page ten sept. 13, 1971 the journal
Turning on: who, how, and why
by Ronald B. Simino
Counseling Center Director
Introduction
One purpose of this study was to explore the
patterns of drug use among under-graduates at
UNCC. Except for some very misleading statistical
guesses and personal opinion lacking in
documentation, little was really known about this
subject on the UNCC campus. This study was an
attempt to find out what the facts are. Having an
accurate picture of the pattern and extent of drug
use on the campus seemed to be of value to those
students, faculty and administration interested in
this area of student experience. In addition to
obtaining information about active student drug
use, the second major goal of the study was to
investigate the motivation for use of the
substances covered in the survey and the
personal-social attitudes that individual students
have about these substances and their use. The
study was basically designed to be a
comprehensive survey of drug use among the
UNCC undergraduate population. Substances
included in the survey of drug use among the
UNCC undergraduate population. Substances
included in the survey were such things as alcohol,
tobacco, marijuana and such substances as
amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, etc.
From the early stages of the planning for the
study through its implementation and analysis, no
attempt was made to deal with the question of
whether or not there is a “drug problem” on the
UNCC campus. It seems that too often one’s
values or point of view is used to determine
whether or not there is a drug “problem” and
therefore, little agreement can be reached on such
an observation. A conscious effort was made to
avoid the “problem” or “no problem” dilemma
and to simply report individual student opinion
and behavior as articulated and provided by
students themselves.
Some investigations of this area have been
conducted in other institutions of higher
education. A study (De Fleur and Garrett, 1970)
conducted among students at a middle size
land-grant university enrolling approximately
13,000 in a Western state, reported that 83% of
the sample claimed no personal use of marijuana
and 50% of these students indicated that they felt
present laws should either be retained as they are
or should be more severe as regards marijuana use.
De Fleur and Garrett reviewed investigations of
campus drug use in three major parts of the U.S.
They found estimates of drug use on campus
ranging from 6.3% for one Eastern school to 33%
for a West Coast institution. In none of the studies
they reviewed was campus drug use reported to be
greater than one-third of the student body.
Student drug use and experimentation continues
to grow and, therefore, these studies soon become
outdated. However, such research still provides the
most accurate estimates of the drug scene on
college campuses.
Dr. Samuel Pearlman, (1971) studied
undergraduates on a “multi-university” basis in
New York City. Of the 63,331 full-time
undergraduate registration of the collaborating
universities, 22,749 constituted the sample which
returned 12,142 usable questionnaires. This study
was of special interest, since Dr. Pearlman agreed
to allow the present writer to adapt a form of a
questionnaire based on the one that Dr. Pearlman
used in his work. Some of his findings were:
1. Drug use on an “ever used” basis ranged
from 4.1% (heroin, opium, cocaine) to 30.8%
(analgesics). Marijuana was smoked by
approximately 30% of the students surveyed; LSD
used by slightly over 5%.
2. Approximately 30% of the undergraduates
who had used LSD or marijuana experienced the
substance prior to college entry.
3. Among those students reporting using drugs,
there was a tendency to move away from its use.
For example, approximately 33% of the marijuana
users indicated they had given it up and 60% of
the LSD users were off the substance.
4. The frequency of drug use was not high
among the students who were currently active
with the drugs surveyed. “With the exception of
marijuana, again no matter which drug was
considered the users in general tended to keep
their frequency of use down to once a month or
less often; from 90 to 95% of the student users
had frequency rates no greater than this.”
Approximately 50% of those making marijuana
were found to be doing so about once a week or
more often.
5. “Curiosity” ranked very high as a reason
given for the use of the various substances covered
in Dr. Pearlman’s work.
Dr. Ronald B. Simino, Director of UNCC’s
Counseling Service, conducted a UNCC drug us
survey last spring. The results are printed in
entirety (excluding graphs) because of the
importance of the wide dissemination of factual
data about drugs when we are usually dealing in
speculative guessing and/or wishful thinking. The
Journal thanks Dr. Simino for allowing us to
present this report to the entire University
community.
-the editor
Within a sample of university freshmen,
Mitchell, Kirkby, and Mitchell (1970) found that
14% had tried marijuana and 7% had experienced
LSD. “Curiosity” was again mentioned as a
motivating factor indicated by most students who
had used drugs. Also, 38% had used stimulants
other than alcohol and tobacco. A campus survey
by Eells (1968) reported that 19.8% of all
undergraduates at California Institute of
Technology had used marijuana, LSD 9.2% and
amphetamines 12%. Also 15% of its marijuana
users had started before entering college. Two
major reasons given by students for drug use was
that the experience was “interesting and
worthwhile” and to satisfy “curiosity”. After
exploring the attitudes of those students who had
not used marijuana, Eells concluded that “most of
the students who had decided not to use marijuana
had done so primarily just because they weren’t
much interested in it, rather than because of
medical-health or legal considerations”. Although
providing some indication of the trend of drug use
among individual students, Eells’ study has
questionable relevance at this point in time, since
it was conducted in 1967 and, therefore, the data
is already four years old and the probability is high
that most of the reported percentages would be up
some four years later.
In a later section of this report, an attempt will
be made to contrast the results of the present
study with those mentioned above.
Description of Sample and Method
Three thousand five hundred multiple choice
questionnaires were prepared and sent to
undergraduates registered at UNCC during the
spring term of the school year, 1970-71. In
addition, each individual was invited to submit
accompanying comments if he so desired. The
present report is based only on the questionnaire.
Of these 3,500 questionnaires, 900 were sent to
individuals in resident halls on campus and the
remaining 2,600 to commuter students. Four
hundred forty-seven resident hall students (49%)
and 985 commuters (38%) returned their
questionnaires for use in this study and for this
kind of research survey the return was satisfactory.
Because there might have been significant moral,
social, and legal roadblocks to an honest and free
response to inquiries of this kind, the
questionnaire was anonymous and there was no
way of following-up individuals who failed to
complete and return the form.
Females accounted for 49% of the return and
males 51%. Approximately 58% of the sample
were between 18 and 21 years of age, while the
remaining 42% were over 21. The distribution
between academic year seemed to be well
distributed between freshman, sophomore, junior
and seniors, with the percentages being 25,21,28
and 22 for each year respectively; approximately
4% of the return came from those students
classified by the University as “special students”.
When the students’ reported college affiliation was
examined, it was found that the highest return
came from those students in Social and Behavioral
Sciences (21%), Business Administration (18%),
and Humanities (16%); the next highest came from
the colleges of Science and Mathematics (12%),
Engineering (10%), and Human Development and
Learning (9%). Finally, the College of Nursing
contributed 5% of the total return, and
Architecture less than 1%. Of the students
returning their questionnaires 9% of the total
sample indicated that they were undecided about
college affiliation. The percentage contributed by
students from the various colleges seemed to
reflect the total enrollment in these respective
academic areas. The individual report of academic
performance seemed to reflect that the
questionnaire illicited responses from people
demonstrating a wide range of academic success at
the University. Twenty-three percent reported
their average as borderline C or less (2.1 QPA or
lower), 39% from C to a C+ average (2.2 through
2.7), 26% as B- to B (2.8 through 3.2), and 10% as
B+ to A average (3.3 and higher). Two percent of
the sample were apparently new freshman who
indicated that they did not have a grade point
average.
In order to obtain some information about
family background, the individuals responding to
the questionnaire were asked about such areas as
religious training, father’s educational level,
mother’s educational level, and approximate total
income for both parents. When the individuals
were asked what religion they were brought up in,
the following was reported; Protestant (87%),
Catholic (8%), and less than 1% distributed among
Buddist, Jewish, Moslem and Greek and Eastern
Orthodox religions. One percent of the students
reported that they were not brought up in any
religious background, while 1%, reported religious
training of an unspecified nature. It was interesting
to note that when the individuals were asked to
indicate the religion to which they now belonged
that although there remained constant the
percentage distributions between the various
alternatives that there was a noticeable drop in the
percentages, suggesting that individuals may liave
moved away from the religious backgrounds of
their parents. Seventy-three percent indicated tliat
they now belong to a Protestant sect, 6% reported
they were active in the Catholic faith, wliile 16%
of them responded that they now belonged to no
religion. Again the Buddist, Hindu. Jewisli,
Russian Greek and Eastern Orthodox religions
reported less than 1 %.
The educational level of the parents of the
sample used in the study was reflected in tlie
following; 14% of the . fathers and 9% of the
mothers were reported as having an eighth grade
education or less; 13% of the fathers and 11% u*
the mothers were reported as having some high
school; 29% of the fathers and 38% of the mothers
were high school graduates; 18%. of the fathers and
22% of the mothers had some college training;
14% of the fathers and 13%. of the mothers were
college graduates; 4% of the fathers and 3%, of the
mothers had some graduate or professional study;
7% of the fathers and 3%. of the motliers had some
graduate or professional degree; and finally. I'^^
reported that they did not know the educational
background of either of their parents. Wlien asked
to approximate the total income of their parents,
18% responded that they did not know this figure.
2% responded family income as S2,500 or less, 5%
reported from $2,501 to $5,000, 9%, at $5,001 to
$7,500, 16% at $7,501 to $10,000, 23%.
$10,001 to $15,000, 17% at $15,001 to $25,000,
and 10% of the returns had over $25,000. The
report of total family income seemed to be
somewhat higher at the upper levels than has been
reported in other studies conducted at tjthe
University, but other aspects of the information
obtained pertaining to characteristics of students
responding to this questionnaire presents strong
evidence to conclude that the students who did
respond to the drug survey were representative of
undergraduates at UNCC.
Results
By far the most frequently experienc
ced
Ljy lai luc iiC4UCiiiiy
substance was alcohol, with 1,197 (84%) of th^
had
individuals responding indicating that they ■ .
used beer, wine or hard liquor; the reported use o*
ted
cigarettes was the next highest substance repor-
with 761 (54%) of the sample reporting that they
had used it, while 648 (46%) had not. The nejr‘
most frequent use had been made of the class o'
substances called “pain-killers”, marijuan^;
tranquilizers and amphetamines. The percentage °
individual students who had used these substance*
were 43,26,23 and 21 respectively. Psychedelics
hallucinogens other than LSD were reported c*
used by 14% of the sample and barbituarates bV
13%. Finally, the substances least frequently osc
had been LSD (9%), anti-depressants (8%).
such substances as heroin, opium, methadone o
cocaine (5%.). ^
The next question considered was an utteinP
to determine whether if a student had ever used
at
substance was he currently using it and if so
what frequency. Wlien looking at current fSC’
alcohol again is the substance most utili^ct^'
Thirty-one percent of the sample indicated usif»
beer, wine or hard liquor about once a month c
less, 31% between once and several times a '''cc j
and 1% reporting daily use. It can again be scc^
that cigarettes rank second to alcohol ^s
substance most frequently used. Heavy use of ^*’5
of these substances which might be defined
“several times a week” or “daily” was reported b>