This chapter continues the comparison, begun in Chapter Four, of students who have had one or more lifetime experiences with any of the major classes of mind-altering drugs to students who have never used that class of drugs. The focus of interest here is on correlated drug activity—that is, on students' use of minor stimulants, their exposure to anesthetics, their use of prescription painkillers, their self-medication with mild painkillers and mild tranquilizers, the variety of functions which drugs have had for them, the principles which guide their drug conduct, and their view of sickness and parental sick-care behavior when they were children. The aim of the chapter is to show that students differing on these activities and viewpoints differ consistently on all drug use. It also shows that users of illicit-exotic drugs constitute a set of special cases.

MINOR DRUGS

Students who have undergone general anesthesia constitute a group with proportionately more experience with every class of drug than students not having had general anesthesia. In no instance are the differences greater than a few percentage points. The maximum difference obtains for sedatives; here, 27 per cent of those having had anesthesia have sedative use and 20 per cent of those not having had anesthesia report sedative use. It is possible that routine sedation administration before anesthesia accounts for this fact. The consistent slight differences in anesthesia experience may be interpreted in terms of more exposure to medical care by the higher-income group, which, as we know from Chapter Three, is more drug experienced, or it may reflect either resistance to anesthesia among the nondrug users or, conversely, readiness to accept anesthesia as one feature of a life pattern that accepts, teaches, or otherwise exposes people to the use of chemical agents to affect their minds.

Students who report having received strong painkillers (morphine, Demerol, Percodan, codeine, among others) under medical supervision demonstrate a higher proportion of experience with every class of drug compared with the students who have not received strong painkillers medically. The most marked differences are seen for tranquilizers; here, 26 per cent of those having used painkillers have also used tranquilizers as opposed to 12 per cent among the no-opiate group, and for sedatives where the figures are 33 per cent and 16 per cent. For amphetamines the figures are 27 per cent experience among students for whom painkillers have been prescribed as compared with 15 per cent amphetamine use among students who have neither had medical opiates prescribed nor been given them directly.

Students were asked to describe their use of nonprescription mild painkillers and mild tranquilizers (aspirin, Bufferin, Bromo-Seltzer, Comp:5z, Cope, Endin, and so on) in terms of "none," "intermittent" (four times or less per year), "occasional" (less than once a week but more than intermittent), "regular" (once a week or more), or "considerable" (daily). Our findings show that those who characterize themselves as regular or considerable self-medicators with these compounds constitute the group having the highest proportion of experience with sedatives and tranquilizers as compared with the other categories of analgesic use. The most outstanding difference among all drug classes obtains for sedatives where 56 per cent of the heavy ("considerable") self-medicators also have sedative experience, 30 per cent of the "regular" self-medicators do, compared with 16 per cent and 21 per cent among those who use mild painkillers and tranquilizers only on an "intermittent" basis or not at all. Regular self-medicators are the group with the greatest amphetamine experience; curiously, those who never self-medicate with analgesics or tranquilizers rank second in amphetamine use, while the heavy self-medicators rank third.

To summarize, we find that the heaviest users (daily) of analgesics have the greatest experience (defined as ranking either first or second) with alcohol, sedatives, tranquilizers, hallucinogens, and illicit opiates. The "regular" (weekly) users of analgesics and over-the-counter tranquilizers appear among the most experienced users of tobacco, amphetamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, marijuana, hallucinogens, and special substances. The group members who never self-medicate with analgesics are nevertheless high, proportionately, in tobacco, alcohol, amphetamine, hallucinogen, opiate, and special-substance use and are quite low only with reference to sedatives and tranquilizers. Many of these subgroup differences might not obtain statistical significance since the N's for both the heavy self-medicators and the no self-medicators are small, twenty-five and forty-eight respectively. Nevertheless, we think it worth noting that those who reject self-medication with mild analgesics can be proportionately high in use of other drugs, two of which (alcohol and the illicit opiates) are also usually analgesic in action. What makes better sense is that the heaviest self-medicators with mild analgesics are also heaviest in experience with the stronger sedative-tranquilizer compounds.

Students were asked to describe their use of coffee (caffeine), tea (them), chocolate and cocoa (theobromine) drinks, cola drinks and No-Doze (both caffeine), or other stay-awake preparations in terms of "none," "intermittent," "occasional," "regular," and "considerable" for each as in the previous question. Our findings indicate that the daily users of coffee are also the students with the greatest experience with tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines, tranquilizers, and marijuana. Regular users are also high on alcohol and hallucinogens. Those who drink no coffee are lowest, proportionately, on use of tobacco, alcohol, and amphetamines. The most marked difference in drug experience occurs with tobacco where 84 per cent of the daily coffee drinkers have smoked in contrast to 58 per cent of those who have never used coffee. Our impression from the data is of an association between coffee-drinking habits and the use of social and stimulating drugs.

With reference to tea, those who drink no tea also have the lowest proportion of use of tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, marijuana, and hallucinogens; those who are daily or weekly tea drinkers rank high for alcohol, amphetamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, and special substances. The most marked differences—about 10 percentage points—obtain for sedatives, tranquilizers, and marijuana. The importance of not drinking tea as a correlate of low use of other drugs is suggested.

Regarding chocolate and cocoa drinks, there are no consistent trends, although reversals over the expected occur. For example, those who drink no chocolate or cocoa are highest on tobacco, alcohol, amphetamine, and marijuana while those who are daily drinkers are lowest on amphetamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, and marijuana. Differences among groups are slight; the greatest is the 9 per cent difference in amphetamine experience between those who do not drink chocolate (24 per cent) and the drinkers (17 per cent). One wonders whether one might find other substances which, like chocolate, are primarily foods, the use of which would be negatively correlated with drug use.

Cola drinking is linked to little. The weekly and daily imbibers rank neither highest nor lowest on any drug except sedatives where 30 per cent of the daily cola drinkers are experienced compared with the 23 per cent average for the other groups.

Stay-awake preparations are used daily or weekly by only a few students (19/1,314) whereas the majority (838) do not use them at all. Consistently, those who do not use the stay-awakes are lowest in the proportion having experience with every class of drugs; the small group of weekly or daily users rank high in the use of every drug and the differences between them and the rest of the population are considerable. The proportions of reported drug use by the heavy stay-awake users ( combined daily and weekly groups, N = 19), and intermediate group of occasional users, and the non-users of stay-awakes are, in order, as follows for each drug class: tobacco 85 per cent, 85 per cent, and 17 per cent; alcohol 100 per cent, 97 per cent, and 91 per cent; amphetamines 26 per cent, 31 per cent, and 18 per cent; sedatives 53 per cent, 30 per cent, and 21 per cent; tranquilizers 32 per cent, 21 per cent, and 18 per cent; marijuana 37 per cent, 21 per cent, and 15 per cent; hallucinogens 16 per cent, 6 per cent, and 4 per cent; illicit opiates 11 per cent, 3 per cent, and 2 per cent; and special substances 16 per cent, 10 per cent, and 5 per cent. It can be seen that the greatest differences occur with respect to sedatives.

We conclude that stay-awakes, even though they contain only caffeine, are an important index of the use of other drugs.

FUNCTIONS AND INTENTS

Each student was asked whether he had ever taken anything to achieve a variety of specified effects for which drugs are sometimes used. Our expectation was that those with more variety of drug use would have used drugs for a greater number of purposes—a finding we (Blum and Associates, 1964) have already reported elsewhere and which has also been reported by Aberle (1966).

With reference to having taken something "to make you feel less afraid or more courageous," students answering "yes" report more experience with every class of drug than those answering "no." The biggest differences between the two groups obtain for tobacco (89 per cent vs. 71 per cent), amphetamines (32 per cent vs. 18 percent), tranquilizers (30 per cent vs. 16 per cent), and marijuana (27 per cent vs. 16 per cent).

Asked whether they had ever taken anything "to find out more about yourself" (personality, problems, or potentials), the students showed striking differences. According to our findings, those few answering "yes" have had more experience, proportionately, in every drug class than those saying "no." The differences are large: for marijuana 80 per cent vs. 12 per cent; for hallucinogens 34 per cent vs. 2 per cent; for illicit opiates 7 per cent vs. 1 per cent; for special substances 19 per cent vs. 4 per cent; for amphetamines 49 per cent vs. 18 per cent; for tranquilizers 34 per cent vs. 17 per cent, and so on. It would appear that this item reflects the presumed motives, justification, or drug-goal consensus especially of marijuana users, but also for those employing other drugs.

Asked whether they had ever taken anything "to have a religious experience or to come closer to God," the students showed equally striking differences—this time applicable to the amphetamine and hallucinogen groups. Among the "yes"-reply group, 55 per cent have used hallucinogens compared with 4 per cent among the "no" group. The figure for marijuana use among "yes" responders is 72 per cent and 18 per cent among the "no" group. Other figures are as follows: amphetamines 62 per cent vs. 20 per cent; tranquilizers 45 per cent vs. 18 per cent; and special substances 31 per cent vs. 5 per cent. These data suggest that the religious inquiry is also a very important item in the catalogue of motivations which users of illicit substances ascribe to themselves.

"Have you ever taken anything to satisfy a strong craving or a compulsion, something you just had to have?" We find those replying "yes" have had more experience with all classes of drugs than those answering "no"; however, differences are not great—an average 10 per cent difference obtains for sedatives, tranquilizers, and marijuana.

"Have you ever taken anything to relieve your boredom (break up monotony or a dull time) ?" We find the "yes"-reply group have had more experience in every class of drugs; the biggest difference obtains for tobacco, 86 per cent compared with 65 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make you feel less depfessed or sad?" Results show that the "yes"-reply group have had more experience with all drugs. The biggest difference is with reference to amphetamines, 31 per cent vs. 17 per cent, tranquilizers, 28 per cent vs. 15 per cent, and marijuana, 31 per cent vs. 14 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to relieve tension or nervousness?" We find that the "yes" group have had more experience with all drugs; the biggest differences obtain for tobacco, 83 per cent vs. 64 per cent; amphetamines, 28 per cent vs. 11 per cent; sedatives, 31 per cent vs. 16 per cent; tranquilizers, 29 vs. 5 per cent; and marijuana, 24 per cent vs. 12 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make a good mood last longer or to make a fine feeling into an even better one?" The "yes" group have had more drug experience in all classes; the biggest difference on this item obtains for marijuana, 34 per cent vs. 13 per cent, and amphetamines, 30 per cent vs. 18 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to relieve or counteract anger or irritability?" The "yes"-reply group have had more drug experience in all drug classes. The biggest difference is for tobacco, 90 per cent vs. 72 per cent; for amphetamines, 34 per cent vs. 19 per cent; and for tranquilizers, 31 per cent vs. 17 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make you more friendly or loving toward others?" The "yes" group have had more drug experience across the board; the largest differences occur in respect to amphetamines, 33 per cent vs. 19 per cent, marijuana, 36 per cent vs. 16 per cent, and special substances, 14 per cent vs. 5 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to change your appetite for food, either to increase it or reduce it?" The "yes" group have had more experience with drugs in all classes; the biggest differences are for amphetamines, 44 per cent vs. 13 per cent, and for sedatives, 34 per cent vs. 22 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make you feel stronger or healthier?" Results show this item to be of little value, even though the "yes" group tend to have more experience with most drugs; differences are slight except for amphetamines, 26 per cent vs. 17 per cent, and sedatives, 30 per cent vs. 21 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make you feel less dull or sluggish?" Again, the indication is that the "yes" group have had more experience with all drugs. The biggest differences are for amphetamines, 31 per cent vs. 14 per cent, marijuana, 24 per cent vs. 15 per cent, and tobacco, 81 per cent vs. 71 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to improve your sexual appetite, sensitivity, or sexual capacities?" Findings show that, with the exception of sedative experience, the "yes" group have had more experience with all drug classes. Some of the differences are striking; for example, marijuana experience is 59 per cent for the "yes" group cornparecl with 17 per cent for the "no" group; hallucinogen use is 29 per cent compared with 4 per cent; amphetamine use is 44 per cent compared with 20 per cent; tranquilizer use is 31 per cent compared with 18 per cent; special-substance use is 19 per cent compared with 5 per cent, and illicit opiates use is 7 per cent compared with 1 per cent. It is clear that the item on sex, like the earlier ones on self-exploration and religion, taps into functions and drug uses of special interest to drug-experienced students.

"Have you ever taken anything to reduce sexual desires or sexual sensitivities?" Only a few students (14) are in the "yes" group but they are, in the proportion of drug experience reported, higher for all classes except opiates than the majority of the "no" group. Their experiences compared with others are as follows: tobacco 100 per cent vs. 75 per cent; alcohol 100 per cent vs. 93 per cent; marijuana 71 per cent vs. 18 per cent; amphetamines 43 per cent vs. 21 per cent; sedatives 43 per cent vs. 24 per cent; tranquilizers 36 per cent vs. 19 per cent; hallucinogens 7 per cent vs. 5 per cent; opiates 0 vs. 1 per cent. This sexual reduction item is particularly relevant for some of the marijuana-use group.

"Have you ever taken anything to keep yourself from going into a panic or perhaps to keep you from going crazy?" The "yes" group (N = 83) have had more drug experience in all classes than the "no" group. Tranquilizers stand out as the drug class showing the greatest difference between the two groups; 52 per cent of the "yes" group have taken tranquilizers compared with 17 per cent of the "no" group. Other figures are: sedatives 47 per cent vs. 23 per cent; amphetamines 45 per cent vs. 20 per cent; marijuana 36 per cent vs. 18 per cent; hallucinogens 8 per cent vs. 5 per cent; and special substances 17 per cent vs. 5 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to kill yourself?" Thirteen students, or 1 per cent of the total population, say they have tried to kill themselves via substance ingestion. These group members are high on all drug experience compared with the others (except illicit opiates). The drug-class experience showing the greatest difference between the two groups is, not unexpectedly, sedatives; 69 per cent of those attempting suicide have used sedatives compared with 24 per cent among those not attempting suicide (at least via ingestion). Other differences include tobacco 92 per cent vs. 75 per cent, amphetamines 46 per cent vs. 21 per cent, tranquilizers 54 per cent vs. 19 per cent, and marijuana 46 per cent vs. 19 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to make you smarter or improve your ability to learn or to remember things?" We find that the "yes" group have more drug experience across the board. The biggest difference is for amphetamines: 61 per cent of the "yes" group have used them compared with 17 per cent of the "no" group. Other figures are tobacco 88 per cent vs. 74 per cent, tranquilizers 30 per cent vs. 18 per cent, marijuana 45 per cent vs. 16 per cent, hallucinogens 13 per cent vs. 4 per cent, and special substances 16 per cent vs. 5 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to improve your performance in something physical (athletics or work)?" The "yes" group have had more drug experience, but the item does not reveal strong differences between these members and the "no" group.

"Have you ever taken anything to get you ready or put you 'up' for some stress (exam, meeting) ?" The "yes" group have had more drug experience across the board. The biggest difference is in amphetamine experience, 35 per cent vs. 15 per cent; tranquilizers 30 per cent vs. 15 per cent; and sedatives 32 per cent vs. 22 per cent.

"Have you ever taken anything to shut things out, to help you put something out of your mind or keep something from intruding?" The "yes" group have had more drug experience in all classes. Differences obtain for marijuana, 40 per cent vs. 16 per cent, amphetamines 40 per cent vs. 19 per cent, sedatives 35 per cent vs. 23 per cent, tranquilizers 33 per cent vs. 17 per cent, hallucinogens 10 per cent vs. 4 per cent, and special substances 15 per cent vs. 5 per cent.

We can look at self-ascribed drug motivations to learn whether different functions apply to different drugs. For the drug-using population as a whole, we learn that people say they employ drugs to relieve tension, to feel stronger, to feel less dull, and to satisfy a strong craving. We see that opiate users answer "yes" to almost every possible motive (four excepted) and in doing so suggest that they use opiates for almost any felt need. One might also ask whether opiate users have the least clearly delineated states of feeling and the closest linkage between arousal states and drug gratifications. If such is the case, one would expect to find a much reduced level of need differentiation among opiate users and a broad substitution of opiates as a source of polyvalent gratification. Examining replies to the motive questions still further, one finds that users of tranquilizers more than any other class of drug users employ these substances to relieve tension and avoid panic. Amphetamine users emphasize the use of drugs to feel stronger and to be less dull.

If, on another tack, we take the outstanding differences between the "yes" and "no" groups regarding purposes of use, we find that marijuana use is twice as great among those who say—as opposed to those who don't—that they employ drugs for self-exploration, religious seeking, combatting of depression, mood elaboration, enhancement of friendliness, sexual improvement, sexual reduction, avoidance of panic or psychosis, suicide attempts via drugs, enhanced learning or recall, and insulation from stimulation.

Using the same criterion for identifying motives for drug use among hallucinogen users (this criterion requires that at least twice as many assert their motives as deny them), one finds the principal self-ascribed motives of hallucinogen users to include self-exploration, religious seeking, relief from boredom, combatting of depression, mood elaboration, sexual-appetite enhancement, learning facilitation, stress preparation, and insulation from stimuli.

Sedative users claim the following motives more than twice as often as nonsedative users: tension relief, reduction of sexuality, and suicide attempts via drugs.

In summary, we find that the greatest variety of motives obtain for the illicit-opiate users, followed, in turn, by special-substance users, amphetamine users, and pot smokers. Our selection of motives for inquiry was not balanced between positive and negative but implies some sense of deficit on the part of the user. Perhaps it is for this reason that the catalogue of motives claimed by the drug-experienced students, as compared with the inexperienced ones, implies so much distress. Nevertheless, we would not wish to overlook the implications of the fact that persons laying claim to drug uses based on functions reflecting psychological pain emerge as having used psychoactive drugs considerably more often than those not claiming to have used drugs for these distress-reducing reasons.

PRINCIPLES GUIDING DRUG USE

Students were asked what beliefs about drug use guided their own conduct in regard to their personal use of LSD, marijuana, and similar substances. Replies to this open-ended item were content coded. Our findings show that the majority (61 per cent) of students say they are guided primarily by negative considerations, dangers, disapproval, and the like. Seven per cent emphasize only positive features in the use of these drugs, and 31 per cent offer both positive and negative considerations. Only 1 per cent are unable to set forth their own rules for drug use. Among the negative valences, the risk of undesirable changes in the self tops the list (46 per cent) ; next, in order, are the following: danger of physical harm; sheer disinterest in taking drugs; a sense of inappropriateness in terms of the student's view of himself and his position or responsibilities (". . . responsibility toward my family—they would disapprove and I care what they think of me," or "I should serve as an example to my younger brothers and sisters") ; the disapproval of others; incompatibility with the student's morality; risk of changes in social relations as a consequence—that is, loss of friends or becoming a member of a druggie group; or, for 4 per cent, the lack of opportunity to take these drugs,

On the positive side—that is, reasons for taking the drugs—the most often cited (by 21 per cent of the population) is to satisfy some personal motive, such as curiosity and the desire for self-exploration, followed by the recommendation by authority figures (teachers, ministers, writers, and so forth) to use them, compatibility of drug use and/or effects with the student's own philosophy (for example, "I'm not sure about LSD but marijuana I use socially; it also gives occasional glimpses about yourself that you can't get with alcohol"), in response to encouragement, or facilitation from the immediate environment (for example, to please a friend or be in the spirit of a party, to respond to the recommendation of friends as to beneficial effects, or to facilitate moods).

Considering that almost 40 per cent of the students do have reasons for taking LSD and marijuana—although only about 20 per cent report taking them—one suspects the existence of a strong "ready reserve" who, under some circumstances, will "turn on." Indeed, the shifts in use reported in Chapters Eleven and Sixteen give every reason o believe that many may have begun drug experimentation after our survey. We would presume such students were drawn from among those who had positive reasons for using drugs although they had not yet used them then. We shall further consider the ready-reserve group when presenting information on the stated intentions of students with regard to further drug use.

As one examines the distribution of positive-, mixed-, and negative-valence principles guiding drug use, one finds, as expected, that students using the illicit-exotic drugs emphasize positive features to a far greater extent than do students inexperienced with those drugs; for example, the ratio of negative to positive to mixed valences for marijuana users is about 1:2:5, and for hallucinogen users it is about 1:8:12 compared with the total-population (less the marijuana-hallucinogen group) ratio, which is about 23:1:8. What these ratios show is that the illicit users are oriented to benefits and facilitating features of drug use, that hallucinogen users are far less concerned than marijuana users (by a factor of 4) about negative effects or other barriers or threats surrounding use, and that hallucinogen users are also most extreme in the sense that they have the least ambivalence internally or are least aware externally of both attracting and repelling forces surrounding illicit use.

The distribution also suggests that there are a number of features which control drug use even among those experimenting with illicit-exotic substances, especially among the marijuana group. Thus, there are negative-valence factors reported by three fourths of the marijuana smokers and by three fifths of the hallucinogen users; what is more, about one tenth of the marijuana users (one twentieth of the hallucinogen users) report only negative-valence principles. We presume that these are experimenters who are no longer using illicit drugs. Among the negative features noted, one fourth of the marijuana and LSD groups mention the danger of physical harm, some show concern over their reputations and responsibilities, an interesting 10 per cent claim disinterest in these drugs, and a few (about 6 per cent) comment that their use is contrary to their morals. Almost half of the marijuana users—and over one fourth of hallucinogen-experienced students—seek to avoid undesirable changes in themselves which they believe may occur in consequence of drug use, and almost one fourth of the marijuana users—as opposed to only a tenth of, hallucinogen users—limit their use because of social disapproval—including legal sanctions. As for positive reasons for use, the satisfaction of personal motives and compatibility with personal beliefs rank first among both marijuana and hallucinogen users.

CHILDHOOD SICKNESS AND CARE

We expected that adult drug use would be related to childhood experience with illness, the presumption being that if illness—accompanied in America by the common application of medications—had been in any way pleasant there would have been some learning of drug use as a feature of the sickness role. Similarly, if parents had given medicines quickly, the child could later learn self-medicating habits which would also be generous ones. One could, of course, take the same expectations and translate them simply into exposure to medical care and medication as a function of the socioeconomic differences we have already shown to characterize drug propensities. One could speculate in terms of pre-existing personality traits that would lead a child to influence his parents to give medicine or to allow him to play the sick role or one could speak of justification of present habits in terms of a reconstruction of data relevant to childhood experience. In any event, we had already obtained data supporting these expectations in the normal-population study (reported in Chapter Eleven of Drugs I) and we sought to replicate those findings here.

Among students characterizing their parents as quick to give medicine or home remedies (about one fourth of the sample), a higher proportion have used tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines, sedatives, and tranquilizers—in other words, the sanctioned medical or social drugs —than those characterizing their parents as "reluctant" or "average." On the other hand, among the offspring of parents viewed as quick to medicate, there stands the lowest proportion of marijuana and hallucinogen users. The differences are, however, small.

Asked whether there were advantages to being sick as a child, the students saying "yes" (over one third of the sample) consistently indicate the most experience with all classes of drugs compared with students saying "no" or those describing both advantages and disadvantages in childhood illness. The greatest differences obtain for sedative, tranquilizer, and tobacco use.

Students were also asked to evaluate their parents' level of worry about their health when they were children. We wanted to know whether the student perceived his parents as overconcerned about health or, in contrast, underconcerned. We anticipated that those perceptions of the parents as extreme—and implicitly unsatisfactory—would be related to variations in drug use. Our findings show that those few students (total N = 68) reporting their parents as having shown little concern about their health in childhood have the highest proportionate use of all drugs compared with students evaluating their parents either as very concerned or overconcerned or as average. Differences in drug experience among these groups of students differing in their views of their parents are sometimes considerable; for example, those seeing parents as underconcerned vs. average (which is how the majority replied) use tobacco 93 per cent vs. 74 per cent, amphetamines 38 per cent vs. 21 per cent, sedatives 37 per cent vs. 22 per cent, marijuana 44 per cent vs. 19 per cent, and hallucinogens 12 per cent vs. 5 per cent. It is noteworthy that almost no differences show up between students reporting their parents as having shown average concern and those reporting overconcern.

Reviewing these reconstructed views of what parents were like in childhood—a recollection likely to be strongly colored by current student views of what parents are like—one sees first that the most unusual students statistically—that is, those few seeing their parents essentially as uninterested in their childhood health (an inferential measure of rejection or, equally likely, a justification for student counterrejection)—are the heaviest drug users for all drugs. Secondly, one sees a tendency—and only that—for perceived readiness to give medicines as being associated with more experience with all drugs except illicit-exotic ones when compared with the drug experience of those who believe caution was used in home dispensing. Thirdly, one sees a clear relationship between recollection of gain in the sickness role and the use of all drugs. The relationships are obviously complex as well as partial. It does appear clear that perceptions of childhood illness and parental care are linked to drug-use history. Perhaps one thread in the data is that the notion of being apart from one's parents —as is the alienated or rebellious student, who we have already seen is more experienced with illicit-exotic drugs—is linked to a group of views, one of which is that parents were not loving, that they did not even "give" medication, that they did not "care." Would the advantage in the sickness role, then, be a way of forcing parents to care? Perhaps another thread in the data is for students who do use conventional drugs more heavily to recall a family orientation that played a part in their learning to use drugs readily; perhaps parents accounted directly for part of that drug history by introducing the-student to some compounds. At another level one wonders whether early personality features developing out of family interaction may have led not only to the utility of being sick as a way of gaining satisfaction but perhaps to early gratifications from drugs administered in childhood. This would have been a first step in learning drug use, as well as an expression still extant of the passive manipulation of the environment —that is, by altering oneself through drugs and by assuming a less active role. One wonders, too, whether heavier drug use might not be regressive in the sense that by self-medication one returns to an earlier problem-solving mode which once worked in childhood by forcing parents to care. Certainly, the social consequences of illicit-drug use at the very least are that elders are made to sit up and take notice! We shall carry these speculations no further at the moment. What must remain clear is that how students report their childhood may have little to do with how others observing parent-child interactions would have characterized these. We hope to follow up on some of these issues by working directly with families, observing how, in fact, the parents of children who are or became heavy drug users differ in their views and behavior from other parents.

SUMMARY

There is a consistent trend for users of all drugs, whether social, medical, or illicit, to have had more experience with other psychoactive agents whether strong or mild. Thus, anesthesia, medical opiates, coffee, tea, and stay-awakes are all more commonly employed among drug-experienced—as contrasted to non-using—students for almost all classes of drugs. The differences are more extreme for users of certain drugs; for example, tobacco smokers are most often coffee drinkers and stay-awake users.

Inquiry into the variety of functions (desired effects, reasons for use) of drugs reveals that illicit users claim the use of drugs to accomplish more things than do non-users. This multiplicity of drug functions for those committed to use has been reported elsewhere (Aberle, 1966; Blum and Associates, 1964). We suspect it represents a rosy-colored view of what drugs are, a justification of why drugs are important, and an optimism about drugs as tools to change one's own inner nature, moods, cycles, and social relationships The specific functions more often accepted by drug users and denied by non-users include the following: combatting fear; exploring one's self; achieving religious experience; satisfying cravings; relieving boredom; combatting depression, sexual impulses, tension, anger, dullness, panic, and. psychosis; elaborating moods; facilitating friendliness, learning, and sex; preparing for stress; changing or reducing appetite; shutting out the world, and killing oneself.

Upon inquiring as to the personal principles which guide conduct in respect to illicit drugs, one finds that most students are guided by negative considerations, the fear of ill-effects, inhibiting or coercive social forces, inappropriateness of use, and so on. Mixed positive and negative guidelines more often characterize drug users, while positive values primarily guide illicit users—for example, in the ratio of negative to positive to mixed valences (principles) for hallucinogen users is 1 to 8 to 12 compared with the reverse ratio of the remainder of the students, which is 23 to 1 to 8.

Inquiry into aspects of parental medicating habits and of recollections of childhood illness reveals as the most important finding that users of all classes of drugs consistently recall the advantages of being sick as a child. Too, that small group of students who believe their parents had little concern over their health in childhood were high in their use of all drugs in comparison with other students. These latter reconstructions of childhood as to what illness and parents were like represent, we believe, a perception of parents as not caring—a position compatible with other critical views of parents as expressed by drug users. Whether parents did not, in fact, care, we cannot say. As to the gains from childhood illness, the speculations that emerge are tantalizing. Were these gains an introduction to passivity compatible with adult drug-induced states? Were the self-indulgences in staying away from school and responsibility compatible with dropping-out, taking incompletes, and enjoying pleasure-giving drugs? Were they early exposures to drugs which helped teach drug pleasures, now elaborated in late adolescence? Were they periods of rest from excessive demands by ambitious parents or periods of attention from parents otherwise too busy to care? Were they, perhaps, early expressions of preoccupations with inner states—including symptoms—which foretold later investments in self-exploration through drugs? Are the data simply compatible with McGlothlin and Cohen's (1965 ) finding to the effect that drug-interested students enjoy regressive states? Or is adult drug use simply a new way of gaining adult attention that was, in earlier years, accomplished by being sick? We believe these questions are important enough to prompt further inquiry.