|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
HARDBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
1
Illicit Drug Use
in the United States
The use of illegal drugs has been a long-standing problem in American
society, a problem that has taken on a particular urgency in the last 30
years. In the early 1960s, a presidential commission stated: "The concern
and the distress of the American people over the national problem of drug
abuse is expressed every day in the newspapers, the magazines, scientific
journals, public forums and in the home. It is a serious and many-faceted
problem" (President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse,
1963:1~. In 1971, President Nixon called drugs, especially heroin, America's
public enemy number one. The 1980s saw the emergence of cocaine, par-
ticularly crack cocaine, as a new focus of concern. After President George
Bush's televised address in September 1989 (his first as President) on a
national drug control strategy, 64 percent of respondents to a New York
Times-CBS poll rated drugs as the nation's number one problem (New York
Times, 1990~. Respondents to such surveys during that period typically
rated crime and AIDS as the number two and number three problems both
of which are associated with drugs. As one measure of importance attached
to this issue, in fiscal 1992 the federal government spent $12 billion on
antidrug efforts, and state and local agencies together spent roughly the
same amount (White House, 19921.
The rise and fall of public preoccupation with drugs correlate in com-
plex ways with shifts in patterns and levels of drug use (Duster, 1970; Lidz
and Walker, 1980; Courtwright, 1992~. Perceptions about public issues are
volatile, often affected by such factors as political campaigning, presiden-
tial initiatives, and competing dramatic events in the media (Rogers, 1983~;
9
OCR for page 10
10
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
these, far more than the prosaic conditions of everyday life, determine the
perception of "America's number one problem." Thus, by July 1990, less
than a year after 64 percent of the public had rated drugs as the number one
problem, only 10 percent rated it that high (New York Times, 1990~. The
subsequent focus on the war in the Persian Gulf, the disintegration of the
Soviet empire, economic concerns, and presidential politics resulted in even
lower rankings of the drug problem.
Students of public health are acutely aware that the premature mortal-
ity, epidemiologic sequelae, and economic costs of illness presently associ-
ated with alcohol or tobacco separately greatly outweigh the comparable
measures for cocaine, heroin, and all other drugs combined (Harwood et al.,
1984; Rice et al., 19903. But present hazards to public health are not
necessarily the values lodged uppermost in the public account. Concerns
about criminal enterprises and moral commitments, fear of an uncertain
future, and promotions broadcast by industrial advertisers and political ac-
tivists compete powerfully with clinical observations and epidemiologic es-
timates in guiding the hand of prevention research and practice.
Regardless of the priority that the public, political leaders, and the
media attach to drug problems at particular points in time, drugs are un-
questionably a significant social problem for the United States in the 1990s.
Their significance is compounded by the fact that drug problems do not
stand alone. They complicate-and are complicated by-other major con-
cerns such as the rising costs of health care, the AIDS epidemic, racial
divisions, and violent crime. It is beyond the scope of this report to deal
with all the complexities of the drug problem; we take it as a cardinal point
of reference, however, that issues of morality, health, crime, and economics
are inextricably linked to both the perception and the reality of the problem.
An analytical focus on drugs per se is a simplification necessary for clarity,
brevity, and efficiency in the present task of informing the scientific agen-
das of research agencies specifically concerned with prevention.
In this introduction, we develop a profile of the drug problem, high-
lighting the known facts of greatest relevance to prevention research, as
well as the gaps in knowledge that are most troubling. We begin with a
discussion of how drug problems develop and how they are diagnosed in
terms of individual impairment and community disturbance. We then de-
scribe the changing magnitude of such problems over the past 20 years
during which relatively extensive data collection efforts have been under-
taken; we point to such explanations for these trends as the relevant re-
search permits. We then look at the distribution of drug problems across
subgroups of the population in closer detail. The chapter concludes with
recommendations concerning epidemiologic research that should improve
the ability to follow trends in drug problems and to explain their dynamics
in more certain and useful ways.
OCR for page 11
lLLIClT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
DIAGNOSING DRUG PROBLEMS
11
From a scientific perspective, two different but complementary ways to
define, study, and respond to drug problems have evolved over the past 30
years. One way is grounded in the clinical (or individual) approach, diag-
nosing drug problems strictly as unhealthy conditions attaching to individu-
als, analogous to specific cases of an infectious or chronic disease. The
other is an environmental (or community) approach, in which drug prob-
lems are viewed as disorders affecting social groups, such as the family,
neighborhood, or society. Although both approaches are concerned with
causes and consequences, such as family disruption and reduced life expect-
ancy, the environmental approach is also concerned with social disturbance
and polarization, labor market distortions, and the economic burden of ill-
ness. Individual drives and motives are more central to the clinical ap-
proach. The environmental view emphasizes broader influences on drug
use behavior, for example, drug consumption motivated by economic gain
among disadvantaged youth with limited opportunities.
The clinical and environmental models are closely related. The clinical
model focuses on a subgroup of all drug users, those whose drug consump-
tion is more advanced, deeply compulsive, poorly responsive to social or
environmental changes, and (at least temporarily) very difficult for the indi-
vidual to control. The environmental model views the majority of persons
using illicit drugs as having motives to use them or to remain addicted that
precede or go beyond psychological disorder. The social environment educes
conformity to group norms and reactions to economic circumstances. When
group norms and economic circumstances contribute to promoting drug use,
individuals in that environment are more susceptible to exposure to and use
of drugs.
The Individual Perspective
Clinical definitions of individual drug problems are based on a set of
carefully enumerated criteria for assessing individual drug-consumption be-
havior and its physiological and functional consequences. The clinical ap-
proach is summarized in the concept of Psychoactive Substance Use Disor-
der, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 1987), generally referred to as DSM-III-
R. The DSM-III-R implicitly distinguishes three levels of drug-related be-
havior and functioning: drug dependence, the core disorder; drug abuse, a
less severe disorder; and all other patterns, which fall below the threshold
of clinical attention and are called drug use. A very similar classification
and set of distinguishing criteria appear in the International Statistical Clas-
sification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death (World Health Organi-
zation, 1992~.
OCR for page 12
2
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
It may be useful to envision these levels of drug-consumption behavior
as a series of concentric circles: drug dependence at the center, a surround-
ing ring of abuse, a wide outer rim of use, and outside that the realm of
abstinence. If we further envision the boundaries of the circles as flexible
and porous, and if we map all of the population onto this landscape and
observe things over time, we should not be surprised to see the size of the
circles expand and contract as millions of individuals shift back and forth
across the boundaries.
The specific drugs being consumed (whether heroin or cocaine, amphet-
amines or tranquilizers, even alcohol or cigarettes which, although licit,
can become clinically problematic) are not emphasized in the definition.
After nearly a century of study and massive documentation of polydrug se-
quences and patterns, it is clear that many varieties of psychoactive substances
can yield disorders of drug dependence or abuse (Levison et al., 1983; Jaffe,
19901. The particular physiological properties and psychological effects of
specific drugs are not viewed as irrelevant but rather as one in a series of
important factors. The dose taken, the route of administration (smoking, swal-
lowing, snuffing, injecting), and the social environment can attenuate or exag-
gerate many of the behavioral differences that the chemicals induce.
The distinctions between the legal drugs alcohol beverages and to-
bacco and the illegal drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and heroin are
today much sharper in the law than in the eyes of the pharmacologists and
epidemiologists who are counting deaths and illnesses and the clinicians
who are helping people recover from dependence. Nevertheless, the focus
in this report is on the patterns of consumption, the consequences, and the
effects of preventive interventions against illegal drugs, which are the prin-
cipal research concerns of the particular sponsors and immediate audience
of this report.
Table 1.1 presents the clinical criteria delineated in the two diagnostic
manuals cited above. For our purposes, use, abuse, and dependence can be
characterized more simply as follows:
Dependence is characterized by high or frequent doses taken continu-
ously over a period of at least one month; compulsion, craving, withdrawal
symptoms, and/or severe consequences in terms of health or functional im-
pairments are very likely to be experienced.
Abuse generally occurs at lower doses and/or frequencies than depen-
dence, although levels of consumption may be sporadically heavy. There
are some detectable adverse effects in terms of health or functioning, which
may be quite serious or have serious consequences, such as injury and
violence.
Drug use is defined as consumption of low and/or infrequent doses,
sometimes called "experimental," "casual," or "social," such that damaging
consequences are rare or minor.
OCR for page 13
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
TABLE 1.1 Correspondence Between the Criteria for Dependencea of
the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and
Causes of Death (lOth rev.) (ICD-10) arid the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ea., rev.) DSM-III-R
13
ICD-10
DSM-III-R
Progressive neglect of alternative
pleasures or interests in favor of
substance use.
Persisting with drug use despite clear
evidence of overtly harmful
consequences.
Evidence of tolerance such that
increased doses of the substance are
required in order to achieve effects
originally produced by lower doses.
Substance use with the intention of
relieving withdrawal symptoms and
subjective awareness that this
strategy is effective.
A physiological withdrawal state.
Strong desire or sense of compulsion
to take drugs.
. . .
Evidence of an Impaired capacity to
control drug taking behavior in terms
of its onset, termination or level
of use.
A narrowing of the personal repertoire
of patterns of drug use, e.g., a
tendency to drink alcoholic beverages
in the same way on weekdays and
weekends and whatever the social
constraints regarding appropriate
drinking behavior.
Evidence that a return to substance
use after a period of abstinence
leads to a rapid reinstatement of
other features of the syndrome than
occurs with nondependent individuals.
Important social, occupation, or
recreational activities given up
because of substance use.
Continued substance use despite
knowledge of having a persistent
or recurrent social, psychological,
or physical problem that is caused
or exacerbated by the use of the
substance.
Marked tolerance: need for markedly
increased amounts of the substance in
order to achieve intoxication or
desired effect, or markedly diminished
effect with continued use of the same
amount.
Substance often taken to relieve or
avoid withdrawal symptoms.
Characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Persistent desire or one or more
unsuccessful efforts to cut down or
control substance use.
Substance often taken in larger
amounts or over a longer period
than the person intended.
Frequent intoxication or withdrawal
symptoms when expected to fulfill
major role obligations at work,
school, or at home or when substance
use is physically hazardous.
A great deal of time spent in
activities necessary to get the
substance, taking the substance,
or recovering from its effects.
aA dependence syndrome is present if three or more criteria are met (ICD: persistently)
(DSM: continuously) in the previous month or (ICD: some time) (DSM: repeatedly) in the
previous year.
SOURCES: World Health Organization (1992); American Psychiatric Organization (1987).
Courtesy of Gerstein and Harwood (1990).
OCR for page 14
4
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
We must emphasize that, although drug use is not a clinical disorder,
this does not imply that it is necessarily benign or trivial. It is reasonable to
question whether any level of drug consumption should be counted as less
than abuse for young adolescents. The potential for progression beyond use
to abuse or dependence is always present, and the age of drug onset is
related to the likelihood of continued and cumulative adverse effects. Those
who initiate drug use at earlier ages are at greater risk of later abuse and
dependence (Kandel et al., 19861.
The concepts of use, abuse, and dependence raise some important points
that are discussed in the following sections: (1) age-related characteristics;
(2) temporal sequence and progression; and (3) specific consequences asso-
ciated with each stage.
Age-Related Characteristics
The onset or initiation of drug use has been studied in several cross-
sectional and longitudinal investigations. The most important finding re-
veals that most experimentation with illicit drug use begins during adoles-
cence. For some people, the initiation of cigarettes and alcohol (which are
illicit for minors even though they are legal for adults to buy and use)
begins even before the teenage years. Among the 12- to 17-year-old re-
spondents to the 1990 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse who had
ever used alcohol, the mean age of first use was 12.8; the corresponding
figure for cigarettes was 11.5 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1991b).
About one-fifth (21.0 percent) of the 12- to 13-year-old respondents had
tried cigarettes, and one-fourth (25.9 percent) had tried alcohol. In a state-
wide survey of New York students, 5 percent of the students age 12 or
younger were classified as "heavy" drinkers according to criteria developed
for adolescents that is, they drank at least once a week and drank rela-
tively large amounts on a typical drinking occasion (Barnes and Welte,
1987~. Some marijuana use also occurs among preteens. In the 1990
Household Survey, 2.9 percent of the 12- to 13-year-old respondents had
tried marijuana (National Institute on Drug Abuse, l991b). These findings
are consistent with those of Kandel and Logan (19841: the rate of initiation
for drug use increases around age 10, with one-fifth of the cohort reporting
ever using alcohol before age 10. The average age of initiation for cigarette
and marijuana use is 12 and 13.
Relatively few people begin using drugs or even any particular type
of drug, unless it was never previously available after reaching 21-25
years of age, except for prescription drugs. The risk for initiation of ciga-
rette, alcohol, and marijuana use subsides for the majority of youth by age
20, and for illicit drugs other than cocaine by age 21 (Kandel and Logan,
19841. The implication for prevention is that efforts to prevent the onset of
OCR for page 15
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
15
most drug use probably should concentrate on the age group just entering
adolescence, if not those younger. Most current interventions have ac-
knowledged this implication. More effective interventions for older adoles-
cents or adults who have already initiated consumption could focus not on
preventing onset apart from cocaine use-but on encouraging cessation
and on forestalling the intensification of drug use to the point of abuse and
dependence. We should note that, in addition to these patterns of early
onset of illicit drug use, a distinct problem has developed in the elderly with
abuse of prescribed drugs. However, there is little theoretical work or
intervention research on this problem, and it is so different from the topics
treated here that we must defer it to later assessment in another study.
Sequence and Progression of Drug Involvement
Populations of young people in the United States and other industrial-
ized countries show a remarkable degree of uniformity, dating back to sur-
veys in the early 1970s, in the sequence of their drug involvement. Re-
search findings reveal that young people who have used multiple drugs
appear to do so by progressing systematically through a sequence of stages.
Drug abuse also develops through a specific sequence of increasing drug
involvement.
Hamburg et al. (1975) found that adolescents tended to experiment first
with coffee and tea; this was followed sequentially by use of wine and beer,
tobacco, hard liquor, marijuana, hallucinogens, stimulants and depressants,
and narcotics. The onset of each of these substances was separate, with
relatively few adolescents progressing through the hierarchy without using
each of the preceding drugs. Similar results were found during the same
period on a larger sample by Kandel (1975~. The most frequently docu-
mented sequence involves four stages of onset:
1. beer or wine,
2. tobacco and/or liquor,
3. marijuana, and
4. "hard" drugs such as sedatives, tranquilizers, or cocaine.
This pattern does not suggest that everyone moves from (1) all the way
through (41. However, for those who do, the nature of movement is re-
stricted and cumulative-somewhat like a series of gates through which one
can pass only in a specific order. For this reason, the term gateway drugs is
used to refer to the first and second stages.
It is typical to find that 80 percent of a sample (see Kandel, 1975;
O'Donnell et al., 1976; Clayton and Voss, 1981; Clayton et al., 1987), to the
degree that they reported any drug use, did so in conformity with the order
indicated above and not in some other sequence, and that those who de
OCR for page 16
16
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
parted from this sequence did so minimally, most commonly by using ciga-
rettes prior to any alcohol. Rarely does someone use cocaine without previ-
ously using the drugs in the prior stages; in fact, Kandel and others (Yamaguchi
and Kandel, 1984a, 1984b; O'Donnell and Clayton, 1982; Henningfield et
al., 1990) have shown that use of marijuana is virtually a necessary condi-
tion for cocaine use in youth.
Contrary to prevailing findings, Newcomb and gentler (1986) concluded
that alcohol was not the major gateway drug. In their Los Angeles sample,
alcohol use was fairly stable, with little cross-influence on other drugs.
Cigarettes, in contrast, were identified as the gateway drug facilitating pro-
gression to marijuana and harder drug use, particularly for earlier ages.
Rather than viewing the initiation and progression of drug use as a single
general sequence, they suggested several smaller sequences, and that at
higher levels of drug involvement, the use of cigarettes, marijuana, and hard
drugs have a synergistic or reciprocal effect of increasing drug involvement.
In a similar vein, Yamaguchi and Kandel (1984a) have suggested that be-
tween marijuana and all other illicit drugs may come a specific stage of
using prescription-type pills, especially tranquilizers, while Donovan and
Jessor (1985) have suggested that "problem drinking" (alcohol abuse) is a
separate stage after marijuana and before other drugs.
The later-stage drugs, which are distinguished here as illicit drugs (pro-
hibited for adults as well as minors), are added onto, rather than replacing,
the earlier drugs. The number of times the earlier-sequence drugs are con-
sumed is a sensitive indicator; in most studies the likelihood of moving to a
further stage increases the more intensively and continuously the earlier-
initiated drugs are consumed. In this sense the sequence not only is ordered
in time but also has scalar properties, which make the level of each category
predictive of the next. For example, the more extensive or intensive the use
of marijuana, the greater the likelihood of trying cocaine. Among 12- to
17-year-old respondents to the 1990 National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse (199lb), of those who had consumed marijuana in the month preced-
ing the interview (one-twentieth of the sample), 37.0 percent had used drugs
other than marijuana in the past month, including 9.8 percent reporting
past-month cocaine use; of the remaining vast majority, who had no past-
month marijuana consumption, 3.1 percent had used other drugs and less
than 0.5 percent (the lower limit of statistical detection) reported cocaine
use (Table 1.2~.
The sequential character is unlikely to be pharmacological in origin, but
rather economical and sociological that is, alcohol and tobacco are inex-
pensive and very widely accessible to young people because they are le-
gally mass-marketed to adults; marijuana in turn has preceded other drugs
in part because it is generally less expensive and more widely available than
cocaine, pills, or heroin and in part because it is viewed as less dangerous.
OCR for page 17
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
TABLE 1.2 Percentage Reporting Use of Selected Drugs in the Past
Month, by Age Group and Marijuana Use in the Past Month, 1990
17
Marijuana Use in
the Past Month
Age Group and Drugs
Used in the Past Month No Yes Total
Total (N = 8,644) (N = 615) (N = 9,259)
Alcohol 49.0 90.8 51.2
Cigarettes 24.9 59.7 26.7
Drugs other than marijuana 1.4 23.8 2.6
Nonmedical use of any
psychotherapeuticsa 1.0 10.0 1.4
Cocaine 0.2 11.2 0.8
12-17 Years Old (N = 2,085) (N = 92) (N = 2,177)
Alcohol 20.9 91.6 24.5
Cigarettes 8.6 67.3 11.6
Drugs other than marijuana 3.1 37.0 4.9
Nonmedical use of any
psychotherapeutics 1.9 17.6 2.7
Cocaine b 9.8 0.6
18-25 Years Old (N = 1,812) (N = 240) (N = 2,052)
Alcohol 58.9 93.1 63.3
Cigarettes 27.5 59.0 31.5
Drugs other than marijuana 2.5 27.8 5.7
Nonmedical use of any
psychotherapeutics 1.3 11.4 2.6
Cocaine 0.8 11.4 2.2
26-34 Years Old (N = 2,139) (N = 216) (N = 2,355)
Alcohol 60.9 89.5 63.3
Cigarettes 34.7 66.9 37.5
Drugs other than marijuana 1.3 23.6 3.2
Nonmedical use of any
psychotherapeutics 0.7 10.6 1.6
Cocaine 0.5 14.7 1.7
35 Years and Older (N = 2,608) (N = 67) (N = 2,675)
Alcohol 47.8 88.3 48.6
Cigarettes 23.9 46.1 24.3
Drugs other than marijuana 1.0 10.6 1.1
Nonmedical use of any
psychotherapeutics 0.8 b 0.8
Cocaine b 6.3 0.2
aNonmedical use of any prescription-type stimulant, sedative, tranquilizer, or
analgesic; does not include over-the-counter drugs.
bLow precision; no estimate reported.
SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse (199lb:Table 3.8).
OCR for page 18
18
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
The tendency for heavier use of earlier drugs to correlate with greater likeli-
hood of using later ones is also, to a certain degree, sociological in nature:
more intensive users tend to segregate themselves and be segregated by
others, increasing their exposure to diversified drug sellers and consumers.
There may also be a pharmacological component as individuals begin to
take one drug to modify the effects of others (Johnston and O'Malley, 1986),
e.g., taking cocaine to counter alcohol-induced drowsiness or taking heroin
to take the edge off cocaine.
Consumption of one or more of these substances may progress from use
to abuse and further to dependence. The timing and nature of such transi-
tions (which are probabilistic rather than ironclad or deterministic in nature)
vary with individual factors, by substance, and by mode of administration
(for example, snorting cocaine versus smoking it, or injecting it in combina-
tion with other drugs such as heroin). It is critical to note that progression
occurs in a minority of cases. Just as most alcohol users do not become
dependent, most individuals who try illicit drugs do not progress beyond
use; they remain at a low level or move back to abstinence (Johnston et al.,
1991a).
Perhaps the drug with the highest proportion of continuation of use
beyond experimentation or occasional use is tobacco: after as few as two
cigarettes smoked, one-third or more continue to use for a considerable
length of time (Henningfield, 19841. While two-thirds of high school se-
niors reported ever trying a cigarette, 29 percent reported use in the last
month. Cigarettes were used daily by more of the respondents (18 percent)
than any other drug. The high rates of continuation for cigarette smoking
are exceeded by occasional heavy drinking defined as the consumption of 5
or more drinks at least once in the last 2 weeks. Over one-third (35 per-
cent) of the high school sample and a young adult sample engaged in occa-
sional heavy drinking.
Even in the case of a drug with as fearsome a popular reputation for
inducing dependence as cocaine, most users do not progress to the point of
dependence. It is sensible, then, to consider that every transition nonuse
to use, use to abuse, abuse to dependence is an opportunity for preventive
factors to operate, which both encourages and complicates the task of de-
signing preventive interventions and measuring their effects.
Consequences
The consequences of drug consumption vary in severity, type, and how
rapidly they become manifest. The occurrence and severity of most conse-
quences are correlated either with the level of current consumption or the
cumulative level of consumption for many years beyond onset. The most
well-known consequences include acute health crises such as overdose death
OCR for page 19
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
19
or traumatic injuries while intoxicated (Simons-Morton et al., 1989~; chronic
or cumulative damages such as tissue deterioration, scarring, and oncogenesis
(in smokers' throats and lungs, smokeless tobacco users' oral membranes,
drinkers' livers, sniffers' nasal membranes, intravenous injectors' veins); a
variety of endocrine, neurological, and central nervous system degradation,
some reversible and some irreversible (see Spencer and Boren, 1990~; AIDS
(Feucht et al., 1990; Chitwood et al., 1990~; criminality (Faupel, 1988;
Dembo et al., 19919; and developmental disability (Block et al., 1990; Nathan,
1990~. Because the population has many more users than abusers or those
who are dependent, there are large numbers of people who are individually
at some small degree of risk for impairment, and small numbers of people
are at high risk of consequences. No quantitative analysis at this time
indicates how these total group risks compare in size with each other. But
if we work by analogy from the analyses of population risks for cancer and
cardiovascular disease, we may assume that the severity of risks are distrib-
uted log-normally-which means that each level of risk is multiplied by
some factor of the former, not merely added to it. This argues for ap-
proaches to prevention that seek to reduce risk factors in both the high-risk
minority and the middle majority of the distribution curve (see the appen-
dix).
Perhaps the most critical feature of youthful drug use is the potential
for interfering with normal biological, psychological, and social develop-
ment. Youngsters who become involved with drugs beyond experimental
use are at greater risk of failing to accomplish necessary educational and
developmental tasks. This is not necessarily an objective of drug use by
youth, which is generally functional and goal-oriented (Jessor, 1983~. They
use drugs variously as a way to experience pleasure or risk, gain acceptance
by a peer group, assert authority and independence, reject conventional
institutions of society, assert important characteristics of their identity, or
mark the transition to adulthood (Jessor, 1983; Johnston and O'Malley, 1986;
Murray and Perry, 1984~. These motivations for drug use are characteristic
of normal psychosocial development and do not differ from the goals asso-
ciated with behaviors not related to drug use (Jessor, 1991~. The underlying
motivations for drug use are not static but vary by drug, and further by the
degree of drug involvement (Johnston and O'Malley, 1986~. For example,
smoking onset is strongly related to social factors in early adolescence but
shifts to internal motivations by late adolescence (Pederson and Lefcoe,
1985~.
Despite these normalizing aspects, drug use jeopardizes the normal pro-
cesses of development. The use of one or more classes of drugs between
adolescence and young adulthood has been found to interfere with normal
development by compromising physical and psychological health, the per-
formance of traditional work and family roles, and the level of education
OCR for page 34
34
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
TABLE 1.4 Lifetime and Past Year Use of Any Illicit Druga, by Race
and Age, National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, 1990
Age White Hispanic Black
Lifetime Use
12-17 24.0 21.1 20.5
18-25 59.3 47.3 47.6
26-34 67.6 45.0 53.7
35+ 26.0 22.8 28.9
Past Year Use
12-17 16.9 17.0 12.7
18-25 30.2 27.3 24.4
26-34 22.4 20.1 24.0
35+ 5.7 5.5 8.3
aMarijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics.
SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1991a).
United States have generally lower drug use rates than Mexican or other
Latin Americans (Austin and Gilbert, 1989; Bachman et al., 1991; Wallace
and Bachman, 1991; Barnes and Welte, 1987; Newcomb et al., 1987; Getting
and Beauvis, 1990~.
The issue of ethnic variations in drug use is related to a point made
above: that national statistics may not reflect the situation in any particular
community. Because of major demographic changes in recent years, some
geographical regions have especially high densities of specific ethnic popu-
lations. For example, in 1990 Hispanics constituted approximately 9 per-
cent of the U.S. population, and 16 percent of this group was located in Los
Angeles. Two-thirds of the Cuban population lives in Miami. A substantial
majority of mainland Puerto Ricans live in New York State and New Jersey.
Many, although not all, Native Americans are geographically removed from
the mainstream population by virtue of the fact that they live on reserva-
tions. These geographical and cultural groupings have important implica-
tions for prevention efforts and, indeed, for understanding and interpreting
epidemiological data.
Socioeconomic and Economic Factors
Among adolescents and younger adults, impairment is highest among
the least advantaged portions of the population (Simcha-Fagan et al., 1986~.
One important segment of society is represented by those who fail to com-
plete high school (Holmberg, 1985; Mensch and Kandel, 1988~. This seg
OCR for page 35
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
35
ment is perennially underemployed and overrepresented in all the indicators
of public health and criminal justice problems (Clayton and Tuchfield, 1982;
McBride and McCoy, 19821. Over 40 percent of prison inmates in a Cali-
fornia prison reported use of cocaine or heroin in the 3 years preceding
incarceration (Peterson and Braiker, 1980~. Similarly, 83 percent of violent
offenders were using drugs daily in the month prior to their committing the
offense (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982~. The significance of social environ-
mental factors is given substantial attention in Chapter 2.
However, one of the problems for researchers who attempt to under-
stand drug abuse across and within social classes is that social and eco-
nomic divisions within the population are not easily understood. The most
commonly used measure of social economic status (SES) and the indices
derived from SES, such as Duncan's Social Economic Index (SKI) (Heuser
and Featherman, 1977) and Hollingshead's (1957) class divisions, were ini-
tially developed in the 1950s on the basis of community studies dating back
to the 1920s. Ethnographic studies were done in the first half of this cen-
tury to generate insight about community. They consistently showed that
differences in income, occupational status, and education were not the only
ways that people drew social lines and perceived themselves and others.
These three variables were only the easiest to quantify and compare. Urban
communities today are more complex and diverse than they were in the
1920s or 1950s (Green and Simons-Morton, 19911. Yet SES is still used in
drug abuse research as the major measure of social boundaries and basis for
comparison. It is not an invalid basis, but it sweeps together many cultur-
ally specific differences that are very important.
Studies of the clinical and environmental etiology of drug abuse within
specific communities and specific segments of the population require in-
sight about social and economic divisions as well as how communities orga-
nize themselves and perceive their differences. These kinds of insights
cannot be realized or measured by SES alone. Clearly, survey research and
sophisticated statistical analysis are limited when the subject population is
covert. It is difficult to take representative random samples of fugitive
populations, and not enough is known about them to ask all the right ques-
tions. Limited access and limited insight restrict the quality and scope of
quantitative approaches and call for qualitative research methods, such as
ethnography, to contribute in their own right and as a basis for improving
quantitative work.
SUMMARY
Research on the nature of the drug problem in America presents a pic-
ture of "two worlds." In one, measured by survey data on individuals in
school classrooms and households, illicit drug use is not confined to or even
OCR for page 36
36
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
particularly prominent in any one social class, economic stratum, race, or
ethnic group, although any experience with drugs is self-reported more fre-
quently by the wealthy than the less wealthy and more by whites than
Hispanics or blacks. In this world, the drug problem has a remarkably
uniform appearance: the sequence of introduction to different drugs seems
universal; the diagnostic categories of use, abuse, and dependence are re-
currently serviceable; and with regard to the grossest patterns any use of
illicit drugs versus abstinence-the major subgroups of society, in terms of
race, ethnicity, and social class, are rather consistent. This world of low-
intensity consumption shows steady and cumulatively very marked declines
in the prevalence of marijuana use since the late 1970s and of cocaine since
the middle 1980s; heroin use is so rare as to be barely measurable.
The other world is that of emergency rooms, morgues, drug clinics,
juvenile detention centers, jails, and prisons, in which indicators of inten-
sive drug consumption (abuse and dependence) are collected. When we
look closely at the more extreme drug patterns of abuse and dependence, we
see a variety of behaviors and consequences that separate into very different
levels and follow very distinct trends in different subpopulations compared
with each other and with the general population. The poor predominate,
blacks and Hispanics appearing in numbers much higher than their house-
hold or school proportions; marijuana and heroin use are common (though
less so in some areas than in the 1970s); and cocaine use increased explo-
sively throughout the 1980s and simply leveled off at high levels in the
l990s.
Reconciling these two worlds is a major challenge for research. It may
be that the processes involved in use, abuse, and dependence (that is, the
probabilistic relations of one stage to another and one drug to other drugs)
may differ from one population group to another. We need longitudinal
studies that are selected so as to be rich in high-risk youth so that we can
gain a much better understanding of group as well as individual differences
in pathways to and away from drug problems. Researchers need to coordi-
nate their work so that information collected in the two worlds in house-
holds and schools versus hospitals and jails provides some common points
of reference on key items, for example, current probation or parole status
and number of hospital visits in the past 12 months. And federal agencies
need to place much higher priority on making important national data bases,
such as DAWN, DUE, and the household and senior surveys, accessible to a
broad range of researchers so they can be used to advance knowledge as
well as to keep annual scorecards on a few key indicators.
Moreover, dependence and abuse tend to cluster with many other be-
haviors that are defined as serious problems. According to Jessor (1983),
drug use represents part of a syndrome of problem behavior. Youth who use
drugs are more likely to be involved in delinquency and precocious sexual
OCR for page 37
ILLICIT DRUG USE lN THE UNITED STATES
37
activity (Jessor and Jessor, 1977~. The relationship between adolescent
drug abuse and delinquency is well established; frequent use and abuse of
drugs are more common among youth involved in chronic delinquent activi-
ties than other adolescents (see Hawkins, Lishner, Jensen and Catalano,
1987J. In the National Youth Study, one-half of serious juvenile offenders
were also multiple illicit drug users (Elliott and Huizinga, 1984~. Research
findings indicate that drug use and criminal behavior represent manifesta-
tior~s of social involvement in the drug-using subculture (Faupel, 1988~. In
fact, subpopulations involved most heavily in drug consumption tend to be
afflicted with a whole variety of health and behavioral dysfunctions, so the
drug diagnosis may or may not be primary or defining. The most visibly
damaging drug behavior and the violence associated with it occur among
the economically disadvantaged.
Different kinds of prevention opportunities arise in relation to how in-
dividuals behave across time, how the behaviors and consequences are dis-
tributed across social groups, and how they cluster with other problems.
These results suggest that there needs to be more examination of specific
factors, both individual and environmental, that affect onset, progression,
and problem clustering, and then to develop lessons of this knowledge for
intervention planning and research.
REFERENCES
Adams, E.
1990 Interview. DAWN Briefings 6(4):5.
Adams, E.H., A.J. Blanken, L.D. Ferguson, and A. Kopstein
logo Overview of Selected Drug Trends. Rockville, Md.
Abuse.
Akers, R.L., M.D. Krohn, L. Lanza-Kaduco, and M. Radosevich
National Institute on Drug
1979 Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. Ameri-
can Sociological Review 44(4):636-755.
American Psychiatric Association
1987 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ea., revised. Wash-
ington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Aquilino, W.S., and L.A. Losciuto
1990 Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly
56:362-295.
Austin, G.A., and M.J. Gilbert
1989 Substance abuse among Latino youth. Prevention Research Update 3:1-26.
Bachman, J.G., J.M. Wallace, Jr., P.M. O'Malley, L.D. Johnston, C.L. Kurth, and
H.W. Neighbors
1991 Racial/ethnic differences in smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among Ameri-
can high school seniors, 1976-89. American .Journal of Public Health 81:372-377.
Barnes, G.M., and J.M. Welte
1987 Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7-12th grade students in New York
State. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 47:53-62.
OCR for page 38
38
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Barth, R.P.
1991 Educational implications of prenatally drug-exposed children. Social Work in
Education 13(2):130-136.
Blanken, A.
1989 Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse. In Proceedings of the Community Epidemi-
ology Work Group: June 1989. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Block, R.K., S. Farnham, K. Braverman, R. Noyes, Jr., and M.M. Ghoneim
1990 Long-term marijuana use and subsequence effects on learning and cognitive func
tions related to school achievement: preliminary study. Pp. 96-111 in J.W. Spen
cer and J.J. Boren, eds., Residual Effects of Abused Drugs on Behavior. NIDA
Research Monograph 101. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
S. Koester, J.T. Brewster, W.W. Weibel, and R.B. Fritz
Intravenous drug users and AIDS: risk behaviors. American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse 17(3):337-353.
D.
How teens think about drugs: insights from moral reasoning and social bonding
theory. International Quarterly of Community Health Education 11:315-332.
D.R.
1992 An uneasy alliance: combining qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Health Education Quarterly 19:1 17-135.
Centers for Disease Control
1987 HIV infection prevalence among groups at recognized risk. Morbidity and Mor-
tality Weekly Report 36(Suppl. S-6). Atlanta, Gal: Centers for Disease Control.
Centers for Disease Control
1990 HIVIAIDS Surveillance. April. Table 4. Atlanta, Gal: Centers for Disease Con-
trol.
Chaiken, J., and M.R. Chaiken
1982 Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation.
Chasnoff, I.J., ed.
1989 Drugs, Alcohol, Pregnancy and Parenting. Hingham, Mass.: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Chasnoff, I.J., D.R. Griffith, S. MacGregor, K. Dirkes, and K.A. Burns
1989 Temporal patterns of cocaine use in pregnancy. Journal of the American Medical
Association 261 ( 12): 1741-1744.
Chasnoff, I.J., H.J. Landress, and M.E. Barrett
1990 The prevalence of illicit-drug or alcohol use during pregnancy and discrepancies
in mandatorY recortina in Pinellas County, Florida. New En~land .~ournal nf
Booth, R.,
1991
Buchanan,
1991
Buchanan,
. ~
Medicine 322:1202-1206.
Chavez, G.F., J. Mulinare, and J.F. Cordero
1989 Maternal cocaine use during early pregnancy as a risk factor for congenital uro-
genital anomalies. Journal of the American Medical Associat~on 262(6):795-798.
Chitwood, D.D., C.B. McCoy, and M. Comerford
1990 Risk behavior of intravenous drug users. Pp. 120-133 in C.G. Leukefeld et al.,
eds., AIDS and Intravenous Drug Use. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corpo-
ration.
Clayton, R.R., and H.L. Voss
1981 Young Men and Drugs in Manhattan: A Causal Analysis. NIDA Research Mono-
graph 19. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Clayton, R.R., and B.S. Tuchfield
1982 The drug-crime debate: obstacles to understanding the relationship. Journal of
Drug Issues 12(2):153-166.
OCR for page 39
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
39
Clayton, R.R., H.L. Voss, and L.A. LoSciuto
1987 Gateway drugs: what are the stages people go through in becoming drug abusers.
Pharmacy Times 53(March):38-35.
Community Epidemiology Working Group
1992a Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse: Proceedings, Community Epidemiology
Work Group, December, 1991. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)92-1918. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Community Epidemiology Working Group
1992b Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse:
Proceedings, Community Epidemiology
Work Group, June, 1992. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)92-1958. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Courtwright, D.T.
1992 A century of American narcotic policy. Pp. 1-62 in D.R. Gerstein and H.J. Harwood,
eds., Treating Drug Problems, Vol. 2. Committee for the Substance Abuse Cover-
age Study, Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Crider, R.A.
1985 Heroin incidence: a trend comparison between national household survey data and
indicator data. Pp. 125-140 in B.A. Rouse et al., eds., Self-Report Methods of
Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. NIDA Research
Monograph 57. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Dembo, R., L. Willrams, J. Schmeidler, E.D. Wish, A. Getreu, and E. Berry
1991 Juvenile crime and drug abuse: a prospective study of high risk youth. Journal of
Addictive Diseases 1 1:5-31 .
Donovan, J.E., and R. Jessor
1985 Structure of problem behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:890-904.
Duncan, D.F.
1988 Epidemiology: Basis for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co.
Duster, T.
1970 The Legislation of Morality. New York: Free Press.
Elliott, D.S., and D. Huizinga
1984 The Relationship Between Delinquent Behavior and ADM Problem Behaviors.
Paper prepared for the ADAMHA/OJJDP State of the Art Research Conference on
Juvenile Offenders with Serious Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Problems, Bethesda,
Md.
Faupel, C.E.
1988 Heroin use, crime and employment status. Journal of Drug Issues 18(3):467-479.
Feldman, H.W.
1968 Ideological supports to becoming and remaining a heroin addict. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior 9: 121-139.
Feucht, T.E., R.C. Stephens, and S.W. Roman
1990 The sexual behavior of intravenous drug users: assessing the risk of sexual trans-
mission of HIV. Journal of Drug Issues 20(2):195-213.
Forman, S.G., and J.A. Linney
1991 Increasing the validity of self-report data in effectiveness trials. In C.G. Leukefeld
and W.J. Bukoski, eds., Drug Abuse Prevention Intervention Research: Methodologic
Issues. NIDA Research Monograph 107. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on
Drug Abuse.
Frank, B.
1985 Telephone surveying for drug abuse: methodological issues and an application.
OCR for page 40
40
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
In B.A. Rouse et al., eds., Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting
Current Challenges to Validity. NIDA Research Monograph 57. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Friedman, G.H., and R.S. Klein
1987 Transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus. New England Journal of
Medicine 317:1125-1135.
Fullilove, M.T., and R.E. Fullilove
1989 Intersecting epidemics: black teen crack use and sexually transmitted disease.
Journal of the American Medicine Women's Association 44:146-153.
Gerstein, D.R., and H.J. Harwood, eds.
1990 Treating Drug Problems, Vol. 1. Committee for the Substance Abuse Coverage
Study, Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Green, L.W., and D. Simons-Morton
1991 Education and lifestyle determinants of health and disease. Pp. 181-196 in W.W.
Holland, R. Detels, and G. Knox, eds., Oxford Textbook of Public Health: Influ-
ences of Public Health, 2nd ea., Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamburg, B.A., H.C. Kraemer, and W. Jahnke
1975 A hierarchy of drug use in adolescence: behavioral and attitudinal correlates of
substantial drug use. American Journal of Psychiatry 132(11):1155-1163.
Harwood, H., D.M. Napolitano, P.L. Christensen, and J.J. Collins
1984 Economic Costs to Society of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness: 1980.
Report to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hauser, R., and D. Featherman
1977 The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, J.D., D.M. Lishner, I.M. lensen, and R.F. Catalano
1987 Delinquents and drugs: what the evidence suggests about treatment programming.
Pp. 81-131 in B.S. Brown and A R. Mills, eds., Youth at High Risk for Substance
Abuse. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Henningfield, J.E.
1984 Behavioral pharmacology of cigarette smoking. Pp. 131-210 in T. Thompson et
al., eds., Advances in Behavioral Pharmacology, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Henningfield, J.E., R.R. Clayton, and W. Pollin
1990 The involvement of tobacco in alcoholism and illicit dru~, use. British Journal of
Addiction 85:279-292.
Herd, D.
1989 The epidemiology of drinking patterns and alcohol related problems among U.S.
Blacks. Pp. 3-50 in D.L. Spiegler et al., eds., Alcohol Use Among U.S. Ethnic
Minor~ties. NIAAA DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)89-1435. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Hoegsberg, B., T. Dotson, O. Abulafia et al.
1989 Social, Sexual and Drug Use Profile of HIV(+) and HIV(-) Women with PID.
Paper presented at the V International Conference on AIDS, Montreal.
Hollingshead, A.B.
1957 The Two-Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven, Conn.: privately published.
Holmberg, M.B.
1985 Longitudinal studies of drug abuse in a fifteen-year-old population. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica 16:129-136.
Hubbard, R.L., M.E. Marsden, J.V. Rachal, H.J. Harwood, E.R. Cavanaugh, and H.M. Ginzburg
1989 Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
OCR for page 41
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
4
Institute of Medicine
1989 Prevention and Treatment of Alcohol Problems: Research Opportunities. Wash
ington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Jaffe, J.H.
1990 Drug addiction and drug abuse. Pp. 522-573 in Goodman and Gilman's the Phar
macological Basis of Therapeutics, 8th ed. New York: Pergamon Press.
Jessor, R.
1983 A psychosocial perspective on adolescent substance use. In I.F. Litt, ea., Adoles
cent Substance Abuse: Report on the Fourteenth Ross Roundtable. Columbus.
Ohio: Ross Laboratories.
Jessor, R.
1991 Risk behavior in adolescence: a psychosocial framework for understanding and
action. Journal of Adolescent Health Care 12:597-605.
Jessor, R., and S.L. Jessor
1977 Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A Longitudinal Study of Youth.
New York: Academic Press.
Johnston, L.D., and P.M. O'Malley
1986 Why do the nation's students use drugs and alcohol? Self-reported reasons from
nine national surveys. Journal of Drug Issues 16(1 ): 29-66.
Johnston, L.D., P.M. O'Malley, and J.G. Bachman
1991a Drug Use, Drinking, and Smoking: National Survey Results from High School,
College, and Young Adult Populations: 1975-1990. Vol. 1. High School Seniors.
DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 91-1813. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Johnston, L.D., P.M. O'Malley, and J.G. Bachman
1991b Drug Use, Drinking, and Smoking: National Survey Results from High School,
College, and Young Adult Populations: 1975-1990, Vol. 2. College Students and
Young Adults. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 91-1835. Rockville, Md.: National Insti-
tute on Drug Abuse.
Jonsen, A., ed.
1993 The Social Impact of AIDS. Panel on Monitoring the Social Impact of AIDS,
Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavior, Social and Statistical Sciences,
National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Kandel, D.B.
1975 Stages of adolescent involvement in drug use. Science 190:912-914.
Kandel, D.B., and J.A. Logan
1984 Patterns of drug use from adolescence to young adulthood: I. Periods of risk for
initiation, continuation, and discontinuation. American Journal of Public Health
74(7):660-665.
Kandel, D.B., E. Single, and R.C. Kessler
1976 The epidemiology of drug use among New York state high school students: distri-
bution, trends, and change in rates of use. American Journal of Public Health
66:43-53.
Kandel, D.B., M. Davies, M. Karus, and K. Yamaguchi
1986 The consequences in young adulthood of adolescent drug involvement: an over-
view. Archives of General Psychiatry 43(8):746-754.
Koren, G., K. Graham, H. Shear, and T. Einarson
1989 Bias against the null hypothesis: the reproductive hazards of cocaine. Lancet
16: 1440- 1442.
Kusserow, R.P.
1990 Cocaine Exposed Infants. Office of Inspector General. Washington, D
Department of Health and Human Services.
.C.: U.S.
OCR for page 42
42
PREVENTI1`IG DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Last, J.M., and R.B. Wallace
1991 Maxcy-Rosenau Public Health and Preventive A'Iedic~ne, 13th ed. Norwalk, Calif.:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
LeBlanc, P.E., A.J. Parekh, B. Naso, et al.
1987 Effects of intrauterine exposure to alkaloidal cocaine (crack). American Journal
of Disease in Childhood 141:937-938.
Levison, P.K., D.R. Gerstein, and D.R. Maloff
1983 Commonalities in Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior. Committee of Sub-
stance Abuse and Habitual Behavior, National Research Council. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books.
Lidz, C., and A. Walker
1980 Heroin, Deviants and Morality. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
McAuliffe, W.E., P. Breer, N.W. Ahmadifer, and C. Spino
1991 Assessment of drug abuser treatment needs in Rhode Island. American Journal of
Public Health 81 :365-370.
McBride, D.C., and C.B. McCoy
1982 Crime and drugs: the issues and literature. Journal of Drug Issues 12(2):137-151.
McKirnan, D.J., and T. Johnston
1986 Alcohol and drug use among "street" adolescents. Addictive Behaviors 11:201-
205.
Mensch, B.S., and D.B. Kandel
1988 Do job conditions influence the use of drugs? Journc~l of Health and Social
Behavior 29(June):169-184.
Miller, J.D.
1985 The nominative technique: a new method of estimating prevalence. In B.A.
Rouse, N.J. Kozel, and L.G. Richards, eds., Self-Report Methods of Estimating
Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. NIDA Research Monograph
57. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Moncher, M.S., G.W. Holden, and S.P. Schinke
1991 Psychosocial correlates of adolescent substance use: a review of current etiologi-
cal constructs. International Journal of the Addictions 26(4):377-414.
Murray, D., and C.L. Perry
1984 Functional Meaning of Adolescent Drug Use. Paper presented at a meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto.
Murray, D.M., and C.L. Perry
1987 The measurement of substance use among adolescents: when is the "bogus pipe-
line" method needed? Addictive Behaviors 12(3):225-233.
Musto, D.
1987 The American Disease, 2nd ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Nathan, P.E.
1990 Residual effects of alcohol. Pp. 112-123 in J.W. Spencer and J.J. Boren, eds.,
Residual Effects of Abused Drugs on Behavior. NIDA Research Monograph 101.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse
1991a National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Populations Estimates 1990. DHHS
Pub. No. (ADM)91-1732. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse
l991b National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990. DHHS Pub.
No. (ADM) 91-1778. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Newcomb, M.D., and P.M. gentler
1986 Frequency and sequence of drug use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence
to young adulthood. Journal of Drug Education 16(2):101-120.
OCR for page 43
ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE UNITED STATES
43
Newcomb, M.D., E. Maddahain, R. Skager, and P.M. gentler
1987 Substance abuse and psychosocial risk factors among teenagers: association with
sex, age, ethnicity, and type of school. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse 13:4 13-433.
New York Times
1990 Washington Talk: Drug War Underlines Fickleness of Public. Sept. 6:PA22.
O'Donnell, J.A., and R.R. Clayton
1982 The stepping stone hypothesis marijuana, heroin, and causality. Chemical De-
pendencies: Behavioral and Biomedical issues 4:229-241.
O'Donnell, J.A., H.L. Voss, R.R. Clayton, G.T. Slatin, and R. Room
1976 Young Men and Drugs: A Nationwide Survey. NIDA Research Monograph 5.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Getting, E.R., and F. Beauvis
1990 Adolescent drug use: findings of national and local surveys. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology 58(4):385-394.
O'Neil, J.A., and C. Visher
1992 Drug Use Forecasting Quarterly Report, 2nd Quarter, 1991. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Pederson, L.L., and N.M. Lefcoe
1985 Cross-sectional analysis of variables related to cigarette smoking in late adoles-
cence. Journal of Drug Education 15(3):225-240.
Peterson, L., and H.B. Braiker
1980 Doing Crime: A Survey of California Prison Inmates. Santa Monica, Calif.: The
Rand Corporation.
President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse
1963 Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Puccio' P.S., and R.S. Simeone
1991 Drug and Other Substance Use Among School Children in New York State. A1-
bany, N.Y.: New York State Division of Substance Abuse Services.
Rice, D.P., S. Kelman, L. Miller, and S. Dunmeyer
1990 The Economic Costs of Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Illness 1985. Institute
for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco.
Rogers, E.M.
1983 Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
Rouse, B.A., N.J. Coxal, and L.G. Richards, eds.
1985 Se1JC-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to
Validity. NIDA Research Monograph 57. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on
Drug Abuse.
Siegel, R.K.
1992 Repeating cycles of cocaine use and abuse. Pp. 289-316 in D.R. Gerstein and H.J.
Harwood, eds., Treating Drug Problems, Vol. II. Committee for the Substance
Abuse Coverage Study, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Simcha-Fagen, O., J.C. Gersten, and T.S. Langer
1986 Early precursors and concurrent correlates of patterns of illicit drug use in adoles-
cence. Journal of Drug Issues 16(1 ) :7-28.
Simons-Morton, B.G., S.G. Brink, D.G. Simons-Morton, R. McIntyre, M. Chapman, J. Longoria,
and G.S. Parcel
1989
An ecological approach to the prevention of injuries due to drinking and driving.
Health Education Quarterly 16:397-41 1.
Sirken, M.L.
1975 Network surveys of rare and sensitive conditions. Pp. 31-32 in Advances in Health
OCR for page 44
44
PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Survey Research Methods, Proceedings. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center on
Health Statistics.
Spencer, B.D.
1989 On the accuracy of current estimates of the numbers of intravenous drug users.
Pp. 429-446 in C.F. Turner et al., eds., AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous
Drug Use. Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavioral, Social and Statisti-
cal Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Spencer, J.W., and J.J. Boren, eds.
1990 Residual Effects of Abused Drugs on Behavior. NIDA Research Monograph 101.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Thompson, T., and C. Simmons-Cooper
1988 Chemical dependency treatment and black adolescents. Journal of Drug Issues
18(1):21-31.
Turner, C.F., H.G. Miller, and L.E. Moses
1989 AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. Committee on AIDS Re-
search and the Behavioral, Social, and Statistical Sciences, Commission on Behav-
ioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Wallace, J.M., Jr., and J.G. Bachman
1991 Explaining racial/ethnic differences in adolescent drug use: the impact of back-
ground and lifestyle. Social Problems 38(3):333-357.
Warner, S.L.
1965 Randomized response: a survey technique for estimating evasive answer bias.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 60:63-69.
Watts, T.D., and W. Wright, Jr.
1983 Black Alcoholism: Toward a Comprehensive Understanding. Springfield, Ill.:
Charles C Thomas Publishing.
Werch, C.E., D.R. Gorman, P.J. Marty, J. Forbess, and B. Brown
1987 Effects of the bogus pipeline on enhancing validity of self-reported adolescent
drug use measures. Journal of School Health 57:232-236.
White House
1992 National Drug Control Strategy: A Nation Responds to Drug Use Budget Sum-
mary. Washington, D.C.: White House.
World Health Organization
1992 International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death,
10th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Yamaguchi, K., and D.B. Kandel
1984a Patterns of drug use from adolescence to young adulthood: II. Sequences of
progression. American Journal of Public Health 74(7):668-672.
Yamaguchi, K., and D.B. Kandel
1984b Patterns of drug use from adolescence to young adulthood: III. Predictors of
progression. American Journal of Public Health 74(7):673-681.
Zuckerman, B., D.A. Frank, R. Hingson, and H. Amara
1989 Effects of maternal marijuana and cocaine use on fetal growth. New England
JournaI of Medicine 320(12):762-768.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
illicit drug
