The stepping-stone theory has stumbled over a theory which is considerably more powerful than it may appear in the previous chapter. The present chapter, as well as the following two chapters, will present empirical evidence that further supports the importance of subculture theory.

The present chapter, assuming that many marihuana users do escalate to the use of hard drugs, asks certain questions: Which hard drugs do students begin using? How is this escalation process affected by friendships, cannabis use, and drug selling? Since the previous chapter showed that drug escalation is not an inevitable process, this will attempt to determine what factors inhibit or increase the probability of progression to various hard drugs.

In attempting to provide answers to these questions, this chapter concludes that the subculture theory best explains a wide variety of data that cannot be understood by the sophisticated stepping-stone theory. The complex argument of this chapter will attempt to show: (1) There are probably two different subcultures of drug use on college campuses in the New York metropolitan area that are structured along racial lines. (2) For both subcultures, marihuana is the drug that "introduces" persons to the subculture. (3) The hard drugs to which increasingly regular marihuana users progress are a function of the subculture in which the person participates and the depth of his involvement in the subculture. (4) Heavy involvement in one subculture, as measured by drug selling, greatly increases the probability of participating in the other subculture.

Central to the analysis is the primary question raised by subculture theory: How do students gain intimate friends who use hard drugs? Focusing upon this question means treating the question of hard-drug use as a less important problem. This lack of interest in drug use is justified by data in the previous chapter. Graphs 6.3 and 6.5 demonstrate that hard-drug use is strongly affected by having intimate friends using a particular drug; the absence of hard-drug-using friends appears to fundamentally inhibit the use of that drug.. Having intimate friends using a particular drug may be seen as the precipitating factor or immediate cause in a person's use of that drug. Hence, it is important to understand how such intimate friends are gained. Even though the sophisticated stepping-stone theory may not agree that hard-drug use can be fully explained by what one's friends do,' it recognizes the important influence friends may have upon the respondent's use of that drug.

Indeed, the disagreement between the sophisticated stepping-stone theory and subculture theory is mainly a subtle difference in emphasis and interpretation about meaning of the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index. The sophisticated position implies that the regular use of marihuana is a major factor that "facilitates the association with social groups and sub-cultures involved with more dangerous drugs." Subculture theory maintains that regular cannabis use is an indicator of involvement in the subculture;3 the use of marihuana has little to do with gaining hard-drug-using friends when subculture involvement is held constant. Hence, one must determine whether marihuana use is an independent force leading to friendships with hard-drug users, or whether marihuana use is an indicator of subculture involvement, which in turn causes marihuana users to gain hard-drug-using intimates.

In support of the subculture theory, evidence in Graph 6.4 shows that involvement in drug selling (as a measure of subculture participation), not the frequency of marihuana use, is the crucial factor in gaining heroin-using intimates. But the relationship between cannabis and having hallucinogen-using friends is not so well explained and tends to support the sophisticated position. Graph 6.4 shows that weekly cannabis users were 50% more likely to have hallucinogen-using intimates than experimental marihuana users; this 50% difference was reduced to 31% when the Illicit Marketing Index was held constant. However, data presented in Appendix A shows that sellers of hard drugs were 44% (83%-39%) more likely to have hallucinogen-using intimates than persons who only buy cannabis; the 44% difference is reduced to 31% (API)) when cannabis use is held constant. This indicates that cannabis use and drug dealing are equally powerful (APD's of 31 and 31, respectively) and independently influence the probability of having hallucinogen-using intimates. Additional evidence which is not presented demonstrates the following conclusions: (1) To gain intimates using each drug, heavy involvement in the illicit drug market is more important than the frequency with which students use cannabis. (2) When the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant, the independent effect of marihuana use is (a) almost zero (APD = 4%) in determining exposure to heroin-using intimates; (b) minor (APD's of 10 and 11) in determining exposure to cocaine and sedatives; (c) significant (APD's of 16 and 19) in determining exposure to methedrine and amphetamines; and (d) important (APD of 31) in determining exposure to hallucinogen-using intimates.

Thus, it seems that selling drugs is not as crucial for gaining intimate friends who use hallucinogens and prescription drugs as it is for gaining intimate friends using heroin and cocaine. Students can gain friends using "soft" drugs by using cannabis. At first thought, such a finding appears to strengthen the sophisticated stepping-stone theory's ability to explain friendships with hard-drug users. But upon further reflection, the sophisticated position is weakened. If the use of marihuana was a major cause of friendships with hard-drug users, then regular marihuana users should be equally exposed to users of all drugs. This is not the case.

On the other hand, the subculture theory is strengthened. If marihuana use is an indicator of progressive subculture involvement, then the more regular the use of cannabis, the more likely persons are to be involved in groups that use subculture-approved drugs. But if a drug is not common in a subculture, even regular marihuana users should be unlikely to gain intimates using that drug and to try that drug themselves.

At this point, five questions arise that are central to the following analysis: (1) Are there different subcultures of drug use? (2) If so, in what ways are they different or similar? (3) Does the use of marihuana lead a person into both subcultures (supporting the sophisticated stepping-stone theory)? (4) Or does the use of marihuana lead a person only into a specific subculture (supporting the subculture theory)? (5) How are different subcultures related to each other?

One can begin to investigate the answers to these questions by hypothesizing that there may be different subcultures of drug use on the college campus, as well as in society at large. Although the empirical data is not conclusive, Goode; Robins and Murphy; McGlothlin; Chein; Preble; Scher; Blum; Carey; Finestone; Fiddle; and Sutter4 provide descriptions, participant observation, and some survey data strongly suggesting that two reasonably distinct subcultures of drug use exist in the United States: the white and black drug subcultures.

The development of the white drug subculture occurred relatively recently (since 1964). In 1972, this subculture appears to be most widespread among the white college students in America and somewhat less common among high school students and working noneollege youth.5 Although the present sample of college students is biased for reasons described in Chapter 2, the findings here are similar to trends emerging from Gallup polls and other sources, suggesting the outlines of this white drug subculture.6 Increasingly regular participation in this white drug subculture implies experimental and regular use of cannabis, then progression to hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine. In this subculture, the use of cocaine and, to a greater extent, heroin is negatively evaluated; the hypodermic injection of heroin or other drugs is extremely rare (about 1% in the sample).

In contrast, the New York metropolitan area has, since the 1950s, had a history of heroin addiction among slum populations, especially among blacks. The black drug subculture promotes the use, by hypodermic injection, of heroin and, less frequently, heroin mixed with cocaine, barbiturates, and amphetamines (known as "speedballs," "goofballs," and "bombitas," respectively).' Drug users in this subculture seldom utilize "head" drugs, such as hallucinogens and methedrine.

The sample is composed of predominantly white middle-class students in the New York metropolitan area. While only 7% of the sample is black, that is a relatively high proportion of blacks for a college population in 1970. If the sample is not representative of the total black population of New York City, this is due to the underrepresentation of blacks in the educational system, not in the present sample.

The behavior of black college students is important to the present analysis. These blacks should be exposed to pressures from the predominantly white student body and drug subculture to use white drugs such as hallucinogens, pills, and methedrine and, at the same time, be exposed to pressure from blacks in their home neighborhoods to use black drugs such as cocaine and heroin. A central question of this chapter is, Do college blacks behave more like white college students or more like noncollege blacks in their patterns of drug use, and why?

The Beginning point of analysis is to remember from Graph 3.1 that the marihuana use of white and black students is almost identical. Thus, 56% of the whites and 54% of the blacks had tried marihuana; 19% of the whites and 16% of the blacks were weekly users of marihuana. On the other hand, there are important racial differences in hard-drug use. About twice as many blacks as whites had tried heroin (7% to 4%) and cocaine (16% to 7%). But blacks were roughly half as likely to have tried methedrine (3% to 9%), amphetamines (6% to 16%), sedatives (10% to 14%), and hallucinogens (11% to 20%) as whites.

Even more striking racial differences in hard-drug use and exposure to hard-drug-using intimates emerge when the frequency of cannabis use is held constant. The experimental and moderate cannabis users have been combined into a category of irregular users. The regular users use cannabis weekly or more. Graph 7.1 demonstrates the following conclusions: (1) Among noncannabis users, there are no racial differences in illicit drug use and only minor racial differences in exposure to hard drugs. (2) The more frequent the use of marihuana, the greater the racial differences in hard-drug use. (3) Weekly cannabis-using blacks are more likely to try, and to have intimate friends using, heroin and cocaine than whites. (4) Regular cannabis-using whites are significantly more likely to use and to have intimate friends using hallucinogens, methedrine, amphetamines, and sedatives than their black counterparts. This evidence indicates that the patterns of recruitment are similar in both subcultures; a person must use marihuana with some regularity before gaining friends using, and himself actually trying, hard drugs. But the actual drugs that increasingly regular cannabis users are likely to encounter depend greatly upon race: black progress to cocaine and heroin, whites progress to hallucinogens and prescription drugs.

Such evidence demonstrates that there are probably two reasonably distinct subcultures of drug use even on the college campus. The sample of white marihuana-using students is large; most probably participate in the white drug subculture. But it is not clear that black students, although different than white students, participate in the black drug subculture, where probably the highest incidence of cocaine and heroin use and lowest incidence of hallucinogen and methedrine use occur. This study wishes to make inferences about the black drug subculture in the slums and compare the drug-use patterns of college blacks with the drug use of slum blacks (who do not make it to college). Since no slum blacks completed the questionnaire, the college blacks will be compared with institutionalized heroin addicts.

Comparison of the present data with that of John Langrod's male heroin users confined in New York City rehabilitation centers in 19688 will permit us to make some comparisons between college blacks and ghetto noncollege blacks, as well as similar comparisons for whites. Thus, to a limited extent, social-class (college versus institutionalized) differences in drug use, as well as racial differences, can be examined.

Langrod's sample is considerably different than the present sample of college students. All of Langrod's sample were heroin addicts, 75% had been arrested and committed for drug-related charges; less than 1% of the present sample were addicts. About 60% of the college blacks are female, but all of Langrod's sample are male. Langrod's sample is older; 50% were twenty-three or older, while about 90% of the present sample is under twenty-three. Almost all of our respondents were in college, whereas 60% of Langrod's sample were high school dropouts.9 Despite these important differences, the data suggest that patterns of hard-drug use are influenced more by race than by class, age, sex, levels of addiction, and arrest. The white and black drug subcultures expect heavily involved participants to progress to different drugs. If both weekly cannabis use and commitment to narcotic rehabilitation centers are considered to be indicators of heavy subculture participation, then regular marihuana users in the present sample should be more similar to Langrod's heroin addicts in hard-drug use than to irregular or noncannabis users in college.

Langrod found striking ethnic differences in the use of hard drugs among heroin addicts. Although he has the data, Langrod does not report what proportion of blacks and whites have ever used these drugs; hence his data is not directly comparable to the data here. But for blacks, whites, and Puerto Ricans, he does report the use of various drugs more than six times.") Since all of Langrod's sample had been addicted to heroin, one cannot compare heroin use in his sample and in the present study. However, in the use of other hard drugs, there are striking similarities between Langrod's heroin addicts and regular marihuana users herein. Data on Langrod's addicts is reported in the center of Graph 7.1. One finds that 27% of this study's regular cannabis-using white males have tried cocaine, while 38% of Langrod's white male addicts have tried cocaine six or more times. Among blacks here, 47% have used cocaine, while 54% of Langrod's black males have used cocaine six or more times. Even more striking racial similarities between Langrod's sample and the present study, respectively, occur in the use of methedrine (white males, 35% and 39%; blacks, 5% and 11%) and amphetamines (white males, 54% and 51%; blacks, 16% vs. 18%).

In both Langrod's and the present sample, white males are two or three times more likely to use methedrine and amphetamines than blacks. Another striking difference comes in an examination of LSD use. Although here all hallucinogens are combined, the differences are still striking. Only 5% of Langrod's black males have used LSD six or more times, while 37% of regular cannabis-using blacks herein have tried hallucinogens. A low proportion of Langrod's white males, 25%, have used LSD, compared with 76% of regular cannabis-using white males. Perhaps there are important class differences in hallucinogen use in each racial group. Also, Langrod's data were collected about two years previous to this sample; the use of hallucinogens may have expanded greatly during that time.

The basic conclusions of Graph 7.1 are as follows: (1) White male heroin addicts have patterns of hard-drug use that more closely resemble those of regular cannabis-using white college males than of black male heroin addicts. (2) Regular cannabis-using blacks in college are more similar to black heroin addicts in hard-drug use than to their white counterparts in college. But the similarity goes even further. Langrod also asked his addicts what drugs they had tried prior to heroin. Although more than 70% of both blacks and whites had tried marihuana before using heroin, the use of other drugs prior to heroin use was different. About a third of all white heroin addicts had tried amphetamines, methedrine, sedatives, or LSD prior to heroin use; in contrast, 13% of the black addicts had tried sedatives and 5% had tried LSD, methedrine, or amphetamines prior to heroin use.11 Langrod also found that white addicts were more likely to be multiple drug users than blacks; this finding is consistent with the present study. Except for LSD, the racial difference, not the class (college student versus institutionalized addict) difference, is the important factor in understanding which hard drugs arc used by those greatly involved in drug subcultures.

Furthermore, the levels of hard-drug use among Langrod's population and regular cannabis users here are so strikingly similar that some factor other than chance must be at work. Thus, the evidence suggests that two distinctive drug subcultures do exist. The white drug subculture has legitimated hallucinogens, the illicit use of amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine, while the black drug subculture has legitimated the use of cocaine and heroin. The implications of this interpretation will be pursued shortly.

Graph 7.1 provides two more important conclusions. First, white males are somewhat more likely at each level of cannabis use than white females to use all
drugs. But sex-linked differences in exposure to hard-drug users are less pronounced. Second, at each level of cannabis use, the proportion of each
race-sex group having intimate friends using a particular drug is generally higher than the proportion actually using that drug. For example, of the regular cannabis-using blacks, 37% have intimate heroin-using friends, while 29% have tried heroin. Similar findings hold for all other drugs.

Although there is not a perfect correlation between exposure to hard-drugusing friends and the actual use of drugs, these measures of drug involvement are
basically interchangeable; they provide the same findings when related to the race-sex variable and frequency of cannabis use. Thus, one is justified in analyzing the central question of the subculture theory: How do students gain intimate friends who use particular hard drugs?

One can begin to answer this question by suggesting that each drug indicates different degrees of involvement in different drug subcultures. It is assumed that the least frequently used drugs indicate deep, or core, involvement in each subculture.

In the black drug subculture, regular cannabis-using blacks are likely to gain cocaine-using intimates, then heroin-using intimates. This pattern of exposure, cocaine to heroin, may be reversed among noncollege blacks; only 10% of Langrod's black heroin addicts had used cocaine prior to heroin use.12 In the white drug subculture, increasing involvement in marihuana will bring a student in contact with hallucinogen users, then amphetamine, sedative, and methedrine users. The same conclusions emerge whether exposure to hard-drug-using intimates or the actual use of drugs is used as the criterion of subculture involvement.

Most crucial for drug subculture theory is determining how students become progressively involved in their own and the opposite subculture. Essentially, cannabis-using blacks, by virtue of attending college, are likely to be exposed to white subculture drugs. At the same time, black students bring cocaine and heroin to the campus; hence, white cannabis users are exposed to black subculture drugs. But exposure to the least popular drug in the opposite subculture will be uncommon; in Graph 7.1 regular cannabis-using blacks are less likely to have methedrine-using intimates (13%) than weekly marihuana-using white females are to have heroin-using intimates (20%).

Besides race, there are other factors affecting progressive involvement in each subculture: (1) The simple fact of being male increases the probability of involvement in drug subcultures. (2) As the sophisticated stepping-stone theory argues, the greater the frequency of cannabis use, the greater the involvement in the subculture. (3) But more importantly, as drug subculture theory suggests, drug selling greatly increases involvement in the appropriate subculture according to race, and it also increases the probability of contact with persons in the other subculture.

One can now begin to test empirically several hypotheses that have been derived from subculture theory: (1) The more widespread a hard drug is in a particular subculture, the less the importance of having to sell drugs to gain intimate friends using that drug. Thus, increasingly regular marihuana use may be sufficient to expose a neophyte drug user to a hard drug that is widely used in the subculture. (2) The less widespread a drug is in a subculture, the more necessary it is to sell drugs to gain intimates using that drug. (3) The less the predisposition to participate in a drug subculture, as indicated by sex and race, the greater the need to sell drugs to gain intimates using a particular drug. Drug selling, thus, should be a more important requirement for white females than for white males in acquiring intimate hallucinogen, amphetamine, sedative or methedrine-using friends. (4) To gain intimates using core drugs in the opposite subculture, drug selling is even more necessary. Thus, the subculture theory suggests' that while whites must sell drugs to gain cocaine and heroin-using intimates, regular marihuana use may be enough to gain intimates using LSD and pills. Among noncollege blacks, drug selling would theoretically be necessary to gain intimate friends who use white drugs (hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine), but a high frequency of cannabis use would increase the probability of gaining intimates who use cocaine and/or heroin. Unfortunately, one cannot test the theories as they apply to noncollege blacks. One can only report how college blacks in the sample are exposed to white drugs.

The data presented in Tables 7-12 are exceedingly complex and cannot be simplified. Detailed data is presented for readers who wish to examine it carefully. The reader who wishes to analyze these tables is urged to understand multivariate analysis and the meaning of the average percent difference (APD) as discussed in Appendix A and the footnote on p. 61. Readers who do not wish to follow the detailed data are urged to confine their interest to the text, which will attempt to present the important conclusions.

Since this study is trying to prove several important theoretical points, it will generally confine the basic analysis in Tables 7-12 to cannabis users who have been involved in the drug market. This means that noncannabis users are seldom considered; but information about their friendships with hard-drug users is to be found in the lower right cell of each race-sex group. Likewise, cannabis users who have neither bought nor sold drugs are excluded (except for blacks) from the main part of the table because of the editing error discussed in the text near Graph 6.4. However, for whites, information about nonbuying, nonselling cannabis users is to be found in the rightmost column of Tables 7-12 and is used briefly below in the analysis of the first hypothesis. Thus, the "total" column and row in Tables 7-12 contain only cannabis users who have bought cannabis or sold drugs. A table showing the number of cases upon which Tables 7-12 are based immediately follows Table 12. In each table, percentages based upon less than 30 cases are marked with the small letter a, implying that the percentage may not be stable, and perhaps is misleading.

The sample is divided into three groups: white males, white females, and blacks. Although 60% of the blacks are female, there are too few blacks (234) to divide by sex, especially when holding constant cannabis use and drug buying or selling. In addition, regular cannabis-using blacks are lacking (38); two of these failed to indicate their involvement in drug selling and have been excluded from analysis. Since there were so few cannabis-using blacks, categories in the Illicit Marketing Index have been combined. As an indicator of noninvolvement in drug selling and in order to have a somewhat stable number of cases, cannabis buyers have been combined with those who have neither bought nor sold drugs, but even this combination does not provide a stable base (N = 14) among regular cannabis users who have not sold drugs. Likewise, there are too few regular (22) and irregular (22) cannabis users even when cannabis sellers and sellers of hard drugs are combined to indicate "drug sellers." Because the number of cases upon which the percentages are based is so small, findings about exposure to various hard drugs among blacks can only be suggestive. The samples of white males and females are quite stable and important generalizations may be made from them.

With the data in Tables 7-12, one can begin to verify the four hypotheses discussed above. Examining exposure to drugs that are widespread in the white drug subculture, one finds (column on far right in Tables 7-10) that whites who have tried cannabis but have not bought or sold drugs are significantly (10%20%) more likely than noncannabis users to have intimates using hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine. But black cannabis users who have not sold drugs are no more likely (0%-3%) than noncannabis users to have intimates using methedrine, sedatives, and amphetamines (compare lower-right with cells in left column for blacks in Tables 7-10). It does appear that trying cannabis increases the probability that blacks will have intimates using hallucinogens (Table 7); but this is the only "white" drug to which cannabis-using, nonselling blacks are exposed. If Langrod's data on heroin addicts is assumed to be valid in 1970, marihuana-using, noncollege blacks should be unlikely to gain intimates using hallucinogens. 13 Cannabis-using blacks probably gain hallucinogen-using friends because of contacts on the college campus.

Turning to black subculture drugs, one finds that among blacks, cannabis-using nondrug sellers are more likely (10%-40%) than noncannabis users to have intimates using cocaine (Table 12). However, in Table 11, 7% of the irregular cannabis-using nonselling blacks have initmates using heroin, the same level of exposure as noncannabis-using blacks. Among whites, cannabis users who have not bought or sold drugs are not significantly (1%-5%) more likely than noncannabis users to have intimates using cocaine and heroin; nor are cannabis users who only buy cannabis much more likely (3%-11%) than non-cannabis users to have intimates using "black" drugs.

This evidence indicates the validity of the first hypothesis cited above and the demise of the sophisticated stepping-stone theory. Among nondrug sellers, the use of marihuana, no matter how regular, is associated with gaining friends using drugs that are widespread in one's particular subculture but not in the opposite subculture. Therefore, the simple use of marihuana increases the probability of whites gaining intimates using amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine, while blacks gain intimates using cocaine and, to a lesser extent, heroin. Marihuana use, hence, is an indicator of early involvement in a racially specific subculture. The use or frequent use of marihuana, among nonsellers, does not greatly increase the probability of using drugs in the opposite subculture. The sophisticated stepping-stone theory treats the use of marihuana as a cause of subculture participation, when marihuana use is probably an indicator of participation in a racially specific subculture.

The second hypothesis is also verified; the less widespread a drug is in a particular subculture, the more necessary drug selling is in gaining intimates using that drug. In Tables 7-12, the average percent difference (APD) appears to the right of the slash (/) in the "difference" column and row. Thus, in Table 11 in the "% diff." column, "total" row for white males, "/28" indicates the independent effect of the illicit Marketing Index upon having heroin-using intimates when marihuana use is held constant. In a similar fashion, in the "% diff." row, "total" column, "/3" indicates the independent effect of marihuana use upon exposure to heroin-using intimates when holding constant drug buying and selling. Thus, the independent effect of the Illicit Marketing Index is nine times (APDs of 28 versus 3) as powerful as the independent effect of cannabis use. Among whites, similar comparisons in Tables 7-12 tend to indicate that the Illicit Marketing Index is two to four times as important as cannabis use in gaining intimates using all hard drugs.

However, for whites and blacks, the regular versus irregular use of marihuana still has an important direct effect upon having hallucinogen-using intimates (Table 7). For whites, the frequency of marihuana use is a minor factor (APDs of 6% to 15%) in gaining friends who use sedatives, amphetamines, methedrine (Tables 8-10), drugs that are not so widespread in the white drug subculture as hallucinogens. Likewise, among blacks, the independent effect of cannabis use is as important as drug selling in gaining cocaine-using intimates (Table 12); but drug selling is three times more important than cannabis use in determining exposure to heroin-users (Table 11). Thus, the less widespread a drug is in the subculture, the more important it is to sell drugs to gain intimates using that drug. Selling drugs takes persons deeper into their racially specific subculture than does using marihuana.

Hypothesis 4 deals with the crossing of subculture boundaries between the black and white drug subcultures. The data provide information about these boundaries and how they may be crossed. Marihuana use in college is, for blacks and whites, associated with having hallucinogen-using intimates (Table 7). Since noncollege blacks who only use marihuana would be unlikely to have hallucinogen-using intimates, marihuana-using blacks probably cross subculture boundaries by going to college, where many try hallucinogens.

With the other hard drugs, it is easier to say that they belong in one racial subculture or the other. Most important for the purposes of the subculture theory are heroin and methedrine; these two drugs probably represent relatively deep involvement in the black or white drug subcultures, respectively. Questions arise: How do whites become involved in heroin? How do blacks become involved in methedrine? Answers to these questions suggest how students cross subculture boundaries, and perhaps help in understanding how persons become heavily involved in the opposite subculture.

The answer can be seen quite clearly in the APD's of Tables 10 and 11 Marihuana use has almost nothing to do with whites gaining heroin-using intimates or blacks gaining methedrine-using intimates (APR's are less than 4%).' But drug selling greatly increases exposure to intimates using drugs from the opposite subculture (APD's are greater than 20%). Among whites, about a third of those selling hard drugs have heroin-using intimates. Among blacks, only drug sellers are likely to have intimates using methedrine. Analysis of the other drugs demonstrates that involvement in selling hard drugs is crucial for whites to gain cocaine-using intimates and for blacks to gain sedative and amphetamine-using intimates. In short, persons involved in selling drugs are likely to cross subculture boundaries, and they are likely to become deeply involved in opposite subculture drugs.

There may be specific mechanisms by which this crossing of subculture boundaries occurs. The one drug common to, and most widely used and sold in, both subcultures is marihuana. Both blacks and whites who are fairly regular drug sellers are likely to engage in selling marihuana, as well as selling their own subculture's drugs. Therefore, blacks are likely to sell marihuana, cocaine, and perhaps heroin; whites sell cannabis, hallucinogens, and perhaps amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine. For student sellers from both subcultures, marihuana sales probably constitute a majority of all drug transactions.14 In many cases, black drug sellers may approach white sellers to obtain a supply of marihuana, and vice versa. During the course of such economically motivated transactions, both parties will smoke some of the marihuana being sold and carry on a polite conversation. 15 Such conversations open the door for friendship to develop and lay the basis for future sales. Both sellers may advertise to the other that they can supply hard drugs, mainly drugs from their own subculture, if the other party would like to obtain these drugs. If the contacts continue, more stable and intimate friendships may develop. As a result of such friendships, black drug sellers may turn on white drug sellers to cocaine and heroin. Likewise, black drug sellers may be turned on to amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine by white drug sellers. Thus, the road by which white marihuana users escalate to heroin use appears to be no different theoretically than the process by which black marihuana users become amphetamine and methedrine users.

It is important to note that persons who only sell marihuana are relatively uninvolved in drug selling. They probably sell to close friends with minor profit and hence are not deeply involved in their respective drug subculture. Those who only sell cannabis are not much more likely than persons who only buy cannabis to have intimates using hard drugs in the opposite subculture. But hard-drug sellers may depend heavily upon marihuana sales for their profits and contact with persons who use and buy hard drugs.

Thus, marihuana selling is probably a central machanism by which marihuana users gain friends who use drugs from the opposite subculture. Since marihuana use is the major factor in cannabis sales, the illegality of marihuana may be a central factor in explaining how white college students progress to heroin and how blacks become involved in methedrine and amphetamines.

Unfortunately, these inferences about the importance of interracial friendships inspired by drug selling are unproven. It must be demonstrated empirically that sellers of one race who sell cannabis and hard drugs are more likely to have members of the other race as intimate friends than are nonsellers and that the main foundation for such friendships is drug selling. Such information was not obtained. One hopes that these findings and the exposition of the subculture theory will stimulate future researchers to explore these interesting inferences.

We can now turn to the third hypothesis: The less the predisposition to participate in drug subcultures as indicated by sex, the greater the need to sell drugs to gain intimates using a particular drug. Data supporting this hypothesis can be found in Tables 7-12, and shows that the independent effect of marihuana use in• determining hard-drug-using intimates is less for white females than for white males (compare APDs in "Total" column). The idea is that marihuana use, although less important than drug selling for both sexes, is an almost unimportant factor for females but a slightly more important factor for males. Even more importantly, drug selling seems to move white females deeper into the white drug subculture than white males. At each level of drug buying and/or selling, white females are either as likely (plus or minus 4%) or somewhat more likely (5% or more) than white males to be highly exposed to users of other drugs (compare the six upper left cells (partials) for males and females). Only a few exceptions to this finding occur. Irregular cannabis-using females who have neither bought nor sold drugs are somewhat less likely (17% versus 25%) than males to have methcdrine-using intimates (Table 10). Females who are irregular cannabis users and have sold hard drugs are less likely (20% versus 32%) than their male counterparts to be exposed to heroin (Table 11). Regular cannabis-using females who have sold hard drugs are less likely (61% versus 71%) than their male counterparts to have methedrine-using intimates.

What this evidence suggests is that with the exception of heroin and methedrine, white females who equal the marihuana consumption and selling activity of their male peers may be more deeply involved in the white drug subculture. However, white females are less apt to progress to successive levels of subculture participation than white males. Computations from the number of cases show that there are almost an equal number of white males (1601) and females (1632). However, females are less likely to ever use cannabis (48% = 788/1632) than males (62% = 999/1601). Among cannabis users, females are less apt (26% to 40%) to become regular marihuana users than males; among regular cannabis users, fewer (64% to 82%) females sell any drug. Among drug sellers, fewer (61% to 66%) females sell hard drugs. But the few females who do manage an equal level of participation in the drug subculture are as exposed, and frequently more exposed, to users of hard drugs than their white male peers.

Before summarizing the findings, one must briefly return to two theories developed in the previous chapter, the increased benefits theory and the euphoria theory. An attempt must be made to demonstrate that these theories and one's life style really indicate increasing involvement in the drug subculture. Thus, desiring to get high, agreeing that drugs provide certain benefits, or living a relatively "hip" life style may be values and products of participation in the drug subculture, rather than independent factors in drug use.

The previous chapter developed the Euphoria Index and the Increased Benefits Index, which were measures of different theories of drug progression. In addition, certain life styles appear to be related to drug use. What is meant by "hippie" culture seems a little vague, although it has been reasonably well described by Carey, Davis, and Pitts.16 In an attempt to measure this lifestyle, students were asked if they agreed with two items used to form a Hip Life Style Index. About 20% of the sample agreed with both items and are high on this index. The proportion of the sample agreeing with each item is indicated in parentheses:

Did you ever feel that other people or police would like to harass or intimidate you because of your appearance or beliefs? (35%)

Try to or actually attend a rock or folk music festival like Woodstock or Newport Jazz Festival? (37%)

Of course, all three indices are significantly related to the Frequency of Cannabis Use and to the Illicit Marketing indices. The important question is, Which is more important, cannabis use or drug dealing? Graph 7.2 allows us to discover the answer.

One finds that being highly involved in the Hip Life Style Index is strongly related to cannabis use, but this relationship (%H = 25) is reduced by half when buying and selling activities are held constant. Thus, drug selling is more important than cannabis use in determining a relatively hip life style. The Increased Benefits Index shows that drug selling, more than cannabis use, increases the probability of agreement with prodrug values. However, cannabis use is a somewhat more important factor than drug selling in causing persons to "get high, feel good" on cannabis.

With the exception of the Euphoria Index, this evidence tends to demonstrate that agreement with these indices is strongly related to drug buying and selling and less strongly to the use of cannabis. If drug dealing is an important measure of drug-subculture participation, increasing involvement in the drug subculture and, to a lesser extent, the use of cannabis should lead to a hip life style and agreement with drug-oriented values.

Before summarizing the findings of this chapter, one must again consider the problem of time order. Important assumptions have been made about causal relationships, but one cannot conclusively prove that one factor causes another. The most problematic causal chain in the present chapter is that drug selling causes students to gain intimates of another race who use subculturally specific drugs, which in turn leads to the use of such hard drugs. But since the sale of any particular drug probably occurs after a person is a user of that drug (Chapter 5), this chain of causality is questionable. In a similar fashion, drug selling is a more important factor than cannabis use in developing drug-oriented values and a hip life style; perhaps these preceed drug selling but come after cannabis use. But no matter what the actual direction of causality, involvement in drug selling is a more important factor than regular cannabis use in determining progressive involvement in a drug subculture or in the racially opposite subculture.

Chapter 6 carefully analyzed whether marihuana use leads to heroin and hard-drug use. It raised serious questions about, or disproved several theories of, drug escalation. Nevertheless, it found that many regular marihuana users become heroin and hard-drug users. The present chapter attempts to discuss how and why many marihuana users gain hard-drug-using friends and, hence, escalate to hard-drug use themselves.

To summarize, it has been established that the patterns of hard use among cannabis-using blacks and whites are quite different. The more regular the use of cannabis, the more pronounced racial differences in hard-drug use become. Whites are more likely than blacks to have intimates using, and to use themselves, hallucinogens, amphetamines, sedatives, and methedrine; blacks are more likely than whites to progress to cocaine and heroin. These findings indicate that there are probably two different subcultures of drug use in the New York metropolitan area. Each subculture defines marihuana use as an important indicator of early and low-level participation. But as subculture involvement increases, participants in the white drug subculture are likely to gain intimates using white drugs, while marihuana-using blacks gain intimates using black subculture drugs. Thus, nondrug selling marihuana users are likely to be exposed only to the hard drugs approved of by their own subculture but not to those drugs in the racially opposite subculture.

But as the regularity of marihuana use increases, events that are not independent of each other occur; persons become involved in drug selling and tend to gain intimates using hard drugs. Involvement in selling drugs is the important factor in explaining friendships with hard-drug users and in students becoming deeply involved in a specific (black or white) drug subculture. Drug selling, not cannabis use, is the primary factor associated with white students having amphetamine, sedative, and methedrine-using intimates and for blacks having heroin-using intimates. But most importantly, the evidence suggests that drug selling is the main mechanism by which persons are turned on to drugs in the racially opposite drug subculture. Therefore, whites have cocaine and heroin-using intimates because they sell hard drugs; their use of marihuana is a very unimportant factor. Likewise, the only blacks using sedatives, amphetamines, and methedrine are drug sellers.

Thus, the evidence supports drug subculture theory in almost all important points. The sophisticated stepping-stone theory is wrong and misleading. This position is probably wrong because it treats cannabis use as a causal factor instead of as an indicator of progressive subculture participation. More importantly, the sophisticated position is badly misleading because it ignores the crucial factor of drug selling in attempting to understand how students come to participate in social groups in which hard drugs are used.

To a certain extent, there is a good reason for the sophisticated stepping-,tone theory to ignore the importance of drug selling; the present findings provide an indictment of the drug laws supported by the basic assumptions of this theory. Since cannabis use is the crucial factor in cannabis selling, and since cannabis selling is central to the sale of hard drugs (see Chapter 5), the illegality of cannabis is probably a central factor in determining patterns of drug escalation.

The present drug laws may also be involved in the development and maintenance of the two drug subcultures. The data indicate that drug selling is the major mechanism holding each drug subculture together and provides contact between the black and white subcultures. Participation in the illicit drug market, caused in part by the structure of present drug laws, increases the probability that inexperienced marihuana users will make contact with drug sellers. Such sellers are generally users of hard drugs and may have both economic and philosophical ("drugs are good') reasons for wanting to befriend and turn on less experienced users. However, the data, while not definitive, suggest that drug buyers control the interaction; they probably determine the frequency of interaction with the seller and the degree of friendship and, therefore, the probability of turning on, learning prodrug values, or living a hip life style.

The best way to unglue the subcultures of drug use may be to replace present drug laws with policies that allow cannabis users to obtain marihuana legally. Such a policy of legal cannabis would mean that students would not have to buy marihuana illegally in order to use it. Nor would students have concrete reasons to sell cannabis. The absence of cannabis sales might greatly shrink the volume
and profitability of the illicit drug market. Marihuana-using students would be less apt to gain hard-drug-using intimates and perhaps less apt to turn on to hard drugs. However, the concluding chapter will develop this argument and the logic of how legal cannabis might undermine the drug subculture.

Is it possible that the present drug laws may be a cause of what they attempt to prevent—the use of hard drugs? The empirical evidence in these two chapters demonstrates that the answer is yes. But drug laws may also be a contributing factor to student involvement in unconventional behaviors and poor performance in college; these ideas will be pursued in the following two chapters.

REFERENCES

1. P. A. L. Chapple, "Cannabis, A Toxic and Dangerous Substance," British Journal of Addiction, 61 (Aug. 1966), 269-282. 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.
2. Nathan B. Eddy et al., "Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 32 (1965), 729.
3. Erich Goode, "Multiple Drug Use among Marijuana Smokers," Social Problems, 17 (Summer 1969), 56.
4. Ibid., p. 59. Lee Robins and George Murphy, "Drug Use in a Normal Population of Young Negro Men," American Journal of Public Health, 57 (Sept. 1967), 1580-1596. William McGlothlin, Kay Jamison, and Steven Rosenblatt, "Marijuana and the Use of Other Drugs," Nature, 228 (Dec 19, 1970). 1227-1229. Isidor Chein et al., The Road to H, New York: Basic Books, 1964. Edward Preble and John Casey, "Taking Care of Business—The Heroin User's Life on the Street," International Journal of the Addictions, 4 (Mar. 1969), 1-24. Jordan Scher, "Patterns and Profiles of Addiction and Drug Abuse," Archives of General Psychiatry, 15 (Nov. 1966), 1-20. Richard Blum et al., Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. James T. Carey, The College Drug Scene, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968. Alan G. Sutter, "World of Drug Use on the Street Scene," in Donald R. Cressey and David A. Ward, Delinquency, Crime, and Social Processes, New York: Harper and Row, 1969, pp. 802-829. Harold Finestone, "Cats, Kicks and Color," in Howard Becker, The Other Side, New York: Free Press, 1964, pp. 281-297. Seymour Fiddle, Portraits from a Shooting Gallery, New York: Harper and Row, 1967.
5. Linda Charlton, "Gallup Finds a Continued Rise in the Use of Marijuana and LSD on Campuses," New York Times, Feb. 10, 1972. Boyce Rensberger, "Jobless Called Top Drug Users," ibid., Apr. 4, 1972. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana—A Signal of Misunderstanding, Appendix II, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 945 (henceforth the Schafer Report).
6. See Chapter 3 for a summary of trends in drug use across the college campus and other segments of the U.S. population.
7. Sec Casey and Preblc, Ref. 4, pp. 1-24; and Fiddle, Ref. 4, for descriptions of this subculture.
8. John Langrod, "Secondary Drug Use Among Heroin Users," International Journal of the Addictions, 5 (Dec. 1970), 611-635.
9. Ibid., p. 613. Carl Chambers, R. Kent Hinesley, and Mary Moldestad, "Narcotic Addiction in Females: A Race Comparison," International Journal of the Addictions, 5 (June 1970), 257-278.
10. Langrod, Ref. 8, p. 626.
11. Ibid., p. 628.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., p. 626.
14. Carey, Ref. 4, pp. 36-43.
15. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, p. 249. Carey, Ref. 4, p. 76.
16. Ibid., pp. 8-47. Fred Davis and Laura Munoz, "Heads and Freaks: Patterns of Drug Use Among Hippies," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9 (June 1968), 156-164. Jesse R. Pitts, "The Hippies as Contrameritocracy," Dissent, 1969, pp. 326-337, is particularly good.