The use of drugs other than marihuana has become a source of considerable concern in American society in the 1970s. The use of illegal drugs (Cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens) and the illicit use of medically prescribed drugs (amphetamines, sedatives, and legal opiates) has probably increased two to five times since 1966 among U.S. college students.' Federal laws state that these drugs are "dangerous" because they "have a high potential for abuse." When abused, these drugs may cause physiological and psychological dependence, harm the physical health of the user, and perhaps cause persons to engage in behavior that is harmful to society?

Regardless of the actual physiological harm caused by cannabis, the most important controversy involving cannabis is whether marihuana use "leads to" the use of other dangerous drugs. This chapter and the following one will interchangeably use the terms "other," "hard," or "dangerous" drugs to refer to the illicit use, as defined in Chapter 3, of amphetamines, sedatives (barbiturates or tranquilizers), methedrine, hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin.

This stepping-stone theory derives from the now classic position of the Bureau of Narcotics, which connects marihuana to heroin use. The steppingstone theory has an interesting history. In testimony before the House of Representatives in 1937, the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, was asked whether "the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user." Anslinger replied, "No sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction."3 The Bureau of Narcotics position began to change in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The stepping-stone theory became, under a new director, Giordano, the main reason for maintaining the illegality of marihuana. In a pamphlet printed as late as 1965, the Bureau of Narcotics set forth the "simple" stepping-stone theory:

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the smoking of the marihuana cigarette is a dangerous first step on the road which usually leads to enslavement by heroin.... Most teenage addicts started by smoking marihuana cigarettes. Never let anyone persuade you to smoke even one marihuana cigarette. It is pure poison.'

This simple stepping-stone theory directly blames marihuana use for heroin use and ignores the social and psychological factors that may affect this progression. Former attorney general John Mitchell linked marihuana and heroin by a psychological concept: "A kid gets into steady use of marijuana. After a while he gets less charge from it, and this psychological dependency causes him to move on to the harder stuff.' The director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) in 1970 held that

... the overwhelming majority of those who use heroin or LSD in the U.S. and England have had prior experience with either marijuana or hashish. Thus, ... if many individuals did not get involved with marijuana, they would never get around to using the more potent and dangerous drugs.'

With one exception,' support for this simple progression theory comes from studies demonstrating that institutionalized heroin addicts used marihuana before using heroin. Ball, Glazer, and Weppner analyze the patterns of drug use among institutionalized heroin addicts and discover that more than a majority of heroin addicts have used marihuana prior to heroin use, although all studies find much variation by various demographic characteristics such as sex, urban-rural, North-South, race, and age.8 One problem with such evidence is that the population selected for study is predominantly urban slum dwellers who have been contacted by the law for their drug habits. Very few middle-class drug users are included in such studies. A second problem is that the wrong comparison is being made. Instead of a sample of heroin users, a sample of marihuana users in a noninstitutionalized population is needed. Data that show how many marihuana
users have tried heroin and how many have not tried heroin is needed to demonstrate the correct progression.

A further problem is that proponents of the stepping-stone theory tend to ignore evidence from societies where there is much cannabis use and little heroin (or hard-drug) use or where heroin (or other drug) use is common and marihuana use is unknown. For example, cannabis use is legal and sold by government monopolies in India and most predominantly Moslem countries. Important segments of such populations use cannabis but never touch opiates.' Even India, which supplied much of the opium for Chinese opium smokers between 1830 and 1900, has few opiate addicts when compared with the probable number of cannabis users. The Chopra brothers (who are frequently cited by U.S. public officials to support anticannabis laws) did not carefully consider the steppingstone theory in a 1957 article on cannabis. In a study of habitual cannabis users in 1935 (and cited in their 1957 article), the Chopras found that the "habitual use of alcohol as well as opium along with cannabis drugs occurred in about 9% of the cases."10 Hence, the use of other drugs appears uncommon among cannabis users in India.

On the other hand, in Hong Kong, where perhaps one out of every eight males is addicted to opium, cannabis use is virtually unknown." Likewise, Vancouver, Canada, has had a high level of opiate use for many years; cannabis was virtually unknown until the late 1960s.12 Ball and Chambers found that a large number of southern opiate addicts had not used marihuana or heroin.' 3 In addition, it appears that Anslinger may have been correct in 1937; many heroin and opiate users had apparently not used marihuana prior to their heroin use.14
Although marihuana use is not always associated with the use of other drugs in the U.S. or foreign countries, it is very clear that marihuana is somehow related to the use of hard drugs in many Western countries, especially'among youth populations. The American public appears to have accepted the stepping-stone theory. A Louis Harris poll in May 1969 found that 85% of the U.S. population agreed that "pot leads to habit forming drugs."' 5 Gallup found that 12% of the adult population spontaneously mentioned that marihuana "leads to the use of stronger drugs," when asked what the effects of marihuana are by interviewers.16

This belief has considerable basis in fact.17 Supporters of present laws against marihuana and proponents of marihuana legalization are likely to agree that marihuana smokers are significantly more likely to use heroin or other drugs than nonmarihuana users. However, diverse groups draw different conclusions from this correlation; BNDD officials support marihuana criminalization, while drug users feel that marihuana should be legalized. How is it that such diametrically opposed conclusions can be drawn from the same basic statistical relationship?

The answer to this dilemma lies in the different interpretations given to the concept "leads to" and other factors that are seen as affecting the marihuana-tohard-drug progression. There are at least six distinct theories that attempt to explain how marihuana use leads to the use of dangerous drugs: the (1) pharmacological, (2) disturbed-personality, (3) euphoria, (4) increased benefits, (5) sophisticated stepping-stone, and (6) subculture theories. The last two theories are much more important than the other four.
The pharmacological theory holds that the use of cannabis "invariably causes" the use of heroin or other drugs. According to this theory, the pharmacological effects of cannabis on the body are such that the user needs some other drug in order to remain stable or to keep from becoming sick. Opiate addiction is a good example of the basic principles of this pharmacological theory. After the daily use of sizable doses of heroin, the body becomes physically dependent upon that drug. If the drug is not used, the person will suffer serious withdrawal symptoms. Yet the heroin addict's misery can be easily alleviated by the administration of some other opiate such as morphine, Demerol, or methadone.18 A similar dependency on cannabis may lead to hard drugs.
There are certain basic flaws in the pharmacological theory as it applies to marihuana. While there has been no scientific research that shows physiological dependence upon cannabis, a great deal of research demonstrates the lack of such physiological dependence upon marihuana.19

The theory can be disproved by showing that other factors affect the relationship between the frequency of marihuana use and heroin use. If, on the other hand, all social and psychological variables do not affect the marihuanato-heroin relationship, this theory might be more plausible. It does not figure prominently in the scientific literature dealing with the marihuana controversy. No known reputable scientist holds to the theory; even the BNDD and other public officials no longer support the pharmacological theory.

The other five theories treat "leads to" as a statistical association to be explained. This statistical association holds that more cannabis users will use heroin or other drugs than nonmarihuana users. This statistical association happens to be true and has been uncovered in several studies of different populations. Among St. Louis black males, Robins and Murphy found that 26% of the marihuana users also used heroin, while none of the nonmarihuana users did so." Several surveys of drug use in college populations find that the more frequently marihuana is used, the greater the likelihood of using a wide variety of other drugs.21 Josephson, investigating a national high school population, found that less than 2% of the nonmarihuana users had tried (nonmedically) any of the psychoactive drugs. However, among the "occasional and frequent users" (ten or more times) of marihuana, 12% had tried heroin, 55% had tried LSD, and about 70% had tried barbiturates or amphetamines.22 This information, in widely differing populations, demonstrates that the more frequently marihuana is used, the greater the probability of using dangerous drugs. All of the following theories assume the truth of this relationship, but they disagree about why this statistical association is true. Each theory proposes different variables that are hypothesized to intervene between the use of marihuana and the use of hard drugs.

The second major theory for explaining the association between marihuana use and the use of harder drugs, which the data will not be able to disprove directly with the data, is the disturbed-personality theory. Blaine, for example, sees psychological deficiencies as precipitating drug use:

An individual who feels inadequate or perhaps perverted sees in drugs a way out of himself and into a totally new body and mind. . .. Often this search for a new self is what leads to escalation and a frantic search for new drugs which lead to addiction."

According to this approach, the individual uses drugs in a "clumsy and misplaced effort to cope with many of one's most pressing and seemingly insoluble problems."24 Kaplan, a lawyer, probably states most clearly how this personality theory may account for hard drug use:

A person who has a predisposition to take drugs would probably use different drugs in succession until he found one that satisfied his particular predisposition.. .. Marijuana is used before the dangerous drugs, since it is the least dangerous and usually the most available of the illegal drugs."

Although the present study cannot disprove this theory, it can show that psychological variables are not necessary to explain the progression from marihuana use to heroin use; social factors do the job quite adequately.

A third theory, promoted by the BNDD, holds that the link between marihuana and hard drugs revolves around the search for euphoria, hence the name euphoria theory. This theory was directly endorsed by an attorney of the BNDD in a speech still distributed by the BNDD to interested citizens:

One particularly grave danger of habitual marihuana use is that there is often a clear pattern of graduation from marihuana to the stronger addictive opiates. Those who seek personal well-being and exhilaration through the stimuli of drugs ultimately discover that opiates have more to offer."

The former director of the BNDD also directly endorses this theory: "The use of marijuana developes a taste for drug intoxication which, in turn, leads many people to the use of more potent drugs—even heroin.' It is possible to demonstrate empirically the validity of the euphoria theory by developing an indicator of the desire to get high. Examination of the relationship between the frequency of marihuana use and hard-drug use while holding constant the desire to get high or not will allow a test of this theory.
A fourth theory is expoused by pro-marihuana commentators. The increased benefits theory holds that marihuana users will experience certain beneficial effects, which are even more intense when other drugs are used. DeQuincey (opium), Gautier (hashish), Ginsberg (marihuana), and Leary (LSD)" have attributed to these drugs a large array of benefits. It is possible to find writers and users ascribing to the opiates, cannabis, hallucinogens, and amphetamines but not barbiturates and tranquilizers the power to expand consciousness, increase creativity and sensitivity to music and color, serve as a releaser of inhibitions and an aphrodesiac, enhance pleasure and sociability, turn hostility into friendship, and see past the artificiality of middle-class culture.29 Specifically, nonusers and marihuana users are urged to turn on to drugs other than marihuana because of the increased potential benefit to the user. It is possible to test the increased benefits theory to a limited extent. If this theory is correct, those who report experiencing such benefits from marihuana should be more likely to graduate to other drugs, independent of their own marihuana use.

A fifth theory, increasingly promoted by officials from the BNDD and World Health Organization, is the sophisticated stepping-stone theory. The basic tenet of this theory is that the link between marihuana and hard-drug use cannot be fully explained by psychological and social factors." Thus, this theory admits that nonpharmacological or nonbiological factors may influence the progression, but marihuana use still has some independent influence upon hard-drug use.

In addition, the sophisticated stepping-stone theory increasingly accepts the sociological idea of subcultures but blames marihuana for leading persons into drug subcultures:

Abuse of cannabis facilitates the association with social groups and subcultures involved with more dangerous drugs, such as opiates or barbiturates. Transition to the use of such drugs would be a consequence of this association rather than an inherent effect of cannabis. 3'

A similar note is sounded by a BNDD pamphlet entitled Fact Sheets, under the section on marihuana:

Researchers point out that a person predisposed to abuse of one drug may be likely to abuse other, stronger drugs. Also, users of one drug may be exposed to a variety of other drug users and sellers and through this association may be encouraged to experiment with more potent drugs. 32

This theory implies that marihuana is undesirable because the person will gain friends who use other drugs. This is essentially a new version of the idea that marihuana use helps one gain "evil" associates. The important implication is that marihuana use, and not some other social factor, is the basic reason persons gain friends who use hard drugs. One may prove or disprove this theory by investigating the relationship between using marihuana and having friends who use other drugs, while holding constant other social factors.

The sixth theory, and most crucial for our purposes, is the subculture theory. This position sets itself in opposition to most of the above theories. The strongest statement of this basic position is found in the introduction to a paper prepared for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse by sociologist Erich Goode. In this paper, Goode attempts to demonstrate the overwhelming importance of social and cultural forces operating in all drug use ... it is the social settings themselves which determine the form that behavior will take, and not the drug itself. People do not "escalate" from the use of marijuana to more dangerous drugs because of any property resting within the chemistry of marijuana itself. If and when escalation does occur, it is totally a function of the kinds of people who use these drugs, their attitudes and values, their friendship networks, activities related to drug use, and so on. When the data on this topic are presented, it will be clear that all of the variation in rates of progression from group to group and from individual to individual can be accounted for by nonpharmacological factors.33

Above all else, the subculture theory stresses social factors in explaining the progression from marihuana to hard drugs, while disavowing the importance of the use of marihuana. This theory attempts to explain how persons become differentially involved in drug using groups. Briefly, the novice drug user is recruited to marihuana use by close friends who teach him how to smoke the drug, experience the effects, and define it as a pleasurable high. In order to become a regular marihuana user, the person must insulate himself from various social control mechanisms, such as the family and public definitions of morality, and he must obtain a regular supply of the drug.34 As demonstrated in Chapter 4, regular use is frequent among those persons who have insulated themselves in a small group of friends who also use marihuana.

The most important addition to a sociological theory of dangerous drug use has been made by Goode. His article "Multiple Drug Use Among Marijuana Users" is instrumental in specifying dimensions of drug-subculture participation and in attempting to present empirical indicators of these dimensions.35 If a subculture of drug use exists in America, the participants in this subculture constitute the main core of the drug problem in America. In the course of his discussion, Goode excludes from this subculture physician addicts, housewives, and truck drivers who use drugs in nongroup settings. Although the persons who participate in this drug subculture may come from different parts of the country and have never met each other, they use drugs in similar ways and espouse similar values.

There are different degrees of involvement in the drug subculture. Few persons devote a major portion of their time to this subculture. Further, people may be involved in different aspects of the subculture. Goode lists several different dimensions of participation in the drug subculture as it governs marihuana use, but they may be applied here to the use of hard drugs:

1. [Marijuana use] is characteristically participated in a group setting;
2. The others with whom one smokes marijuana are usually intimates....
3. One generally has long-term continuing social relations with the others;
4. A certain degree of value consensus will obtain within the group;
5. Value-convergence will occur as a result of progressive group involvement;
6. The activity maintains the circle's cohesion and reaffirms its social bonds by acting them out;
7. Participants view the activity as a legitimate basis for identity—they define themselves, as well as others, partly on the basis of whether they have participated in the activity or not."

A person's participation in each of these dimensions can vary from no involvement to much involvement, but heavy involvement in two or three of the dimensions usually implies some involvement in the other dimensions.
But Goode is not satisfied with simply listing dimensions of subcultural involvement. He attempts, in addition, to analyze the process by which individuals become progressively involved in the drug using subculture. He notes that almost all persons begin smoking marihuana with intimate friends and they they continue to use it, mainly with intimate friends. Involvement in this illegal activity then reaffirms subcultural values, intensifies emotional commitments to the group, and regularizes the individual's use of marihuana. In addition, the more an individual smokes, the greater his need for a regular supply of the drug. This may lead to involvement in buying and selling marihuana."

Most important for this chapter is Goode's assertion that heavy marihuana use also "increases the likelihood of taking drugs in addition to marijuana which the subculture approves of. (Even daily use of marijuana will not involve the individual in heroin use if it is absent from the group in which he interacts and finds his significant others.)"38 The use of hard drugs will be associated with heavy marihuana use due to favorable definitions within the group about drug experiences and increased opportunities of making friends with persons who use hard drugs. Then, in a direct attempt to refute the euphoria theory, Goode maintains,

Often marijuana use "leads to" experimenting with narcotics in a working-class urban area not because of the search for an even-bigger and better "kick," but because the associations one makes as one's use level moves upward are increasingly also likely to experiment with narcotics.

In contexts other than the slum, marijuana use does not imply experimentation with narcotics; on the college campus, for example, heroin use involves a very tiny segment of even the drug-using contingent, and its use is distinctly frowned upon."

He states further, however, that "heavy marijuana use on the college campus almost implies at least one-time use of one of the heavier psychedelics"" because the middle-class college drug subculture tends to value the stimulation of the mind that hallucinogens reputedly have.

The subculture theory has another emphasis. In his lengthy and informative treatment of Haight-Ashbury, Carey seems to indicate that another important factor in understanding the drug scene or the drug subculture is involvement in the buying and especially in the selling of marihuana and other drugs. 4 1 Goode suggests a possible mechanism by which progression occurs:

By buying marijuana, one often interacts with, forms friendships with, comes to respect the opinions of, the seller of the drug, who is generally older, more experienced and sophisticated, involved in a daring and dangerous life, and is respected and eagerly sought after by many members of one subcommunity.. .. the neophyte drug user gradually acquires the seller's favorable definition of, and accepts opportunities for, heroin use.42

Similar logic leads Kaplan, in arguing for the controlled legalization of marihuana, to state that "the illegal selling of marijuana will continue to provide an entry into the drug culture and thus a ready distribution network for other more dangerous drugs."43 Thus, the subculture position suggests that the illegality of marihuana exposes neophyte marihuana users to drug sellers and new friends who use hard drugs and hence to use the drugs themselves. If marihuana were legally available, the progression from marihuana to hard drugs would occur less frequently than it does at the present time, because marihuana users would be unlikely to meet drug sellers and to gain friends who use hard drugs.

Thus, the subculture theory maintains that if drug use among friends, class background, drug buying and selling, and other indicators of drug-subculture involvement are held constant, the positive linear relationship between marihuana use and the use of hard drugs should substantially decrease, if not vanish altogether. This is a proposition that the present chapter will attempt to test.

Techniques of multivariate analysis may be used to "explain away" or interpret the positive linear relationship between the frequency of cannabis use and the use of hard drugs. If attempts to explain or interpret the marihuana-hard drug relationship do not succeed, the conditions under which dangerous drugs will or will not be used subsequent to marihuana use will be investigated.44 In addition, an attempt will be made to determine which of the six theories are essentially incorrect and which theories provide the most complete understanding of hard-drug use.

This chapter will use two important measures of drug use. The Frequency of Cannabis Index will be the major independent variable; the dependent variables are measures of the illicit use of hard drugs as defined in Chapter 3. A respondent was classified as illicitly using a prescription drug (amphetamines, methedrine, and sedatives) when he admitted to having used it in an attempt to get high or used it more frequently or in larger doses than prescribed by a doctor. A respondent had illicitly used illegal drugs (hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin) if he admitted to ever using these drugs.

It is more difficult to develop good measures of the theories discussed above. While there was no attempt to measure the disturbed-personality theory, there was to measure the euphoria theory. The Euphoria Index was formed from the question: "What are (or might be) the most important reasons for your using marihuana?" The respondent could mark any or all of nine possible answers, one of which was to "feel good, get high." The 57% who chose this item indicated a desire for euphoria. In retrospect, this is a weak indicator of euphoria. The question should have allowed students to select "getting high" as the most important reason for using drugs when contrasted to other possible reasons. However, such a question was not asked.

An indicator of the increased benefits theory was obtained by measuring the degree of orientation to values favorable to drug use with the following five "agree" or "disagree" items (the proportion of the total sample agreeing with each item is indicated in parentheses):

1. Most drug users in college are among the more independent, thoughtful, and creative students. (23%)
2. A person who uses illicit drugs should encourage nonusers to try these drugs. (1.4%)

Gave as a reason for using marihuana:

3. Aid in "socializing" or communication with others. (28%)
4. The "in thing" to do. (20%)
5. Improve my creativity or performance, to better understand other people or my inner self. (18%)

According to the response to these items, a respondent was classified on the Increased Benefits Index as follows: (1) "none" if he agreed with none of the items; (2) "some" if he agreed with one or two items; and (3) "much" if he agreed with three or more items.

Measures of drug-subculture participation will also serve as measures of the sophisticated stepping-stone theory. Three indicators of differential participation in the illicit drug subculture were developed: (1) Peer Group Cannabis Use Index ;Ihe proportion of friends who use marihuana; (2) Illicit Marketing Index; and (3) exposure to hard-drug-using friends. The first measure of differential involvement in the drug subculture, the Peer-Group Cannabis Use Index, was developed in Chapter 4. The second measure of subculture participation, the Illicit Marketing Index, was developed in Chapter 5.

As noted above, Goode discusses the importance of having "intimate friends" or "significant others" who use dangerous drugs in introducing the individual to these other drugs. Hence, on the third measure of involvement in the drug subculture, exposure to hard drug-using friends, respondents have been classified according to their intimacy with persons who use various hard drugs. Respondents were asked to indicate what drugs their friends, close friends, and siblings used; they were differentially exposed to each drug as follows: (1) "none" if none of these three reference groups used the drug; (2) "friends" if only a friend or an acquaintance used the drug (but not a close friend or sibling); and (3) "intimate friends" if a close friend or sibling used the drug. Thus, a person reporting that a brother or sister used hallucinogens is seen as very exposed to hallucinogens.

Having developed the major variables, one can now begin an analysis of the stepping-stone theory. First, it will be established that a statistical relationship between the use of marihuana and the use of each hard drug does exist. Graph 6.1 shows a strong positive, linear relationship between the frequency of cannabis use and the illicit use of each of the hard drugs. The more frequent the use of cannabis, the greater the illicit use of each dangerous drug. Thus, while less than 1% of the nonmarihuana users have tried hallucinogens, 68% of the weekly marihuana users have used hallucinogens, a difference of 67%.

The independent variable, frequency of cannabis use, appears at first glance to influence most strongly the use of hallucinogens and amphetamines, while having a lesser effect on the use of cocaine and heroin. However, when the proportion of the total sample using each drug is taken into account, the heavy use of cannabis is still an important factor in determining heroin use. Thus, 4% of the total sample but 0.3% of the noncannabis users and 17% of the regular cannabis users have tried heroin.

This positive linear relationship between marihuana use and dangerous-drug use has been found in all studies that have investigated the relationship. In addition, no matter what definition of "frequent" marihuana use is employed, the strength of the relationship is very similar. In a national study of high school students, Josephson found that 1% of the noncannabis users had tried LSD, heroin, and "downs" or "ups." But among those who had used marihuana ten or more times, 12% had tried heroin (similar to 17% of weekly marihuana users here), 55% had tried LSD, 71% had nonmedically used "downs," and 74% had tried "ups."'" Josephson's patterns of drug utilization are virtually parallel to the levels of drug use in the sample in this study. One difference Josephson reports is that more persons have used the amphetamines and sedatives nonmedically. This difference may be due to the definition of "illicit" use adopted in Chapter 3, which Josephson does not use.

As mentioned earlier, there is agreement that such a statistical relationship exists; the BNDD and subculture theorists agree on this point. The disagreement deals with why this relationship is true. In order to decide which theory best explains the relationship, one must consider the effect of other factors.

Although the data will not be presented, each of the measures of various theoretical positions is positively and significantly related to the illicit use of each of the dangerous drugs. Thus, the greater the agreement with the Euphoria Index, the Increased Benefits Index, and each of the subcultural indices, the greater the probability of illicitly using hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, methedrine, cocaine, heroin, and cannabis.46

Now the study must try to show whether any of the theories proposed above can explain or interpret the relationship between the frequency of marihuana use and the use of hard drugs. Since it wishes to investigate the relationship between marihuana and the use of six different drugs while holding constant five variables to test these theories, it needs to present thirty different graphs, many more than are needed to demonstrate the important findings. Thus, only graphs on heroin will be presented and occassionally, the data for hallucinogens. Similar findings, not presented, hold true for other drugs.

The selection of heroin for intensive analysis is made for four reasons. First, evidence presented in Graph 6.1 demonstrates clearly that, as Goode asserts, "on the college campus heroin use involves a very tiny segment of even the drug-using contingent."47 Among weekly marihuana users, few (17%) have tried heroin. Second, in the college population there appears to be less support for heroin use than for the illicit use of other drugs. Students were asked whether they agreed that "a person should be allowed to use this substance if he wishes." About a third of the sample agreed with the statement for hallucinogens, amphetamines, and sedatives, while only 13% agreed for heroin or cocaine. In addition, 64% agreed that heroin and cocaine should be controlled by strong laws. Hence, college students are generally opposed to the use of narcotics. Third, Loiselle and Whitehead have utilized Guttman scaling in an attempt to determine sequential patterns of drug use. They found that they could form an adequate scale only when they confined their analysis to marihuana users (nonusers were excluded). Among marihuana users, the use of stimulants, sedatives, hallucinogens, and opiates could be predicted by Guttman scaling techniques. They conclude, "We are empirically correct in saying that those who have used heroin have progressed through the series of items in the scale as well as marijuana."48 If the criteria of illicit drug use adopted in the present study were used, the hallucinogen use might occur prior to the illicit use of stimulants and sedatives. Thus, it would seem that students becoming progressively involved in drugs are likely to try hallucinogens, then the illicit use of stimulants and sedatives, with heroin being the last drug utilized. However, since the Guttman scale has not been used on the present patterns of drug use, one cannot tell whether the illicit use of these drugs is scalable. Fourth, the public concern about heroin use is great; empirical evidence is badly needed.

The top sections of Graph 6.2 show that the Euphoria Index has no effect upon the relationship of marihuana use to heroin. That is, at each level of cannabis use, people who chose "to get high, feel good" are not more likely to use heroin than persons who failed to choose this answer. The same findings hold true for other drugs. However, the indicator of euphoria is probably a weak one; hence one cannot completely discard the Euphoria Theory. But the data do cast doubt upon the importance of this theory.

The increased benefits theory does not survive much better. Graph 6.2 demonstrates that the powerful effect of marihuana use upon heroin use is not significantly altered when the Increased Benefits Index is held constant. Marihuana use, and not the potential benefits of drug use, appears to be more important in determining heroin use.

However, the subculture variables do significantly affect the cannabis-hard drug relationship. Of the three variables, the Peer-Group Cannabis Use Index appears to have the least effect. Weekly marihuana users with few or some cannabis-using friends are unlikely (8% and 5%, respectively) to try heroin, while 18% of those with most friends using cannabis have tried heroin. It appears that if persons are not insulated in marihuana-using circles, they are unlikely to use heroin.

More importantly, when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant, the relationship between marihuana use and heroin use is strongly affected. Those who neither buy nor sell, as well as those who only buy and/or sell cannabis, are most unlikely (10% or less) to use heroin, even among weekly marihuana users. On the other hand, those who have sold hard drugs are likely to have tried heroin (about 25%), even though moderate (less than weekly) cannabis users. There is one exception; of the twenty persons who are experimental (less than monthly) cannabis users but have sold hard drugs, 0.7% have tried heroin. However, a percentage based upon such a small number of cases is unstable.

By far the most crucial factor is having heroin-using friends. The upper left corner of Graph 6.3 (bottom line) shows that few (5%) of the weekly cannabis users have tried heroin if they have no heroin-using friends. In addition, persons with heroin-using friends.(but not intimate friends) are not much more likely to use heroin (12%), regardless of their regular use of cannabis. However, those who have intimate heroin-using friends are likely to try heroin (45%) if they are weekly cannabis users. In short, marihuana use does not "usually lead to" heroin use. The marihuana-heroin relationship is contingent upon having heroin-using intimates; the probability that weekly cannabis users will try heroin is very low if they do not have such intimate friends.

The frequency of cannabis use is a less powerful factor than heroin-using friends in influencing the respondent's use of heroin. Data presented in Appendix A show that weekly marihuana users are 16% more likely xo try heroin than noncannabis users. But 28% of those with intimate heroin-using friends versus 1% of those with no heroin-using friends have themselves tried heroin, a difference of 27%. Thus, friendships with heroin users is almost twice as powerful a factor as cannabis use in predicting heroin use (27% versus 16%).

The other charts in Graph 6.3 show similar findings for other hard drugs. In all graphs, noncannabis users are unlikely (less than 3%) to use hard drugs illicitly, even if they have intimates using that drug. There are two minor exceptions; if noncannabis users have intimates using sedatives and amphetamines, 8% and 6%, respectively, have tried these substances. On the other hand, having intimate friends using a particular hard drug greatly increases the probability that more frequent cannabis users will try that drug. Also, persons with friends, but not intimates, who use a particular hard drug are more similar to those without hard-drug-using friends in their use of hard drugs than those with intimate hard-drug-using friends. (For all drugs, the "friends" line is closer to the "none" line than to the "intimates" line.) This evidence tends to indicate that the college students' level of marihuana use or, as will be shown shortly, level of involvement in the subculture predisposes respondents to try hard drugs. Having intimate friends using a particular hard drug may be seen as the immediate cause, or precipitating factor, in the use of that drug. If students have no such intimate friends, even though weekly cannabis users, they are unlikely to use various drugs.

There is one important difference between heroin use and hallucinogen use. For heroin, the "none" line demonstrates that having heroin-using friends is almost a sociologically "necessary" condition" for heroin use. However, among those without hallucinogen-using friends, the regularity of cannabis use has an important effect upon hallucinogen use; having hallucinogen-using friends is not so necessary a condition for hallucinogen use. Cannabis use has an effect independent of friendship. But hallucinogen use is the exception and not heroin use. Students without friends using sedatives, amphetamines, methedrine, and cocaine are unlikely (less than 20%) to use these drugs, even if regular cannabis users.

Thus, one major shortcoming of the simple stepping-stone theory is that it fails to consider the effect of friendships with users of each drug and involvement in drug buying and selling. The progression from marihuana use to the use of these drugs is very strongly affected by these social factors.

However, the data do demonstrate one aspect of the simple stepping-stone theory that is correct. A review of all of the graphs in this chapter and the tables in Appendix A reveals that noncannabis users almost never use other drugs, no matter what factors are held constant. For each drug, less than 8% of the noncannabis users have illicitly tried that drug no matter what variables are held constant. In order to investigate whether any other factor might increase the illicit use of drugs by nonmarihuana users, a wide variety of factors, such as sex, parental income, race, involvement in school truancy, unconventional behaviors (see Chapter 8), religiosity, and alienation were held constant. For all practical purposes, in a college student population, only those who use marihuana are likely to use hard drugs illicitly.

Hence the data tend to support the BNDD contention that "the smoking of the marihuana cigarette is a dangerous first step"" toward hard drugs. More recently, director of the BNDD, John Ingersoll, stated that: "if many individuals did not get involved with marihuana, they would never get around to using the more potent dangerous drugs."51

This statement is, of course, a reaffirmation of the stepping-stone theory and is a classic example of the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo prop ter hoc ("after this, therefore because of it").52 This kind of logic is analagous to the following statement, which might be used to explain prostitution. To paraphrase Ingersoll's basic reasoning: If many individuals did not get involved in premarital sexual intercourse, they would never get around to being prostitutes. Such logic is too simplistic to explain either hard-drug use or prostitution and unfairly condemns marihuana use or premarital sex.

There is a much better explanation for the lack of hard-drug use among nonmarihuana users. The use of marihuana is a rite de passage into drug using circles or into the drug subculture. The conduct norms of the subculture dictate, and the peer group in which a person participates expects, that a person will use marihuana first. Until the individual does so, there will be little pressure on him to use hard drugs. Once he uses marihuana, group pressures to use hard drugs depend greatly upon the social composition of his friendship group. If no one else uses hard drugs, the probability of trying such drugs will be low. If most friends use another drug, the person will probably graduate to that drug. Similar findings emerge from a study of Haight-Ashbury hippies. Davis and Munoz (1968) state that it was a matter of chance "whether a novice hippie turned to `acid' or 'speed' or some other drug or a combination of several. Whose 'pad' he `crashed' on arrival or who befriended him    could have as much to do with his subsequent pattern of drug use as anything else.”53

Further examination of the data tends to indicate that a willingness to try marihuana is not the only important norm in the subculture. A person is expected to use marihuana on a reasonably regular basis (at least monthly) before being expected to use hard drugs. Very few experimental cannabis users, generally less than 15%, have tried other substances even though they have intimate friends using it or are themselves engaged in selling drugs. It is only among the moderate (less than weekly) and weekly cannabis users that the subculture expects and maintains high levels of hard drug use. But the probability of progression to hard drugs among weekly marihuana users is strongly affected by the drug-use patterns of close friends and involvement in selling drugs.

Thus, the simple stepping-stone theory is essentially incorrect because social factors strongly affect the progression from marihuana to heroin. Marihuana use doe's not usually lead to hard-drug use; one must know something about the respondent's friendship patterns and involvement in drug buying and selling.

In addition, Graph 6.2 shows that the euphoria theory and the increased benefits theory do not explain the marihuana-heroin relationship. Similarly, Graphs 6.2 and 6.3 demonstrate the fundamental inadequacy of the pharmacological theory and, to a lesser extent, the disturbed-personality theory. These graphs demonstrate the great impact that social factors have on the relationship between marihuana use and hard-drug use. The pharmacological theory is disproven because both friendships with hard-drug users and drug buying or
selling greatly alter the relationship between marihuana and hard-drug use. In addition, information about a respondent's personality is not needed to understand hard-drug use. However, the study did not measure personality variables and, hence, cannot completely discard the disturbed-personality theory.

There remain two theories that are more probable. The sophisticated stepping-stone theory cannot be discarded; among those with intimate friends using heroin (or other hard drugs), there is still a strong positive relationship between marihuana use and heroin (hard-drug) use. In addition, as will soon be shown, the use of marihuana is associated with having friends who use various hard drugs.54

The subculture theory, of course, receives impressive support from the above data. Factors identified by Goode and Carey do impressively affect the marihuana-hard drug relationship. The problem with the subculture theory at this point is that it seems identical to the sophisticated stepping-stone theory; each theory emphasizes a different aspect of the same data. For example, the sophisticated theory would emphasize that noncannabis users do not use hard drugs and that a strong relationship between marihuana use and heroin is obtained among those with intimate hard-drug-using friends. Subculture theorists would emphasize that there is almost no relationship between marihuana and heroin among those without heroin-using friends. In addition, Goode states that "intense and continuing involvement in marijuana use implies involvement in a drug using subculture."55 Thus, it appears that what Goode means by "involvement" in the drug subculture and what the sophisticated position means by "marihuana use" are measured by precisely the same variable, the frequency of cannabis use. Since both theories can use the same set of data to support their position, is it possible to determine which theory is better?

It was noted earlier that these two theories seem to diverge with respect to how one becomes involved in subcultures or groups in which dangerous drugs arc used. Eddy, as a representative of the sophisticated position, says that "abuse of cannabis facilitates the association with social groups and subcultures involved with more dangerous drugs such as opiates or barbiturates."56 Thus, he implies that something about the use of cannabis causes persons to gain had associates. The BNDD also notes that marihuana users "may be exposed to a variety of other drug users and sellers. "5 7

Carey and Goode both agree that marihuana users are likely to gain hard-drug-using friends but indicate that this is because of the illegality of marihuana, not anything inherent in marihuana itself. Both authors point to the fact that persons get involved in selling because they use the drugs." Because they buy drugs from sellers, they are likely to be turned on to hard drugs by such sellers. But something must be added to this model; a student who becomes involved in selling drugs is likely to gain friends who use dangerous drugs and hence to be turned on by such friends.

One can empirically measure the truth of these perspectives. The sophisticated stepping-stone theory would hold that the more frequently a person uses marihuana, the more likely he will be to have hard-drug-using friends. The subculture theory would postulate that some measure of subculture participation, independent of marihuana use, is the basic factor explaining hard-drug-using friends. One major measure of subculture participation, is the Illicit Marketing Index.

Graph 6.3 established that a very important factor in understanding heroin use (and other hard-drug use) is having heroin-using intimate friends. Thus, the study will use exposure to heroin or other drugs as the dependent variable and will attempt to show why students gain intimate friends who use heroin or other drugs.

Graph 6.4 shows that 2% of the noncannabis users have intimate friends using heroin. As suggested above, noncannabis users do not participate in the drug subculture. Likewise, only nineteen noncannabis have bought or sold illicit drugs; hence, they cannot be compared with those who use drugs and bought and/or sold drugs. The analysis will be confined to cannabis users.

In addition, the high level (27%) of exposure to heroin users among thirty weekly cannabis users who have not bought or sold drugs is misleading; data from all nonbuyers, nonsellers will be ignored in the analysis below for three reasons. First, there is no reason why these 30 cases should have a much higher level of exposure than regular cannabis users who only buy and/or sell cannabis. Second, respondents could easily lie by marking the "none" category on the drug buying or selling questions even though they had actually bought or sold. Third, the present author made a serious error in editing the questionnaire. When a student had left the questions on drug buying or selling blank, the author inserted the response "never." In reality, blank responses should be treated as refusals and excluded from consideration (as were seven persons who definitely stated a'refusal; see Chapter 5). This error meant that persons who had actually bought or sold drugs but failed to report (left blank) their involvement in buying or selling are incorrectly classified in the category of not buying or selling. If only a few (five to ten) regular marihuana users who had actually bought or sold were incorrectly recoded, it would be sufficient to greatly inflate the level of exposure to heroin (and other drug) users among these 30 cases.

The "original relationship" in Graph 6.4 shows that weekly cannabis users are 18% (%I = 24%-6%) more likely than experimental users to have intimate heroin-using friends; this supports the sophisticated stepping-stone theory. Data presented in Appendix A, Table 23 shows that the Illicit Marketing Index is also related to having heroin-using intimates. Among cannabis users, 5% of those who do not buy or sell drugs and 7% of those who only buy cannabis have intimate heroin-using friends. But 34% of those selling hard drugs have intimate heroin-using friends. Thus, those selling hard drugs are 28% (34%-7%) more likely than those who only buy cannabis to have heroin-using intimates. This supports the subculture position and shows that drug dealing is about twice as powerful as cannabis use in determining friendships with heroin users.

However, the central finding of this chapter emerges from analysis of the relationship between cannabis use and exposure to heroin-using intimates when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant. Those who only buy cannabis are unlikely (4% to 8%) to have heroin-using intimates, regardless of their cannabis use. Nor does cannabis use appear to affect the friendship patterns of those who sell cannabis; experimental users are as likely to have heroin-using intimates as weekly users (16% versus 13%). In addition, among those who sell hard drugs, the weekly cannabis users are 11% (36%-25%) more likely than experimental users to have intimate heroin-using friends. Thus, holding constant the buying and selling of drugs, the 18% difference due to cannabis use is significantly reduced to 4% (APD). On the other hand, the 28% difference in exposure to heroin between buyers of cannabis and sellers of hard drugs is not affected (APD = 24%) when cannabis use is held constant. Thus, our evidence indicates that involvement in selling drugs is the crucial factor in understanding why students gain intimate heroin-using friends; the frequency of cannabis use is relatively unimportant.

The evidence tends to indicate that the sophisticated stepping-stone theory is basically incorrect because it ignores the important factor of illegal buying and selling of drugs and the role of friendships with heroin users. Far more impressive, and supported by empirical data, is the subculture theory. Essentially, this theory holds that heroin use occurs because persons gain heroin-using friends through increasingly heavy involvement in illicit buying and selling activities.

Given the above evidence, one may object that the selling of cannabis and hard drugs is a consequence of the heroin addict's need for money and that the present interpretation has the direction of causality completely wrong. This objection is particularly untenable because there are many more drug sellers than heroin users or addicts (bottom chart of Graph 5.2). In a sample of students attending college classes, there are few persons who could be classified as heroin addicts. Of our total sample, less than 1% has used heroin more than monthly, while 4% have ever tried it. A much larger proportion of the sample has sold cannabis, 22%, or hard drugs, 13%. The explanation presented in this chapter is both theoretically and empirically sounder than the addicts' desire for money to support his habit.

While it is clear that drug buying and selling is the important factor in understanding exposure to heroin-using friends, it is not as clear that drug selling determines exposure to hallucinogen-using intimates. Although the 50% (74% 24%) difference due to marihuana is reduced in half (APD = 31%) when holding constant illicit marketing (bottom half of Graph 6.4), there is a steady increase due to cannabis use in exposure to hallucinogen users at each level of buying and selling drugs. Thus, among those who only buy cannabis, 21% of the experimental, 46% of the moderate, and 58% of the weekly cannabis users have intimate hallucinogen-using friends. A similar increase, but at higher levels, is found among cannabis sellers and sellers of hard drugs. Thus, it appears that cannabis use combines with illicit buying or selling in determining exposure to hallucinogen users. Despite this fact, it does not seem that any pharmacological factor in cannabis is responsible. Rather, the frequency of cannabis use is an indicator of early participation in the drug subculture; proof of this interpretation will be presented in the following chapter.

It must now be shown that drug dealing and heroin-using friends allow an adequate understanding of heroin use and that marihuana use is relatively unimportant. In addition, the data will test the one remaining assertion of the sophisticated stepping-stone theory: that social factors cannot fully explain the link between marihuana and heroin use." If this is the case, then the relationship between marihuana and heroin use should be maintained when the Exposure to Heroin Users and the Illicit Marketing indices are simultaneously held constant. This is done in Graph 6.5. Because of an insufficient number of cases in extreme groups (such as experimental marihuana users who sell drugs), the categories of experimental and moderate cannabis use have been combined into an "irregular" category. Thus, "irregular" use combines all persons who were using cannabis less than weekly at the time they took the questionnaire. This will allow one to compare the heroin use of regular (weekly or more) and irregular cannabis users.

Graph 6.5 demonstrates that there is no marihuana-related differences in heroin use among persons who have no intimate friends using heroin. At each level of buying or selling, regular cannabis users are as unlikely to have tried heroin as irregular cannabis users. There does appear, however, to be a consistent finding that among students having intimate heroin-using friends, regular marihuana users are somewhat more likely than irregular users to use heroin. However, the number of cases is small (8, 11, 23) among regular cannabis users not selling hard drugs. But those who sell hard drugs and who have intimate heroin-using friends (two highest bars) are more likely to use heroin if they are regular, rather than irregular, cannabis users. Thus, it is only among those with intimate heroin-using friends that the marihuana-heroin relationship is not fully explained by social factors.

Such evidence can hardly be considered proof of the sophisticated steppingstone theory. Since heroin use is strongly affected by subcultural factors (friendships and buying/selling), the regularity of marihuana use may also be an indicator of increased subculture participation. Or conversely, a person who has heroin-using intimates and engages in selling hard drugs but is an irregular cannabis user is, for some reason or other, not fully participating in the drug subculture.

Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the sophisticated stepping-stone theory, although not completely wrong, is badly misleading. It implicates marihuana use as the cause of heroin use and/or gaining heroin-using friends. The more important factor, a person's involvement in drug selling, is ignored. Thus, the stepping-stone theory, both the simple and sophisticated versions, is essentially incorrect in explaining why college students use heroin.

The evidence in this chapter provides a great deal of support for the subculture theory. At every step in the analysis, factors identified by subculture theorists have been shown to be crucial to an understanding of heroin use. Particularly important factors in determining heroin use are exposure to heroin-using friends and involvement in selling hard drugs. The evidence further demonstrates the usefulness of the drug subculture concept. Progressive involvement toward the "core" of the subculture can be measured and traced in the data. Persons who do not use marihuana can be effectively considered nonparticipants in the subculture. Trying marihuana may be seen as a necessary rite de passage for subculture participation. The infrequent (less than monthly) use of cannabis indicates minimal participation in the subculture, as does the simple purchase of cannabis. Interediate levels of participation in the subculture are indicated by cannabis elling and perhaps the weekly use of marihuana, which is not associated with the use or sale of hard drugs. Heavy participation begins when hard-drug-using intimates are gained and the individual begins to use hallucinogens and prescription drugs. One may be seen as a core participant when one becomes involved in selling hard drugs and gains intimates who use cocaine and heroin. However, this summary of drug-subculture participation is greatly simplified; the following chapter will demonstrate the complexity of progressive subculture involvement.

The present chapter also indicates how present drug laws are related to heroin use. Public officials fail to recognize how widespread drug selling is among those who use drugs as well as in the entire college population. Likewise, public officials fail to realize what the consequences of drug laws may be. Thus, our evidence indicts the present drug laws, and not marihuana use, as a major cause of heroin use.

This conclusion is arrived at by the following logic: marihuana is not legally available because of present drug laws. As a partial result of these laws, an underground drug market, centered around cannabis selling, has developed. Persons become involved in drug buying and selling for a rational reason: they wish to provide themselves with drugs which they use. Very high proportions of regular drug users become involved in selling cannabis. In particular, 72% of the regular cannabis users have sold cannabis and about half of the cannabis sellers have sold a hard drug (see Chapter 5 for details of this argument). If marihuana were legally available and weekly marihuana users could obtain what they need, they would have no rational reason to sell marihuana illegally. Persons who are presently drug sellers might be transformed into normal retail customers, as many bootleggers became alcohol buyers at the end of prohibition.

What might happen to persons who bought legal cannabis? It is probable that the illicit drug market's equivalent of the retail customer is the person who only buys cannabis. Cannabis buyers are unlikely (4% to 8%) to have heroin-using intimates and unlikely (7%) to use heroin themselves (Graphs 6.4 and 6.5). If marihuana were legally available, the majority of present drug sellers would probably soon give up drug dealing. They would have less reason to meet and befriend heroin users and, hence, to progress to heroin use. But the data demonstrate that under the present drug laws, just the opposite result occurs. Regular cannabis users are likely to become involved in selling marihuana and hard drugs, thus increasing the probability of meeting and befriending heroin users and being turned on to heroin. Legal cannabis might gravely undermine the illicit drug market and the cycle of events that recruits persons into the drug subculture. The present drug laws, more than marihuana use, are a major cause of heroin use among our college population. A similar conclusion cannot be so easily drawn for drugs other than heroin for reasons which will become apparent in the following chapter.

Before turning to the next chapter, one must note a serous difficulty in explaining hard-drug use. This difficulty has to do with the problem of time order. What factors come first, second, third, and last? Perhaps there is no clear cut sequence of events. Nevertheless, the data suggest that some such sequence exists, although it cannot be demonstrated with data obtained at one point in time. To solve the problem of time order and causality, information about the same students (panel data) at two or more different points in time is needed. Hence, the problem of time order cannot be resolved in the present book.

Despite the fact that it cannot unravel the time order of variables, this study makes assumptions about time order that must be made clear to the reader. It is hoped that future research can prove or disprove such assumptions. First, it assumes that marihuana use preceeds the use and sale of hard drugs. The present chapter has indicated that nonmarihuana users are unlikely to use any other drugs, no matter what other factors are held constant. In the previous chapter, noncannabis users were shown not to buy or sell any drugs, including cannabis. In addition, the more frequent the use of cannabis, the greater the likelihood of selling cannabis. Those who sell cannabis are likely to sell hard drugs. However, the time order between cannabis buying or selling and the use of hard drugs is not resolved. Persons who sell hard drugs appear to do so after having sold cannabis and after having used such drugs on a somewhat regular basis. Thus, one comes to a central, but unresolvable, dilemma. Do persons have to sell one hard drug in order to gain friends who use other hard drugs? But it has been shown that the sale of hard drugs may be a partial cause of exposure to hard-drug-using intimates and to the use of hard drugs. But selling hard drugs comes after the use of hard drugs (previous chapter). Thus, the whole chain of causality is open to question.

However, this study most closely analyzed heroin, and this is probably the last drug to which college students are exposed and use." Thus, it is possible for students to sell drugs such as hallucinogens or pills prior to gaining heroin-using friends and to using heroin. What is more probable is that the use of different drugs may be the result of different causal chains. As indicated above, hallucinogen use may not be explained by the same processes that allow us to understand heroin use. The whole of the next chapter tries to unravel this problem.

The most critical assumption made in this chapter and the next, is that the influence of an intimate friend who uses a particular drug is frequently the precipitating (immediately causal) factor in the respondent's use of that drug. The contrary theory, that marihuana use leads to hard-drug use and then persons gain friends who use that drug, is rejected upon the basis of data presented in tables in Appendix A and Graph 6.5. If marihuana users first become heroin users and then gain heroin-using intimates, there should be more heroin users than persons with intimate heroin-using friends. Such is contrary to fact; there are 126 heroin users but 302 persons with intimate heroin-using friends. Of the 302 persons with heroin-using intimates, only 28% have used heroin. This evidence tends to indicate that having heroin-using intimates preceeds heroin use; similar findings emerge for other drugs. However, it is probable that once a person uses heroin or other hard drugs, he is likely to gain more friends who use that drug. Few (20%) of the 126 heroin users claim to have no heroin-using friends and two-thirds have intimate friends. But the most compelling evidence that hard-drug use by intimate friends precipitates hard-drug use is presented in Graph 6.3. At each level of cannabis use, hard-drug use is most common among those who have an intimate friend using that drug. Persons who have friends, but not intimate ones, are more like those with no friends in utilizing other dangerous drugs.

Finally, it is assumed that drug selling is an outgoing activity. Such selling, although frequently on a strictly commercial basis, is more frequently a social occurrence. The buyer and seller are likely to discuss topics of interest other than the particular drug sale.61 This opens the way for the development of friendships. Since the seller is probably a somewhat more experienced drug user than his buyer (at each level of selling), the development of friendship will have important implications for the drug use of the buyer, especially among those at the lower levels of subculture participation. At higher levels of subculture participation, drug dealers are likely to meet and befriend each other on the basis of their common activity. In addition, those who specialize in selling certain drugs are likely to meet sellers specializing in other drugs, thus increasing the probability of each turning on the other. In many ways, then, the amount of involvement in drug buying or selling distinctly controls the kinds of friends that one is likely to make in the drug scene.

To summarize, the present chapter has discussed six possible theories that might explain the link between marihuana use and hard-drug use. By concentrating on heroin use, it has been able to disprove three theories, cast substantial doubt on two, and arrived at the conclusion that the subculture theory provides the most satisfactory explanation of the phenomena of hard-drug use.

The euphoria theory and the increased benefits theory were shown to have no, or minimal, effect upon the marihuana-hard drug relationship; at least, this was the case with the measures employed in the present survey. Perhaps superior measures would resurrect these theories, but it seems doubtful.

The simple stepping-stone theory, which is virtually identical to the pharmacological theory, is incorrect. If this theory were correct, then no other factors should affect the relationship between marihuana and hard-drug use. But it has been demonstrated that several social factors strongly affect this relationship.

The disturbed-personality theory maintains that something about the person's inadequate psyche leads him to progress from marihuana to hard drugs. This theory has not been disproven, mainly because there is no valid measure of what is meant by "disturbed personality." The evidence demonstrates that the marihuana-hard drug relationship can be well understood by social variables; personality factors may not be necessary. But, the disturbed-personality theory is either empirically untestable (and hence scientifically worthless), misleading, or wrong. Although the data is not presented, the author devised an alienation scale and adopted the Scrole Anomia Scale; neither of these social psychological scales had any important effect on the marihuana-hard-drug relationship. Future researchers are urged to develop valid measures of various personality deficiencies. It is doubtful that such measures will have much influence on the marihuana-hard drug relationship. Even if such factors do affect the relationship, it is probable that social factors are more important.

The sophisticated stepping-stone theory is the most difficult to disprove. But it suffers major damage from evidence presented. Although the relationship between the frequency of use and heroin use is not fully explained, it is shown that the relationship exists only among those with intimate heroin-using friends. In addition, the sophisticated stepping-stone theory does poorly in explaining how one gains heroin-using friends. It attributes to marihuana use the ability to influence friendship patterns. Instead, the data demonstrate that friendships with heroin users emerge from involvement in illicit drug selling. However, as demonstrated in Chapter 5, involvement in illicit selling is a function of the use of marihuana. Official explanations of the marihuana-hard drug relationship ignore a major, if not the crucial, factor: the illegality of cannabis. Thus, the stepping-stone theory stumbles badly on the question of the legality of cannabis.

Having shown the difficulty with five theories, one is left with the Subculture Theory. This theory does not win by default; it does a good job of identifying the important factors that help one to understand how some marihuana users progress to heroin use. This theory hypothesizes that the illegality of cannabis involves marihuana users in selling drugs; through drug selling, students gain friends who use hard drugs. Friends introduce students to hard drugs.

More than anything else, the subculture theory greatly aids one in understanding other factors such as sex and racial differences, which are related to hard-drug use. The next chapter will show the usefulness of the subculture theory in explaining findings not easily accounted for by other theories.

REFERENCES

1. See summaries of this data in Chaps. 1 and 3. Also see "Latest Findings on Marijuana," U.S. News and World Report, Feb. 1, 1971, p. 27; and "Gallup Finds a Continued Rise in the Use of Marijuana and LSD on Campus," New York Times, Feb. 10, 1972.
2. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Acts of 1970, Public Law 91-513, Oct. 27, 1970; Section 201.
3. Anslinger's testimony is cited in Lester Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 236.
4. Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Living Death: The Truth About Drug Addiction (pamphlet), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965 (emphasis added).
5. "John Mitchell on Marijuana," Newsweek, Sept. 7, 1970, p. 22.
6. "Interview with John E. Ingersoll, Director, Federal Bureau of Narcotics: Dangers in Dope, Teen-Age Addicts: Drug Menace: How Serious?" D.S. News and World Report, May 25, 1970, p. 41.
7. Lee Robins and George E. Murphy, "Drug Use in a Normal Population of Young Negro Men," American Journal of Public Health, 57 (Sept. 1967), 1580-1596, show that none of the noncannabis users became addicted but that 20% of the marihuana users became heroin addicts.
8. John C. Ball; Carl D. Chambers; and Marion J. Ball, "The Association of Marihuana Smoking with Opiate Addiction in the U.S.," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59 (June 1968), 171-182. Daniel Glater, James A. Inciardi, and Dean V. Babst, "Later Heroin Use by Marijuana-Using, Heroin-Using and Non-DrugUsing Adolescent Offenders in New York City," International Journal of the Addictions, 4 (June 1969), 145-155. Robert S. Weppner and Michael H. Agar, "Immediate Precursors to Heroin Addiction," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 12 (Mar. 1971), 10-17.
9. World Health Organization Scientific Group, The Use of Cannabis, World Health Organization Technical Report No. 478, Geneva, Switzerland, 1971, p. 10.
10. I. C. Chopra and R. N. Chopra, "The Use of Cannabis Drugs In India," Bulletin on Narcotics, 9 (Jan.-Mar. 1957), 18.
11. E. Leong Way, "Control and Treatment of Drug Addiction in Hong Kong," in Daniel M. Wilner and Gene G. Kassebaum, eds., Narcotics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965, pp. 275-278.
12. John Kaplan, Marijuana—The New Prohibition, Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1970, p. 245. Ingeborg Paulus, "Psychedelic Drug Use on the Canadian Pacific Coast," International Journal of the Addictions, 4 (Mar. 1969), 77-78.
13. Ball, Chambers, and Ball, Ref. 8, pp. 175-177.
14. Charles E. Terry and Mildred Pellens, The Opium Problem, New York: Bureau of Social Hygiene, 1928, seldom link opium and marihuana in this 1000-page classic reference. Nor does Michael J. Pescor, "A Statistical Analysis of the Clinical Records of Hospitalized Drug Addicts," Public Health Reports, Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 43 (1938), 1-30.
15. Louis Harris polls, May 1969, supplied tables from this survey to the author; some data is presented in "Changing Morality: The Two Americas," Time, June 6, 1969, pp. 26-27.
16. Gallup International, Gallup Opinion Index, Report No. 53, Princeton, N.J., 1969, p. 9.
17. Robins and Murphy, Ref. 7, p. 1588. Richard Blum et al., Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969, pp. 101-109. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, pp. 183-190. The East Village Other, Jan. 1-15, 1968. Paul Whitehead, Reginald G. Smart, and Lucien Laforest, "Multiple Drug Use Among Marihuana Smokers in Eastern Canada," International Journal of the Addictions 7(1) (1972), 179-190. William McGlothlin, Kay Jamison, and Steven Rosenblatt, "Marijuana and the Use of Other Drugs," Nature, 228 (Dec. 19, 1970), 1227-1229.
18. Robert S. DeRopp, Drugs and the Mind, New York: Grove Press, 1957, pp. 152-155. Alfred Lindesmith, Addiction and Opiates, 2nd ed., Chicago: Aldine Press, 1968, pp. 47-96. Abraham Wilder, "Drug Addiction: Organic and Psychological Aspects," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IV, New York: Macmillan, 1968, 290.298.
19. See Grinspoon, Ref. 3, pp. 233-235, for early studies on this subject. Andrew T. Weil, N. E. Zinberg and J. M. Nelsen, "Clinical and Psychological Effects of Marijuana in Man," Science, 162 (Dec. 13, 1968), 1235-1242.
20. Robins and Murphy, Ref. 7, p. 1588.
21. Goode; Ref. 17, p. 184. Blum, Ref. 17, pp. 101-109. McGlothlin, Jamison, and Rosenblatt, Ref. 17, p. 1228. Joel Hochman and Norman Brill, "Marijuana Use and Psychosocial Adaptation" (unpublished manuscript), 1971.
22. Eric Josephson, "Adolescent Marijuana Use: Report on a National Survey," Paper presented at the First International Conferences on Student Drug Surveys, Newark, New Jersey, Sept. 14, 1971, p. 16. Similar findings in Canadian high schools are presented in Whitehead, Smart and Laforest, Ref. 17, and John Russell, Survey of Drug Use in Selected British Columbia Schools, Vancouver: Narcotic Addiction Foundation of British Columbia, Feb. 1970.
23. Graham B. Blaine, Jr., Youth and the Hazards of Affluence, New York: Harper Colophon, 1967, p. 68.
24. Goode, Ref. 17, p. 102.
25. Kaplan, Ref. 12, pp. 228-229.
26. 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, University of Maryland, Aug. 16, 1967, p. 3.
27. Henry L. Giordano, The Dangers of Marihuana... Facts You Should Know (pamphlet), Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. See also "John Mitchell on Marijuana," Newsweek, Sept. 7, 1970, p. 22.
28. Thomas DeQuincey, Confessions of an English Opium Eater. See essays by Gautier, Ginsberg, and Leary in David Solomon, ed., The Marihuana Papers, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966, pp. 121-140, 163-178, 230-248.
29. Goode, Ref. 17, pp. 82-86.
30. P. A. L. Chapple, "Cannabis, A Toxic and Dangerous Substance," British Journal of Addiction, 61 (Aug. 1966), 269-282. W. D. M. Paton, "Drug Dependence—A Socio-Pharmacological Assessment," Advancement of Science, Dec. 1968, pp. 200-212. The logic of these scientists has been adopted by BNDD spokesmen; see Haislip, Ref. 26, p. 4, and (despite the title) Henry L. Giordano, "Marijuana—A Calling Card to Narcotic Addiction," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 37 (Nov. 1968), 5, which argues an essentially "sophisticated" position.
31. Nathan B. Eddy et al., "Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 32 (1965), 729.
32. BNDD, Fact Sheets, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (no date, about 1969), pp. 7-12.
33. Erich Goode, Drug Escalation: Marijuana Use as Related to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, Paper prepared for the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Oct. 31, 1971, p. 2. It must be noted that segments of this paper depend heavily upon earlier drafts of the present book.
34. Howard S. Becker, "Becoming a Marihuana User," American Journal of Sociology, 59 (Nov. 1953), 235-242, and "Marihuana Use and Social Control," Social Problems, 3 (July 1955), 35-44.
35. Erich Goode, "Multiple Drug Use Among Marijuana Smokers," Social Problems, 17 (Summer 1969), 48-64. Although Goode's book The Marijuana Smokers contains segments from this article, the best and most condensed statements of his theory are found in the Social Problems article, from which the following ideas are drawn.
36. Goode, ibid., p. 54, uses the term sociogenic to apply to the social nature of drug use.
37. Ibid., pp. 55-57.
38. Ibid., pp. 57.58.
39. Ibid., p. 59.
40. Ibid., p. 60.
41. James Carey, The College Drug Scene, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968, p.
42.
42. Goode, Ref. 17, p. 198.
43. Kaplan, Ref. 12, p. 330.
44. Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, "Interpretation of Statistical Relations as a Research Operation," Language of Social Research, New York: Free Press, 1955, pp. 115-125. Herbert H. Hyman, Survey Design and Analysis, New York: Free Press, 1955, pp. 242-329. (Also see Appendix A.)
45. Josephson, Ref. 22, p. 16. For other studies see footnote 17.
4.6. Some of these relationships may be verified in Appendix A.
47. Goode, Ref. 35, p. 59.
48. Patricia Loiselle and Paul Whitehead, "Scaling Drug Use: An Examination of the Popular Wisdom," Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3(4) (1971), 347-356.
49. Morris Rosenberg, The Logic of Survey Analysis, New York: Basic Books, 1968, pp. 143-148, for a discussion of necessary conditions in sociology.
50. Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Ref. 4.
51. "Interview with John Ingersoll," Ref. 6, p. 41.
52. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, New York: Random House, 1966, p. 1123. Grinspoon, Ref. 3, p. 242, calls this the "fallacy of the reversed apparent equation."
53. Fred Davis and Laura Munoz, "Heads and Freaks: Patterns and Meanings of Drug Use Among Hippies," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9 (June 1968), 162.
54. Haislip, Ref. 26, p. 4. Chapple, Ref. 30, p. 270. Paton, Ref. 30, pp. 206-208. Eddy et al., Ref. 31, p. 729.
55. Goode, Ref. 35, p. 60.
56. Eddy, Ref. 31, p. 729.
57. BNDD, Ref. 32, p. 7-2 (emphasis added).
58. Carey, Ref. 41, pp. 68-71. Goode, Ref. 17, pp. 251-257.
59. Ilaislip, Ref. 26, p. 4. Chapple, Ref. 30, p. 270. Paton, Ref. 30, pp. 206-208.
60. Loiselle and Whitehead, Ref. 48.
61. Goode, Ref. 17, p. 254.