This, chapter examines our student population—the five campuses combined—in terms of their background characteristics, their interests, their activities, their performance, and their perspectives on politics, family, school, and the future. It then shows how such characteristics are related to the propensities of students to use drugs. (The "use" of drugs refers here to any reported lifetime experience with designated classes of drugs.) The aim of this chapter is also to show that a wide variety of student characteristics are, in fact, associated with having had drug experience—not just with one group of drugs but with almost all classes of psychoactive substances. We shall also see that there are consistent trends, so that the use—that is, any lifetime experience —of certain kinds of drugs bears a more dramatic relationship to student characteristics than other classes of drugs do; thus, we see that such trends become more extreme when illicit-exotic substances are involved. In a later chapter, we will focus attention on the users of particular drugs to see, for example, how those who use them heavily differ from those whose use experience has been less intense.

Male students more than female report somewhat more use of tobacco, marijuana, hallucinogens, and special substances for kicks. The sexes are equally experienced ("equal" defined here as within two percentage points of one another) with alcohol, amphetamines, and illicit opiates. Females more often than males have had experience with sedatives and tranquilizers. In fact, the greatest difference between men and women in terms of percentage points occurs with tranquilizers, 15 per cent of the men and 26 per cent of the women employing them one or more times in their lives. The greatest proportional difference between the sexes occurs with hallucinogens; twice as many men (6 per cent) as women (3 per cent) have employed them.

For all drugs, without exception, the younger undergraduates report less experience than do older ones. The age groups reporting the most experience vary somewhat from one drug to another; for example, more twenty-two-year-olds than any other group report experience with marijuana and with sedatives. More twenty-three-Yearolds report amphetamine and hallucinogen experience and also the use of special substances for kicks. The students who are twenty-four years old and more report the most experience with tobacco, alcohol, tranquilizers, and illicit opiates. We take these differences to indicate that drug-use patterns were changing during the period of the study as well as that a differential rate of incidence is a function of age. Perhaps the oldest students "missed out" on all but the "old-fashioned" drugs and the youngest had not yet been exposed and turned on, but members of the twenty-two- and twenty-three-year-old group were both old enough to have been initiated and young enough to have been part of a "new wave" of drugs. We shall further consider the age factor in later discussions.

Without exception lowerdassmen report less experience with all classes of drugs than do upperclassmen, and graduate students consistently report—with one exception—less lifetime drug experience than do undergraduates. (Remember that the undergraduates come from five campuses but that the graduates are a small sample from one university.) Seniors report more lifetime drug experience for alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines, tranquilizers, and marijuana and match juniors on hallucinogens and special substances. A very slight variation in this pattern occurs for opiates where one finds sophomores (2.31 per cent) and graduates (2.60 per cent) reporting lifetime experience which is greater than other classes—for example, seniors report 0.68 per cent, juniors 1.13 per cent. Keeping in mind the age findings (older students have greater experience with certain drugs) and the school-year findings (graduate students are consistently low in drug use), we may say that it is the older undergraduate who has the greatest lifetime incidence of drug use. Recall from Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter Two that School IV, the state college, has the greatest number of older undergraduates and also the largest number of both juniors and seniors sampled. (School V, the state university, because of its graduate sample has the greatest number of older students, although only slightly more than School IV.) According to these tables, School IV has the highest reported lifetime-experience incidence with all classes of drugs except tobacco, sedatives, and illicit opiates (the latter showing only a trace of difference) . School III, the junior college, is highest in these latter three classes of drugs.

It appears that a concentration of older, upperclass undergraduates is associated with high lifetime-drug-experience incidence on a campus, but it is obvious that age and class standing of the male student are not predictors of overall campus experience for all drugs since a junior college with few older students and no upperclassmen has the highest overall rates for certain drugs.

There are consistent differences in rankings for drug experience among students classified by their major subjects. Those in the arts and humanities report the greatest experience with tranquilizers, hallucinogens, and opiates and share the highest experience of tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines, marijuana, and special substances. Furthermore, they rank a close second on sedatives. Students who are undecided as to major or who are in "general studies" are highest on sedatives and share with others the top ranking for special substances. Students in biological sciences share a high rank only on amphetamines and are lowest on marijuana. Students in the social sciences share high rankings on tobacco, marijuana, and special substances. Students majoring in hard sciences and technology have no high rankings. (A very few students [N = 9] who have several majors also rank high or highest on nearly all classes of drugs but because of the small N are not ranked with the major fields.)

Students from the wealthiest families—incomes of over $25,000 per year—report the greatest drug experience for all drugs with the slight exception of special substances, where 1 per cent more from families in the $15,000 to $25,000 bracket report experience, and of opiates, where all income brackets are about the same, ranging from 1 per cent to 2 per cent. Nevertheless, the lowest-income bracket, under $5,000, is highest on opiates, its 2.38 per cent use being 1 per cent higher than any other, which is, in relative terms, twice as great.

We anticipated that students with one or both parents dead might be higher on drug experience. Our error is reflected in the fact that in no drug class are differences between the two groups greater than a few percentage points.

Students who have lived in more houses by the time of high school graduation are higher in drug experience than those with parental housing stability. Students living in six or more houses report the greatest experience with tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, marijuana, hallucinogens, and special substances. The only exception is with opiates where 2 per cent ( compared With 1 per cent, rounded off, in all other mobility categories) have the greatest housing stability, having lived in only one or two houses. In percentage terms parental mobility makes the greatest difference for amphetamine use, with 17 per cent of the most stable and 31 per cent of the least stable students, as measured by housing mobility, having had drug experience.

Students with present affiliations to Protestant or Catholic faiths consistently report less drug experience than do those who say they have no religious affiliations. One finds that the no-affiliation group has the greatest proportion reporting experience with every class of drugs except sedatives; Jewish students are highest in sedative experience and are second in the proportion reporting experience with amphetamines, tranquilizers, and marijuana.

Students describing their present interest in religion as "deep" are least likely to report drug experience for all classes of drugs. Those saying they have no interest in religion most often report experience with amphetamines, marijuana, and hallucinogens and they share high rankings for tranquilizers and alcohol. Those with "philosophical" interests in religion most often say they have had experience with opiates and tobacco; those with "intellectual" interests are markedly higher on use of special substances and share high hallucinogen, tobacco, and alcohol ranking with others.

We expected that students not sharing their parental religious values would more often have experience with exotic-illicit substances. Findings indicate that this is the case for all classes of drugs. Students not sharing their father's religion more often report experience with all classes of drugs than do students who share their father's religious values. The greatest differences in proportions obtain for marijuana (9 per cent difference between groups) and amphetamines (8 per cent difference). Not sharing the religion of the mother appears much more important in the sense that differences in proportions between the two groups are greater; for example, 15 per cent (rounded off) of those sharing the mother's religion report marijuana experience, while 32 per cent not sharing the mother's religion report such experience. For amphetamines the figures are 16 per cent vs. 35 per cent, for tranquilizers 16 per cent vs. 27 per cent, for hallucinogens 3 per cent vs. 10 per cent, for opiates 1 per cent vs. 4 per cent, and for special substances 5 per cent vs. 11 per cent.

We also expected that students disagreeing with the religious faith of both parents would more often report experience with illicit-exotic drugs than students disagreeing with only one parent or sharing religion with both parents. Our expectation was borne out. We find that for all classes of drugs (the only exception being a 1 per cent difference for sedatives) students sharing religions with only one parent do not differ essentially from those sharing a religious faith with both. The greatest differences obtain between the groups for amphetamines (16 per cent spread), marijuana (15 per cent spread), and hallucinogens (3 per cent low vs. 10 per cent high).

We expected that students participating in various organizations and activities would show a smaller proportion with drug experience than those not participating. Participation was defined in terms of a 7-point rating scale which required the student to rank the importance to him of a pursuit ranging from extremely important to totally uninterested. We also expected that there would be differences in drug experience by activity for those expressing interest—for example, that those "seeking new experience" would more often report illicit-exotic drug use in their lifetime histories than would students interested in athletics. These expectations were, for the most part, confirmed.

Regarding athletics, students for whom sports are either of very little or no importance report proportionately more experience with all classes of drugs. Those for whom athletics are extremely important tend to be the least experienced with amphetamines (a shared low ranking) and marijuana, whereas those saying athletics are of little importance tend to have low rates of use for alcohol, amphetamines (shared ranking), and tranquilizers. We surmise that this latter low-use group is comprised of persons for whom athletics are personally unimportant but who do not resort to extreme ratings in contrast to the greater drug-experience group for whom ratings may reflect ideological or emotional rejection of the collegiate athletic ethic, or possibly an extremist tendency for negative ratings.

Regarding religious participation, those saying it is of very little or no interest consistently report more experience with all classes of drugs. The spread on this item is considerable. For example, 51 per cent of those for whom religious participation is "extremely important" have one-time-or-more tobacco use whereas 76 per cent have alcohol experience; 80 per cent or more of these with very little or no religious participation report tobacco use and 96 per cent alcohor use. For amphetamines the proportions are 16 per cent vs. 36 per cent; for sedatives 13 per cent vs. 28 per cent; for tranquilizers 17 per cent vs. 31 per cent (although the lowest experience at 11 per cent is among those saying religious participation is "important") ; for marijuana 11 per cent vs. 32 per cent; for hallucinogens 3 per cent vs. 9 per cent (with a low of 1 per cent in the "very important" group) ; and for special substances 6 per cent (with the low at 3 per cent among the "important" group) vs. 11 per cent. All opiate users fail to participate in religion.

For political participation a strikingly differentiated pattern emerges. Those who say political participation is "extremely important" comprise the highest proportion reporting experience with amphetamines, marijuana, hallucinogens, opiates, and special substances. The lowest-experience group is at the uninterested end of the scale except for opiates where persons rating participation as "very important" are lowest. Tranquilizer use, on the other hand, is highest among students uninterested in political activity; tobacco is highest among those saying political activity is very important and lowest among those saying it is occasionally important. Very little variation occurs among the groups in regard to alcohol experience.

Regarding action to seek new experiences, an unusual bimodal distribution is found. Students saying it is extremely important to seek new experience are highest, or share the high ranking, on all classes of. drugs. There is a tendency for the proportion reporting drug experience to become smaller as one moves down the scale to those saying it is of little importance to them to seek new experience. However, those in a small group (N = 13 ) who say seeking new experience is of very little or no interest are also quite high on all drugs except hallucinogens and opiates. The incongruity could arise from extremist rating tendencies in a small (nihilist?) sample. If that small group is excluded, then there is a consistent relationship between saying that seeking new experience is very important and reporting drug experience of all kinds. Indeed, most drug users unequivocally rate "seeking new experience" as extremely important and the more "illicit" the drug, the higher the proportion emphasizing new experiences. Thus, 72 per cent and 66 per cent of the opiate and hallucinogen users are among those saying new experiences are extremely important; 58 per cent and 57 per cent of the amphetamines and marijuana users do so, whereas all other drugs have fewer users falling in the group emphasizing new experiences. Note that this phenomenon is even more pronounced when high-intensity users are compared with low-intensity users (a comparison we shall make in later chapters).

As for activities to further one's academic-scholastic career, the tendency is for students for whom such activities are important to report less drug experience. However, since for three fourths of the total sample these school activities 'are important, the comparison is a weak one. It is clear that fewer users of illicit drugs find school-career activities important; for example, only 58 per cent of hallucinogen users, 60 per cent special substance users, 66 per cent opiate users, and 68 per cent marijuana users describe scholastic activities as important.

POLITICAL POSITIONS

We expected drug experience to be associated with political position, anticipating that left-of-center students would reveal more use of illicit-exotic substances. Students were presented with ten political alternatives, the list having been developed after extensive pretesting experience. The findings not only bear out our expectations but extend them. With all classes of drugs, experience is greater as one continues to move left, commencing with the position of the independent-liberals. Drug experience is less on the right, moving right from the independent conservatives. Thus, if one treats the list of political positions as a scale, moving from right to left ( (1) very conservative; (2) Republican; (3) independent-conservative; (4) independent-liberal; (5) Democrat; (6) independent-radical; (7) left of center (8) New Left; (9) Marxist, with an unsealed "no-preference" category as well), one finds illicit-exotic drug users underrepresented among conservatives (groups one through three) and overrepresented in the left and radical groups. As we have indicated, the other accepted drugs also show shifts in these same directions. As for exceptions, among the very conservative sedative use is high. At the other extreme, neither of the two Marxists in the sample reports any use of marijuana, opiates, or special substances. Members of the "no-preference" group show no remarkable characteristics.

We expected political involvement, or activism, to be linked to greater drug experience. That by no means remarkable expeCtation proved correct. On every class of drug the students who describe their political involvement or commitment as active are in the group with the highest proportion of drug experience. The trend for drug experience to diminish with each step of reduction in political involvement varies occasionally; for example, students who say they have no interest, participation, or involvement in politics are second highest in tranquilizer, opiate, and hallucinogen use but lowest or next-to-lowest on all other drugs.

We expected that students who felt that their political position was changing would be more likely to report use of illicit-exotic drugs. (Our rationale expected the common and liberal-leftward undergraduate shift to lead to challenges to many conventions in the inner and outer worlds.) The expectation was supported for every class of drug. We find that those students who say they are undergoing a political shift have a higher proportion reporting drug experience than those not shifting. Interestingly, those not shifting have had, in turn, more drug experience than the smaller number (N = 46) who do not know whether they are shifting or not.

Those undergoing a political-ideological shift (N = 605) were asked in what direction they felt they were moving. We anticipated that those moving left, and, thus, more liberal or change-oriented, would report a higher proportion of drug experience than those moving to the right or center (of course, a rightist moving to center is moving left). For the most part, our expectation was borne out. The left-moving students report the highest experience on tobacco, amphetamines, tranquilizers, marijuana, and hallucinogens and share the first rank for opiates, tranquilizers, and alcohol. A group characterizing its direction not as right, left, or center—that is, fluctuating in direction according to issues involved (not polarized)—is also high, relative to right- and center-moving students, in the proportion reporting drug experience, ranking first on special substances and sharing high ranks for amphetamines, hallucinogens, marijuana, and opiates. Curiously, those who do not know the direction of movement they are taking or who are otherwise unable to describe the political shift they have already claimed share the highest ranking for tranquilizer experience.

We expected that students who disagreed with their father's political position would report more drug experience; in this expectation we were correct. On all classes of drugs, students who say there is no agreement between themselves and their fathers report more drug experience than students reporting some agreement or those saying they are in agreement with their fathers. Those with some agreement and, necessarily, some disagreement, report proportionately more drug experience, in turn, than those in full agreement; this holds for each class of drugs. The group (N = 167) who do not know or refuse to say how they stand regarding their fathers' politics are unremarkable except for their having slightly more (1 per cent) tranquilizer experience than even the "no-agreement" group. The spread of differences among the groups is greatest for tobacco (no disagreements, 67 per cent experience; no agreement with father, 84 per cent experience), marijuana (12 per cent vs. 29 per cent) and, proportionately, for hallucinogens (2 per cent vs. 10 per cent).

We also expected that students disagreeing with their mothers on political grounds would report greater drug experience. However, given the relative unimportance of American women in family political leadership (Lane and Sears, 1964), less consistent relationships might be anticipated. The major expectation was borne out; the qualification was not. Students stating no agreement with their mothers on political matters report the highest drug experience—or share the first rank—on all drug classes compared with students reporting some agreement and with those saying there is complete political agreement between them and their mothers. The group members who say there is some agreement and some disagreement are more likely to report drug experience on all classes of drugs compared with the students in full agreement with their mothers' politics. In the case of tranquilizers and opiates, the full-agreement and some-agreement groups share the same proportion of drug-experienced persons. The spread of differences is greatest again for tobacco (full-agreement students reporting 68 per cent experience; no-agreement students, 84 per cent experience), for marijuana (13 per cent vs. 30 per cent), and proportionately for hallucinogens (3 per cent vs. 9 per cent). It is evident that disagreement with mothers' politics and fathers' politics is the same in terms of the relationship between drug experiences.

Using the father-student and mother-student positions, we categorized students as having some, if not full, agreement with both parents, one parent, or neither parent. One anticipates that disagreement is related to drug experience. For all drugs—except sedatives, where the difference is slight—students in agreement with both' parents report least drug experience and students in disagreement with both parents report the highest proportion of drug experience for all drugs but sedatives (except a slight shift of 1 per cent on special substances, giving them second rank compared with students disagreeing with one parent). Amphetamines, marijuana, hallucinogens, and special substances stand out as drugs with the greatest absolute of proportional percentage spread among the agreement-disagreement groups.

We asked students which they regarded as the most dangerous groups in the United States today. The replies were categorized in terms of their identifying as dangers or enemies groups holding real power, groups on the left (or change-oriented groups), groups in the middle, those on the right, those with particular ways of thinking (not politically homogeneous or specifiable), or criminals as such. Given the rejection of the Establishment by hippies and distrust of the middle and the right by activists, we anticipated that drug experience would vary with those identified as the greatest danger to the country.' These expectations were supported.

Most students identify both left and right extremes as dangerous. Those students identifying the Establishment and middle-of-theroaders as dangerous consist of a greater proportion of drug users, especially of illicit-exotic drugs, on the other hand, those focusing on left-wing dangers tend to be lower in drug experience. To be specific, we find that all other students are more experienced with all classes of drugs except sedatives and alcohol. The differences are considerable for marijuana (45 per cent vs. 17 per cent), amphetamines (36 per cent vs. 20 per cent), hallucinogens (20 per cent vs. 4 per cent), opiates (4 per cent vs. 1 per cent), and special substances (13 per cent vs. 6 per cent).

Students identifying the left wing or others seeking change as the greatest danger are consistently lower in drug experience than all other students. The biggest differences between these two groups obtains for tobacco (33 per cent vs. 42 per cent), alcohol (42 per cent vs. 51 per cent), and marijuana (6 per cent vs. 13 per cent).

Students who label the middle-grounders (middle-of-the-road, middle class, the comfortable masses, average citizens, and so on) as the most dangerous have more drug experience on all drug classes except tranquilizers than those students who do not perceive the middle-grounders as enemies. The greatest differences are on tobacco (88 per cent vs. 75 per cent), amphetamines (33 per cent vs. 21 per cent), and hallucinogens (18 per cent vs. 4 per cent).

'Students considering the right wing (conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, and so on) as the most dangerous force have more drug experience on all drug classes than students not perceiving the right wing as dangerous. Differences between the groups are slight except for alcohol (50 per cent vs. 43 per cent) and tobacco (41 per cent vs. 34 per cent).

Those identifying various criminal groups (not used rhetorically but referring to persons violating the criminal codes) tend to report less drug experience—with one important exception—than students not labeling criminals as such as dangerous to the country. The exception is tranquilizers; those concerned about criminals report 29 per cent experience compared with the less concerned remainder reporting 19 per cent experience. Marijuana, on the other hand, had been used by 19 per cent of the remainder, and only 6 per cent of the students label criminals as most dangerous. All other differences in drug experience are slight.

FAMILY HOMOGENEITY

To get information about the agreement on values not only between student and parents but between parents themselves (that is, family homogeneity), we asked each student to indicate how each of his parents stood on a list of nineteen topics and then to state his own position on each of the issues. (See Chapter Three for details.) Recall that all these perceptions were summed for both agreement and disagreement and were expressed by two scores—one being the number of values or issues on which the whole family were in accord and the other scoring the number of points on which father and mother were in accord and the student was in disagreement with both.

Inspection of the distribution of scores for family agreement indicates a normal curve with a median family agreement on eleven issues and the mode at eleven as well. The distribution of scores for father-mother agreement and student agreement with both is skewed so that modal number of disagreements is on four issues only; the median is at six issues.

Comparing mother-father-student agreement in terms of those students experienced with each class of drug as compared with those without any experience, we find that non-users of each class of drugs report more family agreement than do users. Family agreement occurs least often among the hallucinogen users, followed by marijuana users. Family agreement is reported most often among students who have never drunk alcohol.

The other measure we employed was the number of issues on which the student stood apart from both his parents—that is, the parents agreed with one another and the student was in opposition. One may recall that this measure gauged opposition, rebellion, isolation, progress, or whatever one fancies. The results show that non-users of each group of drugs perceive and report fewer issues on which they stand in opposition to both parents than do users of drugs. The groups perceiving the greatest number of issues on which they stand apart from parents are hallucinogen users, marijuana users, and opiate and special substance users, in that order. We see that on both measures of family solidarity and of student agreement with parents, the hallucinogen users stand out as the most extreme group as measured by their view of themselves as apart from their families on matters of value, policy, and social perspective. At the other end, on both measures, the teetotallers see themselves and their families as the most homogeneous in terms of agreement.

OUTSIDER-INSIDER DIMENSION

Implicit in the opposition of student to parents, as well as in some of our political-position measures, is the notion of being within contrast to being outside of or against—social institutions. We pursued this dimension further for we anticipated that illicit-drug-using students would feel outside of more groups than would others. Students were presented with a list of thirteen groups—including several abstract identity classes—beginning with their family, the people in their own residences, and majors in their department, and expanding outward to include the student body, the intellectual community, the university administration, then, the broader concept of Americans, and the more abstract concepts of middle-class values, Western culture, and this age of technology. Students were asked, after a discussion of the items, whether they felt like an insider (that is, as a member of the group, sympathetic to it, or identified with it or the concept) or like an outsider (feeling outside, being left out, or desiring to be disassociated). A score was constructed by summing the number of times the student replied that he was an outsider.

Inspection of the distribution of scores shows an exaggerated normal curve skewed toward low outsider scores. The median score is four—that is, listing oneself as an outsider on only four of nineteen groups. The mode is also four. Ten per cent of the students feel outside of seven or more groups or abstract classes.

There are no important differences in feelings on the insider-outsider dimension when one contrasts users to non-users on any of the legitimate (that is, medical or social) drugs. However, on all of the illicit drugs, differences do emerge, so that we find hallucinogen users most "outside" by their own account, with opiate, special-substance, and marijuana users trooping behind. In no cases are the differences extreme.

UNIVERSITY AND STUDENTS

Three questions were directed at satisfactions with course work, teachers, and the institution as a whole. These constitute a morale measure roughly akin to industrial-morale inquiries which, to produce morale indices, ask about satisfaction with work, supervisors, and company. We expected that students with greatest dissatisfaction—that is lowest morale—would report more drug experience than others. This expectation was consistently supported.

Students expressing themselves as (entirely) dissatisfied with the subject matter in courses report more drug experience for all drug classes than those students who are both satisfied and dissatisfied or those who are satisfied. Very slight differences exist, for the most part, between the students both satisfied and dissatisfied with their courses and the fully satisfied ones; the greatest difference obtains for marijuana—the satisfied students reporting 15 per cent experience, satisfied-dissatisfied students reporting 23 per cent experience, and totally dissatisfied students reporting 28 per cent experience.

Students entirely dissatisfied with their teachers report proportionately more drug experience for all classes of drugs, except for alcohol, than students who are quite satisfied or who say they are both satisfied and dissatisfied. These latter two groups do not differ in any marked way on drug experience. The greatest differences between the entirely dissatisfied students and the quite satisfied students are on marijuana (35 per cent vs. 16 per cent), amphetamines (32 per cent vs. 19 per cent), hallucinogens (11 per cent vs. 4 per cent), special substances (13 per cent vs. 6 per cent), and opiates (4 per cent vs. 1 per cent).

Students satisfied with the institution as a whole report comparatively less drug experience for all drugs; the entirely dissatisfied students report most experience; students both satisfied and dissatisfied occupy an intermediate position. Illustrative differences aré amphetamines, 18 per cent vs. 34 per cent, with the ambivalent group at 25 per cent; marijuana at 15 per cent vs. 38 per cent vs. 22 per cent; hallucinogens at 3 per cent vs. 18 per cent vs. 7 per cent; and opiates at 0 per cent (N7--- 4) vs. 5 per cent vs. 2 per cent.

Students were asked how many incompletes (taking a course but not completing it—for example, not taking the final exam, with permission of the instructor) they had taken during the last year. We expected drug experience to be higher among those students taking more incompletes. We find that the majority of students report no incompletes and are lower on the use of all classes of drugs in comparison with students taking one or more incompletes the previous year. When we look at the students who, as a group, have the greatest proportion of incompletes, we find them to be first in use of opiates, hallucinogens, and amphetamines, closely followed by use of special substances and marijuana. About 20 per cent of all students in these groups have taken one or more incompletes compared with a maximum 15 per cent taking incompletes among any of the other medical-or social-drug users. In terms of the number of incompletes, the hallucinogen users have had more than any other group, 9 per cent having taken two or more incompletes.

Students were asked whether they had ever dropped out of school for other than health reasons. On all drugs members of the drop-out group report greater use than those who have never dropped out. Figures are as follows: tobacco, 86 per cent vs. 73 per cent; alcohol, 98 per cent vs. 92 per cent; amphetamines, 41 per cent vs. 18 per cent; sedatives, 35 per cent vs. 23 per cent; tranquilizers, 31 per cent vs. 17 per cent; marijuana, 34 per cent vs. 16 per cent; hallucinogens, 8 per cent vs. 4 per cent; opiates, 2 per cent vs. 1 per cent; and special substances, 13 per cent vs. 5 per cent. Looking at the data from another aspect, we can say that students who have tried hallucinogens rank first in the proportion who have dropped out of school for other than health reasons. Students who have used special substances rank second, and amphetamine-experienced students third.

Students were asked whether they were now seriously thinking of dropping-out. On all drugs except alcohol, those not considering dropping out (88 per cent) report less drug experience than those who say either that they intend to or are considering dropping-out. The greatest difference between the group not intending to drop out and the group intending to do so is for marijuana experience, 31 per cent vs.. 18 per cent. Looking at this item, too, from the standpoint of experience with particular drugs and drop-out plans, we find that students who have used hallucinogens have the greatest proportion (23 per cent) thinking about dropping-out, with opiate users, special-substance users, and marijuana users following in that order.

The grade-point average ranges from 1, an average D grade, to 4, an average A grade. A small group interviewed as first-semester freshmen have no grade-point average as yet. Distribution of grade points for the others shows a flattened skewed curve with the mode at 3.0 or straight B and with high frequencies at 2.5 and at 2 (straight C). The average grade point for the total sample is 2.8. Ten per cent of the total sample have grade points of 3.5 (A—) or better. Table 7 below gives the distribution of grade points for non-users and users of each drug. All differences are small. The major inference is that drug experience does not constitute a predictor of grades. Minor observations are that non-users of alcohol and tobacco have slightly higher grades, whereas students experienced with amphetamines, tranquilizers, and several of the illicit-exotic substances have slightly higher grades.

Students were asked what the relationship was between their course of studies and how they wanted to live their lives. The question aimed at the relevance of school for their future. Replies were divided into categories indicating relevance or necessity for career goals, life goals, both life and career goals, and school as being irrelevant for either life or career goals. Our findings show that the students for whom school is relevant for both career and life goals are the ones who report least drug experience on all drugs. The students for whom school is unrelated to either life or career goals report the greatest experience with most drugs—alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and opiates (the latter a shared ranking)—and also share second highest ranking on sedatives and marijuana. Those for whom school is relevant for career goals alone cluster on the low-experience side for all drugs except sedatives and opiates, and with these the differences among groups are slight. Students relating school only to life goals, a more diffuse concept, are highest on alcohol (a shared ranking), sedatives, and tranquilizers, and share high experience on marijuana.

Students were asked whether they were optimistic or pessimistic about doing what they'd like to do once school was completed. Students who are optimistic about their futures are uniformly low on all drug experience, sometimes sharing that low ranking with those in the "other" reply category, most of whom express frequent fluctuating shifts between optimism and pessimism. The pessimistic students are high on all classes of drug experience, although they share high experience on some drugs (tobacco, alcohol, and tranquilizers) with the "other" reply group.

Students were asked whether their life plans included efforts to make changes in the world—technology, the environment, social or political systems, and so forth—so as to change the lives of many persons. The aim of the question was to identify students with what others have called "constructivist" goals that are broadly humane and ambitious as well. These, of course, would focus on idealistic students oriented toward innovation. Although students who indicate they are idealistic innovators, or even revolutionaries, are higher than others in drug experience for all classes of drugs, except sedatives, the differences are not great. Those not interested in changing the world are more experienced in drugs than the "maybe"-group members who report consistently lowest usage ( we must keep in mind, of course, that the percentage spread is slight).

Students were asked how many different campus clubs, teams, or recognized groups or organizations they held membership in at the moment. The group with the greatest experience with drugs report being members of no organization at all. They offer the highest proportion of experience with amphetamines, tranquilizers, marijuana, hallucinogens, opiates, and special substances (sharing these latter two rankings with others). A very small group (combined N = 15) with the greatest proportion reporting experience with tobacco and alcohol is comprised of members of the largest number of college organizations, five or over. These extremely busy students are lowest on sedatives, tranquilizers, marijuana, opiates, and special substances. There is little order to the remaining groups; for example, students holding membership in two or three organizations are low in tobacco, alcohol, and amphetamines but highest in sedatives, fairly low on marijuana and hallucinogens, but high on opiates and special substances. Persons holding membership in one group consistently appear in the middling range of drug experience.

LIFE AS STUDENTS VIEW IT

We asked students to compare what they now knew about life with what they had expected it to be like when they were younger. Replies were coded in terms of those who found it as expected, those who found it better than expected, those who found it worse, those who found it both better and worse, and those who found early expectations utterly unmatched by the present and could only say it was "different."

Students expecting life to be just as it has turned out (at least so they say) comprise the group with the lowest proportion reporting drug experiences for all classes except tranquilizers and opiates, but these latter are only a few percentage points from the lowest group. Students finding it both better and worse, but not the same as expected, are also low on drug experience or sometimes middling. Students finding it "different"—thereby abstaining from value or emotional connotations—are, it turns out, the ones with the greatest proportion of drug experience. Those finding life better than anticipated are consistently a middling group (except for sharing with others an opiate high ranking differentiated from the low by only 2 per cent), whereas those finding it "worse" present a mixed pattern—high on alcohol, highest on amphetamines, high on sedatives, highest on special substances, but lowest on tranquilizers and opiates. Because the spread of differences is small among the middle groups, it is best not to make much of these relative positions, except to wonder about the consistently higher experience of those finding life so much different than anticipated and to keep in mind the relatively (but not remarkably) lower drug experience of the self-styled realists. To illustrate maximum differences, the figures show the realists reporting 13 per cent marijuana experience whereas the "it's-different" group report 21 per cent; realists report 16 per cent amphetamine experience with the "it's-different" group reporting 25 per cent; realists report 65 per cent tobacco experience and the "different" group 80 per cent.

SUMMARY

On almost every student characteristic which we expected to be associated with trends in drug use, we found differences in the expected directions. For the most part, these differences were consistently related to the use of all drugs, although the differences in characteristics became more marked for the less-often-used drugs and especially for the amphetamines, hallucinogens, and marijuana. The drugs appearing most often to be inconsistently linked to these characteristics were sedatives and tranquilizers. The characteristics inquired about included the following: student age, sex and school year; family mobility and wealth; student position vis-à-vis parents, as well as family homogeneity on major values and issues; student interest and participation in activities, politics and religion; student political ideology and religion; shifts in student ideology; school majors; student dissatisfaction with and morale in school; student school performance; conceptions of the relevance of their present lives for the future; and student involvement in organizations and their conceptions of themselves as part of or outside of ordinary groups providing membership, identification, or models for young people. Of all measures, grade averages proved the least consistent.

The differences observed, although not always of great magnitude, are certainly not to be assumed as creating either-or dichotomies or necessarily to be assumed as concealing considerable differences within groups of users and non-users of drugs; nevertheless, they show that drug use as such is related to student background, interests, activities, viewpoint, and performance. These differences (more marked for the illicit drugs and amphetamines, much use of which is also illicit or at least informal) suggest that at the time of the study students with illicit-drug experience were generally wealthier and older upperclassmen; irreligious; in opposition to their parents; politically left wing and politically active; in arts and humanities or social sciences; undergoing ideological shifts; generally dissatisfied and with lower school morale; and more surprised about their life as they foundit and more pessimistic about the future.

We cannot be sure what components or dynamics underlie these trends. We suspect one feature—as evidenced in the age and class data—simply represents exposure to drug availability and prodrug arguments the longer the student is in school. Tied to acceptance of those arguments is a willingness to denounce and distrust conservatism and convention and to embark on a variety of new ventures, some of which are ideological and intellectual and some of which are private and personal. Drug use is at the same time ideological, social, and individualistic. The dissatisfaction, pessimism, incomplete grades, drop-out trends, and major concentration in arts, humanities, and social sciences imply, we believe, not only the "alienation" of some student drug users but also flexibility, lessened commitment to institutional goals and rules, and an interest in unusual personal experiences, in new social experiments, and in the improvisation of new life styles. For some we suspect these trends also imply personal depression, confusion, anger, rebellion, inadequacy, and uncertainty. For others—whatever temporary psychopathological labels may be tempting—the essence of dissatisfaction and experimentation is, we believe, a creative and challenging personal and social ethic.

1 'We are indebted to Nevitt Sanford for proposing that we ask students about the "enemy."