The focus of this chapter is on students who use the illicit-exotic drugs marijuana, hallucinogens, opiates, and the special substances. In review users are compared with non-users of each drug, intensive users of each are contrasted with less intensive users, and drug-history data are examined.

ILLICIT DRUGS

Marijuana. Reviewing materials presented from a different point of view in Chapters Four and Five, we find that marijuana-experienced students are more prevalent among students who are older, upperclassmen, arts and humanities or social-science majors, come from wealthier families, have one or both parents dead, are from unsettled families, are either without religious affiliation or are Jewish, have no interest in religion, differ from their fathers' and mothers' religion, find athletics of no importance, do not participate in religion, do participate and are involved in politics, do seek new experience, do not participate in activities related to academic or future careers, politically are strongly left, are undergoing political change further to the left, and are in disagreement with the politics of their fathers and mothers. Marijuana users are also proportionately more often found among those who view their parents as quick to medicate but little concerned about their childhood health, recall advantages in childhood sickness, are dissatisfied with course content, with teachers, and with their school, have taken incompletes in the last year, have dropped out of school for other than health reasons, are thinking of dropping-out, are pessimistic about doing what they want in life, plan to work for changes in the world but are pessimistic about their realization, consider dangerous to the country present groups in power, middle-of-the-roaders, and right wingers, and see exclusively benefits and good reasons for illicit-drug use.

Reviewing correlates to marijuana use among minor-drug-use habits and among the functions for drug use, we find that users are more prevalent among students who drink coffee often, drink tea, do not drink chocolate or cocoa, do not drink cola beverages, do use stay-awakes, and do not use mild analgesics. Marijuana users are more prevalent among students who do, rather than do not, use drugs to achieve courage, to gain self-knowledge, to satisfy strong cravings, to combat depression, to relieve nervousness, to facilitate good moods, to counteract anger, to enhance their friendliness, to alter appetite, to combat feelings of dullness, to improve sexual appetites, to reduce sexual desires, to prevent panic, to attempt suicide, to enhance intelligence, to improve physical performance, to prepare for stress, and to shut out stimuli.

As in the preceding chapter, these trends, while important, do not allow one to decide that the marijuana smoker (some take it orally or sniff it as well) is a different kind of person from the nonuser, for the proportionate distribution of traits is rarely so extreme that most users share a trait whereas most non-users do not. Rather, we are dealing with apparently continuous distributions on a variety of interrelated social and personal features where the most that can be said is that marijuana users are as a group different from nonusers but at the same time share many features with them. If we look at the significance of trends identified, we find that about half achieve significance at the .05 level—that is, fifteen out of twenty-eight amenable variables do so when tested by the Kolmagorov-Smirnov procedure. In addition, three out of six associated-drug-use variables (more coffee and stay-awakes, less chocolate drinking) differentiate significantly between users contrasted to non-users.

Approaching the contrast of intensive users vs. less intensive users, we find these same trends visible although not as often significantly so, for on twenty-eight tests only four discriminate. These are year in school, lack of religious 'affiliation, political affiliation, and the positive valence of principles guiding illicit-drug use. We think that there are other differences—or similarities—which are observable —even if the inference as to their reality vis-à-vis chance distribution is open to question—or worthy of comment. For example, intensive use varies by school; 53 per cent of the total population of students in the School IV sample are heavy users, more than twice as many as at any other school. The greatest concentration of less intensive users, 36 per cent of the sample, is in School I. With reference to sex, it is important to note that no differences exist between males and females in the distribution of intensive vs. less intensive use. Intensive more often than less intensive users are arts-humanities majors, come from more unsettled families, are totally uninterested in athletics and in academic or career-related activities, are left-of-center, politically are very active, are opposed to fathers' and mothers' political stance, and have used drugs specifically to gain self-knowledge, to have religious experiences, to improve sexual appetites, to attempt suicide, and to enhance intelligence. Intensive users are also more dissatisfied with course work, find life worse than expected, and fear the Establishment and middle-roaders as menaces to the nation. They also report less family agreement—themselves included—on issues, more often say they oppose the stance of their parents, and feel like outsiders with various groups such as family, student body, and nation. On grade points, intensive users average 2.8, less intensive users 2.7.

Looking at drug histories, we find that most marijuana users begin with alcohol and/or tobacco as their first psychoactive drug. In terms of correlated-drug use, 99 per cent also drink, 94 per cent smoke tobacco, 50 per cent have used amphetamines, 33 per cent sedatives, 29 per cent tranquilizers, 24 per cent hallucinogens, 19 per cent special substances, and 6 per cent opiates. The average age for initiation into marijuana use is nineteen for intensive users, for less intensive users it is age twenty. No remarkable differences in the source of the first experience occur. Only 1.8 per cent of the parents in the total sample are described as having used marijuana. In the heavy-smoker group, 9 per cent say their parents have used marijuana; in the light-smoker sample, 2.4 per cent say their parents have used marijuana. With reference to plans for future use, 13 per cent of the nonsmokers say they intend to begin smoking and 28 per cent are not sure. Among less intensive users, 45 per cent intend to continue and 10 per cent are uncertain. Among heavy smokers 87 per cent are sure they will continue to smoke marijuana. Only 15 per cent of those who say they have used marijuana ever state having any difficulty obtaining it and for only half of these suffering limitation in supply has there been any reduction in use.

Hallucinogens. Reviewing earlier data, one finds hallucinogen users are more prevalent than non-users among the following groups (compared with implicit contrast groups on that same characteristic) : older students, upperclassmen, arts and humanities majors, those who are from either wealthy or very poor families, from unsettled families, those who are without religious affiliation, those who differ with their mothers on religion, those who do not participate in religious activities, who do seek new experience, who do not engage in extra activities related to academic or future careers, are politically left wing, politically involved, and differ with their fathers', and mothers' political positions. Users are also found proportionately more often among students who are dissatisfied with course work, with teachers, and especially with the school as a whole, who have taken recent incompletes, have dropped out of school or are thinking of dropping-out, and see little relationship between their studies and how they want to live. More hallucinogen users are also found among those students who see persons presently in power as dangerous to the nation along with middle-of-the-roaders and who see benefits in illicit-drug use.

Reviewing minor-drug habits and total drug functions, one finds that hallucinogen users more than non-users are found proportionately more often among students who do, rather than do not, take stay-awakes. With reference to drug functions, more hallucinogen users are found, proportionately, among those who do, rather than do not, use drugs to achieve courage, to gain self-knowledge, to have religious experiences, to relieve boredom, to combat depression, to relieve tension, to facilitate moods, to enhance friendliness, to alter appetite, to improve sexual appetite, to combat panic, to attempt suicide, to enhance intelligence, to improve physical performance, to prepare for stress, and to shut out stimuli.

Nine out of twenty-eight tested variables demonstrate significance of differences between the user and non-user groups. Those variables are age, year in school, religious affiliation, religious interest, seeking of new experience, political affiliation, recall of childhood-illness advantages, dissatisfaction with school, and the valence of principles guiding drug conduct.

Approaching comparisons between intensive and less intensive hallucinogen users, one finds there is, on the twenty-eight test variables, only one significant discriminator, which is age, and in this instance intensive users are younger rather than older. On items not tested, intensive users report more family disagreement on issues, and there is more student opposition to positions taken by both parents. Grade-point averages for intensive and less intensive users are 2.9. Other items perhaps worthy of mention (even if tested and found wanting or not subject to statistical test) show practically no difference by school or sex in intensity of use. One does observe—with caution—proportionately more intensive use among freshmen, less intensive use among technology and hard-science majors, no intensive use among Jews and little among Catholics, the critical importance of seeking new experience set forth by intensive users, greater disagreement with the mother on political issues, and among intensive users more specific use of drugs to satisfy cravings, to counteract anger, and to shut things (stimuli) out. Intensive users more often say life is worse than they expected, distrust the Establishment, and are guided only by positive valences in illicit-drug use.

With reference to drug history, one finds that alcohol and tobacco are the first psychoactive drugs for most hallucinogen users. Looking at correlated-drug experience, we find that 100 per cent also drink, 94 per cent smoke tobacco, 91 per cent use marijuana, 73 per cent have used amphetamines, 46 per cent tranquilizers, 40 per cent sedatives, 29 per cent special substances, and 14 per cent illicit opiates. As for the order of use of illicit drugs, marijuana usually (6 to 1) precedes hallucinogen use. We recall that marijuana, in turn, was usually preceded by amphetamines. Carrying that analysis further, one finds that among those using special substances and marijuana, there is nearly a half-and-half split as to which came first. In the case of those using marijuana and illicit opiates, 14 per cent took opiates first, 50 per cent marijuana first, and the remainder began to use both during the same period of time.

The drug histories reveal that the average age for intensive users' initiation to hallucinogens is twenty; that of less intensive users is twenty-one. No remarkable differences occur in sources of that first experience. Only eight parents in the sample (8/1,314) are said to have tried these drugs; five of these are parents of non-users, one of a less intensive user, two of intensive users. Ten per cent of the nonusers state they intend to try hallucinogens; another 25 per cent are undecided. Among the less intensive users, 45 per cent intend to continue to use hallucinogens and 6 per cent are uncertain; among more intensive users, 60 per cent do plan to continue and 19 per cent are not sure. (That high undecided figure among non-users is surprising in view of the wide reports of ill effects from LSD, DMT, and STP use about which students are presumably informed.) Only 17 per cent of the hallucinogen users say they have ever had difficulty in obtaining supplies of these drugs; for the majority of those having supply difficulties, the problem did lead to (temporary) reduction in us.

Opiates. The sample of opiate users is so small, 18/1,314, that we shall refrain from any review of the existing percentage differences while comparing students on various viewpoints, activities, or background features. For the same reason of a small N buried in large groups, the Kolmagorov-Smirnov Test cannot be expected to reveal much. Inspecting these outcomes, one finds significant differences among opiate users when compared with non-users only on religious interest (philosophical among users), school dissatisfaction, and the valence of guiding principles for drug use. There is also a significant difference between users and non-users with stay-awakes. Intensive users have a grade-point average of 2.7, less intensive users of 2.8.

It is also hardly likely that the division of the eighteen opiate users into ten intensive and eight less intensive ones would yield significant differences on multiple-coded variables and they do not, in fact, emerge. Inspection of distributions for the two groups is also a rather barren enterprise. Discernible but nonsignificant differences occur on age with intensive users consistently older but not further along in school, on income with intensive users coming from poorer families, on the importance of seeking new experiences—greater for intensive users, and, for them also, on the importance of activities involved with academic or career affairs; the latter is a switch from the usual trends. We find half of the less intensive users to be Republicans—also an oddity—and more than half of the intensive users to be independents. Intensive users are moderately involved in politics and are more often in political disagreement with their mothers and fathers. On correlated-drug use, intensive illicit-opiate users have twice as much experience with strong painkillers (medical opiates), have undergone anesthesia more often, do not use stay-awakes, and have used drugs for a greater variety of specific functions: in particular, finding courage, fighting depression, counteracting anger, altering appetite, and shutting things out. Important is the fact that no difference exists between intensive and less intensive users in the use of drugs to satisfy cravings—perhaps more important, about two thirds of the illicit-opiate sample do report use of drugs for just that purpose. Only among the intensive group are school drop-outs found, but none of the other school-dissatisfaction or pessimism measures show differences of any remarkable sort.

From drug-use histories, one finds that, like all other drug users, opiate users also first began psychoactive drug use with alcohol and tobacco. As far as correlated-drug use goes, 100 per cent also drink, 95 per cent smoke tobacco, 78 per cent use marijuana, 73 per cent use sedatives, 66 per cent amphetamines, 62 per cent tranquilizers, 50 per cent hallucinogens, and 33 per cent special substances. In terms of the order of use, marijuana precedes opiate use in the majority of instances. In individual histories one sees that the intensive users average initiation into illicit opiates at age eighteen, the lesser users at age nineteen. Drug sources differ; intensive users more often (40 per cent) began use legally—that is, on prescription from physicians—compared with less intensive users (20 per cent starting). Less than 2 per cent of the parents of non-users are said ever to have used illicit opiates; 16 per cent of the less intensive users say their parents (actually one set of parents, 1/8) have used them, whereas 40 per cent (4/10) of the intensive users state their parents have used illicit opiates. Regarding future intentions, 1 per cent (15/1,314) of non-users say they intend to try opiates; 16 per cent of less intensive users (again an N of 1) will continue; three out of ten intensive users will continue; and another two are unsure. Only 16 per cent of the opiate users (3/18) report any difficulty at any time in getting an opiate supply; when difficulties did arise it meant, for two out of these three, a reduction in illicit-opiate use.

Special Substances. We are again faced with a small group, 79/1,314 or 6 per cent, who have tried sniffing glue, gasoline, paint thinner, nitrous oxide, and the like or have consumed such things as cough medicine, ground anti-asthma cigarettes, catnip, and hyacinth leaves for, as they say, "kicks." Reviewing the distributions for these special-substance users on the various characteristic variables, one finds rarely more than a few percentage-point differences, these a function of the small N. Nevertheless, the trends are in the direction of such users being more prevalent among students characterized as being older, upperclassmen, from wealthier families, from unsettled families, without religious affiliation, having only an "intellectual" interest in religion, differing from their mothers in religion, not participating in religious activities, participating politically, seeking new experience, not participating in activities related to scholarship or future career, being politically left of center and politically involved, holding a different political position from their mothers', recalling advantages in childhood illness, being dissatisfied with coursework, teachers, and their school, having taken incompletes recently, having dropped out of school, thinking of dropping-out, being pessimistic about doing what they would like to do, finding life worse than they expected, and seeing as dangerous to the country persons now holding power, or middle-of-the-roaders, and seeing positive reasons for taking illicit drugs.

Reviewing minor drug use and the functions of drugs, one finds special-substance users more prevalent, proportionately, among those who use stay-awakes and mild analgesics. They are more likely found among those who do, rather than do not, employ drugs to obtain courage, self-knowledge, religious experiences, satisfaction of strong cravings, and relief from boredom, to combat depression, relieve nervousness, facilitate moods, counteract anger, enhance friendliness, alter appetite, combat feelings of dullness, improve physical performance, improve sexual appetite, reduce sexual desires, prevent panic, enhance intelligence, prepare for stress, and shut out stimuli.

The Kolmagorov-Smirnov Test shows a significant difference obtaining between users and non-users on only seven of twenty-eight tested variables. (These are age, year in school, seeking new experience, engaging in activities related to school or career, political affiliation, not seeing a relationship between present studies and way they want to live, and valences of drug-use principles.) There are no significant differences on minor-drug use—that is, coffee, and so forth.

When intensive users are compared with less intensive ones, only three variables emerge as significant out of twenty-eight tested. These are younger age, lower year in school, and the importance of seeking new experiences among intensive users.

Inspection of other differences, either nonsignificant or untested ones, shows intensive special-substance users to be concentrated, proportionately, in School III, the junior college, and also in School IV. Although there are somewhat more male than female users, the females report slightly more intensive use. Less intensive users are found more often among wealthier families, social-science majors, and those very active politically; intensive users are among Democrats, independents, and those more often in agreement with their parents on religious and political matters. Among intensive users the use of drugs for self-exploration, religious experiences, combatting anger, making oneself feel stronger, improving physical performance and sexual appetites, and preparing for stress and shutting things out loom as more-often-reported reasons for use. It is the less intensive users who report more course-work and teacher dissatisfaction, although many of the usual pessimism-activism variables yield nothing by way of difference. On other items intensive special-substance users report less whole-family agreement on major issues and have an average grade point of 2.6 compared with 2.8 for less intensive users.

With regard to drug histories, special-substance users also had alcohol or tobacco as their first drug. With reference to correlated-drug use, 100 per cent also drink, 94 per cent smoke tobacco, 58 per cent use amphetamines, 58 per cent marijuana, 38 per cent sedatives, 38 per cent tranquilizers, 24 per cent hallucinogens, and 8 per cent opiates. We have noted earlier that marijuana use is preceded by special-substance use as often as following it; the same is true for the hallucinogen-vs.-special-substance sequence priority. As for age of onset of use, it averages seventeen for intensive users and eighteen for less intensive ones. No remarkable differences exist in terms of the first sources of drugs; for both groups, peers were most often the initiators. Only three students report that their parents have used any of the special substances—two of these are parents of intensive users (2/37), while the other is a parent of a non-user (1/1,235). Only three users say it has ever been difficult to obtain the substances of their choice; for two of these interference in supply led to a temporary reduction in use. Regarding future intentions, only 1 per cent intend to try special substances among the non-user group, whereas among the less intensive users 12 per cent intend to continue and 7 per cent are not sure, as compared with 14 per cent who intend to continue among intensive users and 3 per cent who are not sure. Note that it is only among the special-substance users of all classes of drugs that a minority intends to continue that particular form of drug use.

SUMMARY

The users of illicit-exotic drugs are unusual in that they represent but a minority of students. This unusualness is reflected in the distribution of their characteristics, which, for the most part, indicate that they are older upperclassmen, from wealthy families, arts-humanities or social-science majors, in opposition to parental stands, politically active and left wing, irreligious, dissatisfied, have had drop-out experience, are pessimistic, heavy users of mild stimulants, and are users of drugs for a variety of personal and interpersonal purposes. Nearly all drink alcohol and smoke tobacco and, far more than the average student, they have used prescription psychoactive drugs and a variety of illicit ones. The more unusual the drug used, statistically speaking, the more that the student using it will also have used most other psychoactive drugs examined here; thus, hallucinogen and opiate users stand at the far extreme in terms of their experience with all varieties of drugs. In spite of their anti-Establishment views and school-related pessimism, there is evidence of poorer school performance than for any of the other groups of students using particular illicit drugs.

When intensive users of each illicit-drug class are compared with less intensive users, few findings that lead to a cohesive impression emerge. Marijuana users give the clearest impression; of the extreme (intensive) users, many represent the same trends cited above but carried to an even further degree. Like intensive users for most drugs, they are earlier initiated into use—although that very duration of use puts them at greater risk of being in our intensive sample. More of their parents also use marijuana—a surprising 9 per cent. It is this group which also intends almost universally to continue using marijuana, although about half of the less intensive users also plan to continue—as we saw in an earlier chapter—and, perhaps, 40 per cent of the non-users as well. As with other illicit drugs, getting a supply is rarely difficult and if it is difficult this is not often a deterrent to use.

Among hallucinogen users, few characteristics stand out to mark the more intensive users. Among possibly interesting ones is the apparent comparative youth of the heavy users—in contradiction to usual trends. Disagreements with the mother, having new experiences, using drugs to combat anger and overstimulation, distrust of authority, the use of drugs to satisfy cravings, and being disappointed in life as they find it are all items which appear to characterize the heavier hallucinogen users. Combined with the inference that conventional religion and politics, a harmonious family life, and satisfaction with school and optimism about the future seem to "immunize" against intensive use, certain clinical and social speculations are stimulated. The intensive opiate user, on the other hand, is suspected of being a different chap. There, the disillusionment–anger–lost-child syndrome is not dramatized; rather, it is the emphasis on past medical opiate exposure, the existence of cravings for drugs, the more conservative and even optimistic social bent, the poorer economic background, and inferred slow school progress (although grades are only slightly poorer) which give pause. Combine these with the overriding earlier anti-authority attitudes, depression, and left-leaning trends for most drug extremists and one suspects the existence of two syndromes, both implying individuals pushed by the need for "new inner experiences," as they call it—but one group being the furthest explorers on the drug fringe after using hallucinogens and the other, a less privileged but still struggling group who, importantly, may have learned from example in their own homes since 40 per cent of the intensive opiate users say their own parents have used opiates illicitly. The intensive users of special substances, admittedly a wastebasket classification in itself, seem also to be a special set of cases within the larger wave of the dissatisfied and disillusioned fragmented idealists, whose optimism is limited to what they believe drugs can do for them. These students are younger, stress physical and sexual prowess—or rather what drugs can contribute to these—and are less dissatisfied, pessimistic, and antifamily than less intensive users. Perhaps, among them is a syndrome of hopeful immaturity. Perhaps, theirs was this syndrome; we say "was" because among all drug classes the special subtances are the only ones that are in the users' past rather than their future; few even among intensive users show any wish to continue their use. This, of course, implies that the special substances are those associated with earlier adolescence, even if our sample did take them at an average age of seventeen or eighteen. Presumably, the various gasolines, airplane glues, shoe polishes, drug-store remedies, garden plants, and catnip collections which constituted their experiments are not worthy —either in terms of drug effects or status appropriateness—of further attention.