Another compelling argument used against cannabis is that it instills in the highly impressionable young user an "amotivational syndrome," which produces "apathy, loss of effectiveness, and diminished capacity or willingness too ... endure frustration, concentrate for long periods, follow routines, or successfully master new material. . . . Such individuals . . . become totally involved with the present at the expense of future goals. . . . They report a greater subjective creativity but less objective productivity."' A similar concern is voiced by an expert committee of the World Health Organization: "The harm to society derived from abuse of cannabis rests in the economic consequences of the impairment of the individual's social functions."" Such reasoning implies that cannabis use impairs a person's ability to perform his social roles. Of course, the same logic applies to the use of various hard drugs. The central question of this chapter is, Does the use of cannabis and/or multiple drugs cause students to do poorly in college?

Although the literature dealing with the association between drug use and performance in college is suggestive, it is not sufficient to determine whether school performance is affected by drug use. There are several ways to study this problem. Farnsworth, for example, indicates that the increasing use of drugs on campuses has not greatly altered the proportion of students committing suicide or dropping out of college.3 Blum found that less than 1% of his California students had faced disciplinary action for the use of drugs; alcohol-related violations were ten times more common than violations involving the use of other drugs.4

Another type of study compares the ability of experimental subjects to perform some task when not under the influence of a drug with their later performance on the same or a similar task while under the influence of the drug. For example, Miller establishes that barbiturates and tranquilizers in normal prescription doses tend to impair performance. However, he finds that amphetamines used in normal doses do not have any significant effect upon performance. Amphetamines may even improve performance, especially for people who are relatively tired.8

Weil and Zinberg find that marihuana impairs the performance of subjects who have never used marihuana, but the performance of experienced marihuana users is not significantly impaired by the doses of marihuana given in the experiment.' Abel finds that marihuana has little effect upon recall of word lists.7

Crancer compares the effect of marihuana with that of alcohol upon simulated driving performance. He concludes that alcohol severely decreases one's ability to perform well on a simulated driving test. A person who is high on marihuana, however, performs as well on simulated driving tests as when not under the influence of any drugs

Unfortunately, surveys of students have seldom attempted to measure seriously the college performance of drug users. There is a good reason for this lack of research; the concept of adequate college performance is not clear. How can ono- define whether a student is doing well or doing poorly? The obvious indicator of performance is grade point average; but there must be more to college performance than grades, such as the amount learned, creativity, and rewards. From the college administrators point of view, the concept of performance also implies some degree of conformity to college norms, patterns of class attendance, and steady progress toward the goal of graduation.

However, almost the only variable analyzed by drug researchers is grade point average; and the findings are mixed. Blum finds that drug users have slightly higher grades than noncannabis users but fails to indicate statistical significance.9 Mizner and Goldstein find that drug users are somewhat overrepresented among those with low grades." Goode finds a slight curvilinear relationship: noncannabis and weekly users have somewhat worse grades than less than weekly cannabis users, but users of four or more drugs are quite likely to have low grades." Haagen indicates that although drug users may be as intellectually capable as nonusers, they fail to perform as well in school as nondrug users.12 However, close examination of the data indicates that if there is a statistically significant relationship between drug use and grades, it is a relatively weak one.

Although most of the above research has dealt with supposed effects of marihuana use upon grades, it is also important to know how the use of hard drugs, especially multiple drug use, affects school performance. Chapter 3 developed two main measures of drug use that will be used as independent variables: the Frequency of Cannabis Use Index and the Multiple Drug Use Index. In this analysis the association between drug use and performance in college will be compared with three dependent variables that are indicators of role performance in college. The first and most obvious indicator of difficulty in college is grade point average. This study is particularly interested in the proportion of students in the sample who receive relatively low grades (C or less), 38% of the total sample. Second, the Leave College Index is made up of three items with which the respondent could agree; the proportion of the sample agreeing with each item is indicated in parentheses:

Seriously considered dropping out of school (31%)
Taken a leave of absence or actually dropped out of school (9%) Transferred or tried to transfer to another school (23%)

Among respondents, 14% agreed with two or more of these three items and were classified as "high" on this index. It was felt that when a student considers leaving college, for whatever reason, he has encountered some kind of difficulty. Third, the College Deviance Index measures deviance from norms governing class participation and official college rules. Students who agreed with two or more of the following items (12% of the sample) were classified as "high" on the College Deviance Index :

Taken incompletes in more than one course (7%)
Cut class frequently (25% of the time) (25%)
Changed choice of majors more than once (16%)
Refused to take a required course (9%)
Been in trouble with college officials for breaking rules (3%)

All of these indicators, of course, have their inadequacies. None of them may be said to fully measure inadequate role performance, or amotivation, in college. The Leave College Index attempts to measure how well students cope with college. The College Deviance Index attempts to measure departures from norms that college students are expected to follow. While these indices are not perfect measures of amotivation, they are better than speculation.

The use of drugs is related to each of these variables. Graph 9.1 indicates that regular cannabis users are more likely than noncannabis users and irregular users to have grades of C or less. Although the relationship between grades and cannabis use is statistically significant by the Chi Square Test (p < .001), such significance is probably caused by the large sample size. No one should attribute too much importance to the 7% (43% — 36%) difference in grades between regular and noncannabis users. However, if the 5% difference in grades between regular and irregular cannabis users is important, the difference is eliminated (APD = 0) when drug dealing is held constant. In addition, cannabis buyers are as likely as sellers of hard drugs to have grades of C or less. Hence, one may conclude that grades are not greatly affected by the use of marihuana or by participation in the drug market or subculture.

The other two measures of school performance show that noncannabis users are less likely to be high on the Leave College Index and College Deviance Index than their cannabis-using counterparts. This finding may reflect the conventionality of noncannabis users rather than anything inherent in cannabis. The important question lies in discovering what happens to the small differences (3% on the Leave College Index and 6% on the College Deviance Index) due to the regularity of cannabis use when the measure of drug-subculture participation is held constant. The evidence is clear; the relationship between cannabis use and leaving college or being deviant is reduced (APD's of 1% and 2%, respectively). Those who sell hard drugs are more likely than cannabis buyers or sellers to consider leaving school or to have trouble in college. However, cannabis buyers or sellers are not more likely than those uninvolved in dealing to be high on these indices. Thus, it is not the "abuse" (regular use) of cannabis but involvement in selling drugs that impairs the conventional social functioning of college students.13

Marihuana use is not what amotivates students, but participation in the drug subculture. It is probable that subcultural values degrade the importance of working hard in school, attending classes, and other conventional patterns of college performance. Perhaps laws criminalizing marihuana are seen as a more important factor in determining poor social functioning than the use of marihuana, at least among college students in the sample.

However, the data demonstrate that there is a basis for public concern about drugs. While cannabis use does not impair social functioning, it appears that multiple drug use does so to a certain extent. Graph 9.2 shows that the Multiple Drug Use Index has a conditional effect upon social functioning. While multiple drug users are somewhat more likely (6% and 5%) to have low grades than nondrug users or cannabis-only users, the relationship is eliminated when drug dealing is held constant. Furthermore, multiple drug users who sell several drugs are as likely to have low grades as their counterparts who only buy marihuana. Thus, drug use appears to have little or no clear-cut effect upon grades independent of drug selling. Heavy drug users tend to have grades that are similar to less heavy drug users.

The same findings do not emerge from analysis of the Leave College Index and College Difficulty Index. One finds that cannabis-only users are somewhat more likely (about 6%) than nondrug users to be high on these indices, regardless of drug selling activities. However, multiple drug users are about 15% more likely to be high on both indices than cannabis-only users. This difference is not greatly reduced (APD's of 10%) for the Leave College Index and the College Deviance Index when Illicit Marketing is held constant.

Far more compelling evidence of the importance of multiple drug use can be discovered with the aid of Appendix A. If one examines the relationship between the Illicit Marketing Index and these two indices, those selling three or more hard drugs are more likely than nonbuyers and nonsellers to be high on these indices (15% difference on the Leave College Index, 18% on the College Deviance Index). When holding constant the Multiple Drug Use Index, one finds that relationships between the Illicit Marketing Index and the Leave College Index or College Deviance Index are almost eliminated (APD's of 1% and 3%, respectively).

Contrary to the findings in Chapters 6-8 this evidence shows that multiple drug use, and not drug selling, is the most important factor in understanding why students consider leaving college or engaging in college-related deviance. Nevertheless, the data demonstrate again that marihuana use is an unimportant factor in causing low grades, leaving college, or college deviance.

Thus, drug users have social achievement levels (grades) that are equivalent to less heavy drug users, but they are much more likely to show signs of amotivation that are independent of involvement of drug selling. Hence, from the standpoint of public and college officials, multiple drug users, but not marihuana users, show signs of impaired social functioning.

However, the problem of how persons become multiple drug users mast again be considered. The evidence in Chapters 6 and 7 demonstrates that drug-subculture participation is probably a major factor in understanding multiple drug use. So indirectly, drug-subculture participation, as well as the laws making cannabis illegal, are implicated in the pattern of amotivation discovered in the present chapter.

Nevertheless, the measure of subculture participation, the Illicit Marketing Index, is much less important than the Multiple Drug Use Index in understanding measures of the amotivational syndrome.14 It remains for other researchers to replicate these findings and suggest an interpretation of what multiple drug use means if it is not an indicator of subculture participation. It is possible that college officials should be concerned about hard-drug use itself, perhaps more concerned than they are at the present time.

REFERENCES

1. William McGlothlin and Louis J. West, "The Marijuana Problem: An Overview," American Journal of Psychiatry, 125 (Sept. 1968), 372.
2. Nathan B. Eddy et al., "Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 32 (1965), p. 729 (emphasis added).
3. "No Rise Found in Student Suicide," New York Times, Oct. 11, 1970.
4. Richard Blum et al., Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969, p. 154.
5. James Miller, "Objective Measurements of the Effects of Drugs on Driver Behavior," Journal of the American Medical Association, 179 (12) (1962). Also see Richard Blum, "Mind-Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior: Dangerous Drugs," in President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report, Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, pp. 21.39.
6. Andrew Weil, Norman Zinberg, and Judith Nelsen, "Clinical and Psychological Effects of Marihuana in Man," Science, 162 (Dec. 13, 1968), 1234-1242.
7. Ernest L. Abel, "Retrieval of Information After Use of Marihuana," Nature, 231 (May 7, 1971), 58; "Effects of Marihuana on the Solution of Anagrams, Memory and Appetite," Nature, 231 (May 28, 1971), 261; "Marihuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval," Science, 173 (Sept. 10, 1971), 1038-1040.
8. Alfred Crancer, Jr., et al., "Comparison of the Effects of Marihuana and Alcohol on Simulated Driving Performance," Science, 164 (May 16, 1969), 851-854. See Leo E. Hollister, "Marihuana in Man: Three Years Later," Science, 172 (Apr. 2, 1971), 2128, for a good summary and critique of various experimental studies of marihuana's affect upon mental, psychological, and driving performance.
9. Blum, et al., Ref. 4, p.78.
10. George L. Mizner, James T. Barter, and Paul H. Werme, Patterns of Drug Use Among College Students, Denver: University of Colorado Medical School, 1969; and Joel Goldstein et al., The Social Psychology of Student Drug Usage: Report on Phase One, Report of the Carnegie-Mellon Drug Use Research Project, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1970, p. 2].
11. Erich 'Goode, "Drug Use and Grades in College," Nature, 234 (Nov. 26, 1971), 225-227, finds that the curvilinear relationship between drugs and grades hold up even when sex, year in college, and father's occupation is held constant.
12. C. Hess Haagen, "Social and Psychological Characteristics Associated with the Use of Marijuana by College Men," Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University, 1970, p. 23 (mimeographed).
13. Eddy et al., Ref. 2, p. 729.
14. McGlothlin and West, Ref. 1, p. 372.