The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCM) was charged by Congress in 1970 to investigate "the relationship of marihuana use to aggressive behavior and crime." But there is a bigger question: What is the relationship between drug use and other unconventional behaviors? The basic problem is to determine whether the use of marihuana or hard drugs is a fundamental cause of aggressive behavior, crime, juvenile delinquency, political militancy, and sexual permissiveness or whether there are other social factors that may explain the relationship between drug use and these activities.

Several terms have been applied to activities that depart significantly from the expectations of appropriate behavior. Merton uses the term "deviant behavior" and Duster, "immoral behavior," but here the term "unconventional" behavior will be used.' The former terms presently have the connotation of evil, wrong, and badness to the layman, although Merton and Duster do not define or use these terms with such connotations. The term "unconventional" simply connotes that a behavior is incorrect when judged by wider societal and adult standards. As will be demonstrated, the drug subculture on American college campuses promote as desirable acts that are wrong when measured by the criteria of conventional expectations.

The charge to the NCM is essentially a more sophisticated version of the old-as-time argument that evil causes eviI.2 In present terminology, those who engage in one type of unconventional behavior are more likely to engage in another type of unconventional behavior.3 Thus, marihuana use and multiple drug use are positively associated with several other unconventional behaviors. This chapter will investigate especially the relationship between drugs and crime, juvenile delinquency, aggressive behavior, political militancy, and premarital sexual permissiveness.

A brief review of the literature that connects marihuana to such unconventional behaviors is in order here. A leading proponent of antimarihuana laws and former director of the Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, sums up nicely the view implicit in the charge by Congress to the NCM:

In the earliest stages of [marihuana] intoxication the will power is destroyed and inhibitions and restraints are released; the moral barricades are broken down and often debauchery and sexuality results. Where mental instability is inherent, the behavior is generally violent . .. and the aggressive one often will resort to acts of violence and crime.4

Anslinger's supporters include the World Health Organization, the AMA, the National District Attorney's Association, and many psychologists.5

Support for the position that use of marihuana and hard drugs are associated with violence and crime comes generally from a limited number of studies, mostly done in other countries. Bloomquist, Giordano, Haislip, Munch, and Miller6 cite anecdotal cases in the United States and the works of Wolff in Latin America, Gardikas in Greece, and Chopras in India' that link marihuana to aggressiveness and crime while ignoring evidence to the contrary.8 Effective rebuttals of these studies can be found in Goode, Grinspoon, and Kaplan.9

Better evidence can be obtained to show a relationship between the use of hard drugs and crime. l° Although heroin and barbiturate use probably decrease aggressiveness, the need to obtain funds to buy illicit heroin causes high levels of violence and crimes against property. Inciardi and Chambers found that 38 institutionalized addicts had committed more than 6000 crimes, about 6 crimes per week, with about 1% cleared by arrest.11

Unfortunately, the relationship between drug use and crime or aggressive behavior is somewhat muddled analytically. There are really two different issues. First, the actual use of a drug may act as a stimulant (or sedative) causing increased (decreased) activity and perhaps aggressive behavior, which may then be channeled into violence and crime. Scientific data is beginning to demonstrate that cannabis (or Tetrahydrocannabinol) works as a sedative, reducing the level of performance and inducing sleepiness when taken in large doses,' and perhaps reducing aggressiveness and crime.

Second, there may be a relationship between marihuana use and criminality or aggressive behavior, because "it is the kind of person, and not the drug, which is 'responsible' for criminal acts."13 The difficulty with this theory lies in specifying what is meant by "kind of person." A psychological "kind of person" theory would hypothesize the existence of a character disorder, an alienated or aggressive personality that leads to both marihuana use and crime. A sociological "kind of person" theory would stress the nonconformist lifestyle into which persons become socialized and which induces persons both to use marihuana and to commit crime.14

Much of the commentary on the relationship between marihuana and crime applies also to juvenile delinquency. Important delinquent activities frequently center around the use of automobiles. The question is, Does the use of cannabis impair one's ability to drive or cause a person to use the auto in an unconventional manner? Crancer indicates that marihuana usage does not significantly impair performance on a simulated driving test, while alcohol definitely impairs such performance.' Waller summarizes several studies that relate drug use to crashes and traffic citations. He finds that drug users have 2.5 times more citations than control samples of nonusers in all studies, but the findings with regards to crashes are mixed. In no study is the crash rate of known drug users, whatever the drug, more than 1.5 times greater than a control group of drivers." He concludes that those with "patterns of wide-ranging antisocial acts, of relatively low crash rates but extraordinarily high citations rates and of hard core recidivism suggest that many of them have sociopathic personality patterns," and will continue to be problems for motor vehicle authorities. Waller does not seem too worried about "drug users who probably do not have an increased risk of crashes or citations [and] includes most teenagers and young adults who use marihuana only."" Similar findings emerge from analysis of the driving records of heroin addicts.' 9 One can profitably try to understand the relationship between drug use and involvement in auto related unconventional activities (information on crashes is not available).

There is little question that marihuana use is strongly related to a leftist political position and active militancy.20 However, the reasons for this relationship are not at all clear. Whatever the reason for the relationship between drugs and militancy, the public was greatly concerned about student militancy during the spring of 1970, when the present survey was conducted.' Indeed, the questionnaire was not administered in several classes in which arrangements had previously been made, because the student strike protesting the deaths of Kent State and Jackson State students was so effective.

Despite the fact that there is almost no enforceable law against premarital sex, student involvement in sex is an activity that concerns adults. A striking commentary on the relationship of marihuana use to premarital sex is presented in a now classic article by Kolansky and Moore and based upon thirty-eight patients that they saw in their private consultation practice:

Thirteen female individuals, all unmarried and ranging in age from 13 to 22 [are] singled out because of the unusual degree of sexual promiscuity, which ranged from sexual relations with several individuals of the opposite sex to relations with the same sex ... individuals of both sexes, and sometimes, individuals of both sexes on the same evening.... we were struck by the loss of sexual inhibitions after short period of marihuana smoking.

In no instance was there sexual promiscuity prior to the beginning of marihuana smoking, and in only two of the 13 cases were there histories of mild anxiety states prior to smoking. We take these results to indicate marihuana's effect on loosening the superego controls and altering superego ideals.22

Their small and highly biased sample makes the findings suspect. However, sociologist Erich Goode, shows a strong linear relationship between marihuana use and the number of sexual partners, which is not altered when sex and year in school is held constant: 7% of the noncannabis users (not used in the past six months) but 32% of the regular (three or more times per week) users had sex with four or more persons.23 Goode feels, but does not demonstrate, that

sexual behavior and drug use are mutual components forming parts of a particular subculture on the college campus.... Thus, the student becomes socialized into the attitudes and behavior of a sexually permissive milieu as he moves from no drug use ... to regular drug use.... The more that he smokes marijuana, the more drugs that he has and continues to use, the greater will be his commitment to a deviant and subterranean group and way of life, and the more sexually permissive he will become. 24

By using the measure of subculture participation, the Illicit Marketing Index, one can demonstrate the validity of Goode's hypothesis.

Marihuana is not the only drug used for its aphrodisiac effect. Anslinger feels that "if we want to take Leary literally, we should call LSD 'Let's Start Degeneracy.' " Richard Alpert replies that "before taking LSD, I never stayed in a state of' sexual ecstasy for hours on end, but I have done this under LSD.' In Sweden, intravenous Preludin (an amphetamine) users use the drug for sexual purposes: "Their interest in sex was not only markedly stimulated, allowing them to have intercourse repeatedly over a relatively short period of time, but in addition on each occasion the orgasm was markedly delayed so that they could literally fornicate for hours at a time."26 What little evidence there is indicates that the number of drugs used is associated with sexual permissiveness."

Robins, Darvish, and Murphy have demonstrated that marihuana use is associated with negative outcomes, even when holding other factors constant. Using various measures of unconventional adult outcomes (illegitimate child, extramarital affairs, divorce, arrests, heroin use, alcoholism, etc.) among 220 adult black men in St. Louis, Robins found that controlling on "high school graduation, juvenile delinquency and alcoholism . . . failed to wipe out completely relationships between marijuana use and outcome. Failing to account completely for the relationships found through intervening variables suggest that the drug may have a direct effect on adult outcome.' They conclude, "Unless some satisfactory explanation for the poorer outcome other than the direct effect of marijuana use can be identified, it would seem foolhardy to recommend the legalization of marijuana."29 It is the possibility of some other explanation, namely, drug-subculture participation and peer orientation, that helps to interpret the relationship between drug use and unconventional activities, at least in the present college student sample.

Several questions in the questionnaire allow one to develop indicators of crime, aggressive behavior, juvenile delinquency, political militancy, and sexual permissiveness. (The term "sexual permissiveness" is used because it does not make the negative value judgments implied by the term "sexual promiscuity.") The indices developed below may not perfectly measure the various concepts, but they are an improvement over speculation. As each index is developed, the proportion of the total sample that agreed with each item is indicated in parentheses.

The Crime Index can also serve as an index of juvenile delinquency; questions about robbery, murder, rape, and other major crimes were not asked. However, persons who are highly involved in this index may be more likely to commit major crimes. The Crime Index is composed of four items; 11% of the students agreed with two or more of the items and are classified as "high" on the Crime Index. Respondents were asked: Did you ever?

Take a car for a ride without the owner's permission (5.4%)
Ever take things of some value (more than $10) from stores, work or school (11.7%)
Purposefully destroy or damage property (break street lights, damage or move traffic signs, break into buildings and/or mess them up) (11.4%)
While in high school, take things of little value (less than $10) from stores, work or school at five or more different times (12.5%)

The Aggressiveness Index may also be a measure of juvenile delinquency. Persons were classified as aggressive (13% of the total population) if they agreed with either of the following items:

Threaten or "beat up" other persons for any reason (9%) Participate in gang fights (7.5%)

As a measure of juvenile delinquency, an Auto Deviance Index was developed. Persons agreeing with two of the following three items (20% of the sample) were classified as "high" on the Auto Deviance Index:

Drive a car before obtaining a driver's license, but had no licensed driver with you (18%)
Drive faster than 80 m.p.h. (38.5%)
Participate in or attend a drag race (17%)

Students were classified on the Political Militancy Index as "militant" (11% of the population) if they agreed with two of the following items:

Sat-in or demonstrated in an office or building (21%) Participated in a demonstration where violence occured (17%)
Been held or arrested for political activities at school or elsewhere (2.2%)

And finally, students were classified as "sexually permissive" (10% of the sample) if they admitted to having been involved in premarital sex with four or more different persons.

Two independent variables will be utilized. The Frequency of Cannabis Use Index has been used extensively in the previous two chapters. The less than monthly and the less than weekly (experimental + moderate) cannabis users have been combined; these irregular cannabis users will be compared with regular (weekly) marihuana users. In addition, as a measure of the use of all drugs, the Multiple Drug Use Index, developed in Chapter 3 will be utilized. The cannabis only category will be compared with the multiple (three or more) drug use category. To test the validity of the official position, this chapter hypothesizes that the two measures of drug use are fundamentally related to unconventional behavior. To test this hypothesis, the Illicit Marketing Index will be held constant. For this variable the category of "sell hard drugs" will be expanded into two categories; "sell 1-2 hard drugs" and "sell 3+ hard drugs" (see Chapter 5). Because percentages that may be misleading because of the small number of cases are frequently encountered, the graphs will not present a bar for such percentages. However, the number of cases and the proportion involved in the activity will be indicated.

The crucial question is whether the relationship between the use of cannabis or other drugs and unconventional activities is fundamental or caused by some other variable. It will be remembered from previous chapters that the Illicit Marketing Index was shown to be a good measure of the concept of drug-subculture participation. As Goode argues, the relationship between drug use and sexual permissiveness may be accounted for by differential participation in a distinctive subculture on the college campus.3° It is the contention of the present chapter that participation in the drug subculture and the wider peer culture, rather than the use of marihuana or other drugs, provides a good understanding of why students become involved in these unconventional activities.

In Graphs 8.1-8.4 one can observe the original relationship between drug use indices and these five unconventional behaviors. For all activities, noncannabis (or nondrug) users (bar at far left) are the least likely to be involved, as expected. Such noncannabis users, as shown in Chapter 6, almost never buy or sell drugs or become involved in the drug subculture. Hence, the noncannabis and nondrug users will be temporarily excluded from the following analysis.

Graphs 8.1-8.4 show that both measures of drug use are significantly related to the five measures of unconventional behavior. Graph 8.1 shows the basic finding most clearly. At each level of involvement in the drug market, irregular cannabis users are almost as likely as regular users to be militant; the 10% (%M) difference in militancy due to the frequency of cannabis use is reduced to 2% (APD) when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant. In a similar fashion, the 9% difference in aggressiveness due to cannabis use is reduced to 2% (APD) when drug market involvement is held constant.

Data not presented shows that the relationships between cannabis use and the Crime Index and Auto Deviance Index are also significantly reduced. In addition, the relationship between drug marketing (as the independent variable) and these unconventional behaviors is not affected when cannabis use is held constant. Similar findings hold for sexual permissiveness, but this will be discussed shortly. In brief, the frequency with which cannabis is used has almost no influence upon these unconventional behaviors when drug dealing is held constant.

The findings are not quite so clear when the independent variable is the Multiple Drug Use Index. Graph 8.2 shows that the number of drugs used is strongly related to unconventional behavior. For example, multiple drug users are 19% more likely than cannabis-only users to be high on the Crime Index; this relationship is reduced to about 8% (APD) when the Drug Marketing Index is held constant. A similar decrease, from 18% to 6%, occurs when the drug use-auto deviance relationship is examined. Likewise, data not presented show that the relationships between militancy and aggressiveness are reduced to about a third of their original strength when involvement in the drug market is held constant. This seems to indicate that drug use is not too strongly associated with these unconventional behaviors.

However, combining data presented in Appendix A and Graph 8.2 indicate that the strong relationships between the Illicit Marketing Index (as the independent variable) and these unconventional behaviors are reduced to about two-thirds or half when the Multiple Drug Use Index is held constant. However, the Illicit Marketing Index is somewhat more powerful than the Multiple Drug Use Index. Thus, there is a tendency for both the Multiple Drug Use Index and Illicit Drug Marketing Index to mutually explain involvement in unconventional behavior.

The basic problem with these data is that multiple drug use is highly correlated with illicit drug marketing. Only 2% of those who have only used cannabis have sold hard drugs, while 77% of those using three or more drugs have sold one or more hard drugs. As a result, there are not enough cases to provide stable percentages in theoretically crucial cells. For example, one would like to know how persons who only use cannabis and sell hard drugs behave; but information from twenty-one respondents will not provide stable percentages. Data from the twelve persons who have used three hard drugs and have not bought or sold are likely to be misleading. In Graphs 8.2 and 8.4, information from these extreme groups is presented (marked by a small letter a), but ignored in the analysis.

A careful examination of Graph 8.2 shows that persons who only use cannabis, even though buying or selling it, are relatively unlikely to be highly involved in any of these unconventional behaviors. For example, among those who have used cannabis, 6% of the nonbuyers or nonsellers, 10% of the cannabis buyers and 14% of the cannabis sellers are high on the Crime Index.

However, the same cannot be said for the users of multiple drugs. Of those using three or more drugs, 19% of the cannabis buyers, 16% of the cannabis sellers, 25% of sellers of one or two hard drugs and 40% of the sellers of multiple drugs were high on the Crime Index. Similar findings emerge from analysis of the other indicators of unconventional behavior; those who are multiple drug users are likely to be quite highly involved, even if they only buy or sell cannabis. Of course, the highest incidence of unconventional behavior occurs among those who use and sell three or more drugs. The implications of these findings for subculture theory will be considered after analyzing sexual permissiveness.

Graph 8.3 reveals that among noncannabis users, 5% of the males but only 1.3% of the females have engaged in sex with four or more partners. For both sexes, weekly cannabis users arc more likely than irregular users (10% for males, 7% for females) to have done so. However, the differences in sexual permissiveness caused by cannabis use are reduced to 2% among males and — 1% among females when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant. Although the number of cases for females is small (12 + 29), the most significant finding is that among those involved in selling three or more hard drugs, females are as likely (33%) as males (32%) to have had sex with four or more persons.

However, there are fewer (41 to 153) females than males who are so highly involved in selling drugs. In addition, the level of sexual permissiveness among females who sell cannabis or one or two hard drugs is about as high as among their male counterparts. It is among those not involved in selling drugs that the sex differences in sexual permissiveness are most apparent. In addition, as will soon be shown in Graph 8.4, persons who confine their drug use to cannabis, regardless of whether they buy or sell marihuana, are relatively unlikely to be sexually permissive. One possible interpretation of these findings is that females as well as males become increasingly involved in the drug subculture via selling. As their subculture participation increases, they learn values suggesting that sex is fun and that drugs make sex better. Drug-selling friends expect them to act according to these values.

But no matter what the exact causal connection is, the frequency of marihuana use has very little to do with sexual permissiveness and a great deal to do with the associations one forms as a drug seller. Hence, Anslinger is essentially wrong: marihuana intoxication has little effect upon the, sexual behavior of college students.31 Rather, those who become highly involved in drug selling are likely to gain friends and to learn values and patterns of behavior that increase the likelihood of sexual permissiveness.

Using the same reasoning, one can understand how Kolansky and Moore come to the wrong conclusion from an observation that may be correct: "In no instance was there sexual promiscuity prior to the beginning of marijuana smoking."32 They reach the wrong conclusions because they ignore other factors that may be very important, such as the selling activities, the friendship patterns, and the values that their thirteen marihuana-using females may have held. Such factors are of much greater importance than the simple fact of marihuana smoking. The data here show that sexual inhibitions are not lost among regular marihuana-using females who have only bought cannabis or have not bought or sold drugs (only 5%-6% are sexually permissive). It may be that Kolansky and Moore's thirteen patients were among the few females who are highly involved in the drug subculture. Their biased sample and psychological orientation bring Kolansky and Moore to incorrect conclusions. Marihuana use may precede sexual promiscuity, but so may many other social factors they fail to consider. The present evidence shows that when drug subculture participation is held constant, the use of marihuana is a minor or unimportant factor in understanding these five types of unconventional behavior.33

Graph 8.4 shows somewhat different results for multiple drug use. For both males and females, multiple drug users are (%P = 20% males; 22% females) more likely than cannabis-only users to be sexually permissive. In general, this relationship is reduced about in half (APD = 10%, males; 8%, females) when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant. Unfortunately, the number of males and females who use three or more drugs and buy or sell cannabis is small (17, 28, 19, 16) and may be misleading, hence, the broken line bars. If one analyzes the information provided by these respondents, one finds high levels of permissiveness among those who use multiple drugs. Among males, the level of permissiveness among multiple drug users is about 30%, regardless of drug selling. Among females, involvement in the drug market has some effect (21% to 34%) on permissiveness among the users of multiple drugs. As Graph 8.3 showed, females who are heavily involved in drug selling are as permissive as their male counterparts regardless of how many drugs they use.
At this point a crucial question arises: Is the use of noncannabis drugs a measure of drug use only or does multiple drug use also indicate heavy participation in the drug subculture? From the official point of view represented by Anslinger and Kolansky and Moore, the present findings could be used to support the contention that the use of noncannabis drugs is undesirable because it is independently related to sexual permissiveness and cannot be fully explained by involvement in the drug market. Subculture theory, however, would say that the use of multiple drugs is indicative of heavy involvement in the drug subculture regardless of drug buying or selling. This issue can only be partially resolved. It was demonstrated above (Graph 8.3) that cannabis use is not independently related to sexual permissiveness. In addition, especially among females, those who confine their drug use to cannabis and only buy (6%) or sell (II%) marihuana or neither (4%) are not a great deal more likely than nondrug users (1.2%) to be sexually permissive. Previous chapters have maintained that persons who confine their drug use and buying or selling to cannabis are relatively uninvolved in the drug subculture. If this is the case, then those who are uninvolved in the subculture are also relatively (compared to users of hard drugs) unlikely to be sexually permissive.

Thus, there are two groups that may be at opposite levels of involvement in the subculture: those who are minimally involved and confine their use to cannabis and those who are heavily involved and use three or more hard drugs. In order to clarify whether it is drug use or subculture involvement that leads to permissiveness, the important group to analyze is those who use one or two hard drugs. If the official position is correct and the use of hard drugs is an important factor in determining sexual permissiveness, then those using one or two hard drugs should be more like their peers who use multiple drugs than cannabis-only users at all levels of buying and selling. If, on the other hand, subculture theory is correct, then the level of permissiveness among users of one or two hard drugs should be dependent upon the depth of involvement in the drug market.

The data demonstrate that subculture theory is correct. Among those who neither buy nor sell drugs or only buy cannabis (low levels of subculture involvement), those using one or two hard drugs have levels of sexual permissiveness that are similar to cannabis-only users and unlike those who use three or more hard drugs. However, among those selling hard drugs (highly involved in the subculture) the users of one or two hard drugs have permissiveness levels almost identical to the users of multiple drugs. In addition, among those who sell cannabis only (intermediate level of subculture involvement), the level of sexual permissiveness among those who use one or two drugs is halfway between that of the cannabis-only and multiple drug users. In short, those using one or two hard drugs have a level of permissiveness similar to that of cannabis users when involvement in the subculture drug market is low and similar to that of multiple drug users when involvement is high. Increasing subculture participation, not drug use provides the best understanding of the evidence.

Data presented in Graph 8.4 and Appendix A indicate that both variables, the Illicit Marketing Index and the Multiple Drug Use Index, tend to mutually explain the other when related to the indicators of unconventional behavior. For example, relationships between multiple drug use and the five measures of unconventional behavior are reduced to about a third of their original strength (from about 20% to about 6%) when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant. Likewise, the relationships between the Illicit Marketing Index and these unconventional behaviors is reduced to about half of its original strength (from about 25% to about 12%) when the Multiple Drug Use Index is held constant. Thus, our evidence shows that the independent effect of the Illicit Marketing Index is about twice (APD's, 12% to 6%) as important as that of multiple drug use; however, both variables contribute independently to involvement in unconventional behavior. The fact that they mutually explain each other indicates that they are probably measuring the same phenomena; increasing participation in a subculture of drug use.

It is possible to disagree with the interpretation that the Multiple Drug Use Index is an independent measure of drug-subculture participation but not as powerful a one as the Illicit Marketing Index. But if the use of several drugs should be of concern to society, the question of how students become involved in several different hard drugs must be answered. Chapters 6 and 7 addressed themselves to this very question and demonstrated that it is involvement in different subcultures of drug use that leads to the utilization of various drugs and not marihuana use. It is probable that the Multiple Drug Use Index is a measure of subculture participation. Hence, it is drug-subculture participation that should be of primary concern to government policy makers, not the use of drugs.

However, there is one element of the official position that the data support. Persons who do not use drugs have the lowest levels of participation in these five kinds of unconventional behavior. Could it be that the simple act of marihuana use causes students to behave in a more unconventional fashion? Or might there be some other social factor that could provide a better understanding of why nonmarihuana users do not become involved in these unconventional behaviors?

It is suggested that differential involvement in peer-culture activities may strongly affect the participation of noncannabis users in various unconventional activities. As summarized in Chapter 1, students who spend a great deal of time with friends in nonadult-controlled settings are likely to engage in a wide variety of unconventional, disapproved activities.

It will be remembered from Chapter 3 that students were asked to report whether they had dated at an early age (fourteen or younger), "hung out," or "drove around" before leaving high school and were classified on the Peer Culture Index. An examination of Tables 25A-E, presented in Appendix A, show two different outcomes for the relationship between cannabis use and nonconventional activities when holding constant the Peer Culture Index and the Illicit Marketing Index. Peer-culture involvement strongly affects the involvement of noncannabis users in crime, auto deviance, and aggressiveness.

Among the noncannabis users (similar findings hold for nondrug users), the following proportion of those "not," "some," and "high," respectively, on the Peer Culture Index were high on the Auto Deviance Index (6%, 16%, 31%), high on the Crime Index (2%, 4%, 13%), and high on the Aggressiveness Index (4%, 8%, 16%). In addition, noncannabis users who were highly involved in the peer culture had about the same level of participation on these indices as persons who were not involved in the peer culture but high in the drug subculture. Thus, of the regular marihuana users who have sold three or more hard drugs but were not involved in the peer culture, 23% were high on the Auto Deviance Index. At the logically opposite extreme, noncannabis users who were highly involved in the peer culture were somewhat higher, 31%, on the Auto Deviance Index. Similar comparisons emerge from the Crime Index (9% to 13%) and the Aggressiveness Index (18% to 16%) among these logically opposite groups. This tends to indicate that abstinence from cannabis does not prevent a person from being involved in these unconventional activities when peer-culture involvement is high.

The results, however, are fundamentally different with respect to political militancy and sexual permissiveness. Noncannabis users are significantly less likely (p < .001) to be involved in these activities than cannabis users, even when peer-group involvement is held constant. For example, among the noncannabis users who were not, some, and high, respectively, on the Peer Culture Index 2%, 4%, 4% were militant; 2%, 5%, 12% of the males had had sex with four or more partners; and 1%, 1.%, 3% of the females were sexually permissive. Irs short, peer-culture involvement has a very minor effect upon the militancy and sexual behavior of noncannabis users. But the most impressive evidence of the weakness of cannabis use as an important cause of unconventional behavior is found in Table 13.

This table summarizes some very complex data presented in Table 25 of Appendix A. The information presented is confined to cannabis users because almost all noncannabis users do not buy or sell drugs. In Table 13 one can examine, in the last column, the strength of a relationship between an independent and dependent variable when the other factors are held constant. For example, in the column headed "two-way percent difference," one finds that regular cannabis users are 12% (23%-11%) more likely than irregular users to be high on the Crime Index; but when Illicit Marketing and Peer Culture Indices are held constant, there is no relationship between cannabis use and crime.

Indeed, cannabis use has virtually no direct (APD's of 2% or less) or independent effect upon any of the six unconventional behavior indices when Peer Culture and Illicit Marketing indices are held constant. however, the Peer Culture Index appears to have a substantial independent effect upon crime, auto deviance, and aggressiveness (APD of about 20%) but not upon militancy or sexual permissiveness (APDs of less than 5%), when cannabis use and illicit marketing are held constant.

But most important, when peer culture and cannabis use are held constant, the Illicit Marketing Index strongly influences (APD's of 15% to 30%) involvement in every form of unconventional behavior. Thus, buying and selling is almost the only important variable (of these three) in understanding political militancy and sexual permissiveness. Buying and selling drugs appears to combine with peer-culture involvement to increase the probability of participating in crime, auto deviance, and aggressiveness.

It would be interesting to be able to report a similar analysis of illicit marketing, peer culture, and multiple drug use. But such an analysis cannot be reported because there are too few cases in theoretically crucial cells. As can be observed in Graph 8.2, there are thirty-seven persons who have used three or more drugs but only bought cannabis, and forty-five persons who have used three or more drugs and sold cannabis; likewise, there are only thirty-three persons who have sold three or more hard drugs but have used only one or two drugs. When peer-culture involvement is held constant, many of these cells have fifteen or fewer cases; hence, no percentage would be meaningful and computations of percent differences are not possible. Analysis of the direct effect of multiple drug use, illicit marketing, and peer culture upon unconventional behavior must wait until a larger sample can be obtained.

More than any previous chapter, this chapter has demonstrated the importance of drug subculture theory in explaining behavior that is reputed to be associated with drug use but is not a direct outcome of drug use. Involvement in the illicit drug market is an important factor determining militancy and sexual permissiveness. It is hard to understand intuitively why drug selling should be associated with these activities. If the official position's image of an adult drug seller who makes large profits from selling drugs is accepted as true, it is hard to understand why such sellers would risk involvement in political activities or sex since these activities might generate police interest. A far better explanation is subculture theory. This theory suggest that buying or selling drugs is really a good measure of participation in unconventional groups in which hard drugs are used (see Chapters 6 and 7) and political militancy and sex are expected of group members. The more involved in drug selling a student is, the greater the probability of participating in such unconventional groups and the greater the probability of learning norms, values, and patterns of conduct that promote militancy and permissiveness. In addition, participation in such groups increasingly isolate the seller from conventional friends and values.

While cannabis use is related to all unconventional behaviors, the data demonstrate that the frequency of cannabis use is a very unimportant factor when buying and selling activities are held constant. Thus, the theory of drug-subculture participation is both theoretically and empirically more adequate than the assertions that something (not specified) about the use of cannabis destroys willpower and inhibitions.

An analysis of auto deviance, aggressiveness, and crime among college students reveals that these activities are not closely tied to the use of marihuana but related to participation in the drug market and to peer-culture involvement in high school. Perhaps these activities tend to occur in high school and are given up as activities in college. It may be that patterns of unconventional behavior shift from juvenile delinquency (measured by Crime, Aggressiveness, and Auto Deviance Indices) to drug use, political militancy, and sexual permissiveness in college for large numbers of students. As with all speculations about time order, one cannot accurately determine patterns of causality with the present data.

No matter what the direction of causality actually is, this chapter has established that the frequency of marihuana use is not a very important factor in explaining several unconventional behaviors when peer-culture and drug-subculture participation is held constant. While the Multiple Drug Use Index is independently related to these unconventional behaviors, it is probable that this index is also a measure of subculture participation and not only a measure of drug use.

REFERENCES
1. Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed., Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957, pp. 359-362. Robert Merton and Robert Nisbet, Contemporary Social Problems, 2nd ed., New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1966, p. 805. Troy Duster, The Legislation of Morality, New York: Free Press, 1970, p. 99.
2. Travi.s' Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969, p. 227. Alfred Lindesmith, Addiction and Opiates, Chicago: Aldine, 1968, pp. 188-189.
3. Ibid. Michael J. Hindelang, "Age, Sex, and the Versatility of Delinquent Involvements," Social Problems, 18 (Spring 1971), 527-533. Richard Brotman, et al., "Drug Use Among Affluent High School Youth," in Erich Goode, Marijuana, New York: Atherton Press, 1969, pp. 128-135. Edward Suchman, "The 'Hang-Loose' Ethic and the Spirit of Drug Use," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9 (June 1968), 146-155.
4. Harry Anslinger and William Tompkins, The Traffic in Narcotics, New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1953, p. 22. Nor has Anslinger changed his opinions; see Playboy Panel, "The Drug Revolution," Playboy, Feb. 1970, pp. 55, 58, 72, for discussions about whether marihuana, LSD, and other drugs are aphrodisiacs or cause crime. This panel discussion includes almost all viewpoints: Richard Alpert, Anslinger, Joel Fort, and others.
5. Nathan B. Eddy et al., "Drug Dependence: It's Significance and Characteristics," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 32 (1965), 721-733. "Dependence on Cannabis," Journal of the American Medical Association, 201 (Aug. 7, 1967), 368-371; and "Marijuana and Society," ibid., 204 (June 24, 1968), 1181-1182. Jerome LaBarre, "Harms Resulting from the Use of Cannabis," The Prosecutes, 6 (Mar.-Apr. 1970), 91. Harold Kolansky and William Moore, "Effects of Marihuana on Adolescents and Young Adults," Journal of the American Medical Association, 216 (Apr. 19, 1971), 486-492.
6. Edward Bloomquist, Marijuana, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Glencoe Press, 1968, p. 97. Henry L. Giordano, "Marihuana—A Calling Card to Narcotic Addiction," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 37(11) (Nov. 1968), 2-5. Gene R. Haislip, "Current Issues in the Prevention and Control of Marihuana Abuse," Paper presented to the First National Conference on Student Drug Involvement sponsored by the U.S. National Student Association, University of Maryland, Aug. 16, 1967, pp. 4-6. Donald E. Miller, "Marihuana: The Law and Its Enforcement," Suffolk University Law Review, 4 (Fall 1968), 86-87. James C. Munch, "Marihuana and Crime," U.N. Bulletin on Narcotics, 18 (Apr.-June 1966), 15-22.
7. Pablo 0. Wolff, Marijuana in Latin America: The Threat it Constitutes, Washington, D.C.: Linacre Press, 1949, pp. 35-55. C. G. Gardikas, "Hashish and Crime," Enkephalos, 2 (1950), 201-211. I. C. Chopra and R. N. Chopra, "The Use of Cannabis Drugs in India," Bulletin on Narcotics, Jan.-Mar. 1957, p. 25. G. S. Chopra "Man and Marijuana," The International Journal of the Addictions, 4 (June 1969), p. 240.
8. Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1893-1894, Smila, India, Government Central Printing House, 1894. For a more condensed and available summary, see Tod H. Mikuriya, "Physical, Mental, and Moral Effects of Marijuana: The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report," International Journal of the Addictions, 3 (Fall 1968), 268-269. New York City Mayor's Committee on Marihuana [LaGuardia Report], The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York, Lancaster, Pa.: Jacques Cattell, 1944; for abbreviated and available segments of this report, see David Solomon, The Marihuana Papers, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966, pp. 296-300. W. Bromberg and T. C. Rodgers, "Marihuana and Aggressive Crime," American Journal of Psychiatry, 102 (May 1946), 825-827. 0. M. Andrade, "The Criminogenic Action of Cannabis and Narcotics," Bulletin on Narcotics, 16 (1964), 23-28. T. Asuni, "Socio-Psychiatric Aspects of Cannabis in Nigeria," Bulletin on Narcotics, 16 (1964), 28. Cannabis, Report by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, London: HMSO, 1969, pp. 6-14.
9. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, pp. 227-235. Lester Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971, 291-312. John Kaplan, Marijuana: The New Prohibition, Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1970, pp. 88-127.
10. Nils Bejerot, "Intravenous Drug Abuse in the Arrest Population in Stockholm; Frequency Studies," in Folke Sjoqvist and Malcolm Tottie, Abuse of Central Stimulants, Symposium for the Swedish Committee on International Health Relations, Nov. 25-27, 1968, New York: Raven Press, 1969. In the Playboy panel discussion, Ref. 4, pp. 64-68, almost all noncannabis drugs are implicated in crime and violence; especially methedrine and heroin.
11. James A. Inciardi and Carl D. Chambers, "Self Reported Criminal Behavior of Narcotic Addicts," Paper presented to Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, National Research Council, Toronto, Canada, Feb. 16, 1971. Also see: Isidor Chein et al., The Road to H, New York: Basic Books, 1964, pp. 57-65, 138-145. Edward Preble and John J. Casey, "Taking Care of Business—The Heroin User's Life on the Street," International Journal of theA ddictions, March 1969. In Life, see "The Cities Lock Up," Nov. 19, 1971, pp. 26-29; "Readers Speak Out," Jan. 14, 1972, pp. 28-31; and "A 1,000-Hit Thug Tells How He Works," Jan. 28, 1972, pp. 31-33.
12. Leo E. Hollister, "Marihuana in Man: Three Years Later," Science, 172 (Apr. 2, 1971), p. 23.
13. Richard Blum, "Mind Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior: Dangerous Drugs," in Task Force Report, Narcotics and Drug Abuse, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 28.
14. Fred Davis and Laura Munoz, "Heads and Freaks: Patterns of Drug Use among Hippies," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9 (June 1968), 156-163.
15. Alfred Crancer et al., "Comparison of the Effects of Marihuana and Alcohol on Simulated Driving Performance," Since, 164 (May 16, 1969), 851-854.
16. Julian Waller, "Drugs and Highway Crashes," Journal of the American Medical Association, 215 (Mar. 1, 1971), 1480.
17. Ibid., p. 1481.
18. Ibid.
19. Dean V. Babst et al., Driving Records of Heroin Addicts, Research Report No. 1969-11, Albany, N.Y.: New York State Narcotics Addiction Control Commission, 1969, p. 13.
20. Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, pp. 43-44. Suchman, Ref. 3, pp. 150-152. "Special Report of the Attitudes of College Students," Gallup Opinion Index, Report No. 48, Princeton, N.J.: Gallup International, June 1969, p. 30. Richard Blum, Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969, pp. 69-73. Lawrence Linn, "Social Identification and the Use of Marijuana," International Journal of the Addictions, 6 (Mar. 1971), 79-104.
21. Newsweek, "My God They're Killing Us," May 18, 1970, pp. 26-33, for a summary of Kent State and aftermath. See the summary of the Scranton Commission report in Newsweek, "The Campus: 'Bring Us Together,' " Oct. 5, 1970, pp. 24-26.
22. Kolansky and Moore, Ref. 5, p. 491.
23. Erich Goode, "Drug Use and Sexual Behavior on a College Campus," (unpublished manuscript). Much of it is published in American Journal of Psychiatry, 128 (Apr. 1972), 1272-1275.
24. Ibid.,
25. See Playboy panel discussion, Ref. 4, p. 72.
26. Donald B. Louria, The Drug Scene, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968, p. 82.
27. Goode, Ref. 23.
28. Lee Robins, Harriet Darvish, and George Murphy, "The Long-Term Outcome for Adolescent Drug Users: A Follow-Up Study of 76 Users and 146 Non-users," in Joseph Zubin and Alfred Freedman, eds., The Psychopathology of Adolescence, New York: Grune & Stratton, 1970, p. 174.
29. Ibid., p. 177.
30. Goode, Ref. 23.
31. Anslinger and Tompkins, Ref. 4, p. 22. Playboy, Ref. 4, p. 72.
32. Kolansky and Moore, Ref. 5, p. 491.
33. Erich Goode, "Marijuana Use and Crime," in National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Appendix I, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972, pp. 447-469, finds that among whites, marihuana users were not more likely to commit crimes than nonmarihuana users. However, among blacks, marihuana users were more likely to commit crimes than nonusers; but this difference was almost eliminated when social factors (having marihuana-using friends) were held constant. Goode's report was developed around the theoretical and methodological ideas presented in an early draft of the present chapter.