Drug Abuse

This chapter offers the results of questionnaire surveys of 5,480 students in four San Francisco Bay Area high schools. The organization of the chapter reflects the development of the study itself. The first round consisted of a pretest questionnaire to about 2,000 students in several schools. Difficulties in questionnaire administration, which biased the sample, and inadequacies in question phrasing led to revisions in procedure and also account for the fact that results of the pretest are not reported here. The second round, which is reported, consisted of the administration of the revised questionnaire to all students (N = 1,614)' in one high school in an upper-middle clam suburban area (average family income $12,000), a town adjacent to one of the colleges included in the study. The high school survey was conducted during the same year that the college study was being done. The findings from this high school are reported by Blum (with Bausek) in the first section of the chapter. The second section of the chapter represents the next step, which was a further modification of the questionnaire. This version was administered to 2,221 students in two high schools that,were both within twenty miles of the first. One was in a middle-class neighborhood in a suburban town; the other was in a lower-middleclass-working class neighborhood in one of the Bay Area cities. The data in the second section were gathered and are reported by Aron and Tutko. The third section of the chapter sets forth the results of a town-wide school survey using a similar instrument, administered to 1,645 students in a middle-class senior high school. The results are reported by Feinglass.

The several sections are bound together by common inquiries into reported student use of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, stimulants, volatile intoxicants (glue, gasoline, and so forth and other substances. Common inquiry is also made into parental drug habits, drug use of peers, illicit-drug-taking opportunities, beliefs about drug effects, and information needs about the drugs in question.

UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS HIGH SCHOOL

Tobacco. Thirty per cent of the boys and one fourth (27 per cent) of the girls report that most of their friends smoke. About three fourths (72 per cent) of all students say they themselves have tried smoking, and three fifths say their parents smoke. Eighteen per cent of the boys and 14 per cent of the girls say they themselves smoke regularly. Asked whether there is anything bad about smoking, 84 per cent of the students say "yes"; asked whether there is anything good, 34 per cent say "yes." Asked with whom they were when they first tried tobacco, they most frequently reply "friends of their own age"; this is five times more common than being with "older friends or parents." About 10 per cent say they were alone when they tried their first cigarette.

Analysis of the replies to open-ended questions asking what is good and bad about tobacco and what more information they want about it leads to the impression that they are informed about cancer dangers, although smokers' comments indicate that they do not appear to care. They accept smoking as a social practice and are taught about tobacco in a course on social living; they are not curious about it and few want any further information. Some students make comments which suggest an undercurrent of disbelief or distrust in what they are taught, asking "Is it really habit forming?" and "Does it really cause cancer?" Some are explicit in wanting facts, not opinions, and in disapproving of "scare" lectures. Some also speak of being uncertain be- cause of disagreement among authorities: sometimes they remark that such disagreement leads them to doubt all authorities. A number of interesting individual observations were made in response to a question about differences between students who smoke and those who do not; some students are quite sophisticated in terms of psychological notions; others are careful observers.

However much teaching these students have had in regard to tobacco, they have not been given a sufficient orientation which allows them to expect and live with uncertainty or to think in terms of probabilities and an unfolding world of new but always tentative knowledge. Thus, the emphasis on "science" in health education appears to have been in terms of absolutes and possible moralizing—quite unlike the philosophy and proper uses of science itself. One sees how concrete and simplistic presentations, however much their ease and short-term appeal, lead to long-term educational failures. Here the problem becomes one of teaching teachers before teaching students.

There is also indication that high school health education—if it is to be called that, even though in this school "social living" may well be a course in conventional morality—must come to grips with the same problems facing adult health education regarding tobacco use. These problems include how to handle the anxiety, the primitive sense of invulnerability, and the denial of drug dependency which lead confirmed smokers intellectually to accept information on tobacco leading to disease but to disregard it in their conduct. An alternative reaction of discounting that information on various pseudo-intellectual grounds is also found to occur among students. It would be well, indeed, to find out which styles of presentation of what information to which students actually work best to reduce smoking.

Some few students are quite profound observers. It is likely that a teaching program utilizing their awareness might well help shape group norms. One also wonders, given the relationship between parental smoking and children's smoking ( also noted by students here), about a double-barreled education program in prevention simultaneously involving parents and students. Could one not offer meetings once a week of evening groups for parents about treatment principles, in the hopes that as they reduce smoking ( as some do), their youngsters might be more responsive to pressures to stop smoking or not to begin? In any event it is heartening that less than one fifth of the students report themselves to be regular smokers. Any endeavor to learn how that low rate came about (assuming it is correct). and how it can be maintained is worth while.

Alcohol. More boys (43 per cent) than girls (35 per cent) say that the majority of their friends drink, but slightly more girls than boys (88 per cent vs. 84 per cent) state that they themselves have tried alcohol. About the same number of boys and girls (88 per cent) say their parents drink. Regular drinking is limited, 14 per cent of the boys and 11 per cent of the girls reporting they do so. Three fifths of the total sample acknowledge something wrong with persons their age drinking whereas one fourth also state that there are good things about persons their age drinking. Most students report that their first drink was taken in the presence of their parents; this setting occurs almost twice as often as being with friends their own age. Almost 10 per cent of the girls report their first drink was on a date; about 3 per cent of the students first tried alcohol when alone. Asked what was the largest number of drinks consumed on any one occasion, students ( almost a third of those answering) most frequently say "one," with the next most frequent number being six or more (for almost one quarter)'.

Analysis of replies to open-ended questions gives the impression that drinking is accepted although more so for boys than for girls. Alcoholism emerges as an issue about which there is considerable confusion and anxiety-producing misinformation; for example, "If you start drinking at fourteen, will you become an alcoholic by age eighteen?" Taught about alcohol in a social-living course, they are not avidly curious but those commenting do want information about its physical effects, about what constitutes sensible drinking, and about what alcoholism is and how it can best be avoided. An apparent exposure to "scare" lectures leads them to stress extreme physical results such as brain damage, cirrhosis, and kidney disease.

What the students have themselves requested by way of information appears to be a good basis for alcohol education: physical effects, how to drink safely, what alcoholism is, and how it can be recognized and prevented. In addition, one would propose using students as "case finders" so that they not only learn something about how alcoholism can be treated, and where, but how they themselves can be useful in guiding persons they know who may be pre-alcoholic or alcoholic into treatment. Such a positive program would reduce stress upon dangers unlikely to occur in most of them and would accent their own role as preventive and treatment agents. This should not only prove flattering and occasionally useful but should provide an acceptable vehicle whereby information might be conveyed. As with any drug-education program, the teacher becomes the critical agent. How to train teachers to teach about alcoholism ( and tobacco and other drugs) in an informed and acceptable way constitutes a major area of endeavor. Of considerable interest is the extreme bimodal distribution of drinking frequency, with one large group being quite moderate, the other ingesting enough to become drunk. One wonders what further research would demonstrate about the drug-abuse potentials of these two strikingly different groups.

Marijuana. More than half of the students (57 per cent)' know someone who smokes marijuana and one quarter have had the opportunity to smoke it. Sixteen per cent of the boys replying to the question say they have tried it, as have 10 per cent of the girls. On this item, unlike the others where "no-answer" or "don't-know" categories usually run about 3 per cent, there is a very high per cent of nonresponse, with 31 per cent of the sample not answering the query. Asked about present use, 5 per cent of the boys and 3 per cent of the girls say they are currently using marijuana; nonresponse to this item drops to 6 per cent. Seventy-seven per cent of the boys and 84 per cent of the girls indicate there are bad aspects to marijuana smoking, whereas 25 per cent of the boys and 23 per cent of the girls signify there are good features as well (primarily giving pleasure). Asked to describe the people they know who smoke marijuana, students ( about two thirds) most frequently refer to casual acquaintances; one third have good friends who smoke. Almost 10 per cent say they have relatives who use marijuana. Many have older friends using it as well. (This is a double-coded item.)

The open-ended question replies reveal less information and more moralizing about marijuana than about tobacco or alcohol. Many believe marijuana use leads to other drugs, to dependency (physical or psychological) , and so on. Some are concerned about the uncertainty of knowledge about effects or about differences among the experts. There is evidence that many would like to be better informed.

The remarkable number of "no-answer" reactions to the inquiry about marijuana experimentation as compared with the high response rates to tobacco and alcohol questions and to other marijuana questions raises the strong possibility that other students—possibly up to the 25 per cent reporting opportunities—have tried the drug but are afraid to admit it. Such anxiety is compatible with the angry explosiveness found in many spontaneous remarks scribbled on questionnaires and accusing the survey administrators of a variety of sins of authority, such as being policemen, being stupid, not understanding, and a series of unflattering vulgarities. In any event, experimentation rather than use appears to be the preferred pattern among those attributing value to marijuana Misinformation about the drug exists and students would welcome an unbiased educational program.

Hallucinogens. Almost half of the students (44 per cent) know people who have used LSD, peyote, mescaline, morning-glory seeds, or other hallucinogens. Seventeen per cent themselves have had opportunities to try these substances, and 10 per cent of the boys and 5 per cent of the girls replying to the question say they themselves have tried a hallucinogen. The "no-answer" category is again high, with 34 per cent refusing to describe their own experience. On the other hand, only 6 per cent refuse to comment on their current practices, and here one learns that 7 per cent of the boys and 1.5 per cent of the girls are presently using hallucinogens (or 4 per cent of the total student body). Most students (85 per cent). acknowledge bad aspects of hallucinogen use but many, 41 per cent of those replying, also believe there are good things about such use (for example, medical and mind-expanding use* On this latter question, the "no-answer" rate rises to 12 per cent. Some students volunteer that they are using datura ( Jimson weed) ; others that they are using Asthemador. Describing the people they know who use hallucinogens, students (about three fourths so reporting) most often cite the casual acquaintance; about a third equally note good friends and older friends. Five per cent have relatives using hallucinogens. (The user-description item is doublecoded.)1

Replies to the open-ended questions give the impression that LSD is considered a dangerous drug on the grounds of brain damage and chromosomal changes; psychological effects such as suicide and the uninvited return "trip" are also known—sometimes almost directly quoted from newspaper accounts. Several students from the school have apparently been hospitalized following LSD use—events which have shaped the views of the student body. There is considerable positive curiosity about what a trip is like and about the risks therein. They are uninformed about hallucinogens other than LSD and would like to know more about how it is used experimentally in medical work. Student comments indicate that some are involved in the hippie community of the Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, and some acknowledge getting their LSD there. Others go to Big Sur for their supplies. Several report bad reactions to the hallucinogens they have taken.

More so than with conventional drugs, students do differentiate between hallucinogen users and non-users. In practice the marijuana and LSD users are grouped together by non-users and described as comprising the brightest and the dumbest students, also the richest and the poorest, and are further characterized as "loners" and eccentrics ("oddballs," and so on). Users, on the other hand, less often emphasize the differences between themselves and other students.

Proportionately the greatest sex differences in drug use occur in regard to LSD with four times more boys than girls using it. It is interesting that more students report current use of LSD than of marijuana, although a greater number of them have experimented with the latter. The "no-answer" rate raises the possibility that more have tried it than admit it, although the upper limit of experimentation is set (issuming that lie responses are minimal or balance each other) by the 17 per cent reporting any access or opportunity to use hallucinogens. It is also striking that the hallucinogens have a better image, defined as the number of students—approaching 50 per cent if nonresponse is extrapolated—saying there are good things about LSD use. This image is a general one: "Everything is beautiful under LSD" emerges as the most common kind of statement. The notion of a trip also has great appeal. One is referred to Weakland's chapter in Drugs I for a discussion of its significance. Unlike studies of adult LSD users (Blum and Associates, 1964) who were found to be more conscious of in-groups than matched non-using peers, students in this high school who are LSD (and pot) users discount their differences from other students, although we may assume they accentuate their differences from the "over-thirty" group. This finding is compatible with one social function of being a hippie (again see the Weakland chapter), which is to set oneself off against adults, not against peers. It is also compatible with the findings of our normal-population study (see companion volume) that illicit-exotic drug users are quite sensitive to disapproval from their age-mates and do what they can to minimize that discomfort.

Pep pills and goof balls. Fifteen per cent of the boys and 24 per cent of the girls say they know people using pep pills or goof balls, but only 4 per cent of the students say they themselves have tried them. On the other hand, most do not know what pep pills or goof balls are, and since their terminology is different, the low rate may partially reflect misunderstanding and the poverty of our inquiry item. Their terms "yellow jackets," "Christmas trees," "red devils," and other labels are descriptive of the pills themselves. Others report using No-Doze, Tirenol, benzedrine, dexedrine, and amphetamines without classifying these as pep pills. Cylert is also used to gain a stimulant effect.

Sniffing glue, gasoline, and other intoxicants. Twenty-two per cent of all students say they know people who sniff intoxicants to become high; 7 per cent of the boys and 2.5 per cent of the girls have themselves tried it. Many want to know more about the effects of sniffing; others volunteer that they have sniffed other things, for example, Johnson's Paste Wax, nitrous oxide from "Reddi-Whip" cans allowed to stand in the refrigerator after which contents are squirted into the mouth, and so forth.
Sleeping pills and tranquilizers. Sixteen per cent of the boys and 19 per cent of the girls say they know people using sedatives and/or tranquilizers without the knowledge of parents or physicians. Four per cent of the boys and 6 per cent of the girls say they themselves have tried such drugs without parental or medical approval.

Heroin. Four per cent of the students say they know people who are using heroin and five boys (5/1,560 responding or 0.3 per cent) say they themselves have tried it. The "no-answer" rate here is the average 3 per cent but may conceal a few additional heroin experimenters. One student volunteers that he is using codeine terpin hydrate in 80 per cent alcohol solution. Because of our interest in the use of heroin in such a favored-environment high school, we made further informal inquiries among students. Perhaps as many as 10 per cent of the students seem to know where it is available if they want it. The characteristics of high school suppliers appear to differ considerably from college drug sources. The latter tend to be students themselves or other professionals—for example, biochemists making LSD (see Blum and Associates, Utopiates, 1964)—whereas the high school students, although sometimes receiving supplies from their older college friends or siblings especially for LSD or marijuana—report their heroin and stimulant sources to be lower-class adults. These poor males are said often to be Negro, living in near-by towns, who are habitual criminals even if not "professional" in the sense of career success. They obtain their supplies in the Tenderloin and Mission Districts of San Francisco and profitably resell to the curious high school market. College suppliers who were interviewed look down on the high school "peddlers," whom they describe as having criminal records, being vulnerable to "busts" ( arrests being unreliable, and not being "in"–members of any sophisticated drug-oriented group—that is, not hippies or swingers. Three high school suppliers were identified as once having been purveyors to the college trade, but not having made the grade socially, they slipped down to the high school sales department.

The questionnaire asked students whether they had ever felt "on the spot" because of group pressures to drink or take drugs. They were also asked how people responded to such pressures, how students reacted to being told not to drink, try marijuana, and so forth, and they were asked what they would tell their own high school-age children about using such drugs.

The replies to these open-ended items give the impression that students are aware of their own role in choosing groups or getting into situations where drug pressures are generated. Relatively few (16 per cent complain of being under pressure but, instead, many propose that one ought to know what his associates are like or what situations are going to become before getting involved. Certainly, as students comment on drug-using situations, there is no feeling of the innocent's being seduced or of the naive's being misled. (The student doctrine of self-determination is in contrast to some adult conceptions of drug use as being initiated by means of victimizing the innocent; on the other hand, adults are well aware that youngsters may overestimate their capacity for evaluating friends and situations or for handling trouble. The majority (57 per cent) do say they resent being told not to use a drug.

In considering their own role as potential parents, boys and girls differ, the girls being more conventional and moralistic in their comments whereas the boys are less systematic but, at the same time, less dogmatic. Younger students differ from older ones in their idea of what they would tell their own children; older students (seventeen, eighteen') are less directive and punitive and more likely to give information and leave the final choice to children. They are explicitly aware of the risk of a rebellious embracing of drug taking if parents insist on its not being done without giving grounds in fact. All students, however, fail to be aware of the role of psychological or group factors in considering either differential access or use of drugs or of risks of bad drug outcomes. A number propose that drug taking be done under parental or medical supervision; some are unaware that illicit drugs cannot be prescribed by physicians. A curious feature is that some students who are marijuana and/or LSD users themselves say they would not want their own children even to experiment with these substances, let alone use them chronically. (Note that similar child-protecting or alter-ego purifying responses may be elicited from habitual alcoholics or heroin addicts when asked about their wishes for their children.)

The replies to open-ended questions were coded for each age and sex group. Impressions derived from these replies are as follows:

Fourteen-year-old girls:
Not well informed about drug use, not sympathetic to use of any drug except alcohol. Conceive of psychological abnormality as "causing" drug use; not particularly interested in learning more. Emphasis as mothers would be to scare their own children.

Fifteen-year-old girls:
Much like fourteen-year-olds but becoming more perceptive and aware of shades of distinction in categorizing drug users and effects. A beginning reluctance to dictate drug conduct to their own children, but scaring remains the most common control device.

Sixteen-year-old girls:
Increased sophistication about tobacco and alcohol with emphasis on the acceptability of "moderate" use. Increased concern with drug use as a rebellious response to injunctions and its symptomatic use to gain attention, or as an aspect of insecurity or emotional deficiency. They begin to accent the importance of good family-child relations as a way to avoid drug-use problems and imply that the drug issue will not arise in a well-knit family. Many girls accompany these remarks with conventional intolerance for drug use, except alcohol and tobacco, and for any excesses with these latter. Child influence by scaring is still common but being replaced by giving the child biased facts as a part of a rational ( ?) education.

Seventeen-year-old girls:
Like sixteen-year-olds with reduced prejudice toward drug users, an increased tendency to blame parents if children become drug users, and in some cases the emergence of a tolerance for drug experimentation, preferably with parental knowledge '(that is, with their own knowledge as they play the parental role). Drinking and smoking are quite acceptable although there is more awareness of community dangers, as, for example, traffic accidents due to alcohol. Most are intolerant of drug use as a life style.

Eighteen-year-old girls:
This group speaks more of the diverse motivation of drug users and the need to examine motives instead of accepting simple explanations. As a group they are the most perceptive and thoughtful in considering individual drug use, and while they disapprove, they are least rejecting and punitive. Impartial explanations are preferred over biased information giving. More are now willing to let their children decide for themselves. In other ways they resemble the seventeen-year-olds.

Fourteen-year-old males:

Data lost.

Fifteen-year-old males:

Data lost.

Sixteen-year-old males:
Much like the sixteen-year-old girls except that differentiation between smokers and nonsmokers emphasizes the need for athletes to abstain from tobacco. They are sooner and more aware than girls of the dangers of driving after drinking. Theirs is a nonpunitive approach to drug users even though many disapprove of such use. They are unable to formulate what they would tell their own children, unlike girls who have obviously given their role of mothers considerable advance thought.

Seventeen-year-old males:
Marked differences between boys and seventeen-year-old girls emerge. They are much less perceptive or willing to think in terms of either individual motives or "psychology" or of group settings as playing any role in drug use or behavior. Nevertheless, they are more broadminded, less punitive, even if they themselves would not use drugs. Condemnation of the comfortable moral sort found in the girls is rarer. They are also more likely to say they don't know about causes and effects and to suspend judgment as to rights and wrongs. This occurs even though they seem better informed as to the facts themselves. They remain unable to say what their disposition would be as parents guiding their own children in regard to drug use.

Eighteen-year-old males:
Much like the eighteen-year-old girls. A new difference which emerges between them and the girls is an emphasis on laws and on facts as factors to be considered in evaluating drug use and users. The laws themselves may become an object of interest and evaluation.

Students were asked their career goals and were classified by a job-classification scheme. Students sharing one or another career preference were then compared on their evaluations of marijuana smokers and on hazards and benefits from marijuana and hallucinogens. This attempt to link career interests to drug views was done on a subsample and because of the small numbers emerging into view—occupation subcategories cross tabulations—provide little information. The largest difference emerging is that students who contend that marijuana users are superior to non-users are more likely to express no career preference (40 per cent) than students seeing no differences between users and non-users or than those seeing non-users as superior; among these latter only 30 per cent express no career choice.

MIDDLE-CLASS AND LOWER-MIDDLE-CLASS HIGH SCHOOLS

Although there are inaccurate statistics throughout the drug world, there is, perhaps, no greater inaccuracy than on the high school level. One of the primary reasons is that the school officials who are responsible for drug education have a tendency to deny or discount any type of drug usage on their campuses. As a result, we have the ostrich effect—that is, most officials would prefer to bury their heads in the sand and not admit to drug usage until the problem becomes glaring. When it is no longer possible to do this, then the reverse seems to occur: there is intense fear that the problem is out of hand.

The present study grew out of such a situation. A number of schools denied any student illicit use until police arrived on campuses to make arrests. Then administrators became interested. After that—and in order to have as many schools involved as possible—we invited, on behalf of our Local Counsel on Drug Abuse, thirty-three superintendents to discuss the problem and the arrangements for a survey of prevalence. These superintendents represented an estimated 102,766 students. Of those invited, thirty-one responded positively and said they would attend a meeting. Only seventeen showed up for the meeting. Of these, five actually expressed some interest in finding out what their students were doing and thinking about drugs. In the final analysis only two schools cooperated, although two others did sponsor a drug-education program arising out of our discussions.

Either surveys or educational endeavors dealing with illicit drugs are faced with a number of problems other than the superintendents' and principals' fears or lack of interest, for often a great deal of reluctance and anxiety exist on the part of the instructors. Many are ill equipped for a drug-education program and do not know how to handle one. Often their knowledge is slight and biased, and they find it difficult to answer questions. Further, they are unable to handle many of the problems that might arise in the classroom as a result of a discussion of drugs. The techniques of use of drugs or the jargon employed by users are difficult for the teacher to understand. Moreover, the problem of confidentiality arises should the teacher allow the student to talk. If the student should open up and begin to discuss the drug scene, he becomes vulnerable to hostile or punitive action.

Another major factor is the student's attitude toward taking a survey concerning drugs. The users particularly are hesitant to reveal information because it may expose them and get them into trouble with the law. As a result, they hold back information. Our effort to alleviate underreporting led us to guarantee that the surveys be totally anonymous. As a further factor to facilitate frankness, the survey was administered and collected by outsiders, who were class students from a local college, and the materials were processed anonymously. In spite of this, there were a number of students who were still somewhat suspicious. Here is an example of their comments on their questionnaires reflecting this suspiciousness: "This better not be a God Damned bust. P.S. If it is all my answers are bull shit. P.P.S. You should really show us the conclusions of this corny test." A general distrust of older persons commonly appeared as part of lengthy paragraphs.

The senior high schools in Santa Clara County used in this study represent, with some expected overlapping, two different socioeconomic populations. School A, situated near a large university, is very much like the upper-middle-class high school reported in the first section of this chapter. School B, located some miles away in a large metropolitan area, has students from middle- and lower-middle-class families. The broad class difference is important since the use of drugs by adolescents has become an upwardly mobile social phenomenon no longer related to only the traditional juvenile delinquent coming primarily from the lower socioeconomic classes.

A few general comments are in order prior to consideration of the data. First, in 1967, when the study was conducted, the use by adolescents of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("meth," "speed," "crystal," "crank") in both injectable and oral forms was not evident. Our strong impression is that by 1968 the scene had changed dramatically. Consequently, the survey is inadequate, for it provides no inkling of that amphetamine trend. Second, it was impossible to prevent underreporting or overreporting; informal conversations with students made it more evident that some had lied. We do not know how many did so. A non-user can say "yes" to be "in"; a user can say "no" for fear of detection. From our standpoint the most valuable information yielded reveals attitudes toward drugs, reasons for use or non-use, and the student's eye-view of what's happening.

Tobacco. At School A, N = 839 out of 1,130 (middle, upper-middle class), a statistically greater percentage of boys smoke than do girls (52 per cent vs. 47 per cent). This difference is also true for the boys (47 per cent) and the girls (35 per cent) at School B, N = 1,382 out of 1,822 (middle, lower-middle class). Comparison of the reported smoking behavior of students at each school shows that School A has a significantly greater percentage of smokers than does School B. It would seem that the influence of friends cannot be discounted, for students reflect the same intraschool- and interschool-difference trends in response to queries as to whether their friends smoke. However, there is an interesting reversal when boys and girls at both schools, in answer to a question, describe the smoking habits of their parents. At School B, a greater percentage of both mothers and fathers are said to smoke than at School A, even though more students, both sexes, smoke at School A. It is difficult to say just what might lie behind this. There are several comments made by School A students that smokers are more mature and that smoking is very acceptable despite the dangers associated with it. One might speculate about differences in the kind of education about tobacco at the two schools and the willingness to accept factual information, for a greater percentage of both boys and girls at School B regard tobacco as "bad." The differences in sex-related trends noted before still hold true for both schools.

The replies to the open-ended questions differ not at all from those reported earlier in this chapter. Only a handful of students at both schools request further information about tobacco; apparently, the school course is seen as adequate. A frequently occurring comment from School A expresses the belief that the vast amount of money spent each year advertising tobacco would be better spent in research on other drugs about which little is known. In general, smokers' replies tend to justify their behavior; nonsmokers either do not reply or give examination-type answers displaying their knowledge about the dangers of tobacco. Responses to the question about differences between smokers and nonsmokers are most intriguing. The nonsmokers' comments "put down" the smokers by calling them stupid, immature, and dependent, and stating that they give in to group pressure, try to be "in," and just aren't concerned about their health or the state of their breath. Smokers, on the other hand, again either do not reply, say what they do is their business, confess to a "habit," or express some doubt that the dangers are real.

Alcohol. Student drinking at both schools fellows the same percentage patterns that are shown for smoking. The vast majority of students have a drink only occasionally, the most frequent setting being on a date or with their family. A very small number of students report heavy drinking (over six drinks at one time). The percentage of boys who take a drink is greater at both Schools A and B (78 per cent vs. 72 per cent; girls 69 per cent vs. 66 per cent). The sex difference is significant within the schools. More boys (86 per cent vs. 76 per cent) than girls (74 per cent vs. 70 per cent) at both schools state that the majority of their friends drink. Over a half (56 per cent) of all students at School A say that there is something bad about people their age drinking. A higher percentage of all students (65 per cent) at School B feel the same way. Responses to questions about parents' drinking habits reveal no differences between the schools, the most frequent response being "drink occasionally." However, even though the percentages are small, more students at School B describe their fathers' drinking as heavy.

Again, the replies to the open-ended questions seem to follow closely those reported earlier. Contrary to the results for tobacco, many students want more specific information about alcohol, primarily as to what constitutes alcoholism and how many drinks one must take before any physical damage occurs. Given the acceptance of alcohol in our culture, the latter question would seem to point up the need for education for sensible drinking rather than "scare" lectures stressing damage, to which only a small portion of students might fall prey. Since several students inquired about help for alcoholic parents, educators would be wise to consider the student as a potential prevention and treatment agent. Education about tobacco and alcohol should, in addition to offering factual material about each drug, consider drug taking in general in more depth, what factors are involved in dependency (potential for dependency), what the abuse potential for different drugs is, and how the individual can arrive at a sensible personal decision regarding drugs in a drug-oriented society.

Marijuana. A far greater percentage of boys (77 per cent)' and girls (85 per cent) at School A know someone using marijuana than do boys (45 per cent) and girls (57 per cent) at School B. Asked to describe the people they know who use marijuana to any degree, three fourths of the students at both schools distributed their answers equally between good friends and casual friends. Four per cent of all boys and girls report that their older relatives or siblings smoke marijuana. At School A, 46 per cent of the boys and 45 per cent of the girls say they have had the chance to try marijuana. Twenty-three per cent of the boys and 19 per cent of the girls at School B have had the same opportunity. Curiosity about the effect of the drug is the most frequent reason given for trying it, which—coupled with its availability—logically accounts for the percentage difference between the schools. One can infer that few students actively seek marijuana but rather run across it in a relatively casual manner. At School A, 31 per cent of the boys have tried marijuana as have 28 per cent of the girls. The percentages are lower at School B: boys 13 per cent, girls 7 per cent. Asked to describe their present use of marijuana ("occasionally" to "regularly"), 24 per cent of the boys and 19 per cent of the girls at School A so characterize themselves. The figures for School B are boys, 7 per cent, and girls, 4 per cent. Less than 1 per cent at either school describe themselves as being heavy users. The gross relationship between availability and use of a drug is still evident. Only 22 per cent of the boys and 21 per cent of the girls at School A see marijuana as "good." For the students at School B, 6 per cent of the boys and 10 per cent of the girls have the same attitude. Approximately 13 per cent of all students at A and 5 per cent of all students at B have either no opinion or think marijuana is neither good nor bad.

Replies to open-ended questions indicate a strong desire on the part of the students for more factual information—minus moralizing—coupled with an opportunity to engage in honest discussion about the pros and cons of marijuana. Many students feel that marijuana should be legalized ( and alcohol outlawed) or at least the penalties reduced. Angry comments were made concerning the unwillingness of both teachers and parents to engage in meaningful dialogue with young people about the physiological, psychological, moral, and social aspects of not only marijuana but all mind- and mood-altering drugs. Asked to describe differences between users and non-users of marijuana, students dichotomize users as being generally either "neat, groovy, turned on, and aware types" or "stupid, slobby, hippie types." More students at A give elaborate answers to the question. Students at B were more inclined to say "no difference," "don't know," or do not answer at all. Non-users are most frequently described as "smart," although the number of responses to this part of the question dropped significantly. Apparently it is the user who gets the lion's share of the attention. Could we not be overlooking a valuable resource in not spending more time exploring the characteristics of adolescent non-users of drugs to help identify a population at risk (potential users/abusers) ?

LSD. As in the preceding sections, the nonresponse rate to questions remains low. Percentage differences between schools are still all statistically significant.

Of the students at School A, 81 per cent of the boys and 65 per cent of the girls know someone who uses or has used LSD. The figure's' for B are boys, 37 per cent, and girls, 50 per cent. At A, almost equal percentages are either good or casual friends; 10 per cent of the students report that older relatives or siblings have had experience with the drug. Students at B say that most of the people they know of are just casual friends. Only two students at B name older relatives and no students report siblings in this category. Thirty-two per cent of the boys and 29 per cent of the girls at A have had an opportunity to try LSD, while only 17 per cent of the boys and 18 per cent of the girls at School B have been similarly exposed to the hallucinogen. Since LSD is apparently a "higher-class" drug (see Blum and Associates, Utopiates) it is at this juncture that a class difference between the two schools might be seen as relevant. Of the students at A who have had the chance to try LSD, 14 per cent of the boys have experimented as have 13 per cent of the girls. Nine per cent of both sexes say they have gone on to use LSD occasionally to regularly. One wonders whether or not these students comprise an identifiable "in"-group at this school. Of the students at School B, only 5 per cent of the boys and 4 per cent of the girls have tried LSD. Three per cent of the boys and 27 per cent of the girls trying the drug have gone on to some degree of use.

LSD is generally seen as "less good" than marijuana, with approximately 15 per cent of both boys and girls at A saying that LSD is good and 5 per cent of each sex at B so classifying the drug. Less than 5 per cent of all students either give no answer or reply "neither good nor bad."

Replies to the open-ended questions about LSD are the most interesting and disturbing, for it is about LSD that the greatest body of misinformation exists. It is the authors' feeling that a young person who "puts down" LSD on the basis of distorted knowledge is more vulnerable to a change of heart at a later date than is one who decides against use on more accurate information. "LSD melts your brain"; "You'll probably kill your friends"; "It makes you a blind cripple." How much more rational is a decision based on "It's too unpredictable for me to take a chance." The majority of students at both schools, when asked whether they want more information about LSD, say "yes." Many of these people go on to ask specific questions such as the following: "Is it addictive?" "Does it help people to know themselves better?" "Will it make you insane?" "Can I see God?" Asked about differences between users and non-users, the non-users either don't reply or characterize users as hippie types, people who can't cope with life, or lonely ones who are looking for "something." Few of the nonusers feel that LSD has much to recommend it at the present time, but many say that research might show it to have medical value in the future. On the other hand, users of LSD are, by and large, enthusiastic about it, with only a handful of students reporting what was apparently a bad personal experience with the drug. One of the students, who describes himself as a heavy user, invited us to join him on a "trip," for he says that he sees us as "good people who could learn about love and beauty with acid." The majority of the users feel that they have grown by the use of LSD, but a few are apparently interested primarily in the "kick" and attempting, as one user puts it, "to remove the stupid world from life."

Other drug use. The illicit use of amphetamines, barbiturates, tranquilizers, volatile inhalants, and related chemicals were not tabulated as percentages. Simple observation of the raw data gives the impression that many of the students know of someone using these substances without medical sanction, but that few of the students themselves are illicit users. Pep pills, glue, and tranquilizers belong to the apparent descending order of drugs used. Ten per cent of the students at both schools say that they know of someone using heroin but do not say that they themselves have tried it. The majority of the students have been offered a variety of drugs other than marijuana or LSD at one time or another.

It is encouraging to note that only 22 per cent of all students at both schools subjectively feel "on the spot" about drugs, saying that they have resisted or would resist whatever was offered. Group pressure is only one factor in the decision-making process. Guided by the quality of questions, one can infer that users would be amenable to being changed from use to non-use through honest, open education and gut-level discussion. This hypothesis is supported by the observation that the use of LSD has declined in recent months, many former users reporting that they have decided against LSD on the basis of recent medical findings. It is the authors' observations that some of the older adolescent former users have matured out of LSD and have found means by which they can turn on naturally (music, meditation, Nature, and so on). This observation is a case in point for education about drugs to discuss not only drugs per se but to explore with students alternative methods for achieving legitimate goals often sought by drugs.

Students were asked whom they would consult regarding a friend in trouble with drugs and where they would turn for help with a personal problem. Over 50 per cent of all students at both schools indicate that parents are their first choice. School counselors, teachers, doctors, religious leaders, and friends fare about equally well over the remainder of student choices.

Despite the fact that many adolescents say that they have friends who will give them drugs free, money is a factor in drug use. Thirty-seven per cent of all students at School A have less than five dollars a week to spend; 33 per cent have from five to ten dollars a week to spend (income from jobs plus any allowance). The remainder (30 per cent) have from ten to forty dollars per week. At School B, the majority of students (56 per cent) have less than five dollars per week, 27 per cent have up to ten dollars, and the remaining 17 per cent may have as much as forty dollars per week. The percentages cited previously for the incidence of drug use at both schools—School

A having the greater percentage of use—would indicate that the means to purchase drugs is a variable that cannot be discounted.

Objective data provide one means of assessing the extent of drug usage. However, structured questions enable the student to mark objectively the extent of usage but do not give him an opportunity to express his attitude toward drugs in general. In order to get a closer view of the drug scene, we used open-ended questions, which provided invaluable information about inside reasons for drug usage. It has been common to determine what has been happening on the drug scene; the question why it has been happening poses an even more ominous problem. The comments provided by the students give clues as to the reason why students would wish to take drugs. Although specific questions were not asked as to why, the "free" remarks made by students seem to make their points quite well.

In a closer look at the open-ended data, it would appear that the responses can be classified into several categories. Listed below are the most common reasons stated by students in an indirect manner.

Rebellion-hostility. One common way of expressing rebellion toward society is to break all of its rules. Drugs provide a convenient way of doing just that. In many of these cases, the students manage to get caught as well, only making the problem a more obvious one. Consider this response by a high school junior female:

There is so much attention placed on drugs today! It doesn't help the situation when you have people telling you: No, No, No. You shouldn't smoke or drink or take drugs because it is bad for you or against the law. That only makes people want to take it or try it more. Just give the pro's and con's of doing it and leave the "you can't do it because there is a law" out of it. Many kids already smoke and drink so why have a law? I myself smoke once in a while and am very tempted to try grass—but not LSD, because practically nothing is known about it. They (adults) drink and smoke and in a way they are taking drugs. They smoke and drink and turn around and tell you it's wrong for you to do it. Hell! What kind of hypocrisy is this? You can't but I can.

Another type of hostility expressed in the questionnaire is reflected in this response:

When I took this they said that there was no way of tracing anybody by this given information. If I am questioned, I am going to raise Hell. So how does this grab you, Fuck Head!!

Pressure-escape. There seems to be some reaction to the pressure the student faces as reflected in this response:

Many of us need an escape hatch from the pressures of this damn Establishment—grades, money, status, college. Pressures upon pressures—you need to escape, in fact, I am getting so that I have to escape somehow or else I might have a breakdown! With all of the pressures and everything around us, can you blame us? You started this and we have to clean and fix-up everything you messed up in the world. Now, if that isn't a good reason for wanting to escape—I don't know what gives. Freedom now!

Self-exploration. Several of the responses appear to indicate that "finding oneself" or self-exploration is at the bottom of student drug usage. For example:

Most people would be better off (know themselves better) if they used it a few times.
Drop acid and find out where it's at. Do it wisely and carefully and you will see what nature is really like.
Before having grass, I hated my parents and home, but after, I began to see that parents have to have some authority and now I don't mind my home—I'm quite happy.

Religion. Several comments seem to indicate that students seem to find a type of religion because of the profound effects by the drug. For example:

It [LSD use] is, in my opinion, a religious sacrament and should be treated as such. I would like to understand the prejudice against it.

There is a new church forming in this school based on morning-glory worship and light and color which we use in service and worship.

Curiosity. The desire to try something new and exciting is mentioned as one of the reasons for trying drugs as reflected in the following statement:

I feel that most people will try something once—perhaps once would be too much. I have tried smoking once and didn't like it—never again. The same with alcohol. As far as drugs are concerned, I would never even want to try them. I am not involved with drugs; neither are any of my friends. If any one else wants to smoke, drink, or take drugs—that's their business and until my relafives or close friends get in trouble with it, I could care less about it.

Conformity. Going along with the crowd is another factor mentioned as a reason for drug usage. For example:

Most people who take drugs and continue to do so are insecure and start out by thinking it's the "in" thing to do. By the time they realize what a mess they're in, it is too late and they are addicted.

I think a lot of people take drugs just to go along with their buddies even though they may not want to take it.

Kicks. One of the more frequently used phrases is that drugs provide "kicks." These kicks are often not seen as the central idea but as related to other aspects of drug usage.

When people use it [marijuana] for kicks and not for any other useful purpose, the situation may become out of hand. Especially the teenyboppers of thirteen and fourteen, who get really screwed up and have no right to use it.

Creativity. The use of drugs as a means of becoming more creative and more mentally expansive is mentioned on several of the questionnaires.

Drugs give you a chance to see nature very differently, in a really beautiful artistic way. Gives you a chance to be very creative.

Obviously, students are not using drugs for one single reason alone. Some responses on the questionnaires include several of the statements listed above. The single most prominent emotion that appears to emerge from the questionnaire is hostility—direct or indirect. Swearing is quite common. Sometimes, the anger takes the form of attacking the persons conducting the survey.

I am afraid most people will take this fucking thing as a joke but my answers are correct. You fucking people who read these God damned things can't really use this shit for fact or God damned statistics for a brainwashing campaign to put people down. Get them down.

I'm frankly sick and tired of these confounded surveys of drugs and alcohol. I really don't think it is going to do any good to quiz students on these things when the real problem lies in the fact that marijuana is too easy to get hold of. Great quantities of it have been seized but there is still a lot around. Why don't you look for it rather than take time and money to make this stupid questionnaire?

I get the impression that this survey was made up by a crew of old ladies who teach kindergarten.

I think this committee on Drug Abuse (the group conducting the survey) is a last-ditch effort by the liberal Establishment (and in their best tradition) to patch up a hopelessly perverted society, and I think you should all drop acid and see where it's at.

At other times the hostility takes the form of an attack on society.

I hope that our generation isn't going to make Huxley's book, Brave New World, come true.

I believe in freedom. This country is not as free as most people say or as it could be. I believe that if someone wanted to take drugs and is mature enough to pay for them without stealing, he should be able to do so. There are many people in this country who are against things or ideas that they have never experienced. I believe that those who should judge should be the ones who know by experience. I am very open minded but I don't believe in things that make no sense. In our country we could have machines do most of the work, but still my parents and most people over twenty-five say work all your life. FUCK. I don't trust you either.

A common form of expressing hostility is to attack the injustices in the society, particularly regarding the drug laws.

I feel that drug use is on a very large scale now and instead of arresting kids for use of marijuana something else should be done as punishment. Pot is very harmless compared to alcohol and when a kid is caught for alcohol, nothing happens. When someone is arrested for pot, it ruins their whole life and socially, it puts the kids' parents back also.

Pot doesn't ruin your lungs or eat away your kidneys like smoking and alcohol do. If someone wishes to smoke pot, I think he should be allowed to take it like alcohol (same requirements for buying as alcoholic beverages) . When he is twenty-one and mature enough to realize the potential dangers of drugs he will quit!

I think this questionnaire should be used all over to clear up some of the misunderstandings about statistics. How in the hell can people say so many kids take drugs when they don't know? Parents should also be aware of correct statistics. Newspaper estimates and the public exaggerate. Somehow, statistics should be as close to correct as possible. Radicals and "long-haired kooks" are blamed for a lot of drug use and sales—BULL SHIT. Someone ought to find out the truth.

When the Revolution comes, grass will be legalized. Long live the Revolution!

I believe most drugs to be harmful and addictive. However, marijuana seems to be just like tobacco with the exception that it is nonaddictive and seems to be a good way to find some "kicks."

One of the surprises of the survey is the number of bizarre comments written on the questionnaire. These may have been the result of some emotional disturbances or could be the result of students' attempting to make the survey appear as a ridiculous venture. The following are some examples:

Just make sure your feet aren't in the water.
I like you and your head is full of things to eat and drink which are good or bad. If you think about them, you too can enjoy grass and acid and glory and such good things as these.
My God! Could you explain your everyday thoughts and your own being in a sentence? Write me a letter.
In your reality, can you picture me or am I just in a world of fantasy? Liberty and justice for all.

It is our conclusion that the students have a great deal to say and to ask about drugs. If given an opportunity in an encouraging setting, they are willing to discuss the drug scene freely. Such a protected environment does not seem to exist for the young people and, partly in consequence, the drug scene is underground. As long as it stays underground, we will have neither accurate incidence data nor adequate understanding of high school-student motives, feelings, or troubles associated with disapproved drug use. The students themselves, we believe, in spite of all the talk of distrusting those over thirty—the well-known generation gap—want to communicate. As one student puts it, "I sure hope this is used for the purposes stated. I wasn't going to answer honestly because I don't trust any of the teachers or counsilors [sic] around here, but then. . . ."

SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOL

The fourth high school survey took place in the spring of 1968, using a modified form of the original (Blum) instrument.1 The high school serves a suburban community with a student-body population (N = 1,645 ) resembling the two middle-class high schools already described in this chapter. As will be seen, the results show that, a year and a half later, prevalence rates for illicit-exotic drug experience are from double to quadruple the earlier rates. There is also a much greater prevalence of continuing drug use, especially of marijuana. It may be that these rates reflect sampling among populations which are different, after all, or display a shift in bias from underreporting to overreporting. It may also be, as we believe, that the more recent survey reflects a considerable actual increase in exposure to, experimentation with, and regular use of illicit-exotic drugs among middle-class high school students in the Bay Area.

We find the following with regard to particular drugs. About one fourth say they are regular tobacco smokers, 13 per cent have not smoked, and 75 per cent have parents who are smokers. There are more smokers in the upper than in the lower high school years. Health hazards are emphasized as "bad" about smoking, and tension relief is cited most often as the benefit. Little interest is shown in additional information about tobacco.

Fourteen per cent of the boys and 9 per cent of the girls report regular alcohol use; 7 per cent of all students have not tried drinking. Eighty-seven per cent of all parents are described as drinkers, but most peers (61 per cent) are said to be nondrinkers. Drinking occurs more often in the higher grade levels. The majority deny any "wrong" in drinking by youth of high school age, but simultaneously say there is nothing good about it either. Health hazards are most often cited as dangers, and the majority point to recreational-social uses as benefits. There appears to be little interest in further information about alcohol.

Almost all students know marijuana users and three quarters have themselves had opportunities to obtain that drug. One third say they did not avail themselves; thus, about 55 per cent of the total student population say they have had marijuana experience. Among these, less than one third have discontinued use, so that we find 41 per cent of the boys and 37 per cent of the girls describing themselves as continuing marijuana users. The greatest amount of marijuana use is reported in the twelfth grade (49 per cent )- and, by age group, among eighteen-year-olds, 63 per cent of whom have had experience. Less than one third of the students stipulate that anything is "wrong" about marijuana use; among those who identify something as being wrong, legal and mental hazards are equally important. Recreational uses and tension relief are seen as benefits by the more than two thirds of the students reporting positive aspects to its use. Few students express any desire, in response to a question, for additional information about marijuana.

Two per cent of the boys and girls report regular amphetamine use, whereas 11 per cent of the students believe that their friends are using these drugs. Eighteen per cent report they have experimented with amphetamines; 4 per cent say their parents have used them. No differences by age or school year are found for prevalence of amphetamine experience. Remarkably, almost none of the students (4 per cent) see anything bad about their use, but simultaneously most (84 per cent) see nothing good either. Among the 16 per cent expressing positive aspects, feeling good (euphoria) and the ability to do more (performance enhancement) are most often cited.

About two thirds of the students say they have had the chance to try hallucinogens; one fifth (20 per cent) say they have tried them. Repeated use is reported by 12 per cent of the girls and 10 per cent of the boys. Most students know of others using hallucinogens. Least use is among freshmen; the greatest use is among higher grades and older students. Half of the students say there is nothing bad about the hallucinogens; more than two thirds say there is nothing good. Those citing bad effects mention mental hazards and chromosomal damage. Among the nearly one third reporting benefits, personal and social insight or understanding is emphasized.

Glue and gasoline sniffing is reported by 9 per cent of the students, goof balls and pep pills by 13 per cent. For the volatile intoxicants there is a definite decrease by age group in those reporting (current) use. The nonmedical employment of sleeping pills, tranquilizers, and the like is admitted by 11 per cent. Twenty-nine per cent say they have had the chance to take heroin, 25 per cent say they know someone using it, and 2 per cent say they themselves have tried it.

A number of items inquired about drug education and information. From these one learns that most students affirm they do not like to be told not to try drugs—including illicit ones—that most rate the dangers of drugs as we presume average adults would—calling heroin and speed (methamphetamine) the most dangerous. Unlike the hypothetical average adult, they consider tobacco more dangerous than marijuana—an opinion many health scientists might share. It is clear that the students want no more conventional drug education. When-asked to select the most reliable information sources, they say they consider teachers and police least well informed; physicians and ex-drug addicts they rate as best informed. The rejection of teachers and the expressed lack of interest in further information should not be taken as completely genuine, for when asked whether they would welcome informal information giving and assistance with drug decisions or problems, 94 per cent said that they would. Comments of students clearly imply distrust of most experts unless they themselves decide the authority is credible. Credibility seems to be enhanced if the teacher is informed about the drug-use scene as the students perceive it. For the most part, conventional teaching authorities are viewed as biased, moralizing, and Establishment-sustaining; they are not considered objective, scientific, or open to radical innovation. Particular hostility is directed toward law-enforcement personnel. The complaints are that police officers giving drug information are either ignorant or are lying to students, that they arrest disproportionately more juveniles than adults or pushers for drug offenses as part of a "war on kids," that they exercise undue influence on the educational establishment itself ("If someone tells us the truth, the cops see to it that he's fired"), and that law enforcement people have an unexposed self-interest in dramatizing the drug problem ("They overrate drugs so they can keep their jobs")..

The impression from replies and spontaneous comments is that students prefer as teaching material illustrative cases and situations rather than broad general statements and that they prefer nonsensational, balanced presentations by qualified persons of issues involved in drug use. Although there is a vein of laissez-faire, the majority of students, in response to a question asking whether people should be allowed to use whatever drugs they want, favor controls over drug distribution and individual use.

With reference to drug availability, a scale derived from an index item shows tobacco as the most readily available (scale value 4.7), followed by alcohol (scale value 2.7), marijuana (scale value 2.4), LSD (scale value 1.5), methamphetamine (scale value 1.3 ), and heroin (scale value 0.9). Alcohol and marijuana are said by the students to be about equally available to them. Regarding source, alcohol is the only substance not first obtained primarily from peers. Rather, parents are the leading initiators. The presumption must be that parents approve of drinking, as opposed to smoking, and teach it early in the home—a practice approved by most modern health educators interested in teaching controlled or culturally integrated nonescapist drinking. Tobacco, which some students describe as a filthy habit, is most often tried first among friends of the same age, whereas marijuana may be first taken in the company of casual acquaintances, friends of the same age, or older acquaintances. Older siblings also introduce marijuana. One inference is that marijuana use is extensive throughout the teen-age social world. The amphetamines, like tobacco, are most often first tried in the company of friends of the same age. A fourth of the students say they have been "put on the spot" in a social group when offered a drug they didn't want to take; for the majority, initiation into tobacco and illicit-exotic drug use is not in response to felt social pressures—that is, no strain or compulsion is admitted. Our interview impressions are that this is the case, that little duress is involved, although clearly there are strong social forces at work which lead high school students (and younger ones as well!) to influence and respond to one another as vectors in the rapidly spreading use of psychoactive drugs—all of which are illicit in this state under the age of sixteen and the use of all except tobacco is illicit under age twenty-one.

As a final comment, all of us cooperating in the very limited high school surveys reported here would emphasize the apparent rapidity of the spread of illicit-exotic drug use, marijuana especially, but now including LSD and the amphetamines and soon, perhaps, the opiates as well. Our results do not account for the phenomenon, although the data on college students reported elsewhere in this book identify many of the variables operating. We strongly suspect that the expansion will continue geographically, downward by age, diffusing by social class, and extending to more regular use—as opposed to simply casual experimentation—for many of the illicit substances. The challenges and questions posed thereby to parents, educators, law-enforcement personnel, health workers, and the citizen at large are immense and dare not be ignored.

1 See also the prevalence data for the county-wide 1968 study reported: Chapter I, pp. 41-a and 41-b, using a short questionnaire. Its results, like those shown here, imply rapidly expanding illicit-drug use during the high school years.

< Prev		Next >