the journal sept. 13, 1971 page eleven
very few individuals. About one-third of the
individuals who have used amphetamines,
marijuana, LSD, other psychedelics and heroin,
etc. have done so before experiencing college. It
can also be seen that a significant number of
individual students are introduced to chemical
substances by the use of pain-killers, tranquilizers,
and barbiturates some time before their
enrollment in the University. Students who used
various substances were asked who had primarily
suggested their use. For most substances an
individual mentioned himself and suggested no
outside influence. However, 79% of the 595
individuals who had used pain-killers and 61% of
those who had used tranquilizers reported that use
Was primarily suggested by physicians.
The students perceived that to some extent
their parents would disapprove their use of such
substances as alcohol and cigarettes. Fifty percent
of the individuals saw their parents as disapproving
of alcohol and 54% reported that their parents
Would disapprove of their use of ciagarettes.
Examination of the remaining percentages in
regard to the various substances demonstrates
clearly that the individuals feel that their parents
stron^y reject the individual use of those
substances. The information obtained from asking
the individual students whether either parent had
ever used any of the substances in this survey,
suggested that parents make most frequent use of
alcohol (72%) and cigarettes (64%), along with
some moderate use of pain-killers (38%), and
tranquilizers (34%). In a later section of this
report, there will be some discussion of the
contrast between parental attitude and behavior
and individual student attitude and behavior.
The reason reported most frequently for
abstaining from any of the various substances was
that of a lack of interest or curiosity. Those who
Ead abstained from these substances also
demonstrated some reluctance to use the
^nbstances because of the various “risk” that they
perceived as possible. Such risks were those of
dependence upon the substance, being caught for
legal violation, physical or mental dangers, and
finally genetic damage to future children. From
reasons for use of various substances given by
abstainers and those who have experienced the
substance, it appears that the most frequent
rrtotivations are such reasons as to satisfy curiosity,
fo feel good or get high, for “kicks”, and because
d is the “in thing” to do. However, it can also be
^cen that amphetamines were seen as somewhat
helpful in improving the effectiveness of studying
3nd as an aid in staying awake. Tranquilizers were
^cen as being used to relieve tensions or relax and
of assistance in easing depressions. Alcohol, to a
lesser extent than tranquilizers, was seen as
cringing some relief to tensions and aiding in
relaxation and of more benefit in feeling good and
Setting “high”. Anti-depressants received the most
^dpport of any of the substances for easing
depressions.
Except for substances such as amphetamines
^d LSD and other psychedelics, excessive
Sleepiness or sluggishness was the effect most
''Ommonly reported by individuals who have
®^Perienced substances such as barbiturates,
"harijuana or hashish, alcohol, heroin,
^ti-depressants or tranquilizers. The next most
irequent reported effect for all of these same
(dbstances with the exception of alcohol was the
inability to concentrate on studies”; the second
[dost mentioned effect for alcohol was that of
Poor physical condition”. Amphetamines are
hen utilized by students during periods of
cademic stress in order to increase alertness and
derefore, amphetamines were rarely reported as
dOses for ineffective study periods. However,
Jddividuals did report that the amphetamines
^djor effects were “prolonged nervousness or
Xiety”, “insomnia”, and feelings of “exceptional
TOwer”. Hallucinatory experiences were reported
Q effects of marijuana or hashish and LSD and
her psychedelics more than for other substances
d^'ered in the survey.
In order to obtain some measure of student
htudes toward the drug experience, a series of
atements were presented and individuals were
Ked to record their extent of agreement or
isagreement with each statement. Most students
Breed to some extent that marijuana use should
^ an individual decision; however, the converse
true for such substances as LSD,
j^Phetamines, barbiturates and heroin, suggesting
j.^3t the individual should not be allowed to, decide
himself the Use of these substances and
(h^'^^fore, it appears that the responses implied
external sources should make such decisions
the individual. Although 64% of the students
'Treated some degree of agreement with letting
® individual decide about marijuana use, some of
were reluctant to carry it to the extent of
marijuana use, some of these were reluctant
W II 1° II'® extent of having marijuana
^ Balized on the same basis as alcohol. On this
thgl^rrient, the students seemed to divide
fj '^^elves quite evenly with about one-half
su °Ting legalization and the other half opposing
n a measure.
a UNCC drug survey
Some of the statements presented to the
individuals responding to the questionnaire
illicited stronger reaction in one direction or
another then did other statement, for example,
most students showed some agreement with the
following statements; “The continued heavy use
of drugs will impair academic performance.” (80%
agreement); “Since heroin is addictive, its
possession should be controlled by law.” (92%
agreement); “When a college official finds evidence
of illicit dru^ use on campus, he should report it to
legal authorities.” (68% agreement); “Apart from
the legal issues involved, it is wrong for a student^
to profit from selling drugs to other students.”
(75% agreement); and finally, “A college
administration should issue a clear statement of
policy on the use of drugs on campus, including
the disciplinary procedures (if any) for violations
of this poUcy.” (89% agreement).
Most students expressed some disagreement
with statements such as the following: “Hardly a
student goes through college these days without
having tried LSD (76% disagreement),
amphetamines (60% disagreement), barbiturates
(67% disagreement), or heroin.” (83%
disagreement); “If a person is convinced a
drug-control law is unjustified and repressive, he
should challenge it by continuing to use or
encouraging others to use drugs.” (84%
disagreement); and finally, 57% of the students
responding disagreed that “most drug users in
college are among the more independent,
thou^tful, and creative students.”
Two of the statements illicited responses which
provided some information about the ethical
responsibilities that individuals feel toward their
peers in regard to the question of drugs. Fifty-six
percent of the students showed some agreement
that “apart from legal issues involved, it is wrong
for a student to share his drug supply with another
student”, while even a higher percentage (75%)
agree that “apart from legal issues involved, it is
wrong for a student to profit from selling drugs to
other students”. As far as the future of drug use is
concerned, 68% felt that “the number of college
students using drugs is increasing and will continue
to increase”, while 16% disagreed with this
prediction and the remaining 16% suggested that
they had made no judgment at this point.
Discussion
The. contrast between the information about
substances “ever used” and “current use” seemed
to indicate that for some students initial contact
with the substances was “experimental” due to
curiosity or because (in the case of
anti-depressants or pain-killers) some personal
crisis such as a depression had occurred or
medication was prescribed for some physical or
somatic concern. However, the change from “ever
used” to “current use” for marijuana is not as
great as it is for other substances such as
amphetamines and barbiturates suggesting that
there is a higher probability that when an
individual tries marijuana he is more likely to
continue to use it with more frequency than some
of the other substances commonly judged to be
part of the college drug experience.
It is interesting to note some of the differences
that appear when comparing the information
pertaining to student use and reported parental
attitudes toward and the use of these substances
included in the survey. It is significant that
apparently a majority of both parents and students
make use of either beer, wine or hard liquor and
therefore, a look at the use of various substances
by both groups would probably reflect its obvious
presence. Marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics
or hallucinogens when present are almost
exclusively found in the students’ milieu rather
than the parents’. On the other hand, if one
wanted to describe the “parent drug scene” it
seemed likely that one would find that
barbiturates, anti-depressants, tranquilizers and
cigarettes are more part of the parents’ life
experiences than they are that of the students’.
Finally, the students’ perception of their parents’
attitude toward use of the various substances
implies that at times parents might be somewhat
critical of the use of chemical substances by
students, while their own actual behavior seems to
contradict their expressed attitudes to some
extent.
One often hears generalizations made that are
intended to communicate that most individuals
who have experienced various chemical substances
initially came into contact with them after
entering the college environment. Such
generalizations tend to lead to the conclusion that
the probability was high that individuals would
not be exposed to such experiences had they not
ventured into the college and university
experience. However, the data gathered in this
study reinforces what was found in some of the
other studies cited earlier; a significant number of
individuals who use drugs which are prohibited by
law have done so prior to entrance into their
post-high school education. This phenomenon not
only suggested that students are not naive when
entering the university or that they need support
and information in secondary school, but it also
should impress upon the University community
the need for educational programs which are
directed toward an individual or individuals
already somewhat sophisticated in the area of drug
use. It may be true that for a large number their
first exposure to the illicit and illegal use of drugs
occurs when they enter into a college, but
increasingly a large number of individuals enter
our institutions of higher education with a growing
degree of sophistication.
While reviewing the response patterns to the
attitudinal statements presented to the individuals
who completed the questionnaire, one response
indicated a very strong support by students for an
administrative statement regarding the University
policy toward drug use and a clear statement of
disciplinary procedures (“if any”). One
interpretation of this might be that students felt
that a concise statement from an administration
regarding policy and procedure would increase the
probability that students are made aware of tlie
consequences of certain behavior and that this
might insure the student of “due process” should
he find himself in a situation where the use of
drugs illegally is in question. One might go beyond
the data somewhat and guess that both those
students who use drugs and those who do not
prefer to know' exactly where a university
administration stands on the issue, and what
action will be taken against those individual
students whose behavior does not conform to rules
and regulations covering this matter. Presently,
UNCC has a fairly clear statement as to the general
university policy toward drug use, but no specific
statement is made as to disciplinary procedures (if
any); the student response in this present study
might suggest that further thought be given to this
area of concern.
The present writer plans to take a later look at
the data from this survey, in order to make some
discriminations between the motivations and
personal-social attitudes of users of the substances
in the survey as compared to non-users. There is a
high probability that a hypothesis stating
significant differences between these two groups
would be confirmed. For the most part moderate
to conservative attitudes seemed to be present
among the students concerning the substances in
this survey with the exception of alcohol,
marijuana and cigarettes. However, there was some
indication that “pot” is reaching the level of
acceptance that alcohol and cigarettes has. Most
studies of this sort present evidence^trong enough
to project that marijuana is probably becoming a
permanent part of the college scene.
In conclusion, it should be stated that even
with the satisfactory return, the question of
whether those who returiied the form ’ are
significantly different from those who did not
return the form was and is important. The writer
must concern himself with such questions as: “Are
the non-users expressing no interest in this area?”;
“Do students who are using drugs not respond to
such a questionnaire or if they do is it in less than
an honest manner because of a fear of some kind
of ‘crackdown’?” In response to this, the data
seems strong enough to be representative of users
and non-users, sufficient enough to conclude that
a larger sample would not significantly affect the
results, and although one can hypothesize that
there were individual attempts at distortion, the
results reflect the most accurate picture obtainable
on a large scale.
(A Final Note: The Journal has assigned a team
of reporters to solicit reactions to the drug report
and to do an analysis of the findings. Wliat can we
expect in the future in the way of campus
discipline concerning drug use? What does the
Counseling Center see as its role after the report:
more seminars, more sessions with students?
Read the story. . .cornin’ up. .. in your
Journal. .. .)