addition, it holds that those who are highly involved in the peer culture are the most likely to accept the operating innovation of cannabis use." Thus, a large proportion of those who are highly involved in the peer culture should use cannabis at an earlier time than persons who are less involved in the peer culture.

In order to test this theory, an indicator of peer culture participation at an earlier point in life is needed. The study has tried to operationalize this concept by concentrating upon indicators of commitment to a peer group while respondents were in high school and earlier. The students were asked, "While you were in high school, did you ever?" and "Which did you do five or more times?" Two of the possible responses were "Drive around with friends" and "Spend time around a local 'hangout' " (a store, drive-in, or the street). At another point in the questionnaire, they were asked, "Did you ever date at an early age (14 or younger)?" Respondents were classified on the "Peer Culture Index": (1) "none" if they never "drove around," "hung out," or dated at an early age; (2) "some" if they had done only one or more of these things, but were not high; (3) "high" if they had done two or more of the following three things: (a) dated at an early age, (b) "drove around" five or more times, and (c) "hung out" five or more times while in high school. The basic intention of this index is to classify a person according to the degree of involvement with peers prior to attending college.

This index has certain weaknesses. More than half of the sample grew up in New York City, where the legal driving age is eighteen; many teenagers thus have little oppO'rtunity to drive around. Even as college students, a third of the sample did not have a driver's license. But the lack of a driver's license probably does not affect many highly peer-oriented persons. If the peer group theory is correct, one member of the peer group would probably have been eighteen and had access to a car before graduation from high school. But even if the legal driving age kept many from being classified as high on the Peer Culture Index, they would fall into the "some" category. Thus, the category "high" may be short some cases. Nevertheless, a sizable proportion (about 25%) of the sample are high on the Peer Culture Index. At the other extreme, persons who are somewhat peer-oriented may be misclassified under "none," since driving around and hanging out are predominately male activities. The "date at an early age" item is included to increase female involvement in the peer culture.

Despite the weaknesses of the Peer Culture Index, it will serve to demonstrate that cannabis has entered the peer culture. Graph 3.4 presents information about cannabis use in high school among those who are highly involved and not involved in the peer culture. Data about those who are somewhat involved are presented in Appendix A, Table 18, and fall between the two extreme categories. Also, race is held constant and among whites, sex. The sample of white males and females is probably adequate.

However, blacks in the sample are by no means representative of the black population. The blacks are female disproportionately and less involved in the Peer Culture index than white females. Perhaps the sample is somewhat valid for middle-class blacks. Despite the small sample, it will be demonstrated that the blacks show a different trend in marihuana use than the more representative sample of white college students.

Graph 3.4 provides a striking demonstration of the early and rapidly increasing cannabis use among those highly involved in the peer culture. For example, among white males in the high school class of 1966 who were high on the Peer Culture Index, about 20% had used cannabis before high school graduation. But cannabis use was much higher among their successors in the class of 1969;32 about 55% had tried cannabis in high school. A similar trend is noted among white females who were highly involved in the peer culture: less than IVA in the class of 1966 versus more than 40% in the class of 1969 had tried cannabis in high school. Thus, there has been an increase of about 30% in the use of cannabis among high school students who were highly involved in the peer culture between 1966 and 1969.

Among those who were not involved in peer-culture activities in high school, the level of cannabis use is much lower: 5% of white males of the class of 1966 had tried cannabis, while about a fourth in the class of 1969 had tried cannabis in high school. Similar findings hold for white females; few (about 10%) of the non-peer-culture-oriented white females in the class of 1969 had tried cannabis in high school. Thus, those highly involved in the peer culture began at an earlier age and have "turned on" more rapidly than their peers who are not involved in the peer culture.

But it remains to be demonstrated that cannabis has entered the peer culture rather than that cannabis use created new kinds of social groups. Despite a small number of cases, the evidence demonstrates that the black students in our sample have not been a part of this trend towards the increasing utilization of cannabis. Among the blacks who were highly involved in the peer culture, about half of those in the high school classes of 1966 and 1967 (N = 12) have used cannabis; the same proportion of their successors in the class of 1968 and 1969 had tried cannabis in high school. In a similar fashion, there is no sizable increase among the black students who were not involved in the peer culture; about 15% of all four classes had tried cannabis in high school. The explanation for this finding is that cannabis use has long been a feature of the black peer culture. Indeed, our data, despite their limitations, on black college students compare reasonably well with the one major study of a normal black population. Robins and Murphy found that 30% of a sample of St. Louis black males had tried cannabis before reaching the age of 20 (in 1950-1954),33 while 23% of the college blacks (predominately female) had tried cannabis before high school graduation. Thus, the little evidence there is tends to demonstrate that the use of marihuana may have remained relatively stable in black populations over long periods of time in urban areas as diverse as New York and St. Louis.

But there is another reason why cannabis has entered the peer culture. Although not presented here, evidence suggests that freshmen were as likely as seniors in college to have been involved in skipping school, buying or selling liquor or cigarettes, defying parents, and committing minor theft before graduation from high school. While those highly involved in the peer culture were more likely to participate in these activities than those less involved, the null relationship between year of high school graduation and involvement in such activities was not affected when the Peer Culture Index, race, and sex were held constant.34 The basic idea is that involvement in behaviors such as skipping school, minor theft, and defying parents have long been institutionalized as legitimate activities of those who are involved in the peer culture. Each year, about the same proportion of high school graduates at each level of peer-culture participation has been involved in these activities.

The only activity that shows a striking change between the high school classes of 1966-1969 is the use of cannabis. The increasing utilization of marihuana has been most striking among whites who are highly involved in the peer culture. Cannabis use has been incorporated into the white high school peer culture as a legitimate activity. However, our evidence demonstrate that cannabis use.,among blacks has not significantly changed in the same time period, probably because cannabis use has long been institutionalized as a black peer cultural activity.

It is important to note that this new operating invention35 of cannabis use has probably entered peer groups that were relatively cohesive prior to the use of cannabis and has not occurred because of a general change in adolescent behavior. This conclusion is warranted because whites who were high on the Peer Culture Index had a stable, but high, incidence of involvement in minor theft and school truancy; seniors were as likely as freshmen to be involved in minor theft and truancy in high school. Furthermore, information that can be recomputed from Appendix A shows that about the same proportion of college students in the sample (27% of freshmen, 26% of sophomores, 31% of juniors, and 26% of seniors) were high on the Peer Culture Index before leaving high school. Thus, over these four years, peer-culture participation in high school has remained relatively constant, as have truancy and theft among those highly involved in the peer culture. From this, one may conclude that there has been little shift in adolescent behavior in the high school population as a whole. The peer culture has remained relatively cohesive and stable during these four years. The only behavior that has changed is the use of cannabis; the greatest use has occurred among those who are highly peer-oriented. From this, peer groups have added cannabis to their repertory of unconventional behaviors. Cannabis has entered the peer culture and is becoming institutionalized as a legitimate behavior to those who are highly involved in the peer culture and, to a lesser extent, to those who are less involved in the peer culture.

As shown in Graph 3.3 the use of drugs other than cannabis is also growing.36 But the increasing use of hard drugs has emerged from the development of the drug subculture. Evidence about this concept will be found in the following chapters.

REFERENCES

1. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1236-1296 (1970).
2. Bruce D. Johnson, Social Determinants of the Use of "Dangerous Drugs" by College Students, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, privately published by author, June 1971, p. 68.
3. Ibid.
4. Gene R. Haislip, "Current Issues in the Prevention and Control of Marihuana Abuse," Paper presented to the First National Conference on Student Drug Involvement, U.S. National Student Association, Aug. 16, 1967, p. 4.
5. See Chap. 2.
6. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, p. 204. Recomputation of data provided by a psychology class at U.C.L.A. shows that 59% have ever tried marihuana: W. McGlothlin, K. Jamison, and S. Rosenblatt, "Marijuana and the Use of Other Drugs," Nature, 228 (Dec. 19, 1970), 1228.
7. Richard Blum, Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1969, p. 189. Blum does not indicate what he means by "regular or considerable use."
8. John Kaplan, Marijuana—The New Prohibition, Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 23-28.
9. For a convenient summary of Gallup data on college student drug use, see "Latest Findings on Marijuana," U.S. News and World Report, Feb. 1, 1971, p. 27.
10. W. E. Groves, P. H. Rossi, and D. Grafstein, "Study of Life Styles and Campus Communities," Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Dec. 1970, p. 4.
11. C. D. Chambers, An Assessment of Drug Use in the General Population, New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, May 1971. We thank Dr. Douglas Lipton, director of research, NACC, for permission to publish information on drug use among New York City college students.
12. John Langrod, "Secondary Drug Use among Heroin Users," International Journal of Addictions, 5(4) (Dec. 1970), 626.
13. Merit Publishing Co., Merit Publishing Company's National Survey of High School High Achievers, Northfield, Ill.: Merit Publishing Co., 1970. Chambers, Ref. 11, p. 100.
14. Blum, Ref. 7, p. 64. Gallup International, "Special Report on the Attitudes of College Students," Gallup Opinion Index, Report No. 48, Princeton, N.J., June 1969, p. 30. Goode, Ref. 6, pp. 33-34. Kaplan, Ref. 8, pp. 23-25. Chambers, Ref. 11, reports that men are more likely to use nonprescription drugs, but women are more likely to use prescription drugs.
15. E. Josephson et al., "Adolescent Marijuana Use: Report on a National Survey," Paper presented at the First International Conference on Student Drug Surveys, Newark, N.J., Sept. 14, 1971, p. 7. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Appendix II, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 947 (henceforth, Schafer Report).
16. Gallup, Ref. 14, p. 30. Blum, Ref. 7, p. 66. Goode, Ref. 6, p. 37. Chambers, Ref. 11, p. 100. Josephson, Ref. 15, p. 6.
17. Goode, Ref. 6, p. 42.
18. R. A. Boggs et al., "Drug Dependence in Michigan, Part III: A Study of Attitudes and Actions of the Young People of Michigan," Lansing, Michigan House of Representatives, Special House Committee on Narcotics, Dec. 1968, Table IV.
19. Blum, Ref. 7, p. 64. Gallup, Ref. 14, p. 30.
20. Gallup Poll, "One Young Adult in Eight Has Tried 'Pot' " (American Institute of Public Opinion), Princeton, NJ., Oct. 25, 1969.
21. D. I. Manheimer, G. D. Mellinger, and M. Baiter, "Marijuana Use Among Urban Adults," Science, 166 (Dec. 19, 1969), 1544.
22. R. G. Smart, "Illicit Drug Use in Canada," International Journal of Addictions, 6(3) (Sept. 1971), 394.
23. Johnson, Ref. 2, Appendix B.
24. Blum, Ref. 7, p. 189.
25. Erich Goode, "Drug Escalation: Marijuana Use as Related to the Use of Dangerous Drugs," Paper prepared for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Oct. 31, 1971, p. 80.
26. This kind of analysis by year in college is utilized by H. C. Selvin, and W. 0. Hagstrom, "Determinants of Support for Civil Liberties," British Journal of Sociology, 11/1960), repr. in S. M. Lipset and S. S. Wolin, Berkeley Student Revolt, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965, p. 502.
27. Gallup, Ref. 9, p. 27. Groves, Rossi, and Grafstein, Ref. 10, p. 4. "The Marijuana Problem," Newsweek, July 24, 1967, pp. 46-52; and "The New Mood on Campus," ibid., Dec. 29, 1969, p. 44; Linda Charlton, New York Times, Feb. 10, 1972, p. 16.
28. Groves, Rossi, and Grafstein, Ref. 10, p. 4.
29. Ibid. Gallup, Ref. 9, p. 27.
30. Johnson, Ref. 2, pp. 85-88.
31. E. W. Vaz and J. Scott, "A Perspective on Middle Class Delinquency," in Edmund W. Vaz, Middle Class Juvenile Delinquency, New York: Harper and Row, 1967, p. 214.
32. When we refer to the high school class of (year) we are really referring to students who are freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors in the present sample.
33. Recomputed from Lee N. Robins and G. E. Murphy, "Drug Use in a Normal Population of Young Negro Men," American Journal of Public Health, 57 (Sept. 1967), 1589.
34. We hope to document this point in a later paper.
35. Vaz and Scott, Ref. 31, p. 214.
36. The evidence for this conclusion is meager. See Erich Goode, "Trends in College Drug Use: Report from One Campus," Paper delivered at the First International Conference on Student Drug Surveys, Newark, NJ., Sept. 14, 1971. See a summary of trends: Bruce D. Johnson, "Student Drug Use: Implications of Drug Surveys for a Dangerous Drug Policy," Paper presented to the 30th International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sept. 7, 1972.