Scurrying about the country giving speeches here and there on drug "abuse," serving'as consultants to commissions, boards of inquiry, official agencies, and rehabilitation centers, cited by the mass media whenever some sort of proclamation is needed on the subject, is a hardy band of men and women designated and known as "drug experts." It happens that very few of them have done any actual research on the subject of drug use, and most are, in fact, remarkably ignorant of the research that has been done by others. This does not seem to distress anyone a great deal, for these are sane and reasonable men and women—which means that they say the right things to the right people—and consequently everyone is happy in the charade. Thus do we get the irony of the expert who is an illiterate.

It is possible, once in a while, to come across someone who has some idea of what is going on in this area. Even rarer still, we might encounter someone who has actually conducted a study on the subject—although such a person will rarely be officially designated as an "expert." And the rarest bird of them all is the researcher who has made an original contribution to the literature. Bruce Johnson is such a researcher, and this book is the culmination of his efforts. Like any good observer of the real world, Johnson has built on the work of his predecessors, but he has also pushed back the borders of our ignorance a bit, which is, I would think, what anyone engaged in intellectual craftsmanship (or craftswomanship) should be doing.

Three major questions have been taunting drug researchers for decades: (1) Why do young people experiment with illegal drugs in the first place? (2) What accounts for drug "escalation"—that is, the greater likelihood of marihuana smokers using more dangerous drugs? (3) Does the use of marihuana, per se, cause or potentiate "antisocial" behavior? Johnson has managed not only to answer all three questions systematically and empirically but also to weave his answers into a coherent and consistent single story line. Following the law of parsimony, he explains a lot with a little; simple sociological and subcultural factors appear to play the decisive role in the drug equation.

Psychiatrists have claimed for some time that unconventional behavior is causally linked with personality inadequacies. But what do we make of the fact that, as Johnson demonstrates, it is possible to predict—with almost 100 percent accuracy—who will turn on to the use of marihuana and who won't, using such simple social variables as gender, cigarette smoking, political persuasion, religious participation, and friendships? It seems to me that we either have to give up the notion that deviant behavior is powerfully linked to "abnormal" personalities—and, instead, begin looking at it as an outgrowth of certain life-styles of essentially "normal" communities in society—or accept the idea that marihuana use is simply no longer a form of unconventional behavior.

Interest has centered around the "causes" of marihuana use, but even more around the "effects" of marihuana. The literature is replete with studies documenting a correlation of some kind between marihuana use and various outcomes: dangerous drug use, sexual permissiveness, delinquency and crime, difficulties in school, including poor academic performance, political leftism, what have you. Some of these correlations (such as the one between marihuana use and sexual unconventionality) seem to be sustained by all researchers, while others (low grades, for instance) are more inconsistent, varying from one study to another. No matter; in any case, the basic issue can be posed plainly: Do the effects of marihuana significantly precipitate, potentiate, or cause certain outcomes, principally certain forms of behavior? Or do these correlations exist because of factors external to the effects of the drug? Does marihuana "cause" criminal and aggressive behavior? Does it "potentiate" the use of more dangerous drugs? Do users "go on" from marihuana to increasingly "antisocial" activities? Is a causal mechanism at work here? Or is the relationship a spurious one? Does the correlation hold up because of more basic factors related to both marihuana use and unconventional behavior? The "causal" school has had numerous and powerful adherents, and still does. And the "spurious" school, although less legion and certainly less influential, has set forth its argument in recent years. But until now, these fundamental questions have never really been answered with anything even remotely like hard empirical data. Johnson's study convincingly supports the view that the relationship between marihuana use, per se, and unconventional behavior is basically a spurious one; it is a relationship which substantially disappears when certain key factors are accounted for, or "held constant."

Johnson's central thesis is that subcultural involvement is the central causal mechanism impelling young marihuana users into forms of behavior our society has decided are deviant. Having friends who use more dangerous drugs, and buying and especially selling a variety of drugs—in other words, being involved in the criminal drug-using subculture—appear to be far more tightly related to taking part in behavior more unconventional than the use of marihuana itself. The independent contribution of marihuana is relatively insignificant, while the independent contribution of being among others who use a wide range of drugs is formidable.

Johnson's data have not only theoretical, but practical implications. If his analysis is correct, we have to ask ourselves what contributes to the coherence of the dangerous drug-using community—and what can be done to weaken it. It would be difficult to deny that law enforcement plays a significant role in maintaining drug subcultures. As Johnson cogently states, "our evidence indicts the present drug laws, and not marihuana use, as a major cause of heroin use." Could the present legal system be a mad Frankenstein scientist, tediously piecing together a monster offspring, a vigorous criminal drug-using subculture, with high rates of truly dangerous behavior, without realizing it? This pattern is a hoary one of course. Organized crime got a big boost with Prohibition. Junkies victimize their brothers and sisters—and themselves—not because of the effects of the drug, but because of our Byzantine laws. And the lions didn't seem to dim the ardor of the early Christians very much. No one would claim that because a few laws haven't worked, therefore no law can ever work. But if we don't have the courage to see the monstrous effects of the past and current legal efforts, this society is doomed to a self-imposed avalanche of suffering. Let us hope that Johnson's study will help us in formulating a more sane and less destructive drug policy for the future.

Erich Goode
Department of Sociology
State University of New York at Stony Brook