AN ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES OF,
CERTAIN ADULTS REGARDING
ASSIGNMENT OF YOUNG ADDICTS
T0 DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS
AS BASED ON SELECTED VARIABLES

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLES AUSTIN LADLEY, IR.

1972

 

7 35221—33.

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
AN ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN ADULTS REGARDING
ASSIGNMENT OF YOUNG ADDICTS TO DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAMS AS BASED ON SELECTED VARIABLES

presented by
Charles Austin Lad ley Jr .

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Fh_.D___degree in Administration and
Higher Education

/ -
fié/M 1,49 Z’a Wax .

Dr. Howard W. Hickey 4/
Major professor

 

Date September 8, 1972

0-7639

' I

  

 
 
   

  
  

g' BINDING BY ‘9
IIIIAB 3: SUITS“ .
III BIIIJK BINDER‘I III-C. :II

_\. H 81*" (as M
‘ ; IwmmeaniiI

- firé“-—‘-_,__.___
.__-n

 
 

  
 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University £3
4-1

   

4’7"”3/1

 

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN ADULTS REGARDING

ASSIGNMENT OF YOUNG ADDICTS TO DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAMS AS BASED ON SELECTED VARIABLES

BY

Charles Austin Ladley Jr.

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this study was to identify the attitudes
related to drugs, drug addiction, and drug addicts by adults
who are considered to have the greatest impact upon the fate
of drug addicts. An analysis of these attitudes was under-
taken by means of the assignment of drug addicts described in
twenty-four hypothetical vignettes to drug treatment programs
by selected groups of adults. Two Null Hypotheses were formu-
lated:

Hypothesis I--There is no significant difference in the
attitudes held by school administrators, school teachers,
school counselors, law enforcement personnel, probation offic-
ers, members of the clergy, vocational—rehabilitation counse-
lors, drug addicts, and parents as measured by the Drug
Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey concerning drug treatment

programs for youthful addicts.

Charles Austin Ladley Jr.

Hypothesis II--there is no significant difference in the
attitudes held by school administrators, school teachers,
school counselors, law enforcement personnel, probation
officers, members of the clergy, vocational-rehabilitation
counselors, drug addicts, and parents as measured by the Drug
Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey concerning drug treatment
programs for youthful addicts as a function of the addict's
race, sex, intelligence, socio-economic status, family situa-
tion, school attendance, or record of arrests and illegal
activity.

A review of the literature revealed no studies that were
directly related to the problem under investigation. No sys-
tematic research was found that related the attitudes of
selected adults with regard to the assignment of youthful drug
addicts to drug treatment programs, nor any research that
dealt with the complex of variables referred to in Null

Hypothesis II.

Methodology

 

The population for this study resided in the metropolitan
area of Flint, Michigan. A sample of N = 168 respondents
selected from groups of school administrators, school counse-
lors, school teachers, law enforcement personnel, probation
officers, members of the clergy, vocational-rehabilitation

counselors, drug addicts, and parents provided the basis for

Charles Austin Ladley Jr.

this study. Of the 168 respondents contacted all participated
and responded to all questions.

To test the hypotheses drug addicts were described in
twenty-four hypothetical vignettes. The respondents were
asked to select one of five drug treatment programs for each
of the vignettes. The instrument, designed by the Researcher'

and his guidance committee, was entitled the Drug Addiction

 

Treatment Attitude Survey and measured the attitudes of the

 

re3pondents through the application of a one-way analysis of

variance and a repeated measures analysis of variance.

Findings of the Study

 

The tests of significance revealed these findings:

1. There was a significant difference in the attitudes of
the respondents regarding the assignment of drug ad-
dicts to drug treatment programs.

2. There was a significant difference in the attitudes
of the respondents as a function of the addict's race,
sex, intelligence, socio—economic status, family situ-
ation, school attendance, and record of arrests and
illegal activity.

3. There was significant interaction between respondent
groups and levels of intelligence, school attendance,

and record of arrests and illegal activity.

Charles Austin Ladley Jr.

The respondents were most punitive toward Blacks.

The respondents were most punitive toward individuals
of below average intelligence.

Law Enforcement personnel were most punitive in their
overall attitudes.

Probation officers were least punitive in their over-
all attitudes.

School counselors were significantly less punitive

than vocational-rehabilitation counselors.

AN ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN ADULTS REGARDING
ASSIGNMENT OF YOUNG ADDICTS TO DRUG TREATMENT

PROGRAMS AS BASED ON SELECTED VARIABLES

BY

Charles Austin Ladley Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

College of Education

1972

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The anthor is deeply indebted to many people who gave of
themselves during the many phases of his doctoral program.
A genuine sense of gratitude is extended to:

A guidance committee whose commitment to the author was
expressed through support and encouragement. Thanks to Dr.
Howard W. Hickey, Chairman for his warmth, ability and con-
siderate direction; Dr. Samuel A. Moore II for his sensitivity
and insight; Dr. Albert E. Levak for his concern and profes-
sional competence; and Dr. Clyde M. Campbell for his guidance
during the intern year.

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for the award of a
Mott Fellowship which made the year of study possible.

Dr. Thomas Mayhew, Arizona State University, Dr. Tony S.
Carrillo, San Jose State University, and Dr. Robert Corneer,
Western State College for their encouragement and assistance.

Mr. Terry Meeder, Superintendent, and Mr. Jim Brand,
Director of Secondary Education, of the Carman School District,
Mr. Charles Holmes and Dr. Frank Hartman of the Genesee County
Regional Drug Abuse Commission, Sheriff Tom Bell, Genesee
County Sheriff's Office, Mr. Leonard Press, Genesee County

Adult Probation Office, Mr. Edward Merritt, State Department of

ii

Vocational Rehabilitation, the Sirna Center Methadone Clinic,
and the many respondents whose co-operation made this study
possible.

Dr. Larry Lezotte and Dr. John Schweitzer of the College
of Urban Affairs, Michigan State University whose patient
assistance gave structure to the study.

Dr. Elihu Carranza whose professional competence and
humanism were available to the author when they were needed
most, and to my other fellow Mott Interns; Patricia Gardini,
Ray Gatza, John Mehl, Peter Murk, Willard Roberson, Tom
Sanglier, Lou Tasse, Everett Williams, and Jacob Winters whose
friendship and creativity gave meaning to the intern year.

Finally, the author is indebted to his family, our chil-
dren, Toby, Bill, and Cassandra for the patience and under-
standing they have shown during the author's belated years of
education, and to my wife, Charlsie for her love, encourage-
ment, support, and numerous sacrifices. To you, my dear, this

study and the degree are dedicated.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page
LIST OF TABLES O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi
LIST OF FIGURES 0 0 O O I O C O O O O O O O I 0 ix

 

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Delimitation of the Study. . . . . . . . . . lO
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hypotheses to be Tested. . . . . . . . . . . 12
Organization of Subsequent Chapters. . . . . 12

II. RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Hard Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4

Heroin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
Morphine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8
Codeine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Demerol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9
Methadone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Sedatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Stimulants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Drug Addiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Why Drugs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
The Drug Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Drugs and the Law. . . . . . . . . 34
Drug Rehabilitation and Treatment. . . . . . 39
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS-—Continued

CHAPTER Page

III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . 47

IntrOduCtion I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 47

Selection of the Population. . . . . . . . . 48

Selection of the Sample. . . . . . . . . . . 49

School Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Probation Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Clergy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Addicts O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O 52

Vocational-Rehabi1itation Counselors. . . 53

Administration of the Questionnaire. . . . . 53

Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Recording the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . 60

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Drug Addict Stereotypes. . . . . . . . . . . 61

Cover-Sheet Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Drug Opinion Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Attitude Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Interview Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

smary. O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 80

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 82

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O I O O 90
APPENDICES

A. DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ATTITUDE SURVEY. . . . 97

B. COVER SHEETS O C I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 108
C. DRUG ADDICT STEREOTYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Do TABLES AND FIGURES. o o o o o o o o o o ’C o o o 119

TABLE

3.1

4.1
4.2

4.3

4.15

LIST OF TABLES

Number and Percentage of Groups Returning Com“
pleted Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sex of Respondents (Item 1). . . . . . . . . . .
Racial Categories of Respondents (Item 2). . . .
Age Categories of Respondents (Item 3) . . . . .
Marital Status of Respondents (Item 4) . . . . .

School Categories of Respondents' Children
(Item 5) O O O I O O I O O O O I C Q C O Q O O C

Respondents' Political Beliefs (Item 6). . . . .
Religious Affiliations of Respondents (Item 7) .

Highest Level of Educational Attainment of
Respondents (Item 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

College Major of ReSpondents (Item 9). . . . . .

Respondents' Years on Present Occupational Posi~
tion (Item 11) o o o o o o o o o o o a I Q o Q I

Responses to the Question, "Should marijuana be
legalized?“ (Item 14). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acceptance of an Addict into the Respondent's
Home as a Foster-home Situation (Item 50). . . .

Mean Response Scores for Each Respondent Group
on EaCh Vignette O O I O O 0 O O O O I O O O O 0

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict ' S Race 0 O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for
the Fourteen Respondent Groups and the Four
Racial Categories as Levels of the Repeated
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

120
121
122
123

124

125
126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

134

' :1;

 

34" '

LIST OF TABLES-—Continued

TABLE

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

Page

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's SeXI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 135

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table

for the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Two

Categories of Sex as Levels of the Repeated

Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table

for the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Three
Categories of Intelligence as Levels of the

Repeated Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's Socio—economic Status. . . . . . . . . 138

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table
for the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Three
Categories of Socio-economic Status as Levels
of the Repeated Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's Family Situation . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table

for the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Two

Categories of Family Situation as Levels of

the Repeated Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to
Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's School Attendance. . . . . . . . . . . 140

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table

for the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Two

Categories of School Attendance as Levels of

the Repeated Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to

Drug Treatment Programs as a Function of the
Addict's Record of Arrest and Illegal Activity. 142

vii

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE

4.27

Page

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for

the Fourteen Respondent Groups and Three Cate-

gories of Arrest Record and Illegal Activity as

Levels of the Repeated Measures. . . . . . . . . 142

The Grand Means for Each Vignette as a Compari-
son of the Most and Least Punitive Respondent
Groups and That Vignette . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

A Comparison of the Respondent Groups with
Regard to Punitive Attitude of the Groups. . . . 146

viii

FIGURE

4.1

4.

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Interaction of the fourteen groups and intelli-

gence levels of the addicts described in the
vignettes regarding attitudes toward placement

in drug treatment programs. . . . . . . . . . . 137

Interaction of the fourteen groups and school
attendance levels of the addicts described in

the vignettes regarding attitudes toward place-

ment in drug treatment programs . . . . . . . . 141

Interaction of the fourteen groups and record
of arrests and illegal activity levels of the
addicts described in the vignettes regarding
attitudes toward placement in drug treatment
programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

The non-medical use of drugs is steadily increasing in
This is particularly noticeable among

the United States.
The significance of this

high school and college-age people.
rise was graphically illustrated through the findings of a

recent Gallup poll. One-half of today's college students

achnut.to having tried marijuana and there has been an increase
<>f7 1,800 percent in those who have sampled hallucinogens in
the past five years.1

The Uniform Crime Report, prepared annually by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, notes that suburban drug
arrests have increased 1,024 percent in a five year period
‘Vrliéle the national population has increased only 7 percent,

£111¢1 further, drug arrests of suburban dwellers under the age

()1? eaighteen have increased 2,932 percent.2

 

\

‘7C3JL 1Staff Reporter, "The Campus Drug Scene," Newsweek,

LXXIX, No. 8 (February 21, 19720, p. 80.

'-CE. 2The Issues on Trial, Drugs--1970, Position Paper V,
Ankle Emphasis: Public-Mental Health vs. Law Enforement,"
devisory Proceeding, Pontiac, Michigan, 1970.

The figures do not end here, but no additional citations
are necessary to realize the unauthorized use of drugs by the
youth of our society is a problem of considerable magnitude.

The problems associated with heroin and other hard drugs
A conservative

are becoming increasingly apparent to society.

«estimate regarding drug use in Detroit, Michigan, considers
tflnat approximately 30,000 addicts steal between $200 million
arnd $400 million annually to obtain heroin and that one out

of every six murders in Detroit is directly related to the

The same article cites a rise of from about

he roin trade . 3
555,000 heroin addicts in 1960, to an estimated 560,000 heroin

addicts today in the United States, and if this increase con-
tinues at only half the present rate two-million heroin ad-

Ciixzts can be expected in the nation by the end of the decade.“
Crime and hard narcotics are inseparable. New York has

an estimated 100,000 heroin addicts who are reSponsible for

tWEnty; percent of the crimes against property.5 One must not,
ho“lever, be deluded into thinking that property damage and
(=17iJne are the only results of drug use. Other costs that

cannot be so easily quantified are those paid by the drug

1153631:5. Every individual who chooses drugs risks drug related

\

 

3Detroit Free Press, March 30, 1972, p. 3, col. 2.

“Ibid.
sDonald Louria, Nightmare Drggs (New York: Pocket Books,

It
“Q“ 1966), p. 19.

paranoid psychoses, accidents, brain damage, infection or

death. Other dangers that must be included are the loss of

esteem in the community, the loss of employment Opportunities

and the loss of his family. The drug user is in a very un-

enviable position.
New York and Detroit are not unique to the problems of

drugs and drug addiction. Thirty—three cities throughout the

country have been picked to receive the concentrated efforts

of special law enforcement teams who are charged with stOpplng

the flow of heroin on the nation's streets. All the largest

cities in the United States, plus some rather small ones, are

included. 6

Drug use is not uncommon in the schools. It has become a

problem that can no longer be ignored by educators. The larg-

eSt cause of unnatural death among New York teen-agers is due

to drug overdose.7 According to the Michigan Department of

Education, a growing body of evidence exists that children in

the elementary school, even as young as seven, are finding

aceess to abusive substances.

 

____‘___¥ i
51.. 6Flint Journal, March 26, 1972, p. 2, cols. 3-5, Flint,

lchigan.
- 7Flint Journal, April 20, 1972, p. 17, cols. 1-6, Flint,

M
lehigan.
8Michigan Department of Education, A Teacher Resource

\‘\e for Drug Use and Abuse for MichiganT s Schools, LanSlng,
lgan, 1970, p. 24.

Numerous misconceptions exist regarding the use of drugs

and addiction. Pope writes:

Contrary to popular belief, one does not automatically
become a heroin addict after one or two doses; many
days of continual heavy use are required before any
signs of physical dependence appear. ... of the youths
I have known who had tried heroin, the great majority

were not addicted.9

But what of the addict? What does this society do with

14:8 drug addicts? Drug use for non-medical reasons is an

ifillegal act in the United States and, therefore, is a problem

ft>r law enforcement and the courts. Regarding the impact of

Llarw enforcement on drugs, Bear stated:

It doesn't work anymore. If it ever really did. Life
and the problems of our society are too complicated to

be solved by somebody's fast guns. We have to move,
as a nation, away from the call box and into personal

involvement, commitment, and human concern.
lBeear concludes that the emphasis must be away from "the sheriff
SYndrome" in the American culture and that treatment programs

for drug users must be away from punitive measures and toward

a more therapeutic orientation.11

Society cannot ignore the addict or the abuser. The i1-
licit use of drugs and the drug culture tend to be self-
peZli‘petuating. Louria writes:

Adament in the belief they [the drug users] cannot join
society, they try to bring society to-them by turning

\

 

(3E3 9Harrison Pope, Jr., Voices From the Drug Culture
Qston: Beacon Press, 1971), pp. Il‘7-118.

1°Drugs--l970, op. cit., p. 3.

others on, seemingly with the vague hOpe that if every-
body is turned on, they will no longer feel like out-

siders.12
He suggested in an earlier work that 70 to 80 percent of those
addicted become narcotics peddlers or pushers.13

The drug user in this society is a law-breaker with his
fate being decided upon by the courts. The considered opin-
jxans of those most closely involved with the addict assist the

cxaurts in their decisions. Probate judges identify those most

<:lxose1y involved with the young addicts as educators, law en-
ft>rcement personnel, probation officers, members of the clergy,
'Vt3cational-rehabi1itation counselors, and parents.

In this study it is considered that attitudes related to

cirrug use, drug abuse, and drug addiction held by those persons

Inc>st closely involved with the addict will determine the
treatment program the addict will undergo. The crucial ques-
tliJDn is whether these groups of individuals have different and
perhaps conflicting attitudes regarding drug use, drug abuse,
Eirldi drug addicts. These selected groups are those who may
have the greatest impact with regard to the dispostion of the
a(i'Ciiict. Many of these same people are also in leadership posi-
ticDI‘ls in the community and therefore control the human and

E311lfssical resources that can be brought to bear on the drug

\

 

53:; 12Donald B. Louria, The Drug Scene (New York: Bantam
(31(3, 1970), p. 153.

E3<=> 13Donald B. Louria, Nightmare Drugs (New York: POCket
ka, Inc., 1966), p. 20.

k

and

pmoblem, it is imperative they know current attitudes toward

drug addicts as well as the extent of the differences of these

attitudes relative to solving or minimizing the problem of

the addict.

Statement of Purpose

This study is an assessment of the attitudes about drug

auidicts and drug addiction as measured by the selection of

tile drug treatment program an addict will receive. The atti-

tiides to be assessed are those of persons who are considered

'tc> have the greatest impact upon the fate of the addict The

purpose of this study, therefore, is to obtain and analyze

<iaita regarding the attitudes relative to drugs and addiction
Ileald by educators, law enforcement personnel, probation offic-

ers members of the clergy, vocational-rehabilitation counse-

lors, and parents. This information should help in the

d€3Ve10pment of effective strategies and programs to c0pe With

the menace of drugs.

The Research Questions
The following research questions assume that educators

others directly concerned with the drug problem will seek

t: . . .
C) (1) plan effective drug education, drug prevention, and

<3 .
:Irllsy treatment programs, and (2) plan, institute, and execute

e
ISISeective drug education, drug prevention, and drug treatment

13
130grams through comniunity cooperation.

¥

The research questions, therefore, are:

1. Are the attitudes held by school administrators,
school teachers, school counselors, law enforcement
personnel, probation officers, members of the clergy,
vocational-rehabilitation counselors, and parents as
measured by the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude
Survey concerning treatment programs for young addicts
significantly different?

2. Are the attitudes held by school administrators,
school teachers, school counselors, law enforcement
personnel, probation officers, members of the clergy,
vocational-rehabilitation counselors, and parents as
measured by the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude Sur-
vey concerning treatment programs for young addicts
significantly different because of the addict's race,
sex, intelligence, socio-economic status, family situ-
ation, school attendance, or arrest record and criminal
activity?

In addition to providing the information necessary to the
planning, institution, and execution of effective drug educa-
tion, prevention, and treatment programs, the answers to the
research questions should enable concerned persons to assure
equal and equitable treatment for young addicts and to follow
the argument of Louria proper treatment would reduce the number

of addicts attempting to entice "straights" to join them which

then would reduce a stimulus for initial drug use.

Definition of Terms

 

In order for the reader to better understand this study,
the significant terms related to drug abuse, drug use, atti—
tudes about drugs, and drug treatment programs as used by the

researcher are described in the following pages.

 

l. drug--any chemical that modifies the function of
living tissue, resulting in psychologic or behavioral
change.H

2. hard drugs--heroin, morphinei codeine, cocaine,
amphetamines, and sedatives.

3. drug use--where the effect of a drug sought can be
realized with minimal hazard, whether or not used
therapeutically, legally, or as prescribed by a
physician.16

4. drug abuse--where drugs are taken or administered
under circumstances and at doses that significantly
increase their hazard potential, whether or not used
therapeutically, legally, or as prescribed by a
physician.1

5. drug dependence--a state rising from repeated adminis-
tration of a drug on a periodic or continuous basis.18

6. drug addict——an individual who has an overpowering

and compulsive need for drugs and generally will
obtain them by any means.19

7. home situation--the condition of the home environment,
not necessarily including the socio-economic status
of the addict's family. Included is the stability of
the family, the nature of their supportive behavior,
and the home as a plus-factor in the recovery of the
addict.

 

1“Samuel Irwin, Drugs of Abuse (San Francisco: The Stu-
dent Association for the Study of Hallucinogens, 1970), p. 3.

 

15National Association of Blue Shield Plans, Drug Abuse:
The Chemical Cop30ut (Chicago: Chicago Airlie Productions,
19707} PP. 28-29.

 

 

16Irwin, op. cit., p. 3.
17Ibid.
18Michigan Department of Education, op. cit., p. 16.

19Sidney Cohen, The Drug Dilemma (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1969), p. 8.

 

8. drug education program--an educational program set
outside the regular curriculum, but augmented into
the regular curriculum so that it cannot be drOpped
when the current state and national concern passes.
The program would be planned to aid students in
making intelligent decisions regarding drugs and
drug use.

9. attitude—-in this study the word "attitude" is most
closely related to ethnic prejudice which can best
be expressed as "an antipathy based upon a faculty
and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or
expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a
whole or toward an individual because he is a member
of that group.21
[The term] "Drug Dependence" was included to satisfy the
trend in literature to use this term to replace all others
associated with drug use not sanctioned by medical authority.
The term has been adopted in educational circles and seeks to
clarify the differences brought to mind by psychic and physi-

2 For the balance of this study, the terms

cal dependence.2
drug use, drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug dependence will
be used interchangeably as will the terms drug user, drug
addict, and drug abuser.
Finally, an explanation of the term "race" is necessary.

The researcher, in using the word "race", is implying a social
definition of race and not the strict biological concept.

The researcher considers these social and cultural differences,

often referred to as "racial traits", to be the significant

differences between individuals and groups.

2°Michigan Department of Education, op. cit., p. 54.

21Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York:
.Doubleday and Company, Inc., I958), p. 10.

 

22Michigan Department of Education, op. cit., p. 16.

10

Delimitation of the Study

 

This study is a survey of the attitudes of selected
school administrators, school teachers, school counselors,
law enforcement personnel, probation officers, members of
the clergy, vocational rehabilitation counselors, addicts,
and parents regarding drug treatment programs for youthful
drug addicts. The attitudes of those selected are measured by
the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey and consider the
addict's race, sex, intelligence, socio-economic status,
family situation, school attendance, and record of arrests and
illegal activity. No attempt will be made to generalize
beyond the sample of this study as it is realized by the
investigator that attitudes are transitory in nature. The at-
titudes disclosed will be reported as perceived attitudes and
notwfact. The study was done within the confines of the

metropolitan boundaries of Flint, Michigan.

Methodology

 

The p0pulation for this study was the Flint, Michigan,
metropolitan area. The sample was drawn from the Carman School
District's central administrative staff and from the adminis-
trative staffs of the district's three junior high schools and
two high schools. The school counselors came from the above
enumerated schools and include all the counselors in the school

district. The teachers included were selected by a random

....

...:

 

 

 

b-

.4.

 

11

sample from each of the major departments of study from the
junior high schools and high schools of the district. Area
law enforcement personnel, probation officers, members of the
clergy, and vocational-rehabilitation counselors are also
included. The parents involved came from the Carman School
District and were selected through availability, and the fact
that they are not members of any of the other enumerated
groups. Drug addicts who were available to the researcher
and were willing to participate complete the sample. The
researcher recognized the possibility of bias to the study
when random selection of any of the respondents is not accom-
plished.

Each respondent was asked to react to a set of twenty-
four short vignettes, each a hypothetical description of a
young drug addict, and prescribe a suggested treatment program
for the addict. A description of five treatment programs is
included with the vignettes.

The statistical treatment used includes a one-way analy-
sis of variance, a repeated measures analysis of variance,
and other appropriate statistical procedures. Each vignette
constitutes a dependent variable. The necessary analysis pro-
cedures are incorporated with the findings. The information
is summarized and reported as a descriptive study. A more
detailed description of the methodology is given in Chapter
III, which also includes a more detailed description of the
instrumentation, administration of the questionnaire, and the

treatment of the data.

12

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

The null hypotheses to be tested in this study are:

1. There is no significant difference in the attitudes
held by school administrators, school teachers,
school counselors, law enforcement personnel, proba-
tion officers, members of the clergy, vocational-
rehabilitation counselors, addicts, and parents as
measured by the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude
Survey concerning treatment programs for youthful
addicts.

2. There is no significant difference in the attitudes
held by school administrators, school counselors,
school teachers, law enforcement personnel, proba-
tion officers, members of the clergy, vocational-
rehabilitation counselors, addicts, and parents as
measured by the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude
Survey concerning treatment programs for youthful
addicts as a function of the addict's race, sex,
intelligence, socio-economic status, family situa-
tion, school attendance, or record of arrest and
illegal activity.

Organization of Subsequent Chapters

 

The content of Chapter I includes a statement of the prob-
lem, a statement of the purpose, the research questions, a
definition of terms, delimitation of the study, and a brief
description of the methodology to be used and the hypotheses
to be tested.

Chapter II constitutes the review of the literature re-
lated to this study. Included are descriptions of the drugs
currently in use, drug addiction, the question of “why drugs?"
the drug scene, drugs and the law, and drug treatment and
rehabilitation.

Chapter III comprises a description of the methodology

used in this study. The sample used is further defined as

13

well as the methods of investigation and data gathering

instruments.
Chapter
and findings
Chapter

of the study

IV organizes, analyzes, and presents the data
of the study.
V presents the conclusions and recommendations

as based on the findings.

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

Foreword
A review of the literature relevant to this study is
considered necessary by the researcher to make the study more
meaningful to the reader. The literature regarding drugs
will concentrate on heroin and the other hard narcotics or
hard drugs. In addition, the review will examine drug addic-
tion, the question of "why drugs?" the drug scene, drugs and

the law, and drug treatment and rehabilitation.

The Hard Drugs

 

Heroin

Heroin is a derivative of morphine which in turn is
derived from the resin of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum).1
Heroin was discovered in 1898, and was hailed as a non-
addictive pain-killer which could be used to combat morphine

addiction.2 This was not the case, however, for by 1910,

1Donald Louria, Nightmare Drugs (New York: Pocket Books,
Inc., 1966), p. 11.

 

2Ibid., p. 13.

14

15

heroin and morphine were responsible for nearly one-million
narcotic addicts in the United States.3

Opium, the parent product of heroin, was used for thou-
sands of years before its addictive properties were estab-
lished.” Opium traveled from its native Asia to England in
the eighteenth century where "opium—eating" became an accepted
middle- and upper—class phenomenon.S

Many people became medically addicted to opium in the
late years of the nineteenth and early decades of the twen-
tieth centuries. Medicine had not as yet developed as an
applied science and self-medication and self-diagnosis were
commonplace.6 The patent medicines of that day were laced
with Opium which was in the bottle, but not on the label.7
Chein writes:

The user of patent medicines was in a difficult situa-

tion. The unidentified opiates did relieve his pain or

cough, but since the source of his distress was often a

chronic or sub-acute disease process, he made daily or

more frequent use of these nostrums for relief. How-

ever, when he sought to stop taking the nostrums when

the symptoms abated he developed malaise, aches and
pains, and gastrointestinal and other symptoms which

 

3Louria, op. cit., p. 13.

“Sidney Cohen, The Drug Dilemma (New York: The McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1969), p. 69.

 

51bid.

6Isidor Chein, Donald L. Gerard, Robert S. Lee, Eva
Rosenfeld, The Road to H (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964),
p. 354.

 

7Cohen, op. cit., p. 70.

16

could be perceived as a relapse and occasion for con-
tinued medication....8

The "relapse" would be identified as "withdrawal symptoms"
to the Opiate takers of more recent generations.

Heroin is not licensed for any medical use in the United
States today. It is a product Of the illegal drug trade in
this country.9 The major sources of the illicit manufacture

O A small quantity Of heroin

Of heroin are France and Italy.1
is produced in Mexico and is of poorer quality than that
manufactured in Europe.

The unceasing battle to control the entry Of illegal
heroin into the United States is familiar to most Americans.
This war on drugs has been exploited by the media both in
fact and fantasy.

From its origin, the poppy fields of Iran, Afghanistan,
Turkey, and elsewhere to the streets Of the United States the
dollar value of heroin increases to a profit margin of over
$700,000,000 per year.11 Eighty percent pure heroin is

exported from the manufacturer with a value of from $3,000 to

g$9,000 per kilogram. By the time it reaches the street in

 

8Chein, Op. cit., p. 354.

9Michigan Department Of Education, A Teacher Resource

Guide for Drgg Use and Abuse for Michigan's Schools, Lansing,

Michigan, 1970, p. 24.

 

 

1°Ibid.

11Kenneth Leech, Brenda Jordan, Drugs for Young People:
Their Use and Misuse (Oxford, England: The Religious Educa-
tiOn Press, Ltd., I§68), p. 48.

 

 

l7

five-grain packets of five percent pure heroin approximately
$400,000 in profits have been realized from this same kilo-

2 Little wonder that countless lives are forfeited

gram.1
annually in the struggle for dominance and control Of the
white powder.

Heroin acts as a depressant on the central nervous sys-
tem and induces a peaceful, dreamy state to the user immedi-
ately after it is taken. Heroin can, however, excite and
stimulate as well.

The four primary methods by which heroin is taken are
orally, by sniffing, by injecting into the skin (skin-pOpping),
and by direct injection into a vein (mainlining).13 It is
not uncommon, however, for heroin to be mixed with marijuana
and smoked.

Heroin is Often combined with other substances and in-
jected. The other substances are generally hard narcotics,
the most common being cocaine. This is referred to as
"speedballing" and is practiced by those who seek additional
drug thrills.1“

The two primary dangers Of heroin use are death due to
overdose, and physiological damage from infection. Infection

is associated with using contaminated instruments when

 

12Louria, op. cit., p. 12.
13Leech, Op. cit., p. 43.

1"Iloid.

18

injecting drugs. Little evidence exists that heroin itself

5 Frequent

is either physically or psychologically damaging.l
verbal bombardment is elicited from both lay and professional
sources regarding this statement as does much of what creates
the mythology Of drugs. Accordingly, there appears to be

equally as much controversy as there is agreement on the sub-

jects Of drugs and drug users.

Morphine

The isolation of morphine from Opium and the invention
of the hypodermic needle in 1853, together with the Crimean,
American Civil, and Franco-Prussian Wars heralded a new

6 Morphine was welcomed

sophistication in Opiate addiction.1
for its analgesic (pain-killing) quality, and, as heroin, was
initially thought to be a cure for Opium addiction. As with
heroin, however, this was not to be the case and thousands Of
wounded soldiers fell victim to morphine addiction to the
extent that morphine addiction became known as "the Army dis-
«17

ease .

Morphine induces less euphoria than does heroin and is

correspondingly less addicting.18 It is the drug of choice

 

lsIbid., p. 44.

16Richard H. Blum & Associates, Society and Drugs
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970), p. 52.

17Louria, Op. cit., p. 12.

18D. P. Ausubel, Drug_Addiction: Physiological, Psycho-
logicaly_apd Sociological Aspects (New York: Random House,
1968), p. 17.

19

for the relief of pain but is still widely used by addicts,
particularly when heroin is difficult to Obtain.19

As a standard pain reliever morphine is still widely
used. Its eventual replacement is expected when an equally

° According to Cohen,

effective analgesic becomes available.2
the morphine habit is much less frequently seen than it used
to be, and due to its medical sanction mostly doctors and

nurses become addicted to it.21

Codeine

Codeine, like morphine, is one Of the most commonly en-
countered alkaloids of opium.22 Its addiction potential is
less than that of heroin or morphine, and in cough syrups or
like solutions, it can be purchased in many states without

3

prescription.2 Codeine is most frequently sought out by

addicts who are attempting to avoid withdrawal symptoms.2“

Demerol
Demerol is a synthetic drug that is widely used as a pain
reliever. It is frequently prescribed by physicians for pain

and addicts have been created through its indiscriminate use

 

19Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Fact Sheets
(washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970),
,p. 21.

 

20Cohen, Op. cit., p. 73.

2Aibid. 22Ibid. 23Ibid.

 

2"Iloid.

20

by doctors. Demerol is available from pushers, although it

is not currently enjoying a widespread abuse.25

Methadone

 

Methadone is a synthetic drug with analgesic qualities
similar to that Of the Opiates. Methadone is less euphoric
than heroin and will not produce the same heroin "high.“

It is, however, addictive. The most recent uses of metha-

done are in treatment programs as a substitute for heroin.26

Cocaine

Unlike the drugs heretofore described, cocaine is a stim—
ulant rather than a narcotic. According to Louria, it is
hoped that cocaine will not become a major problem in the
United States, for it is an extraordinarily dangerous drug.27
Cocaine is not considered to be truly addicting, in that
abstinence does not cause withdrawal symptoms, but its fre-
quent usage often brings feelings of fear, anxiety, and para-

8 TOO, unlike the other narcotics users, the

noid behavior.2
cocaine habitué may turn to irrational aggressive behavior
and may commit acts of violence.29

It is not the inherent danger of cocaine that tends to

make it less a threat, it is the expense. Cocaine is twice

 

25Cohen, Op. cit., p. 74.

26Ibid.

 

27Louria, op. cit., p. 21.

28Ibid. 29Ibid.

21

as expensive as heroin, and, as Louria states, it is con-
sidered a rich man's habit.3° One should not, however, dis-
count the dangers of cocaine because Of its relative expense
or the fact that it is not addictive in the traditional.
sense. The psychic craving for cocaine is very strong because

1

it is a potent stimulant, excitant, and euphoriant.3 Cohen

writes:

Preoccupation with Obtaining and using cocaine leads

to indifference to health, loss of appetite, and emacia-
tion; its frequent use leads to convulsions. When death
occurs, it is because of paralysis Of the breathing
center in the brain.32

Sedatives

 

Sedatives are the derivatives of barbiturate acid, first
synthesized in Germany in 1893.33 The barbiturates produce
relaxation, lassitude, and a reduction in tension. Overuse
creates a marked impairment of intellectual and motor func-
tions.3“

‘Barbiturates are usually taken by mouth, however they
may be injected, either alone or in combination with other
substances. An estimated two-thirds of the heroin users com-

bine heroin and barbiturates in the belief that the “high“

 

3°Ibid.

31Cohen, Op. cit., p. 96.
321bid., p. 97.

33Louria, op. cit., p. 24.
3"Ibid., p. 26.

22

can be prolonged in this manner.35
A sudden cessation Of the drug by heavy barbiturate users
may be followed by convulsions, and occasionally by coma and
death. One Of the greatest dangers, however, regarding the
use of barbiturates occurs when they are mixed with alcohol.
In his book Nightmare Drpgs, Louria states:
... a danger common to both legitimate and illicit
usage is that barbiturates apparently do not mix with
alcohol. The number of accidental deaths from the combi-
nation of these two agents appears to be growing each
year. Although not entirely proved, the evidence sugr

gests that even moderate doses of barbiturates combined
with a few alcoholic drinks can cause death.36

Stimulants

 

Stimulants are essentially those drugs Often referred to
as amphetamines. They are frequently referred to as "uppers"
in contrast to the sedatives or "downers." Amphetamines are
medically used to combat mild depression, narcolepsy, and
obesity.37 More commonly they are known as "pep pills" and
diet pills. Athletes have been known to abuse the amphetamine
group to improve their performance and endurance. Motor per-
formance-may be improved, but judgment is Often impaired.38

Paranoid schizophrenia is a well-known complication of

prolonged amphetamine abuse. Delusional thought may persist

 

3sIbid., p. 27. 36Ibid.

37Cohen, Op. cit., p. 91.
38Ibid., p. 92.

23

long after the drug has been discontinued.39 Depressive
psychoses are also known after the amphetamines have been dis-
continued with the danger Of suicide being present at this
time."0

Methedrine or "speed" is one Of the most frequently
abused Of the amphetamines today. Its use is on the rise
among younger persons and "weekend hippies," with instances
being known in which LSD has been abandoned in favor of

l

methedrine.” Regarding "speed" Pope writes:

Amphetamine dependence, as I have known it, is more
pathetic than addiction to Opiates ... speed freaks are
emaciated because they cannot feel hunger ... afflicted
with lapses of memory and attention ;.. sometimes psy-
chotic.... It is universally believed in the drug world
that amphetamine kills brain cells and that three years
Of heavy use will reduce the brain to the consistency Of
peanut butter--the smooth-spreading brand.“2
Pope concludes with the Observation that the "speed freaks"
remain in the drug subculture to the end for these are the
only people that will accept them."3
NO discussion of drugs is complete unless lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD) is included. LSD is a hallucinogen or
psychedelic which produces paradoxical and ambivalent symptoms
in the user. The use of LSD peaked in the late 19605. Its

use has steadily declined in favor of more controllable sub-

stances.

 

3922393. p- 92- “°Ibid.. p. 93. “lIbid., p. 94.

“ZHarrison POpe, Jr., Voices From the Drug Culture
(Boston: Beacon Press, 197II, p. 110.

 

“31bid.

24

Drug Addiction

 

The terminology of the drug world tends to confuse as
well as clarify. The confusion becomes apparent when one
attempts to define what is meant by "drug addiction." The
explanation requested usually seeks an answer Of whether the
addiction is physical or psychological. In 1957, the World
Health Organization adopted the term "drug dependence" which
has now become the term of choice in educational circles.H
This term includes both the psychic and physical dependence
to or upon drugs and thereby makes the discussion of drugs
more manageable. The term "addiction" is still generally
reserved for drugs that create a physical craving, while
"habituation" retains a "psychic" connotation."5

The mark of physical addiction comes to fore when sudden
drug abstinence causes withdrawal symptoms. Regarding with-
drawal, Cohen writes:

Sudden discontinuance Of a substantial heroin intake

leads to a profound autonomic storm. Every orifice pours

forth its secretion or excretion. Muscles twitch or
cramp and convulsions can occur ... chills and fever
leave the person in withdrawal with a compulsion to se-
cure relief ... it is during withdrawal that the herion
addict will resort to violence to obtain relief."6

The physical symptoms generally abate within two or three

days, the psychic craving for euphoria and release from

 

HMichigan Department of Education, op. cit., p. 16.

“51bid.

 

“GCOhen, op. cit., p. 76.

25

tensions lasts much longer, however, often for a lifetime."7

Heroin withdrawal is anything but pleasant. Many addicts
remain on heroin rather than experience the real or imagined
tortures Of withdrawal. Sudden heroin abstinence is seldom
fatal. This, however, is not the case for abrupt barbiturate
withdrawal which, like that Of alcohol, can cause convulsions,
coma, and death."8

Considerable misunderstanding surrounds actual addic-
tion. Pope writes:

I have talked to two boys who used heroin every day for

a week without noticing physical withdrawal symptoms.

I have known others who have used heroin fifty or a

hundred times in the course of two years without ever

experiencing the craving for another dose."9

Louria further states:

There are large numbers of heroin users who use the drug

once or twice a week for many years, never becoming truly

addicted.... This is in part due to the fact that the

drug is so adulterated by the time it reaches the street

that it is difficult to become physically addicted in a

short period of time.5°

Ausubel considers physical dependence to be a relatively
rare phenomenon in drugs with only the Opiates or Opiate-like
substances having addictive potential. He points out:

... physical dependence is by no means the most important

or most dangerous aspect of drug addiction. When it does
take place it merely guarantees the occurrence of a

 

“7Cohen, op. cit., p. 77.
l“’Louria, Op. cit., p. 26.
“9Pope, Op. cit., p. 117.

soLouria, Op. cit., p. 61.

26

relatively invariable group of withdrawal symptoms.

The actual prognosis of a case of drug addiction, how-

ever, is primarily a function of psychological and

personality factors.51

Another factor of drug addiction is drug tolerance.
Tolerance, as addiction, is wont to its share Of misunder-

standing. Chein, in The Road to H, regards drug tolerance as

 

follows:

Tolerance is; a concomitant Of dependence. It occurs

at a much slower rate than dependence.... “Tolerance"
refers tO the fact that the body adapts—~to varying
degrees and at different rates.... The addict can, for
instance, take quantities of Opiates which would produce
coma or death from respiratory inhibition in the non-
addict.52

Tolerance, however, does not appear to be a totally phys-

ically situated phenomenon as one might expect. Chein further

remarks:

Though the addict can satisfy his need for normal bodily
function without increasing his dosage, he must gradually
raise his intake if he wishes to satisfy his craving.

In the vernacular, he "can keep normal but can't get
high." He no longer experiences a change of state. He

is "tranquilized" so long as he can avoid withdrawal symp-
toms, but he gets no kicks, and he cannot "go on the

nod," that is, he can no longer experience intensified
relaxation and inwardness.

The “keeping normal" phase of addiction parallels the
idea of using a substitute drug as a blocking agent as is cur-
rently practiced in treatment programs utilizing methadone.

This allows a slow withdrawal to an eventual state of total

 

51Ausubel, op. cit., pp. 10-11.

52Chein, Op. cit., p. 249.
53Ibid.

27

drug abstinence without physical discomfort. Psychic depend-
ence, however, is not so easy to maintain. Many addicts
undergo periodic voluntary bouts of detoxification and abstin-
ence in order to recapture anew the thrill of drug intoxica-

tion.5“

Why Drugs?

 

The motives for turning on with drugs are legion, in that
the ultimate decision for the non-medical use of drugs rests
with the individual. The researchers in the drug field have
classed the motives into several general categories. Leech
and Jordan identify the social causes for drug misuse as a de-
sire to change one's mood or how he feels, due to feelings of
insecurity, through ignorance, social pressure, and personality
problems.55

Cohen identifies the reasons for the promiscuous overuse
of drugs is in part related to real or imagined rejections,
the impulse-ridden "angry young man" who will try anything,

a search for adequacy, and as those individuals with “the
borderline personality, not psychotic, but somehow strange, a
bit bizarre in his thinking, shy and seclusive, unable to

communicate easily."56

 

s"Chein, Op. cit., p. 250.
55Leech, op. cit., pp. 67-75.

56Cohen, Op. cit., p. 108.

28

Richard H. Blum in his book Society and Drugs, considers

 

drug use as resulting from an endless catalogue Of motives.

... one finds, over the centuries, men seekinq--and

drugs Offering--health, relief Of pain, security,

mystical revelation, eternal life, the approval Of the

gods, relaxation, joy, sexuality, restraint, blunting Of

the senses, escape, ecstasy, stimulation, freedom from

fatigue, sleep, fertility, the approval of others,

clarity of thought, emotional intensity, self-understand-

ing, self-improvement, power, wealth, degradation, a

life philOSOphy, exploitation of others; value enhance-

ment, and one's own or another's death.S

Louria identifies the majority of those involved with
drugs as being young people, usually from culturally or eco-
nomically deprived groups, who are ill-housed, inadequately
educated, underemployed, and see themselves as ineligible for
the benefits of our affluent society.58

The phenomenon of drugs is essentially familiar to the
ghetto and the barrio. However, as the popular television
personality Art Linkletter stated, "The problems of drug abuse

9 Had drugs not "come across

have come across the tracks."5
the tracks," the current interest in drug prevention, educa-
tion, and rehabilitation would probably be minimal.

Louria is not alone in equating social deprivation and

drug abuse. Gold and Scarpitti write:

 

57Blum, Op. cit., pp. 7-8.
58Louria, Op. cit., p. 13.

59Ron Wilson, Moody Monthly, "High on the Campus,"
March, 1971, pp. 83-85.

 

29

Excessive drug use is a condition found overwhelmingly

among deprived minority peOple, and in transitional

neighborhoods.6°

But drug use, according to Pope, has shown an abrupt in-
crease in the middle- and upper-class segments Of society
while excessive use Of drugs in the lower socioeconomic class
has shown little change.61

POpe, as have other researchers, cite multiple causes
for this increase. One notable exception exists however, as
Pope notes:

What is the single most important reason why middle-

class American youths take drugs? The answer is simple:

for fun.62

POpe tends to discount the using of drugs as the response
to an acute need. He states:

The user feels no more need to take hallucinogens than

another person feels a need to drive a sports car. Both

are activities which promise to be pleasurable, albeit

risky. Drug use, like driving sports cars, may Of

course, reflect more subtle unconscious "psychological"

needs, but its primary attraction is fun. 3

Pope continues in his explanation of why young peOple
turn to drugs by advancing the theories of alienation, a

search for new feelings, and new awareness, anger and with-

drawal, loneliness and the need for community, and boredom.

 

6°Harry Gold and Frank R. Scarpitti, Combatting Social
Problems, "Drug Addiction" (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1967), p. 411.

 

61Pope, op. cit., p. 27.
62Ibid., p. 15.

63Ibid.

30

Regarding boredom, Pope writes:
To potential users, life is unexciting, lacking in
action, too much like the dull lives Of their parents.
Cars, motorcycles, movies, television, sports, and other
"acceptable" activities promise only transitory and in-
adequate amusement. They feel deprived of real involve-
ment, of gut-level experiences. They see no Opportuni-
ties for commitment, no source Of meaning. In particular
school is irrelevant and therefore dull, restrictions too
severe, competition overemphasized.6“

Other factors which contribute to the predisposition of
youth to drugs are availability and awareness. American young
peOple have considerable sums of money at their disposal.
Those who want drugs can easily afford them. Many of those
who lack funds experience little difficulty because of the
willingness of the haves to share with the have-nots.65

Pope contributes the following in his explanation of

awarene S S :

In most high schools and colleges, not to mention on the
street, a potential user can Observe his peers going to
movies, driving cars, talking with their parents, play-
ing sports, and even passing exams under the influence
Of drugs. He may witness a few "bad trips" but the vast
majority of users he sees will be enjoying themselves.66
This is a far cry from what the potential user has heard
from his parents, teachers, and others in position Of author-
ity, who through ignorance or fear have perpetuated the myth
Of the "wild-eyed, raving, sex-crazed, maniacal dope fiends"

who live only to rob, rape, pervert, and smoke dope.

 

‘“Pope, Op. cit., p. 25.
65Michigan Department of Education, Op. cit., p. 7.

66POpe, Op. cit., p. 16.

31

Pope credits the media with having given the drug culture
a mote Of approval in society as he Observes that, "American
society Officially condemns drug users on one hand but romanti-
cizes them on the other--in movies, on television, in maga-
zines, in the newspapers, and, of course, in music."67

Drugs and the problems of drugs can be a considerable
part of the American scene. It is highly unlikely that the
problems associated with the illegal and non—medical use Of
drugs will just "go away" or perhaps be minimized if they are
ignored. Perhaps we as a nation are just beginning to under—
stand where the real problems lie. Regarding alienation, POpe
writes:

Drug use is a response to the syndrome of alienation

from American society. Drug use ranges from simple fun——

a transient relief from boredom--to an entire way Of

life which buffers against apathy.... Since alienation

will not soon vanish from America, it will remain a foun-
dation for drug use for years to come.68

The DruggScene

 

In recent history the electronic media has made America
aware of drugs and those who make up what is called the “drug
culture," the "drug sub-culture," and the "drug scene." Until
recently drug use was thought to be restricted to the inner-

city and indulged in by social misfits or psychological

 

671bid., p. 81

6°Ibid., p. 121.

32

deviants. These attitudes were revised when Americans were
informed that those subject to the attraction of drugs were
mainly the hippies and teenyboppers who pOpulated the Haight-
Ashbury District of San Francisco and Greenwich Village in
New York.69

America is also familiar with the stereotype Of the drug
pusher who is, as he exists in the minds Of many parents:

A lower-class type, Older, addicted to morphine, he

issues from his hole in the ghetto and descends upon a

virginal suburban high school eager tO expand his clien-

tele. Selecting a gullible-looking sophomore, he

whispers, "Hey, man, you wanna buy some pot? Ith you

man!... What's the matter? You chicken, huh?"7°
According to POpe, this is far from the general picture, as
the vast majority of youth are initially introduced to drugs
through friends who are aware of their effects.71

The reasons previously cited by researchers who have
identified the ghetto and its conditions as the base from
which drugs have spawned are probably as acutely valid at
present as they were earlier, for these conditions have shown
little improvement. But, as Blum describes, the ghettos and
the hippies are extremes and must be recognized as such.72

Chein concluded in his study Of drug use by teenage
males in New York City:

-— .4

63Michigan Department of Education, Op. cit., p. 7.
7°Pope, op. cit., p. 71. 71Ibid.

72Blum, op. cit., p. 344.

33

The use of narcotics is in the main associated in some

fashion with living in areas of economic squalor, but

other unwholesome aSpects of the social environment also

contribute in substantial measure ... conditions of

economic squalor dominate the picture ... but, social

causation is a complex picture.73

The hippies and the slums can be considered to be only
two facets of the drug scene. Other scenes must include the
business man and his three-martini lunch, the acting community
with its "uppers" and "downers" that make the day possible,
the truckdriver who swallows benzedrine to be able to make
his long hauls, and the youth of today whose use of drugs sug-
gests that the next generation may be more dependent on drugs
than this one.’“

One major "scene" worth consideration because of its
size and universality is the educational institution. Drug
use by the student population is impossible to measure. There
has been a marked increase, however, as can be testified to by
death and arrest records related to drugs.

"Drug use, among college students," according to Pope,
"has not increased as drastically as at the high school level
in the last two years, primarily because it was so high

already."75

 

73Chein, Op. cit., p. 74.

7"J. Anthony Lukas, Social Profile: USA Today, "The
Drugpgcene: Dependence Grow§T(New York: Van Nostrand Rein-
hold Co., 1970 , p. 386.

7sPope, Op. cit., p. 7.

34

Another aspect Of the drug scene is the subculture formed
by those who choose to "drop-out“ and pursue a life-style
dominated by drugs. These are probably the most bizarre of
individuals and therefore, attract the most attention. These
include the “$100.00 per-day habit," the young mothers who
regularly give their infants LSD to avoid future "hang-ups"
when the child grows up, the "rip-Off" artists who make their
way by their wits on the street, the "heads" and junkies who
overdose or suffer the ravages of malnutrition, paranoia,
psychoses and infection, the "speed-freaks" whose brains are
reduced to the consistency of peanut butter by amphetamines,
and the "greasers" who deal in and shoot all forms of drugs

6 These are the

and live a life-style asserting masculinity.7
“casualties,” the five percent who choose drugs and represent

the tragedy Of the chemical world.77

Drugs and the Law

 

The prohibition of drugs can, in part, according to
Chein, be directly attributed to the temperance movement.
The temperance movement indicated the following assumptions:

1. Any substance which is liable to rob a man of his

senses and render him foolish, irascible, uncontroll-
able, or dangerous is unsafe.

 

76Pope, Op. cit., p. 40.
77Ibid., p. 126.

35

2. Alcohol offers neither a natural nor a healthy way

to achieve happiness or reduce unhappiness; the natural

means for achievement through work, play, socialization,

and so forth.

3. The gratifications afforded the moderate user of

alcohol are outweighed by the dangers to society of im-

moderate use and the fact that, with alcohol available,

there will always be incontienent users.78

These moral arguments were accepted by the House of
Representatives and resulted in the Hobson Amendment in 1914.
This amendment sought to control "the sale, manufacture for
sale, and tranSportation for sale of intoxicating liquors."
The amendment failed to become law. The same congress, how-
ever, applied these same arguments to opiates which resulted
in the Harrison Narcotic Act.79

Narcotic addiction was considered a crisis prior to the
passage of the Harrison Act. One in every four-hundred people
in the United States was a known Opiate addict. The Harrison
Act and the following chronology of drug laws therefore de-
veloped:
1914 Hprrison Narcotic Act

Provided for registration of all firms or individuals

which manufacture, buy, give away, or sell narcotics.

This act placed a special tax on opiates and provided

for careful record keeping on all sales and distribution

of Opium and its derivatives. It remains as the basic
federal narcotic control law today.

 

1922 Narcotic Drugs: Import-Export Act.
Limited the importation of crude opium and cocoa leaves
(source of cocaine) and prohibited the importation of
opium for smOking or the manufacture Of heroin. Limited
export of drugs containing opiates.

 

78Chein, Op. cit., pp. 351-352. 791bid., p. 352.

1930

1939

1937

1942

1946

1951

1956

1960

1962

36

Established Bureau Of Narcotics.

Bureau Of Narcotics was estainShed within U. S. Treasury
Department to administer and enforce narcotic control
laws.

 

Vehicle and Vessel Seizure Act.

Provides for seizure and forfeit of any vessel, vehicle,
or aircraft used to transport any contraband narcotic
drug.

 

Marijuana Tax Act.

Provided controls over marijuana similar to those placed
on Opium by the Harrison Act Of 1914. While the Act was
passed as a tax act its effect was to prohibit import and
sale of the produce by setting taxes as much as $100.00
per ounce on the sale or transfer. This act is under
threat Of voidance by a Supreme Court decision and may be
replaced by a new law.

 

Opium Poppy Control Act.

Prohibits growing the Opium pOppy in the U. S. except
under special license for scientific research. Also
eliminated Opium poppy as a decorative flower in the U. S.
and restricted sale of the seed.

 

Harrison Act Amended.

The amendment provided for synthetic drugs such as
Demerol, which had addicting qualities, to be brought
under the provisions of the Harrison Narcotics Act.

 

Boggs Act--Mandatory Sentence Act.

Provided fOr mandatory sentences for the illegal posses-
sion or sale of narcotic drugs. Limited the court's
power to grant suspensions, probation, or parole.

 

Narcotics Control Act.

Provided servers penalties for possession, sale or dis-
pensing illicit narcotics or marijuana. First Offense:
mandatory 5-20 year sentence and optional $20,000 fine.
NO probation or parole. Adult sale of heroin to minor:
mandatory 10 years to life sentence (death if jury
directs) and Optional $20,000 fine.

Narcotic Manufacturing Act.
Provides for licensing and establishment of quotas for
all narcotic drug manufacturers.

 

Refauver-Harris Drug Amendment.
Requires registry of all manufacturers of stimulants
and depressants.

 

1965

1966

1966

1968

37

Drpg Abuse Control Amendments.

Amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Provides stronger regulations of the manufacture, dis-
tribution, delivery, and possession Of stimulants,
depressants, and psychotoxic drugs. Special penalties
for sales by anyone over 18 years of age to sell or give
drugs to anyone under 21--special penalty provides im-
prisonment for up to 2 years and fine of $5000. Second
Offense--6 years and $15,000. Penalty for violation of
the act otherwise is one year imprisonment and $1,000
fine--second Offense--3 years and $10,000 fine.

 

Bureau of Drug Abuse Control.

Created separate bureau in the Food and Drug Administra-
tion to carry out provisions of the Drug Abuse Control
Amendments of 1965.

 

Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act.

This act established a new natiOnal policy for treatment
of narcotic addiction. The law accepts the premise that
the narcotic addict is suffering from an emotional ill—
ness and is not pep pg a criminal. The act provides for
civil commitment of addicts to treatment facilities
rather than subjecting them to criminal prosecution. It
also provides for community based treatment facilities.

 

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

To eliminate duplication, reduce confusion and improve
law enforcement in April, 1968, the Federal Bureau Of
Narcotics in the U. S. Treasury Department and the Bureau
Of Drug Abuse Control Of the Food and Drug Administration,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, were
merged into a single agency now known as the Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and placed under the juris-
diction of the U. S. Department of Justice.80

 

Researchers in the field of drugs along with those who

choose to violate drug statutes continually question the

motives behind the drug laws. The questioners seek to know

if the restrictions serve mainly to punish violators, to pro-

tect society from the ravages of a drug addicted population,

to keep drugs under legal control, to protect man from his own

 

80Michigan Department of Education, Op. cit., pp. 44—45.

38

weaknesses, to control the quality of drugs being dispensed,
to prevent crime, or to assist the addict to recover and be-
come a reSponsible member of society. Unfortunately, many

of today's youth View drug legislation as an attempt on the

part of the adult world to deprive youth "the opportunity to

express themselves in a mode of their own choice."81

Regarding youth and the law, Bloomquist writes:

Though it may come as a surprise to many, most Of those
in the counterculture (with a few notable exceptions)

do respect the law. But many individuals in the group
reserve the right to choose for themselves which laws are
proper, and which are of so little value that they should
be ignored. This is not unique. America has unenforce-
able and impractical laws governing sexual behavior.

The counterculture ignores these as being unintelligent
and inapplicable to them, as do most other sexually
active people. Members of the Establishment follow a
similar route, but are more subtle in their violations....
Where marijuana laws specifically are involved, the
counterculture vigorously sponsors the idea that the laws
are invalid.... Unfortunately for those who run into
conflict with cannabis [marijuana] laws, this flexibil-
ity Of thinking is not permitted by legislation.82

There is little doubt that drug laws lack consistency
when it comes to making "the punishment fit the crime."
Although the view that drug use is a medical-social problem
and not a criminal activity is gaining in popularity, the
simple use and possession Of drugs remains a prison Offense.
In fact, in many states the penalty for the sale of marijuana

to a minor is death.83

 

8iMichigan Department of Education, Op. cit., p. 41.

82Edward R. Bloomquist, Marijuana, The Second Trip
(California: Glencoe Press, 1971), pp. 349-250.

 

83Helen H. Nowlis, Drugs on the College Campus
(New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969), p. 33.

 

39

The most recent federal legislation became effective
May 1, 1971. President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the
"Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970."
This legislation reclassified many drugs into different
schedules and provided funds for drug education, treatment
and rehabilitation programs. It also provides for possible
probation for first Offenders who are convicted for the use
or"possession of marijuana, stimulants or depressant drugs.
Uniform state legislation is still lacking, however, although
most states are expected to adopt a new model state act en-
titled the "Uniform State-Controlled Dangerous Substance Act,"

in the next few years.8k

Drug Rehabilitation and Treatment
The treatment for drug addiction may be viewed as a simple
matter. One only need make the drug unavailable to the user,
and after a short duration the addiction has been successfully
treated. Unfortunately, however, the addict has not been
cured. Merely removing the physical symptoms is not enough,
for the addict still retains a psychological craving for drugs

and in all probability will return to them.85

 

8"DrugkAbuse: A Manual for Law Enforcement Officers
(PennsyIVania: Smith,Rlein & Frency Laboratories,gl968TT
p. 33.

85Leech, op. cit., p. 88.

40

Rehabilitating a user, according to Goode, is problematic
for "rehabilitation is predicated on the notion that the

"86 TOO

transgressor thinks of his transgression as wrong.
frequently, however, the user perceives the law as wrong and
not the act.

Little, if anything, can be accomplished regarding re-
habilitation unless the user is well motivated.87 This factor
causes considerable consternation in the treatment of young
addicts for, all too Often, he is at a phase Of his addiction
when the greatest pleasure is being experienced and drugs
are perceived as being more enjoyable than abstinence.88

Drug abusers share one general characteristic; their

9 The narcotic addict is

overall motivation is very poor.8
considered "a con-artist who thinks only of himself and uses
everyone to satisfy his own needs."9° In light of this, it is
not surprising that drug rehabilitation programs in general
have not afforded any particular success.91

These are not the only reasons, however, that drug treat-

ment.and rehabilitation schemes have not as yet exerted

 

86Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers (New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1970), p. 289.

 

a7Louria, Op. cit., p. 83.
88Cohen, Op. cit., p. 123.
agLouria' OE. Cite, p. 89.

9°What is Rubicon House, pamphlet by Rubicon House,
Flint, Michigan.

 

91Louria, op. cit., p. 85.

41
maximum effect on the drug problem. The nature of "rehabili-
tation" itself is beclouded by a difference in interpreta-
tion. Some judges and police officers believe a jail sentence
to be a rehabilitative function. This conclusion appears to
be spurious, however, when the jail recividism record of
heroin users, which is over sixty percent, is considered.92

A police function is served, nonetheless, by the removal
Of an addict population from the streets. Addict related
crime lessens as do arrests for drug Offenses when this method
of suppression is employed.

Another factor that works against the drug abuser is his
inability to Obtain or keep gainful employment. Most private
and public employers will not consider an identified or sus—
pected addict or abuser. Many convicted drug users are in-
eligible for business licenses. Even those addicts who seek
and obtain vocational and educational training are unemploy—
able because of their drug history.93

There are two general types of drug treatment and re-
habilitation programs; those without drugs and those that use
drugs as a method of treatment. The former consists of pro-
grams such as Synanon, DaytOp Village, and Odessey House.

Synanon was founded in 1958, by Charles Dederich as a
self-help program for drug addicts. Dederich used many of the

ideas he had learned as a member of Alcoholics Anonymous.

 

92Goode, op. cit., p. 290.

93Louria, op. cit., p. 86.

42

Synanon.does not use professionals but employs recovered
addicts as therapists. Theirs is a rejection of many psycho-
logical assumptions which is projected in the statement that
"We do not begin with a presumption of sickness ... we assume
that peOple behave badly not because they are ill or ill-
willed, but because they are stupid."9“

Synanon and the other similar programs are live-in thera-
peutic communities that stress work and honesty. The commit-
ment is voluntary, the program very rigorous, and the rate of
those who stay on to completion of the program small. They
claim a success rate of those who do choose to remain to be
approximately fifty percent.95

Rehabilitation with drugs is primarily used with heroin
addicts. The idea Of using a drug to treat a drug problem is
the basis Of the methadone maintenance program wherein metha-
done is substituted for heroin in out-patient medical facili-

6 This form of treatment has elicited considerable

ties.9
criticism from those whose moral commitment cannot tolerate a
population of legally sanctioned addicts in society. This

form of treatment has had its successes in that it allows some

addicts to return to a useful place in society.97

 

9"Frank Goble, The Third Force (New York: Pocket Books,
Inc., 1971), p. 152.

 

95Ibid.

 

96Louris, op. cit., p. 90.
97Ibid., p. 92.

43

Methadone maintenance should not be prematurely hailed
as a panacea nor should it be condemned until sufficient time
passes to study the full effects of the program in its true
perspective.

It must be stressed that the non-medical use of drugs
is a symptom of deep disturbances in our society and not just
a problem in and of itself. Drugs cannot be ignored nor can
they be corrected by feeble educational programs or inappro-
priate treatment. If there is to be a solution it may well
lie in education and the prevention and eradication Of the
social factors that manifest themselves through personal

rebellion.98

Summary

The review of the literature pertaining to drugs found
considerable information that the author concluded to have
merit or be Open to question. Much of what is the mythology
of drugs has been reported and accepted as fact. Perhaps,
too much attention has been paid the conclusions related to
some drug research and not enough critical examination been
afforded the assumptions, hypotheses, methods of investiga-
tion, or the data itself.

A review of the literature revealed that drugs have been

known to and used by man since before the dawn of recorded

 

9aij-dI' p. 96I

44

history. Some might therefore conclude that the use of drugs
by mankind was both inevitable and predictable. The litera-
ture further notes that mants use Of some form of chemical com-
fort appears to increase in proportion to his preceived amount
of stress.

Heroin has been listed as the most addictive, and there-
fore the most dangerous of the drugs subject to abuse. But
as has been noted, there is a considerable lack of agreement
by the experts regarding drugs and addiction and the claim
for heroin is no exception. In recent research, Grinspoon and
Hedblom consider all the detrimental effects of addiction
normally reserved for heroin to be, in reality, the awards of
amphetamines. These researchers state without equivocation
that amphetamines are, in fact, significantly more dangerous
than heroin with regard to addiction and abnormal behavior.99

To some, repeated disagreements of this type might cause
considerable consternation. The researcher concludes the
Opposite. The researcher considers the potential dangers of
drug misuse to be of the nature that the questioning of es-
tablished "facts" must be a top priority activity in research
if the truths about drugs and addiction are to be known.

Our society has been‘labeled a "drug maker's dream"
whose motto should be "a pill for every ill," both real or

imagined. Men do take drugs and for all manner of reasons,

 

99Lester Grinspoon, M.D., and Peter Hedblom, Amphetamines
Reconsidered, Saturday Review, Vol. LV, No. 28 (July 8, 1972),
pp. 33—460

 

45

but the most disturbing reason articulated to the researcher
was by an addict who concluded "when you come up with some-
thing better, we'll quit doing drugs."

The bizarre, the unreal, and other deviants were con-
sidered by most to be "the drug scene." These ideas have
been and are being promoted by the media and therefore become
truth to many as they make up what is considered the mythology
Of drugs. Fortunately, however, society appears to be no
longer content to believe in "a drug scene" as it is increas-
ingly evident that not only the emotionally disturbed or un-
happy youngsters are turning on with drugs. Drugs are clearly
seen to respect no racial, age, social, or economic boundaries.

Today's drug laws are a composite of crises actions that
appear to be neither successful nor reasonable. In some states
the penalty for possession of a few ounces of marijuana may
exceed that of murder. Society has only to look at recent
history to realize the futility of any attempt to legislate
morals. And yet, according to Swedish Psychiatrist Nils
Bejerot, hard drug addicts should be quarantined and isolated.
Drug addicts are social lepers who spread their contagion to
an uninfected public and therefore deserve total isolation.1°°
Bejerot further considers that lenient methods of handling
this type of contagion have done nothing to curb addiction,

but that Japan stamped out an amphetamine epidemic through the

 

1“Staff Reporter, "Quanantining Addicts," Time, Vol. 99:
No. 21 (May 22, 1972), p. 70.

46
enforcement of some very tough drug laws.101
In agreement with Bejerot, the American pattern of civil
liberties decisions would not permit this form of control
over the users of drugs. Bejerot may, however, have a solu-
tion.
Drug rehabilitation programs, according to Etzioni, have
rehabilitated only a few drug addicts. He states:
The failure Of educational and therapeutic approaches to
help most heroin addicts has led finally, to the wide-
spread use of a substitute, methadone, which is usually
referred to as a blocking drug because it is said to curb
the craving for heroin.... For our purpose it is suf—
ficient to say that, unlike the educational and therapeu-
tic approaches to heroin addiction, methadone is effec—
tive. That is, people taking methadone work, study, are
satisfied, function as human beings and citizens, and
have a much lower criminality record.”2
What Etzioni concludes is probably true, however the
researcher found the majority of the drug therapists cold to
this philosophy and considered "a drug to lick a drug," as
methadone has been called, a somewhat reprehensible alterna-
tive.
It is highly unlikely that the use of drugs will be com-
pletely eliminated, however, drug use can be markedly reduced

if the human, physical, and financial resources of the nation

are so directed.

 

1°‘Ibid.

 

1“Amitai Etzioni, "Human Beings Are Not Very Easy To
Change After All," Saturday Review, Vol. VL, No. 23 (June 3,
1972), p. 46.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

This section discusses the methodology used in conducting
the study. The population and sample used are identified and
defined, the data gathering procedures described, and the
instruments employed with their administration and statistical
treatment explained.

The primary questionnaire employed was designed by the
researcher with the assistance and advisement of the graduate
committee. The instrument, particularly the vignettes, is
unique to this study, therefore, no Opportunity for valida-
tion existed.

The use of the vignettes was considered by the researcher
and the guidance committee to be a new approach to the study
of drug use, drug users, and drug treatment. The originality
of this approach recognizes the need for innovative methods of
investigation to a complex social problem. The instrument was
field tested and refined, however, to insure clarity and elimi-
nate any confusion that might have existed through misleading

or ambiguous terminology.

47

48

Selection of the Population

 

The nature of the subject matter of this study made-
acceptance of the study by an available population difficult.
The non-medical use of drugs is a sensitive matter and affords
numerous aversions to many individuals and groups.

It was initially necessary to identify the individuals
involved in the decisions regarding the disposition of youth-
ful drug offenders. The Genesee County Regional Drug Abuse
Commission of Flint, Michigan, the Genesee County Sheriffs
Office, and the Probate Court of Genesee County provided much
of the necessary information.

It was learned that the fate Of the majority of youthful
drug offenders is decided upon by the judges of the Probate
Court. The judges' decisions are greatly influenced by the
Probation Office whose function it is to investigate the
offender's home situation, school attendance and progress,
previous arrest record, and other pertinent or extenuating
facts. This information is then made available to the Probate
Court. The judge then bases his decision on the probation
report and the nature of the pending offense. One of the most
limiting factors facing Probate judges is the absence of
alternatives regarding where the youthful drug offender can
be placed. The researcher found only one live-in therapeutic
community in the Flint, Michigan area. This was the Odessey
Rubicon House which had only recently been licensed to accomo-

date youths under the age of 18 years. This choice is

49

included in the Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey,
Appendix D, along with the remaining Options which are Open to
the court.

The Flint area also has some "drop-in" centers which are
now resident centers designed to offer both professional and
lay counseling for individuals with drug problems.

The Officers Of the Probate Court and Probation Depart-
ment were asked to identify the individuals whose information
was sought for the probation report. The following groups of
individuals were identified:

1. School personnel

2. Probation officers

3. Members of the Clergy

4. Law-enforcement Officers

5. Parents
The school personnel were further enumerated as school admin—

istrators, school counselors, and school teachers.

Selection of the Sample

 

School Personnel

 

The school personnel included were selected from the
Carman School District of Flint, Michigan. These persons were
employed in the Central Office Administrative Staff and from
the administrative staffs, school counselors, and teaching
staffs of the district's three junior high schools and two high

schools.

50

The smallest number of the identified groups selected
proved to be the school counselors which numbered twelve.

It was decided, therefore, to use this size group as the size
criterion for all the groups in the sample.

Selection of the school administrator group considered
each principal Of the five schools involved. The district
contained twenty-two administrators in all among the junior
high, high school, and central office administrative staffs.
A consecutive number was assigned the remaining administrators
and a table of random numbers applied to complete the selec-
tion of this group.1

The selection of the teachers considered the five major
teaching and subject matter disciplines. The fields chosen
were Math-Science, Social Science, Home Economics-Industrial
Arts, English-Language Arts, and Health-Physical Education.
These fields were chosen for they include the majority of the
subject matter taught and have the maximum desired student
participation.

Each teacher in these disciplines was selected through
the use of a table of random numbers which was described with

the administrative group.

Probation Officers

 

The staff of the Genesee County Adult Probation Office

numbered twelve probation officers including their chief

 

1Sidney J. Armore, Introduction to Statistical Analysis
and Inference_for Psychology and Education (New York: WiIey
and Sons, 1967), pp. 498-499:

 

51

administrator. The entire staff was therefore included in

the assessment.

Clergy

The Flint (Michigan) Area Telephone Directory was con-
sulted for the purpose of identifying the religious denomina-
tions represented in the area. These were concluded to be
Catholic, Jewish, Greek and Syrian Orthodox, Baptist, Episco-
pal, Pentecostal, Lutheran, LDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Church
of Christ, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Other lesser repre—
sented denominations were listed but are too numerous to list.
They were all placed into the population, however, and the

sample drawn.

Law Enforcement

 

The Carman School District is served by the Genesee
County Sheriff's Office. The Genesee County Sheriff was con-
tacted for information and assistance in the selection Of the
deputies who would participate in the study. The afternoon
shift Officers were considered most appropriate and the
sheriff instructed the duty commander of that shift to select
the twelve deputies who would be included. This shift was
selected because the highest incidence of contact with youthful
drug users occurred during this period. The shift commander
selected the Officers who had the highest interaction rate

with youthful drug users.

52

Parents

The parents included were selected on the basis of the
following criteria:

1. Residence in the Carman School District.

2. Non-membership in any Of the other enumerated groups.

Twelve male and twelve female parents were chosen. In
all, six of the parents were married to each other. Some of
them knew their sons or daughters to be drug users. The
families did not live in the same neighborhood and were chosen

through random contact.

Addicts

During the investigative and data gathering phases of
the study the researcher came into contact with numerous drug
users and addicts. Some interesting differences of opinion
became apparent and it was decided to include the responses of
an addict group. The decision to use hard-core addicts who
were undergoing treatment in the methadone maintenance program
in Flint, Michigan was arbitrary on the part of the researcher.
This was the only addict population available to the research—
er but it was believed that this group of individuals would
provide the necessary insight through their first-hand experi-
ence. Twelve addicts were selected on the recommendation of
the head-therapist and the willingness Of the addict to par-

ticipate.

53

Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselors

 

The final group included consisted of vocational-rehabil-
itation counselors. These were from the Michigan State
Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services.
This group was included for a comparison of their attitudes
with those of the school counselors. This decision was made
by the researcher when, during the preliminary stages of the
investigation, it became apparent that differences Of Opinion
existed between the groups.

The North Flint District Office of the Vocational Rehabil-
itation Services was chosen. This office handles the socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals of the area who
are seeking employment and assistance. This Office also has
the highest percentage clientele with drug involvement. The
selection of the counselors to be used in this group was con-

ducted by the district manager Of the Office.

Administration Of the Questionnaire

 

The questionnaire was administered during the period Of
May 1, 1972 through June 12, 1972.

The respondents in the school administrator, school
counselor, school teacher, and parent groups were given the
instructions and the questionnaire individually by the re-
searcher. The questionnaires were completed at that time and
returned to the researcher. This contact provided the Oppor-
tunity for personal interviews which proved both useful and

informative.

54

The groups involving the law-enforcement Officers, pro-
bation Officers, and vocational—rehabilitation counselors
were administered the questionnaires by their reSpective
supervisors. These supervisors had previously been instructed
in the administration of the instrument by the researcher.
The questionnaires were collected from the supervisors by the
researcher.

The addict group was given the questionnaires by the
researcher with the assistance of the head-therapist of the
methadone clinic. This helped to insure correct responses to
the questionnaire and provided the Opportunity for numerous
valuable interviews.

Members of the Clergy were mailed the instrument and
asked to return it upon completion. Extensive follow—up by
telephone and personal contact was necessary to encourage

participation.

Instrumentation

 

Two instruments were used in conducting this study.
The primary questionnaire (see Appendix A), entitled the
"Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey" was administered to
the one-hundred-sixty-eight reSpondents identified earlier
who made up the sample for the study.

The secondary questionnaire (see Appendix C) was admin-
istered to sixty-three adult participants who were in the
twelfth week of a fifteen-week drug seminar. The seminar was

sponsored by the Genesee County Regional Drug Abuse Commission

55

and met once a week at the Drug Abuse Commissions quarters

in Flint, Michigan. Attendance was voluntary and the class
consisted of individuals whose occupations brought them into
immediate contact with drug users. The majority Of those

in attendance were law enforcement personnel, educators,
clergymen, and social workers. The course was instructed by
those who were concluded to have expertise in the drug field.
Although this survey was not a core part of the study the
researcher included it to demonstrate the lack of knowledge
and misinformation that exists in a group of adults assumed to
be reasonably knowledgeable about drug users. The descrip-

tions were taken from the book The Marijuana Smokers, by

 

Erick Goode.2

In the primary questionnaire, items 1 through 12 con-
sider the demographic data necessary to identify the respond-
ents. Items 13 through 25 were designed to measure opinions
regarding drugs, addiction, drug education programs, and the
causes for drug use by young people.

Items 26 through 49 are the twenty-four dependent vari—
ables which are designed to measure attitudes about drug
addicts through the manipulation Of variables regarding race,
sex, socio-economic status, family situation, intelligence,
school attendance, and the record of arrests and illegal

activity. These variables are in the form of short

 

2Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers (New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1970), p. 304.

 

56

hypothetical vignettes and contain the information included
in the probation reports.

The respondent was given a description of five possible
treatment programs and asked to assign the individual
described in the vignette to a treatment program that the
respondent felt would best benefit the drug addict described.
This was accomplished by circling a number below the vignette
that corresponded to the number assigned the treatment program.

.Each respondent was assured that there were no "right,"
"wrong," “good,"cm'"bad"answers. The respondents were further
cautioned to answer as they felt and not as they thought they
should feel.

The final question, item #50, came into being during the
field testing of the primary instrument. The main purpose of
the field testing was to eliminate any ambiguity. Many re-
spondents, however expressed some dissatisfaction with the
absence of what they felt was a necessary alternative in a
forced-choice instrument of this type, is the foster home.
This choice had previously been explored by the researcher
and was rejected for inclusion in the original questionnaire
when the Probate Court explained the reluctance of most
people to accept an addict into their home and family. On the
basis of the pre-test the choice was included with the regard
to those who would accept this responsibility and to satisfy

this perceived need.

57

Each respondent group, with the exception of the parent
group, was also asked to complete an additional "cover sheet"
that provided further occupational data. These cover sheets
constitute Appendix C.

The questionnaires were so designed to be both concise
and brief while yielding as much information possible con-
cerning the respondent's perceptions of drugs, drug addiction,
and drug users. Each respondent was afforded the Opportunity
to discuss the instrument with the researcher both during and
after its administration. This opportunity served to diminish
any latent confusion on the part of the respondent and gain
the researcher considerable information regarding drug atti-

tudes that might not have otherwise been possible.

Recording the Data

 

Upon return of the primary questionnaires the responses
were immediately hand coded on Michigan State University Com-
puter Laboratory Data Coding Forms by the researcher. This
information was then key-punched on cards and the cards veri-
fied by the Michigan State University Computer Center Key-
Punch Division. One card was punched for each questionnaire.
There was no missing data.

The secondary questionnaire was collectediand recorded
by the researcher and will be reported utilizing the recom—

mended statistical procedure.

58

Statistical Procedures

 

The Michigan State University College of Education
Research Consultation Office recommended the appropriate
statistical techniques for analysis of the data. The computer
programs and facilities Of the Michigan State University Com-
puter Center were used.

The statistical procedures used in the analysis of the
data are:

1. Basic statistics which provide mean, standard devi-
ation, and simple correlation squared.

2. Analysis procedures utilizing percent and frequency
tables.

3. One-way analysis Of variance across the fourteen
groups using each vignette as a separate dependent
variable.

4. Repeated measures analysis of variance with fourteen
groups and measures relating levels of race, sex,
intelligence, socio-economic status, home situation,

school attendance, and record of arrests and illegal
activity.

Summary
This chapter has Offered a description Of the methodology

involved in conducting the study.

The population utilized was the Flint, Michigan, area
with the sample of respondents being drawn from the educators
and administrators of the Carman School District, the Genesee
County Sheriff's Office, the Adult Probation Office, Flint
area clergy, the North Flint District Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Flint area drug addicts and parents of the

Carman School District.

59

The questionnaire was developed by the researcher with
the assistance and advisement of the guidance committee.

The questionnaire was administered by the researcher with a
one-hundred percent return resulting, see Table 3.1 in the
Appendix.

The statistical procedures were designed in conjunction
with the Michigan State University College Of Education
Research Consultation Office and the Michigan State University
Center for Urban Affairs Research Division. The data are

organized, presented, and analyzed in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

This study was designed to measure the attitudes of
selected adults regarding drug use, drug abuse, and drug
addiction through the simulated assignment of young drug
addicts to drug treatment programs by these same adults. The
primary instrument used to identify these attitudes was the
Drug Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey (see Appendix A).

A second instrument was employed to measure stereotypes com-
monly held about drug users (see Appendix C). The stereotype
information, although not a primary focus to the study, was
determined to be pertinent and was therefore included.

This chapter is divided into six parts which consider
the drug user stereotypes as measured by the secondary instru-
ment, Appendix C, the cover-sheet data, the demographic data,
drug Opinion data, the vignettes which comprise the attitude
survey, Appendix A, and a discussion Of the Opinions expressed

in the interviews with the respondents.

60

61

Drug Addict Stereotypes

 

In reviewing the literature the researcher noted the
considerable amount of mis-information that exists regarding
drug users. TO test this hypothesis the writer posed the
following description to a group of adults who were in the
twelfth week Of an intensive fifteen-week drug seminar.

The frame is stunted and weak, the muscles under-
developed, the eye is sunken and heavy, the complexion
is sallow, pasty, or covered with spots Of acne, the
hands are damp and cold, and the skin is moist. The
person shuns the society of others, creeps about alone,
joins in repugnance in the amusements Of his peers.

He cannot look anyone in the face, and becomes careless
in dress and uncleanly in person. His intellect has be-
come sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are
persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot.
Such peOple are to be seen in all stages of degeneration,
but what we have described is but the result towards
which they all are tending.1

Please indicate which category you feel best fits the
above description

long-term heavy user of marijuana

long-term user of LSD

heroin addict
The sixty-three participants in the drug seminar answered
the questions based on the above text as follows:

1. Sixty participants considered the text best described
a heroin addict.

2. Three considered the descriptions applied to a long—
term user of LSD.

3. None selected a marijuana user as their choice.

 

1Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers (New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1970), p. 304.

 

62

The text, in fact, describes an erroneous perception Of

the ravages of masturbation as manifested in young men. This

description is credited to Dr. William Acton, the famous

Victorian physician.

Cover-Sheet Data

 

TO further identify the respondent groups a cover sheet

(see Appendix B) was attached to each of the primary question-

naires with the exception of the parent groups. The following

summary relates to the items considered significant on selec-

ted cover-sheets:

Law Enforcement--

1.

Eighty-three and three tenths percent Of the law
enforcement group considered the courts to be un-
realistic in their treatment of drug Offenders.

2. Ninety—one and seven tenths percent of the reSpond-

ents in this group considered the probation officers
to be unrealistic in their recommendations regarding
drug users.

School Administrators--

1.

2.

None of the administrators considered the drug educa-
tion program in their district to be adequate.

The majority of this group felt the community would
react positively to an adequate school-sponsored drug
education program.

All of the school administrators stated that their
contact with students who had drug problems was in-
frequent or nonexistant.

The entire group indicated that a specially qualified
teacher was necessary to teach drug education programs
and stated they would endorse such a program to quali-
fy school teachers to instruct drug education.

63

5. Seventy-five percent Of the school administrators did
not consider school counselors qualified to counsel
drug users. All Of them indicated support to a pro-
gram that would qualify school counselors in drug
matters.

School Counselors--

1. To their knowledge had little or no contact with drug
users.

2. Forty—one and seven tenths percent of this group con—
sidered themselves knowledgeable enough about drug use
and drug users to counsel with young peOple who have
drug problems.

3. Eighty—three and three tenths percent indicated they
would take the time and effort to become qualified as
a drug counselor.

School Teachers--

1. To their knowledge had little or no contact with drug
users.

2. Forty-five percent indicated they would take the
time and effort to become qualified to teach drug
education programs.

Clergy--

1. To their knowledge had little or no contact with drug
users.

Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselors--

1. Sixty-six percent indicated that only a few Of their
clients admitted having drug problems.

2. All of the group stated that prospective employers
reacted negatively toward hiring individuals with a
history Of drug use.

Addicts--

l. The majority had been addicted to heroin from one to
five years.

2. Most of the addicts indicated their habits had cost
from $50.00 to $100.00 per day.

64

3. None were able to support their habit without re—
sorting to some illegal activity.

4. All of the addicts admitted to peddling drugs, with
prostitution, burglary, and robbery being other
prominent means of supplementing money for their
drug needs.

5. Most of the addict group considered themselves to be
of above average intelligence, of having average
family backgrounds and socio-economic status, and of
having been regular in their school attendance.

6. Half Of the group indicated frequent arrests.

Demographic Data

 

Items 1 through 12 of the Drug Addiction Treatment Atti-
tude Survey comprise the demographic data and consider the
respondent's race, sex, marital status, school ages of their
children, political belief, religious affiliation, educational
attainment, and years of occupational experience. This in-
formation is summarized in tables utilizing percents and fre-
quency counts and are located in Appendix D.

Item 10 pertains to educational attainment other than
college training. This item received only limited response.
The types most frequently listed by the respondents included
beauty and barber schools, secretarial training, armed forces
related courses, and trade-school listings.

Item 12 sought to determine the percentage of the respond-
ents who planned to remain in their present positions. The
respondents for whom this item was applicable listed eighty-

one percent who planned to remain in their present position,

65

three percent who planned to leave, and sixteen percent who

were unsure .

In summary, the demographic data reveals:

l.
2.

10.

11.

Most of the respondents were male.

Most respondents were white, with 10.7 percent being
black and considerably fewer Mexican-Americans and
American Indians.

The largest age group represented was in the 25-29
age bracket with those in age groups 30-34, 35-39,
and 40-43 following closely.

Married respondents clearly outnumbered those in any
other marital category.

Children of the respondents in school categories
numbered 64 in the K-6 group followed by 54 pre-
schoolers, 34 junior high students and 31 high school
pupils.

Political beliefs represented primarily the moderately
conservative system closely followed by those who
represent the middle-of-the-road political philosophy.

Religious representation was primarily Protestant.

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents had com-
pleted college.

The addict group showed a significantly lower educa-
tional achievement.

Most of those with college training had prepared
in the field of education.

Nearly half of the respondents had between 1 and 5
years experience in their field. The second most
prevalent group had between 6 and 10 years experi-
ence in their field (see Table 4.10).

Drug Opinion Data

 

Items 13 through 25 were designed to assess the Opinions

of the respondents regarding drug use by youth in their

66

community, the legalization Of marijuana, the involvement of
organized crime with regard to hard drugs, the availability
Of heroin under medical supervision, drug education programs,
and the causes for non-medical use of drugs by young peOple.

In responding to Item 13 the respondents reported that
over eighty-eight percent Of them considered drug use by
young people in their community had increased and sixty per-
cent believe drugs to be a major problem (Item 18).
Additionally, thirty-five percent of the respondents were of
the opinion that the increase in drug use was rapid while
thirty-eight percent thought the increase to be slow (Item 20).

Item 14 deals with the current controversy over the
legalization of marijuana. On the whole, the reaction to this
proposition was negative although this was not the case within
the groups. Table 4.11 provides an analysis of the opinions
for group comparison on this subject. Regarding the findings
reported in Table 4.11 with respect to the legalization of
marijuana, it can be noted that the addict, vocational-
rehabilitation counselor, and male parent groups were the
groups most in favor Of its legalization. Least in favor of
this Option were the law enforcement personnel and certain
of the teacher groups. It should also be noted that a sig-
nificant number Of the respondents reported they were unsure
in this regard.

Item 15 regards the relationship Of organized crime to

hard narcotics. Over eighty-eight percent of the respondents

67

consider organized crime to be the controlling factor in hard
drugs.

Items 16 and 17 reflect on the availability of heroin
under medical supervision similar to the English system where
Opiate addiction is considered a medical problem and not a
function Of the police or of the criminal courts. The majority
of the respondents considered that there would be no signifi-
cant change in heroin addiction, but that there would be a
substantial reduction in crime.

Items 21, 22, and 23 are related to drug education pro-
grams in the school. It can be noted that:

l. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents felt that

drug education programs in the schools that had drug

education programs were inadequate.

2. Approximately eighty percent stated that drug educa-
tion should begin in the primary grades.

3. Ninety-three percent of the respondents indicated
they would be supportive of drug education programs
if they were offered in the schools.

Item 24 asked the respondents to rank the causes for
drug use by young people. In the order of most importance
they considered the causes to be:

1. Deterioration of the family unit.

2. Permissive society.

3. Boredom.

4. Continual world unrest.

It can be noted that the investigators and experts in the

field of drugs also consider these forces to be the factors

68

behind the increase of the non-medical use of drugs by young
people, although not necessarily in that order.

Item 25 asked the respondents if they suspected any of
their children's acquaintances to be drug users. Of the one
hundred twenty-five respondents with children:

1. Twenty-two percent suspected their children's
acquaintances to be drug users.

2. Sixty-five percent did not suspect any Of their
children's acquaintances of using drugs.

3. Thirteen percent were unsure.

Since fifty percent of the respondents' children were in
grade six or below, a sample in which more of the children
were older might have produced significantly different re-
Sponses.

The final item for discussion here is Item 50 which asked
if the respondent would accept an addict into his home.
Seventy percent of the respondents stated that they would not
accept this responsibility. An analysis of the group re-
sponses on this item is presented in Table 4.12.

It can be noted in Table 4.12 that the probation officer,
school administrator, school counselor, and two teacher
groups were solidly against acting as foster parents for
addicts. In favor of an activity of this nature were the law

enforcement, clergy, and addict groups.

69

 

Attitude Analysis

This portion of the analysis of the data considers the
research questions which were presented in Chapter I. The two
null hypotheses which were generated from the research ques-
tions were tested through the responses to the twenty-four
vignettes, Items 26 through 49 of the Drug Addiction Treatment
Attitude Survey. Herein, the respondents were instructed to
assign the subjects described in the vignettes to a drug treat-
ment program. A description Of the treatment programs is in-

cluded with the vignettes, see Appendix A.

Testing the Hypotheses

The one hundred sixty—eight respondents were classified
into fourteen groups which were based upon their occupations.
Two groups are pertinent to the study, although they cannot be
considered as occupations were the parents and the addicts.

Null hypothesis number one stated:

There is no significant difference in the attitudes held

by school administrators, school teachers, school counse—

lors, law enforcement personnel, probation officers,

members of the clergy, vocational-rehabilitation counse-

lors, drug addicts, and parents as measured by the Drug

Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey concerning drug

treatment programs for youthful addicts.

This hypothesis was tested twenty-four times using a one-
way analysis of variance across the fourteen groups with each
vignette serving as a separate dependent variable. Therefore,

this hypothesis in actuality is considered as twenty-four

separate null hypotheses. Table 4.13 presents the mean score

70

of each vignette for all the fourteen groups.

It can be seen that vignettes number 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, ll,
15, 16, 17, 21, and 22 show significance at the .05 level of
confidence. This means that the fourteen groups varied sig-
nificantly in their attitudes concerning drug treatment pro-
grams for the youthful addicts described in the vignettes.
Therefore, those eleven of the twenty-four null hypotheses are
rejected. It can be concluded that, on the basis of the eleven
vignettes, the fourteen groups hold different attitudes regard-
ing the assignment of drug addicts to drug treatment programs
which calls for rejection of null hypothesis number one.

Null hypothesis number two stated:

There is no significant difference in the attitudes held

by school administrators, school teachers, school counse-

lors, law enforcement personnel, probation officers,

members of the clergy, vocational-rehabilitation counse-

lors, drug addicts, and parents as measured by the Drug

Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey concerning drug

treatment programs for youthful addicts as a function of

the addict's race, sex, intelligence, socio-economic

status, family situation, school attendance, or record

of arrests and illegal activity.

This hypothesis was tested seven times using a repeated
measures analysis of variance. The levels of the measures

factors were:

1. Race: Mexican-American, Black, White, American-
Indian.

2. Sex: Male, Female.
3. Intelligence: Above Average, Average, Below Average.
4. Socio-economic status: High, Medium, Low.

5. Family situation: Good, Poor.

71

6. School attendance: Regular, Irregular.

7. Record of arrests and illegal activity: Neutral,
Negative, Very Negative (Neutral activity would
be of a non-criminal nature--negative activities
would include acts such as theft or burglary--very
negative would indicate drug peddling, prostitution,
and crimes that indicate the possibility of bodily
harm).

Each repeated measures analysis resulted in three sep-
arate tests of the hypothesis. The first tested the mean dif-
ferences in the attitudes of the fourteen groups collapsed
across all the vignettes. The second tested the differences
across two, three, or four levels of the repeated measures
collapsed across all groups. The third analysis tested the
interaction between groups and levels of the repeated measures.
The tables in Appendix D summarize the attitude data with
respect to the three enumerated hypothesis tests. The means
depicted on these tables are based on a scale of from one to
five. On the scale a score of five represents a wholly puni-
tive attitude toward the treatment of drug addicts while a
score of one would represent a therapeutic approach in the
treatment of drug addiction.

Table 4.14 shows that, on the average, the respondent
groups were most punitive toward Blacks and least punitive
toward American Indians. It can be noted, however, that the
Law Enforcement group showed a reverse of this trend and was
most punitive toward Whites. The overall attitudes indicated
the Law Enforcement group to be the most punitive with respect

to race while the Probation Officer and Clergy groups were

least punitive.

72

Table 4.15 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance. The test for the mean differences
across the fourteen groups was significant at the .05 level
of confidence. There was also a significant difference be-
tween the means of the vignettes as a function of the addict's
race with the respondents being more punitive toward Blacks.
There was no interaction between the groups and measures.

This means that each of the fourteen groups was roughly equally
more punitive toward Blacks than any other racial category.

Table 4.16 shows that the respondent groups were more
punitive toward males than females. Regarding this measure
the Law Enforcement group was considerably more punitive than
any of the other groups. The Probation Officer group was the
least punitive of the groups.

Table 4.17 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance. The test for the mean differences
across the fourteen groups was significant at the .05 level of
confidence as a function of the addict's sex. There was also
a significant difference between the means of the vignettes
as a function of the addict's sex with the respondents being
more punitive toward males. There was no interaction between
groups and measures. This means that each of the fourteen
groups was equally more punitive toward males than females.

Table 4.18 shows that, on the average, the respondent
groups were most punitive toward addicts with below average

intelligence and least punitive toward those of average

73

intelligence. This pattern was reversed, however, by most of
the teacher groups and the parent groups who were most puni—
tive toward those addicts of above average intelligence.

Table 4.19 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance utilizing the categories of intelligence.
The test for the mean differences across the fourteen groups
was significant at the .05 level of confidence as was the
test for the differences between the means which showed the
groups being most punitive toward addicts of below average
intelligence and least punitive toward drug addicts with
average intelligence. The test for interaction also showed
significance as can be seen from the graph-in Figure 4.1.

The representation shows that all the fourteen groups were not
equally punitive toward the addicts with regard to their in—
telligence. The most obvious instances of interaction occur
in the Law Enforcement group and the Social Science Teacher
Group.

Table 4.20 shows that, on the average, the respondent
groups were most punitive toward addicts with a medium socio-
economic status and least punitive toward addicts from a low
socio-economic background. This pattern was reversed by the
Law Enforcement group which was significantly more punitive
toward addicts from the low socio-economic level and least
punitive toward addicts from a high socio-economic level.

Table 4.21 presents the results of the repeated measures

analysis of variance utilizing the categories of socio-economic

74

status. The test for the mean differences across the four-
teen groups was significant at the .05 level of confidence as
was the test for the differences between the means which
showed the groups being most punitive toward addicts from a
medium socio-economic background.- There was no interaction
between the groups and measures. This means that each of the
fourteen groups was roughly equally more punitive toward
addicts from a medium socio-economic background.

Table 4.22 indicates that the respondent groups were more
punitive toward addicts with a good family situation. The
most punitive group was Law Enforcement and the least punitive
being the Probation Officer group.

Table 4.23 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance utilizing the categories of family situ—
ation. The test for the mean differences across the fourteen
groups was significant at the .05 level of confidence as was
the test for the differences between the means which showed
the groups being most punitive toward addicts from a good
family situation. There was no interaction between the groups
and measures. This means that each of the fourteen groups was
lroughly equally more punitive toward addicts from a good
family background.

Table 4.24 shows that the respondent groups were more
punitive toward addicts with irregular school attendance.

This pattern was reversed, however, by the parent and Clergy

groups who were more punitive toward addicts with regular

75

school attendance. The Law Enforcement personnel were sig-
nificantly more punitive than any of the other groups.

Table 4.25 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance utilizing the categories of school at-
tendance. The test for the mean differences across the four-
teen groups was significant at the .05 level of confidence
as was the test for the differences between the means which
showed the groups being most punitive toward addicts with
irregular school attendance. The test for interaction also
showed significance as can be seen in the graph in Figure 4.2.
The representation shows that all the fourteen groups were
not equally punitive toward the addicts with regard to school
attendance. The most obvious instances of interaction occur
in the Law Enforcement group and also the parent and Clergy
groups.

Table 4.26 shows that the respondents were most punitive
toward addicts with a very negative record of arrests and il-
legal activity. It should be noted also that addicts with a
negative record of arrests and illegal activities received
less punitive treatment than did addicts with a neutral record
of arrests and illegal activities. The Clergy, however,
showed a reverse pattern regarding this function.

Table 4.27 presents the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance utilizing the categories of record of
arrests and illegal activity. The test for the mean differ-

ences was significant as was the test for the differences

76

between the means. The test for interaction also showed sig-
nificance as can be seen in the graph of Figure 4.3. This
means that not all the groups were equally punitive toward
the addicts with regard to their record of arrests and illegal
activity. The School Counselor, Social Science Teacher, and
Clergy groups indicate the most obvious instances of inter-
action.

In summarizing the responses to the 24 vignettes it can
be stated:

1. There was a significant difference in the attitudes
of the groups in eleven of the twenty-four vignettes.

2. There was a significant difference in the average of
the attitudes across all twenty-four of the Vignettes.

3. There was a significant difference in the attitudes
of the groups toward the different categories of race,
sex, intelligence, socio-economic status, family Situ-
ation, school attendance, and record of arrests and
illegal activity.

4. There was a significant interaction between groups and
levels of intelligence, school attendance, and record
of arrests and illegal activity.

On the basis of the tests administered to the hypotheses

and the levels of significance obtained, both null hypotheses

were rejected.

Interview Data

 

From the beginning of this study the researcher has con-

sidered the interview technique a necessary adjunct to an

investigation of this nature.

3C4

In
tb‘i

.
b4;

'1
(D

0 'I
(1

n
‘41
4

L1")

(L

(D

77

Some readers may deem the interview technique to be less
scientific than other research systems because of the possi-
bilities of the bias or of the researcher of being "put-on"
by those being interviewed. These considerations aside, it
must be stated that the researcher had no real feeling for the
actual workings of the drug culture or the perceptions of
those individuals to whom drugs and drug users had become a
reality until many of the interviews had been concluded.

With particular regard to the Addict group, several in-
formal meetings were necessary before an addict would even
guardedly discuss his situation. These personal experiences
give validity to Pope's conclusions as he writes:

Many drug users are far too disenchanted with society to

respond openly to someone who used such straight tech—

niques as taking notes, distributing questionnaires, or
even informal interviewing. Even if the interviewer were
under thirty and had long hair, I shudder to think of

the result if he asked an acid—head to rate himself on a

scale of one to five. A researcher who tried to reduce

people to numbers would be fair game for a put-on.2

Many of those interviewed verbalized some discomfort re-
garding the questionnaire. They stated that insufficient
information had been provided regarding the individuals
described in the vignettes about whom they were to make deci-
sions. Most of the respondents agreed with the researcher,
however, that frequent decisions of equal magnitude, with

particular regard to students, are registered on even less

information.

 

2Harrison Pope, Jr., Voices From the Drug Culture (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1971), p. 126.

 

78

Most of those interviewed expressed genuine concern and
anxiety regarding their perceptions of the drug problem.
Nearly all transmitted a feeling of futility about drugs and
feared the situation would worsen considerably in the near
future. In reviewing the most frequently articulated thoughts
and opinions it can be summarized that:

l. The school received considerable blame for allowing
drugs to spread so rapidly. The school's refusal
to teach the truth about drugs and to "get tough"
with the pushers indicates a tacit approval of drugs
and drug users.

2. The police don't concentrate enough time and energy
in seeking out the sources of drug supply. They are
content in just arresting the drug users.

3. School personnel assumed a defensive posture in that
they felt they have been given an impossible task--
that the behavior of young people is a parent re-
sponsibility and that the schools were neither
equipped, empowered, or able to cope with the drug
problem.

4. The courts were felt to be unrealistic in their
handling of drug offenders. Too many go free or are
given such light sentences that "justice" is a mockery.

5. Marijuana should be legalized--its less harmful than
alcohol, and besides, the laws are unenforceable.

6. Penalties for the use of marijuana are not stiff
enough--its use leads to hard drugs.

7. The church has ignored its responsibility to youth.
They spend too much time preaching to the people who
don't need it.

8. ”Adults are too involved with their own "hang-ups" to
be concerned with young people. They [the adults]
don't communicate--they don't even try to communi-
cate."

9. "They've [the parents and the school] lied to us so
much about everything else, they're probably lying
about drugs too."

79

10. "School is so bad, I have to get stoned [high on
drugs] so I can stand it."

The final three comments were those of young peOple who
made these statements in conversations with the researcher on
the campus of Michigan State University and in screening
sessions for drug treatment programs in which the researcher
participated.

Comments from the drug users, both those who were in
treatment programs and those who were not, were equally en-
lightening. They did, however, present a particular set of
problems. Most of them were involved in an illegal activity
and not inclined to Openness. Many of those interviewed who
were in the methadone maintenance program tended to romanti-
cize their situation as being in a special category of "Super-
Junkie" and, therefore, above most drug users. Many, however,
fully enjoyed articulating their feelings, and did so at
length.

Some of the most frequently expressed opinions of the
drug users included: i

l. "The police and the prosecutor's office have the most

to say about who goes to jail and who gets treatment.
If the arresting officer turns in a "good" report on
you the courts tend to be more lenient."

2. "Junkies [drug addicts] are easy to find and convict.

If the prosecutor is trying to make a record for him-
self, you're on your way to Jackson [Jackson Prison]."

3. "The cops don't seem to be as hard on the junkies as

they used to be. Someone in their own family must be
on dope."

80

4. "In-residence treatment programs are bad—-they treat
you like dogs. They take away all your self-respect.
I don't have to be told I'm shit, I know that al-
ready. Most of the cats split [run away] anyway.
They're worse than Jackson--I'd rather go to Jackson."

5. "If you're Black or look like a hippie they [the police
and the courts] hassle you all the time. Black means
dead around here."

6. "No one ever asked me if I wanted to come to a treat-
ment program. My mother had to beg on her knees to
get the judge to let me come here."

7. "Treatment programs aren't for everybody. You've got
to want to quit doing drugs--no one can make you
quit."

8. “There's more junkies nowadays, but they're smarter
and the c0ps seem to look the other way."

9. "The increase in people doing [using] drugs is real
bad in the junior high and high school. The young
kids are really going crazy in this town. You can
get all the junk [drugs] you want at school."

10. "When you come up with something better, we'll quit
doing drugs."

Summary

The analysis presented in this chapter sought to identify
the respondents through the demographic data and to assess
the respondents' Opinions about drugs and drug users. This
information is presented and summarized in Tables 4.1 through
4.12.

In addition, this chapter presented an analysis of the
respondents' attitudes about drugs and drug addicts through
their responses to the hypothetical vignettes in the Drug

Addiction Treatment Attitude Survey. This information is

81

presented in Tables 4.13 through 4.27 and in Figures 4.1
through 4.3.

In exploring the means of the repeated measures analy-
ses it can be concluded that the respondents were:

1. Most punitive toward Blacks, followed in order by
Whites, Mexican-Americans and American Indians.

2. More punitive toward males than females.

3. Most punitive toward drug addicts with below average
intelligence.

4. Most punitive toward drug addicts with a medium
socio-economic status.

5. More punitive toward drug addicts with a good family
situation.

6. More punitive toward drug addicts with irregular
school attendance.

7. Most punitive toward drug addicts whose record of
arrests and illegal activity were considered very
negative.

The two final tables relative to this chapter are sum-
maries of the attitude data. Table 4.28 presents the grand
means of the twenty-four vignettes as a comparison of the most
and least punitive respondent groups by vignette. Table 4.29
offers a comparison of the respondent groups with regard to a
punitive group attitude. This was developed using the average
of the means within each group. It can be noted by overall
average that the most punitive group was the Law Enforcement
personnel and the least punitive the Probation Officer group.

The conclusions and recommendations are presented in

Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

There seems to be agreement that the use of drugs by
young people in our country has become a critical problem of
national concern. Our daily newspapers keep us informed of
the continuing increase in drug related crimes against people
and property, of the rock-music concerts that draw thousands
of youth and leave some behind—-dead from drug overdose, or
the frequent instances of civil disobedience that frequently
feature and promote drugs as thg_way of life for some youth.

It would seem difficult to find anyone of reasonable
ability who does not consider himself knowledgeable and aware
of drugs and the culture that drugs has spawned. It would
appear even more difficult to find an individual who does not
feel his opinions of what to do about drugs and drug users
to be both valid and viable.

The flood of literature related to drugs is of itself
epidemic. There appears to be no end of books that tell of
either how "bad" or "good" drugs are. America is a nation

well aware of drugs, the drug scene, and the drug problem.

82

83

Conclusions

 

The major purpose of this study was to identify the atti-
tudes related to drugs, drug addiction, and drug addicts by
adults who are considered to have the greatest impact upon
the fate of drug addicts. The non-medical use of drugs is a
criminal offense and an individual convicted on drug charges
usually faces a jail or prison sentence. The alternatives to
incarceration are drug treatment programs. These programs
range from in-residence therapeutic treatment programs to a
few prison sponsored ones. The courts decide the addict's
future as based upon the judiciary's perceptions of what best
suits the addict and society. These perceptions, it was
learned, may be formulated through the input of those con-
sidered individuals closest to the drug addict.

These individuals made up the sample for this study, with
the population being the metropolitan Flint, Michigan area.
The data was gathered through the use of an instrument designed
by the researcher with the assistance of the members of the
guidance committee.

The major findings based on the analysis of the data

 

were:

1. There was a significant difference in the attitudes
of the reSpondents regarding the assignment of drug
addicts to drug treatment programs.

2. There was a significant difference in the attitudes
of the respondents as a function of the addict's
race, sex, intelligence, socio-economic status“
family situation, school attendance, and record of
arrests and illegal activity.

84

3. There was significant interaction between respondent
groups and levels of intelligence, school attendance,
and record of arrests and illegal activity.

4. The respondents were most punitive toward blacks.

5. The respondents were most punitive toward individuals
of low intelligence.

6. Law enforcement personnel were most punitive in their
overall attitudes.

7. Probation officers were least punitive in their over-
all attitudes.

8. School counselors were significantly less punitive
than vocational-rehabilitation counselors.

The data also revealed that:

l. The vast majority of the respondents (97 percent) felt
drug education programs in the schools were inade-
quate.

2. Eighty percent of the respondents felt drug education
'should begin in the primary grades.

3. The reason given by most of the respondents for youth's
preoccupation with drugs was the deterioration of the
family unit.

4. Seventy percent of the respondents would not consider
taking a youthful addict into their home for purposes
of rehabilitation.

From these conclusions and from the data gained through
the personal interviews the researcher made the following
interpretations:

1. Race would be a significant factor in the assignment

of drug addicts to drug treatment programs as is

indicated in the punitive attitude toward Blacks.

2. The schools of the area are not providing adequate
drug education programs.

3. The schools of the area are either not listening to
the wishes of the community regarding the provision
of adequate drug-education programs or the community
is not articulating its wishes.

85

4. The majority of the respondents do not want to "get
involved" with the drug problem.

5. School personnel, in particular, were most punitive
toward individuals with low intelligence and those
with irregular school attendance.

6. Some respondent groups did not appear very realistic
in their recommendations of drug treatment programs
for addicts. It seems inconceivable that one treat-
ment program would be recommended for most or all
addicts.

7. There appeared to be little articulation between drug
programs and related agencies and little c00peration
between the drug treatment programs themselves.

It can be noted that some groups were significantly more
punitive than others in electing drug treatment programs for
the individuals described in the vignettes. This might lead
one to conclude that the groups emphasizing less punitive
means consider jail or prison to be an ineffective form of
treatment and that in-residence therapy was the best alterna-
tive.

This conclusion cannot stand without inquiry, however,
for one must ask if this type of thinking differs significantly
from the philosophy that promotes the institutionalization of
the mentally retarded. According to the drug addicts inter-
viewed many of the in-residence programs are as difficult as
prison and some are worse. The effectiveness of some in-
residence drug treatment programs is clearly open to question

when, as Louria notes:

The figures from the narcotic rehabilitation unit at
Lexington, Kentucky, for example, show that 95 percent

86

of the peOple leaving that institution use heroin again
within a period of six months.1

Indeed, most of the drug addicts interviewed by the
researcher considered in-residence drug treatment programs to
be little more than a method construed by the courts to
separate them from society while causing them to suffer cruel

and unusual treatment--an adequate substitute for prison.

Recommendations

 

It would appear obvious that there are no easy answers
to a situation as complex as the drug problem. It might be
argued that it is not a matter of whether or not we want drug
addicts, it is a matter of fact that we have them. What we
do with them becomes the crucial decision.

It has been demonstrated that the attitudes of those
persons who are considered to have the greatest impact upon
the fate of the drug addict differ significantly. These dif-
ferences are undoubtedly due to differing perceptions regard-
ing drugs and drug addiction. Perceptions, we are told, can
be changed through the addition of information.

The review of the literature demonstrated the
reasons for the continued non-medical use of drugs to be con-
siderable. Therefore, it would not appear likely that one

type of treatment program would benefit every drug addict.

 

lDonald Louria, The Drug Scene (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1970), p. 163.

 

87

Moreover, the many drug users contacted by the writer stated
that no program would work unless the user wanted to be re-
habilitated.

The researcher concluded there to be a significant lack
of information about drugs and drug addiction on the parts
of many of the respondents. This can be corrected only
through a concerted program of education regarding drugs and
drug users for those people who would have contact with the
drug users. To the researcher this most aptly effects school
personnel when it is considered that what was a relatively
minor problem in colleges is now a major one in the grade
schools and high schools. This then becomes a problem for all
communities.

As stated, most problems are usually problems because of
a lack of knowledge and the reliance on stereotypes. There-
fore, the community must, in a rational manner:

1. Become aware of the truth about drugs and addiction
through education of the adult population by reliable sources
who do not tend to exaggerate, sensationalize, or moralize.

2. Become aware of the extent of the drug problem in
their community.

3. Require the schools to include, as a separate part of
the curriculum, reasonable drug education programs for all
students. It would be assumed that if the community con—
sidered drug education to be necessary in the primary grades,

it would be offered in the primary grades.

88

4. Require the schools to provide properly trained staff
members who would present drugs factually and objectively.

5. Demand that the media act in a reSponsible manner
regarding drugs by refraining from the exaggerated and sensa-
tionalized treatment now given the drug culture.

6. Concentrate on workable methods of combating drug
abuse. Be aware that the general reasons youth turns to drugs
is because Of alienation, peer pressure, boredom, curiosity,
frustration, and fun. It is necessary to provide socially
acceptable alternatives for drugs.

7. Educate parents to their responsibilities to the
young by making the fact plain that the adult world often
contributes to the drug menace by failing to provide facts
about drugs, by showing excessive dependence on both prescrip—
tion and non—prescription drugs, or by ignoring their responsi—
bilities as parents.

8. Provide Opportunities that allow young people to
participate in community activities designed to control drug
use. The drug scene too often provides the sense of community
for youth that is lacking elsewhere.

9. Provide for frequent and systematic evaluation of both
drug education and drug treatment programs that would allow
for change when and where necessary in order to keep such pro-
grams functioning optimally.

10. Provide the necessary guidance and direction for drug

treatment programs so as to prevent their becoming political

89

pawns wherein the drug addict is given little or no consider-
ation.

ll. Undoubtedly one Of the major problems Of communica—
tion between the different groups vitally involved in the drug
problems are because of the vastly differing perceptions held
by the groups. Perhaps these perceptions might be brought
into focus and the differences reduced through the effort Of
community workshOps and other cooperative ventures that would

promote greater consensus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 

AdornO, T. W., and others. The Authoritarian Personality.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1950.

 

Aldrich, Michael, and others. Drugs For and Against.
New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1970.

 

Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1958.

 

Armore, Sidney J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and
Inferencegor Psychology and Education. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1967.

 

 

Ausubel, D. P.“ Drug Addiction: Physiological, Psychological,
and Sociological Aspects. New York: Random House, 1968.

 

 

Barber, Theodore X. LSD, Marijuana, Yoga, and Hypnosis.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970.

 

Berman, Louise M. New Priorities in the Curriculum.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1968.

 

Blachly, Paul H. M.D. (ed.). Drug Abuse Data and Debate.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1970.

 

Bloomquist, Edward R., M.D. Marijuana: The Second Trip.
Beverley Hills, Calif.: Glencoe Press, 1971.

 

Blum, Richard H. and associates. Society and Drugs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970.

Chein, Isidor, and others. The Road to H. New York: Basic
Books Inc., 1964.

 

Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys. New York: The Free Press,
1955.

 

Cohen, Sidney. The Drug Dilemma. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1969.

 

90

91

Goble, Frank. The Third Force. New York: Pocket Books,
1971.

 

Gold, Harry, and Frank R. Scarpitti (eds.). Combating Social
Problems: Techniques of Intervention. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1967.

 

 

Goode, Erich. The Marijuana Smokers. New York: Basic Books
Inc., 1971.

 

Harris, Richard. The Fear of Crime. New York: Frederick A
Praeger, 1969.

 

Harsh, Charles M., and H. G. Schrickel. Personality Develop-
ment and Assessment. New York: The Ronald Press Co.,
1950.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehard, and
Winston, 1963.

 

Hechinger, Grace and Fred M. Teen-age Tyranny. New York:
William Morrow and Co., 1963.

Kvaraceus, William C. Dynamics of Delinquency. Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966.

Kvaraceus, William C. and others. Poverty, Edugation and
Race Relations: Studies and Proposals. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc., 1967.

Keniston, Kenneth. The Uncommitted. New York: Dell Publish-
ing Co., 1970.

 

Leech, Kenneth, and Brenda Jordan. Drugs For Young People:
Their Use and Misuse. Oxford: The Religious Education

Press Ltd., 1968.

 

Louria, Donald B. The Drug Scene. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, I968.

 

. Nightmare Drugs. New York: Pocket Books, 1966.

 

Lukas, Anthony J. "The Drug Scene: Dependence Grows,"
Social Profile: U. S. A. Today. From The New York
Times (New York: Van Hostrand Reinhold Co., 1970), pp.
385-399.

Moscow, Alvin. Merchants of Heroin. New York: Dial Press
Inc., 1968.

Niederhoffer, Arthur. Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban
Society. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1967.

92

Nowlis, Helen H. Drugs on the College Campus. Garden City:
Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1969.

 

Pope, Harrison Jr. Voices From the Drug Culture. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1971.

 

Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom. New York:
Random House, 1970.

 

Smith, David E. (ed.). The New Social Drug. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

Strauss, Nathan III. Addicts and Drug Abusers. New York:
Twane Publishers Inc., 1971.

 

Thrasher, Frederic M. The Gang. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1967.

Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House,
1970.

 

Underhill, Ruth M. The Navajos. Norman: University Of
Oklahoma, 1956.

 

Vedder, Clyde B. Juvenile Offenders. Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas, 1967.

 

., and Barbara A. Kay. Penology. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas, 1969.

Weinswig, Melvin H., and Dale W. Doerr. Drug Abuse: A Course
for Educators. Indianapolis: Butler University, 1968.

 

Wilkerson, David, John and Elizabeth Sherrill. The Cross and
the Switchblade. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell, 1964.

 

 

Yablonsky, Lewis. Synanon: The Tunnel Back. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1969.

Periodicals

Alsop, Steward. "To Save Our Cities," Newsweek, Vol. LXXIX,
NO. 15 (April 10, 1972), P. 96.

Ball, John C., William 0. Thompson, and David M. Allen.
Readmission Rates at Lexington Hospital For 43,215
Narcotic Drug Addicts," Public Health Report, Vol. 85,
NO. 7 (July, 1970), pp. 610-616.

93

Berger, Ellis, and Lou Tassc. "A Community Strikes Back
With Pride," Community Education, Vol. I, No. 2 (May,
1972)! pp. 22-24.

 

Burbridge, Thomas N. "Marijuana: An Overview," Journal of
Secondary Education, Vol. 43, NO. 5 (May, 1968), pp.
197-199.

 

 

Christopher, Richard Lance, and Joel Simon Hochman.
"Marijuana," Human Behavior, Vol. 1, NO. 1 (January—
February, 1972i, pp. 60-65.

 

Collier, Bernard. "The Grassing Of America," Saturday Review,
Vol. LV, NO. 31 (July 29, 1972), pp. 12-14.

 

Dalrypmle, Willard. "The Youth Revolution--It is Over and
It Has Won," Intellectual Digest, Vol. II, NO. 11 (July,
1972), PP. 80-81.

 

Demos, George D. "Drug Abuse and the New Generation,“
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. L, NO. 4 (December 1968), pp.
214—217.

 

Etzioni, Amitai. "Human Beings Are Not Very Easy to Change
After All," Saturday Review (June 3, 1972), pp. 45—47.

 

Grinspoon, Lester and Peter Hedblom. "Amphetamines Recon-
sidered," Saturday Review, Vol. LV, NO. 28 (July 8, 1972),
pp. 33-46.

 

. "Half a Loaf: A Reaction to the Marijuana Report,"
Saturday Review (April 15, 1972), pp. 21-22.

 

Harrison, Charles H. "The Drug Epidemic--What's A Teacher
To DO?" Scholastic Teacher (May 4, 1970), pp. 4-12.

 

Irwin, Samuel. "Drugs of Abuse, An Introduction to Their
Actions and Potential Hazards," The Journal of Psyche-
delic Drugs (1970), pp. 5-15.

 

Jaffe, Jerome. "Whatever Turns You Off," Psycholognyoday,
Vol. 3, NO. 12 (May, 1970), pp. 42-44.

Lasagna, Louis. "The Many Faces of Drug Abuse," Modern
Medicine (April 6, 1970), PP. 144-175.

Lewis, David C. "How the Schools Can Prevent Drug Abuse,"
Bulletin Of the NationaliAssociatign of Secondary
§ghool Principals, Vol. 54, NO. 345 (May, 1970), pp.
45-46.

 

94

Linden, Eugene. "The Demoralization of an Army: Fragging
and Other Withdrawal Symptoms," Saturday Review
(January 8, 1972), pp. 12—55.

 

Marin, Peter. "Children Of Yearning," Saturday Review (May 6,
1972): PP. 58—63.

 

Moore, Samuel A. II. "Blown Minds Have Us All Shook Up--
Still: Two Observations on the School and Drugs,"
Michigan Journal Of Secondary‘Education, VOl. 10, NO. 3
(Spring, 1969), pp. 40-43.

 

National School Public Relations Association. "Drug Abuse
Crisis Requires Drastic Attack," Ohio School Board
Association Journal (March, 1972), pp. 18-19.

 

 

Staff Reporter, "The Campus Drug Scene," Newsweek, Vol. LXXIX,
NO. 8 (February 21, 1972), p. 80.

Staff Reporter. "Drive to Curb Hard Drugs Gets a Number One
Priority," U. S. News and World Report, Vol. LXXII, NO.
14 (April 3, 1972), pp. 36-45.

 

Staff Reporter. "The Heroin Plague: What Can Be Done?"
Newsweek, Vol. LXXVII, NO. 1 (July 5, 1971), pp. 27-32.

Staff Reporter. "Newsletter/Social Science-~Psychology,"
Intellectual Digest, Vol. II, NO. 8 (April, 1972), p. 80°

 

Staff Reporter. "Personnel: A Drug on the Market," Newsweek,
Vol. LXXIX, NO. 13 (March 27, 1972), p. 90.

Staff Reporter. "Quarantining Addicts," Time, Vol. 99, NO.
21 (May 22, 1972), p. 70.

Staff Reporter. "Sayonara Heroin," Time, Vol. 99, NO. 25,
(June 19, 1972), p. 61.

Today's Education. A. A. S. A. Edition. "What the U. S.
Office of Education is Doing About Drug Education,"
N. E. A. Vol. 61, NO. 2 (February, 1972), pp. 33—40.

 

Weil, Andrew. "Man's Inate Need: Getting High," Intellectual
Digest, Vol. II, NO. 12 (August 1972), pp. 69-71.

Weinswig, M. H., D. W. Doerr, and S. E. Weinswig. “Drug
Abuse Education," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. L, NO. 4
(December, 1968), p. 222.

Wilson, Ron. "High on the Campus," Moody Monthly (March,
1971): pp. 83-85.

 

95

Winick, Charles, and Paul M. Kinsie. "Prostitutes,“
Psychology Today, Vol. 5, NO. 9 (February, 1972), pp.
57-94 0

 

Other Publications

 

Brown, Brian J. (ed.). A Time Guide to Drugs and the Young,
New York: The Time Education Program, 1968.

 

Canadian Addiction Research Foundation. A Preliminarnyeport
on Attitudes and Behaviour of Toronto Students in Rela—
tion to Drugs. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation,
January 1969.

 

 

The Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry. The Non-
Medical Use of Drugs. Canada: Information Canada, 1970.

 

Densen-Gerber, Judianne J. D. The Odyssey House Method.
New York, 1971.

Detroit Free Press. March 30, 1972, p. 3, col. 2.

DruggAbuse: A Manual for Law Enforcement Officers. Revised
7th Edution, Philadelphia: Smith, Kline, and French
Laboratories, December, 1971.

Drugs--197O The Issues on Trial. Position Paper V, "The
Emphasis: Public Mental Health,“ An Advisory Proceeding,
Pontiac, Michigan, 1970.

 

Flint Journal (Michigan). March 26, 1972, p. 2, cols. 3-5.

 

Flint Journal (Michigan). April 20, 1972, p. 17, cols. 1-6.

 

Gross, Jack E. (ed.). Respect for Drugs. A Manual of the
.College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Columbia University,
New York, December, 1968.

 

Irwin, Samuel. Drugs of Abuse. San Francisco: The Student
Association for the Study of Hallucinogens, 1970.

 

Michigan Department of Education. A Teacher Resource Guide
for Drug Use‘and Abuse for Michigan's Schoois. Lansing,
Michigan, 1970.

National Advisory Commission of Civil Disorders. Report of
the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.
New York: The New York Times Co., 1968.

 

96

National Association of Blue Shield Plans. Drug Abuse: The
Chemical Cop-Out. Chicago: Chicago Airlie Productions,
1970.

 

The National Institute Of Mental Health. "The Next Step."
Lansing, Michigan: The Office Of Drug Abuse.

Sakamoto, Paul S. "A Study of Drug Abuse Education Programs
of Selected Public High Schools in Michigan." Unpub-
1ished Doctoral dissertation, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1971.

State Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida.
Alcohol-—Narcotics Education. Dallas: Tane Press, 1967.

 

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Resource
Book for Drug Abuse Education. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1969.

 

U. S. Department of Justice. A Community Program Guide-~Drug
Abuse Education. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1970.

 

U. S. Superintendent of Documents. Fact Sheets. Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing OffiEe.

What is Rubicon House? Pamphlet by Rubicon House. Flint,
Michigan.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ATTITUDE SURVEY

97

98

APPENDIX A

DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ATTITUDE SURVEY

Sex: 1. male___ 2. female___

Race: 1. Black;_+_ 2. Mexican-American___ 3. White___
4. American Indian___ 5. Oriental___

Age: 1. 15-l9___' 2. 20-24___ 3. 25-29___. 4. 30-34___
5. 35-39___ 6. 40-44___ 7. 45-49___ 8. 50-54___
9. 55—59____ 10. 60-64____

Marital Status:
1. married____ 2. single___ 3. divorced___
4. separated____ 5. widowed

Please indicate the number of children you have in the

following categories:

1. pre-school 2. K-6 3. jr. high

4. high school 5. college

6. post-school

Please specify which best indicates your political belief:

1. strongly conservative 4. liberal

2. moderately conservative 5. left

3. middle-Of-the-road

Religion:
1. Catholic____ 3. Jewish____ 5. None____
2. Protestant___ 4. Other___
Education: (please indicate your highest educational

attainment)

less than 8 years

completed grade school

completed high school

U'l-bWNH
0

less than 4 years college

less than 4 years high school

6, completed college
7. masters degree___
8. Ed. Specialist___
9. EdD or PhD___

99

9. If you have a college education, your major in college:

1. Social Science___ 6. Education___

2. Math-Science___' 7. English-Language Arts___
3. Home Economics___. 8. Health--P.E.___

4. Foreign Language___ 9. Other___

5. Industrial Arts___
10. Please specify any other educational attainment not listed:
(trade or technical school, etc.)
11. Years in present position:
1. 1-5____ 2. 6-10___ 3. 11-15___ 4. 16-20___
5. 21-25____ 6. more than 25___
12. DO you intend to stay in your present field:
1. yes___ 2. no 3. unsure___

13. In recent years, do you feel the drug problem among young
people in your community has:

1. increased 2. decreased 3. remained the same

4. unsure
14. Should marijuana be legalized:
1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

15. DO you feel organized crime is behind the trade in heroin
and hard narcotics:

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

16. If heroin was made available for addicts under medical
supervision, as in England, do you feel there would:

1. be significantly more heroin addiction
2. be significantly less heroin addiction

3. be no significant change in heroin addiction

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

100

If heroin was made available for addicts under medical
supervision, as in England, would there be considerably:

1. more crime 2. less crime 3. no change

DO you feel drug use by young people is a major problem
in your community?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

DO you feel drug use by young people in your community is
increasing?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

Do you feel drug use by young people in your community is
increasing:

1. rapidly 2. slowly 3. not increasing

4. unsure
Regarding current drug education programs in the school,
are they:

1. adequate 2. inadequate 3. unsure

4. there are none
Should drug education in schools begin in:

1. primary grades 2. jr. high 3. high school
4. should not be taught in schools 5. unsure

If an intensive and extensive drug education program was
taught in the schools would you be:

1. supportive____ 2. Opposed___ 3. unsure____

Please rank what you feel the causes for drug use by
young people are: (l--the main cause, 2--the next, etc.)
1. hippies___' 6. movie and TV violence___

2. boredom___ 7. rapid change___

3. rock music____ 8. continual world unrest____
4. permissive society____ 9. poor schools____

5. deterioration of the family unit___

DO you suspect any of your children's acquaintances to be
drug users?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure 4. I have no children

Vig.

Item

26

27

28

29

30

101

Manuel D is a 16 year-Old Mexican-American male
with above average intelligence. Manuel is pro-
vided with a comfortable home by his parents who
work hard to make the family restaurant a success.
Manuel helps in the restaurant along with his
Older brother and sister. Manuel has regular
school attendance and he has no arrest record.
Manuel steals to support his habit.

l 2 3 4 5

Celia A. is a 15 year-Old black female of below
average intelligence. Celia lives with her mother,
two younger sisters, and an Older brother. The
family is on relief and the father is in prison.
Celia has had a child out of wedlock that lives
with her family. Celia's school attendance is ir-
regular. Her arrest record includes prostitution
and drug peddling. This is also her method of
Obtaining heroin.

1 2 3 4 5

Terri C is an attractive 16 year-Old white female
with below average intelligence. Terri's father
is a minister and in the middle income bracket.
Terri has an Older brother who is in college in
another state. Terri's mother is perpetually busy
with church, social, and philanthrOpic work.

Terri has regular school attendance and no arrest
record. Terri's drug need is supplied by her boy
friend.

1 2 3 4 5

Martha 0. is a 14 year-old black female with above
average intelligence. Martha's parents are both
professionals and provide an excellent living for
the family. Martha has a twin sister and younger
brother. Martha's school attendance is regular
and she has no arrest record. Martha's ample
allowance supports her habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Tina F. is an attractive and athletic 15 year-Old
Mexican-American female Of average intelligence.
Tina's father owns a successful bar and restaurant
and provides a good living for the family. Tina is

31

32

33

34

102

the youngest of four children, two of which are
still in the home. Tina's mother is in a mental
institution. Tina's school attendance is irregu-
lar and she has a record of petty theft. Tina
steals from the restaurant and uses her salary
and tips to support her habit.

l 2 3 4 5

Archie W. is a 16 year—old American Indian male

Of average intelligence. Archie's parents are
very poor and live on their tribal reservation.
Archie is in a government sponsored trade school.
Archie is in a boarding school and his attendance
is regular. Archie's arrest record includes break-
ing and entering and petty theft. Archie steals

to support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Tommy M. is a 14 year-Old Mexican-American male of
below average intelligence. Tommy's father and
mother are farm laborers and must follow the crOps
as seasonal workers. Tommy has eight brothers and
sisters, all of which are older. Tommy's school
attendance is irregular and his arrest record in-
cludes truancy, petty theft, and auto theft.

Tommy supports his habit by stealing.

1 2 3 4 5

Raul B. is a 14 year-Old Mexican-American male
with above average intelligence. Raul also has
considerable artistic ability. Raul's father is
a successful labor leader and provides a comfort-
able living for the family. Raul's mother died
when he was six years old and he was raised by an
Older sister and brother—in-law who live with the
family. Raul's father recently was married to a
much younger woman. Raul has irregular school
attendance and no arrest record. Raul sells drugs
to others to support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Hector X. is a 14 year-Old American Indian male

Of below average intelligence. Hector lives with
his mother and Older sister. The family is on
welfare. Hector's school attendance is irregular
and he has an arrest record which includes strong-
arm robbery, petty theft, and burglary.

Hector sells drugs to others to support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

10

11

12

13

14

35

36

37

38

39

103

Jack N. is a 16 year-old white male of below
average intelligence. Jack lives with his widowed
grandmother who is supported by a modest pension.
Jack's grandmother is deeply religious and devotes
much of her time to the church. Jack's attendance
in school is irregular and his arrest record in-
cludes petty theft and strong-arm robbery. Jack
steals to support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Allen I. is a 16 year-Old white male with above
average intelligence. Allen is both artistic and
athletic. Allen's druggist father provides a good
living for the family. Allen's mother is a con-
stant complainer. There are two younger children
in the home. Allen's school attendance is irregu-
lar and his arrest record includes truancy and
petty theft. Allen steals money and drugs from
his father's store and sells drugs to others to
support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Fanny U. is a 14 year-Old American Indian female
with average intelligence. Fanny's father is a
well-paid government official and is an alcoholic.
Fanny has a younger brother and sister. Fanny
has good school attendance and no arrest record,
Fanny supports her habit through her allowance
and by stealing.

1 2 3 4 5

Marvin R. is a 16 year—old black male with above
average intelligence. Marvin is also an outstand-
ing athlete. Marvin has an Older brother who is

a well-known professional athlete. Marvin's father
is a successful dentist who provides well for the
family. Marvin's mother is active in church and
social work. Marvin's school attendance is regu-
lar and he has no arrest record. Marvin sells
drugs to others to support his habit.

I 2 3 4 5

Mabel T. is a 16 year-Old American Indian female
with above average intelligence. Mabel lives

with a middle—class church sponsored foster family.
Mabel's school attendance is regular and she has
no arrest record. Mabel uses the money from her
tribal scholarship and steals to support her habit.

l 2 3 4 5

15

16

17

18

19

40

41

42

43

44

104

Nancy E. is a 14 year-Old black female with
average intelligence. Nancy's family income is
above average. Her father is a teacher and her
mother a social worker. There are no other
children in the home. Nancy's attendance in
school is regular and she has no arrest record.
The money Nancy earns from baby-sitting and her
allowance support her habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Betty Q. is an attractive 15 year-old Mexican-
American female with above average intelligence.
Betty's parents both work and provide comfortably
for Betty and her two Older brothers. Betty's
school attendance is irregular and she has no
arrest record. Betty's habit is provided for by
the money she gets from an Older man with whom she
is having an affair.

I 2 3 4 5

Anita S. is a 15 year-Old American Indian female
of below average intelligence. Anita's family is
on relief. She lives with her mother, step-father,
and three younger sisters. Anita is pregnant by
her step-father. Anita's school attendance is
irregular. She has an arrest record that includes
petty theft. Anita uses her earnings as a part-
time motel maid to support her habit.

1 2 3 4 5

John G. is a 14 year-old black male of average
intelligence. John's family is on welfare. John
lives with his mother, two older sisters and a
younger brother. There is no father in the home.
John's school attendance is irregular and he has
no arrest record. John supports his habit by
petty theft and burglary.

1 _2 3 4 5

Ray V. is a 15 year-old American Indian male with
above average intelligence. Ray's father is a re-
nowned silversmith and provides excellently for
the family. Ray's mother is an alcoholic. There
are three younger children in the family. Ray's
school attendance is regular and he has no arrest
record. Ray is also a talented artist and silver—
smith. He sells his work to support his habit.

l 2 3 4 5

20

21

22

23

24

45

46

47

48

49

105

Anna L. is a 14 year-Old white female Of average
intelligence. Anna's father is a career Army man
who is presently overseas. Anna's mother is a
heavy drinker and Openly promiscuous. Anna has
two younger sisters. Anna's school attendance is
irregular and she has no arrest record. Anna
baby-sits and steals to support her habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Alvin P. is a 15 year—Old white male Of above
average intelligence. Alvin's father is a success-
ful salesman and frequently out-of—town. He pro-
vides a very comfortable living for the family.
Alvin has a younger sister. Alvin's mother is an
excellent and avid golfer and very civic minded.
Alvin's school attendance is irregular. His ar-
rest recofd includes petty theft, truancy, and
breaking and entering. Alvin sells drugs to others
to support his habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Maria J. is a 16 year-old Mexican-American female
with above average intelligence. Maria's father
is a laborer and provides a meager living for the
family. The parents are poor but proud and deeply
religious. Maria has one Older sister and two
_younger sisters. Maria's school attendance is
regular. Her arrest record includes soliciting.
Maria uses her earnings as a prostitute to support
her habit.

1 2 3 4 5

Charlie K. is a 15 year-Old black male with below
average intelligence. Charlie lives with his aunt
and her children in a modest, but comfortable home.
Charlie's school attendance is irregular. His
arrest record includes petty theft, burglary,
strong-arm robbery, and auto theft. Charlie sells
drugs to others to support his habit.

l 2 3 4 5

Mary H. is a 13 year-Old white female of above
average intelligence. Mary's father is a very suc-
cessful businessman and highly respected in the
community. The family enjoys an excellent standard
of living. Mary's mother is an alcoholic. Mary's
school attendance is regular and she has no arrest
record. Mary steals from her mother to support her
habit.

l 2 3 4 5

106

Item 50

Many young addicts are products of undesirable home situa-
tions. Most therapists and directors Of treatment and rehabil-
itation programs consider an acceptable home situation to be
the difference between success and failure in the rehabilita-
tion and recovery of young addicts. Live-in therapeutic com-
munity programs are expensive and in short supply. In some
states the age Of the addict would preclude admission to a
live-in situation. Would you accept the responsibility of a
young addict in your home as a member of your family in COOper—
ation with an addict recovery program?

1. yes____ 2. no___
Answer the following only if your answer to the above is yes.
2. Would you accept a:
1. boy____ 2. girl___ 3. either____
3. Would the race of the addict make a difference?
1. yes___ 2. no___ 3. unsure___
4. Would the addict's intelligence have to be:
1. high___ 2. average___. 3. low___
4. intelligence would make no difference___
5. Would the addict's arrest record make a difference?
1. yes___ 2. no 3. unsure___

6. Would the addict's previous school attendance record
make a difference?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

7. If the addict had come from a poor family would it
make a difference?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

8. If the addict had come from a bad family situation
would it make a difference?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

107

Each young person described is a heroin addict. The length
of their respective addiction is from one to three years.
Their addiction was only recently discovered--none was known
to be a prior drug user. Please read the brief statement on
each individual and select the rehabilitation method appro—
priate from the programs described below.

1.

This addict is a victim of many factors which he or she
could not control. The home situation is not supportive
for the individual. This addict might best be helped by a
therapeutic community which is a live-in situation stress-
ing work, responsibility, and honesty. The usual residency
is from 18 to 24 months. Most therapeutic communities are
populated by addicts seeking rehabilitation and must quit
drugs without medical assistance. Some of the communities
have professional staff members.

The home situation of this addict appears to be stable and
supportive. This addict could probably remain in the home
and be rehabilitated through the OOOperative effort of the
school, church, home and non-residential therapy programs.

This addict has many positive factors to his or her credit.
The individual is intelligent, talented, and has a reason—
able home situation. This addict will probably understand
the mistake he Or she is making once it is fully explained.
It would seem unnecessary to involve anyone else and risk
causing the family additional embarrassment.

This addict lacks the self-discipline necessary to succeed
in the other programs. The home situation is not unaccept-
able and would probably be supportive. Probation by the
court is probably the best solution. It would be carefully
explained to the addict that he or she would be required to
seek new and acceptable companions, demonstrate acceptable
behavior, and generally "shape-up" or risk the loss of
personal freedom.

This addict is incorrigible. Society needs protection from
this type. This addict should be placed in a training
school, jail, or prison until such time that he or she can
prove that society need not fear their behavior.

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEETS

108

109

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR CLERGY

1. Is your congregation:

1. large 2. small 3. medium in size
2. Denomination: (other than Protestant)
1. Catholic 2. Jewish 3. Orthodox

3. Protestant:

 

l. Baptist 6. Seventh Day Adventist___
2. Episc0pa1___ 7. Church of Christ___ 1
3. Pentecostal____ 8. Methodist___

4. Lutheran____ 9. Presbyterian____

5. LDS

—

4. Young people with drug problems come to you:

1. frequently 2. infrequently 3. never

110

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR TEACHERS

You work mostly in:
1. Jr. high 2. High school

You work mostly in the field Of:

 

1. Social Science____ 6. Language Arts____

2. Math-Science____ 7. English;___

3. Home Economics___. 8. Health—~P.E.;;__

4. Foreign Language____ 9. Other ‘
(Specify)

5. Industrial Arts

Do you coach athletics in addition to your other duties?

1. yes 2. no

Young peOple with drug problems come to you:

1. frequently . 2. infrequently 3. never

Would you take the time and effort to become qualified to
teach drug education programs?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

111

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Your location:
1. jr. high 2. high school 3. central Office

DO you feel the drug education programs in the district
are:

1. adequate 2. inadequate 3. unsure

How do you feel the community would react to an intensive
and extensive drug education program that would be Sponsored
by the district?

1. positively 2. negatively 3. unsure

Young peOple with drug problems come to you:

1. frequently 2. infrequently 3. never

DO you feel it takes a specially qualified teacher to
teach drug education programs?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

Would you endorse a program to qualify teachers to teach
drug education programs?

1. yes 2. nO 3. unsure

Do you feel that school counselors are qualified to counsel
students with drug problems?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

WOuld you endorse a program to qualify counselors to be-
come proficient in drug counseling?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

112

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR SCHOOL COUNSELORS

Your location:

1. jr. high___ 2. high schOOl___

You work mostly with:

1. boys____ 2. girls___ 3. about even____

Young peOple with drug problems come to you:

I. frequently;___ 2. infrequently____ 3. never___

DO you feel your knowledge about drugs and drug use is
sufficient to qualify you to advise and counsel with young
people who have a drug problem?

1. yes___ 2. no 3. unsure____

Do you feel it takes a specially qualified person to
counsel young peOple with a drug problem?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

Would you take the time and effort to become qualified as
a drug counselor?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

113

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR VOCATIONAL-REHABILITATION COUNSELORS

1. What is your approximate client load?

 

2. Please estimate the number Of your clients who have or
have had drug problems:

1. only a few 2. quite a few

3. In general, what is the attitude of prospective employers
regarding the hiring of former drug addicts:

1. positive 2. negative

l.

10.

114

APPENDIX B
COVER SHEET FOR ADDICTS
Please indicate the program in which you are currently
involved:
1. live-in therapeutic community 2. methadone

3. non-residential therapy 4. other (please specify)

 

How many years were you strung out before you sought help
from this program?

1. 1-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16-20 5. more than

-__' -_—' -—-' 20
Estimate the daily cost of your former habit.

1. less than $25. 2. $25. to $50. 3. $50. to $100.

Generally, how did you support your habit?
I. burglary 2. robbery 3. prostitution

4. drug peddling 5. other (specify)

 

Were you able to support your habit legally?
1. yes___ 2. no___ 3. partially___
Regarding intelligence, do you feel you are:
1. high____ 2. medium____ 3. low;___
When you were growing up was your family:

1. well-Off____ 2. about average___ 3. poor____
When you were growing up was your family situation:
1. gOOd___ 2. so-so___ 3. poor___

When you were in school was your attendance:

1. good____ 2. average___ 3. poor___

Before the treatment program were you arrested:

1. frequently 2. infrequently 3. never

115

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR PROBATION OFFICERS

1. Are your duties primarily administrative?
1. yes 2. no

2. Is the majority of your work with:

1. boys 2. girls 3. about equal

3. What is your approximate average case load?

116

APPENDIX B

COVER SHEET FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

Are your duties primarily administrative?

1. yes 2. no

Which shift do you usually work?
1. day 2. afternoon 3. night

Do you feel the courts are realistic in their treatment
of drug Offenders?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

DO you feel probation Officials are realistic in their
recommendations regarding drug users?

1. yes 2. no 3. unsure

APPENDIX C

DRUG ADDICT STEREOTYPES

117

118

APPENDIX C

DRUG ADDICT STEREOTYPES

The frame is stunted and weak, the muscles underdevelOped,
the eye is sunken and heavy, the complexion is sallow, pasty,
or covered with spots of acne, the hands are damp and cold,
and the skin is moist. The person shuns the society of others,
creeps about alone, joins with repugnance in the amusements Of
his peers. He cannot look anyone in the face, and becomes
careless in dress and uncleanly in person. His intellect has
become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are
persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot. Such
people are to be seen in all stages of degeneration, but what
we have desCribed is but the result towards which they all are

tending.
Please indicate which category you feel best fits the above
description:

Long-term heavy user Of marijuana

Long-term user Of LSD.

Heroin addict

APPENDIX D

TABLES AND FIGURES

119

.120

 

 

 

 

 

OOH OOH OOH VH uHmuoe
OOH NH NH OOHOO< OH
OOH NH NH HOHmmcsOU .OO> mH
00H NH NH smumHo NH
OOH NH NH mHmz uucmumm HH
OOH NH NH mHmewm "ucmumm OH
OOH NH NH mocwHom HmHOom ”Hmsomoa mo
00H NH NH .om HmonsnmunnuHmmm .umnomma mo
OOH NH NH wand mmmnmcmqnanHmcm "Honomma no
OOH NH NH .Om meom .muud .ccH "Hmsomme mo
OOH NH NH mocmHomlsumz "Honomwe mo
OOH NH NH Honmcsoo Hoosom vO
OOH NH NH HoumuumHsHecm Hoosom mo
OOH NH NH ucmeOHOmcm 3MH NO
OOH NH NH HOOHmmo coHumnOHm HO
Occusumm Occusumm OmuanuumHO memz QOOHO Honesz
meHmccOHumwsa mmHHmscoHummsa mOHHmccOHummso msouu
mo unwoumm mo HmQEsz mo Honesz
mmuHMGOOHumOOO OwumeEOU OCchsumm.mmmmmm mo mmmucmoumm can Hmnfisz .H.m OHQOB

121

Table 4.1. Sex Of Respondents (Item 1)

 

 

 

Respondent Group Male Female Total

n % n % n %
Probation Officer 11 91.7 1 8.3 12 100.0
Law Enforcement 12 100.0 12 100.0
School Administrator 12 100.0 12 100.0
School Counselor 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 100.0
Teacher: Math-Science 9 75.0 3 25.0 12 100.0

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts—-
Home Economics 7 58.8 5 41.7 12 100.0

Teacher: English--

Language Arts 4 33.3 8 66.7 12 100.0
Teacher: Health--

Physical Education 4 33.3 8 66.7 12 100.0
Teacher: Social Science 8 66.7 4 33.3 12 100.0
Female Parent 12 100.0 12 100.0
Male Parent 12 100.0 12 100.0
Clergy 12 100.0 12 100.0
Vocational-Rehabilitation

Counselor 9 75.0 3 25.0 12 100.0
Addict 9 75.0 3 25.0 12 100.0

 

Totals 116 69.0 52 31.0 168 100.0

 

122

 

 

 

0.0 H H.mm OOH 0.0 H h.OH mH mHmuoa
m.mm v p.00 m UOHOON
m.mm n h.Hv m HOHmmcsOO
coHumuHHHnmcomleHOHumoo>
0.00H NH mmHOHU
n.Hm HH m.m H ucmumm mHmz
m.m H m.mm OH m.m H vacuum OHmemm
0.00H NH mocmHom HOHOOm "Honomwa
0.00H NH . coHumoacm
HOOHmwnmnunuHmmm "Honomme
0.00H NH wand ommsmqmq
itsmHHmcm "Hwnomms
>.Hm HH m.m H mOHEOGOOm meow
IImpH< HMHHmech
IlmmOCHmOm "umcomms
0.00H NH mocmHomI£umz "Hmsomms
0.00H NH HOHmmchU Hooaom
0.00H NH HoumuuchHEO¢.Hoonom
m.mm OH n.OH N ucwemouomcm 3OH
n.Hm HH m.m H HOOmeO cOHumnOHm
w c w c w c w :
GOHOCHIGOOHHOE< manz GOOHHOENIGOOHxOZ xOmHm macho unaccommmm

 

 

HN Emqu mucmccommmm mo mmHHOmmumo Hmwomm .N.v OHQOB

123

 

 

 

o.m m N.N NH 0.0 0H m.vH «N m.eH mN N.NH mN m.mN om m.o HH mHmuoe

m.m H m.m H N.OH N m.m H 0.0m m N.m H uoHeca

m.m H N.OH N N.m H o.mN m o.mN m N.OH N uonmcsoo coHH

ImuHHHnmnwmIHmcoHumoo>

N.mH N m.m H N.Nm v m.m H m.m H o.mN m smumHo

N.OH N o.mN m m.mm v o.mN m ucmumm onz

m.m H m.m H m.m H N.mm v N.OH N o.mN m ucmumm mHmsom

N.m H N.OH N N.©H N N.OH N m.mm v m.m H mocmHom HmHoom

"Honomma

N.OH N N.Nm v N.Hv m m.m H coHumosom HMUHmNnm

InnuHmmm "Hmsomme

N.m H o.mN m N.OH N m.mm q N.OH N mane momsmcmg

IlsmHHmcm "Honomme

N.OH N m.m H m.m H o.mN m N.Hv m mOHsocoom meow

unmuua HmHuumsecH

Ilmmmchsm “Honomma

m.m H N.OH N N.OH N m.mm N wocmHomnnumz "umsomma

m.w H o.mN m o.mN m m.m H o.mN N m.m H uonmcsoO Hoosom

m.m H m.m H N.Hv m o.mN m N.OH N uoumuuchHeem Hoonom

m.m H m.m H N.Nm v 0.0m o newswouomcm 3mg

N.OH N m.m H m.m H m.m H m.mm v O.mN m HOOHmmo GOHumnoum
w c w a w s w c w c w c w c w c

mm n mm em u om me a me as n ov mm s mm em a om mN a mN «N a ON msouo ucmecommmm

 

 

Hm EODHV mucmpcomwmm mo mmHuoomumo mm<

.m.v OHQMB

 

 

 

v.N v v.N v m.v m m.¢H vN N.Oe mNH mHmuOB
>.OH N m.m H m.mm v n.Hv m uOHOO¢
n.OH N h.OH N h.OO m HOHmmcsoo coHumu
IHHHnmnmmlecOHumOO>
h.Hv m m.mm n >OHOHU
0.00H NH vacuum mHmz
m.m H N.OH N O.mh m ucwumm mHmsmm
O.mN m O.mn m mocwHom HMHOOm
“Honomma
o.mN m o.mN m coHumoscm Hmonsnm
InnuHmwm “uwsomma
A. m.m H h.oH N O.mn m muH¢ mmmomcmq
Hz IlsmHHOcm "Honomms
11
0.00H NH mOHeocOOm meow
wand HMHuumOOOH
IlmmOCHmOm “Honomma
m.m H m.m H m.mm OH OOCOHomlnumz
"Hmnomma
>.OH N m.mm OH HOHOchOO Hoonom
0.00H NH HoumuuchHacm Hoocom
n.OH N n.OH N b.0O m unmamouomcm 3MH
m.mm v >.OO m HOOHmmO :OHumnOHm
w c w c w c w a w c
pm3OOH3 cmuwummwm OOOHO>HO. OHmch OOHHHmz macaw unaccommmm

 

 

Hv EwuHO mucmccommmm mo msumum Hmuwumz .v.v OHQOB

125

 

 

 

m.NH HN m.NH HN m.OH Hm N.ON Om H.Om OO H.Nm Om mHmuOB

N.OH N N.OH N O.mN m m.mm O m.mm O N.OH N uOHOON

O.mN m N.OH N m.O H n.OH N m.Om n O.mN m HOHOmcsOU OOHumu

IHHHnmsOmIHchHumOO>

m.m H m.O H n.OH N O.mN m O.mN m 0.0N m mOuOHO

N.OH N N.OH N N.OH N >.HO m O.mw m 0.00 O ucmumm OHmz

m.O H m.O H O.mN m h.HO m N.Om N m.mm O ucmumm OHmsmm

N.OH N N.OH N m.m H m.O H m.O H m.mm O OOGOHOO HMHOOO

"HOAOOOB

m.m H N.m H o.mN N m.mm O m.mm O coHumosom Hmonssm

InsuHmOm “Hmsomma

N.OH N O.mN m N.OH N n.OH N m.mm O O.mN m wand Ommamcmq

nlcmHHOcm "Hwnomme

h.OH N m.O H m.m H 0.0m O n.HO m mOHEOGOOm 080:

Inmuum HOHHumsOcH

Ilmmmchsm "Hwnomme

m.O H N.OH N O.mN m m.mm O mocmHomlnumz

"Hmnomma

N.OH N O.mN m O.mN m N.OH N N.OH N m.mm O HOHOmOOOU HOOQOO

0.0N m m.O H >.HO m >.HO m 0.0m O N.OH N HoumuumHCHEOd Hoocom

O.mN m m.O H 0.0m O N.Om n ucOEOOHOmcm sun

m.m H m.m H N.OH N m.O H h.OH N O.mN m HOOHMMO OOHumnoum
w c w c w c w a w c w c

Hoonomlumom OOOHHOO .m .m .m .m .HO O I M Hoosomlmum Odouw ucmpcommmm

 

 

Hm swuHO cwHOHHHO .mucOOcommmm mo mOHHOOmumO Hoogom .m.O OHnme

126

 

 

 

 

 

O.m N.mN Om N.Nm mm m.mm NO >.OH N mHmuOB
N.OH m.mm O m.mm O N.OH N uOHOO<
N.OH 0.0m O mam H O.mN m HOHOmcsOO OOHumu
IHHHbmnmmIHOOOHumOO>
N.Om n N.OH N m.m H N.OH N >OHOHO
m.mm O O.mN m n.HO m ucmumm OHmz
m.m H N.Om h m.mm O ucmumm OHmemm
m.mm O N.OO O OOGOHOO HmHOOm
”HOHOOOB
N.m H o.mN N N.OO m :oHumosom HNOHmsam
InnuHmmm ”Honomme
N.OH N N.OO m N.OH N meme womsocmq
:ILOHHOON “genomes
m.O H 0.0m O N.HO m mOHEocoom meow
almunm HmHHumsch
Ilmmmchsm ”Hocomme
m.O N.OH N O.mN m 0.0m O mocmHomusumz «Hmnomma
0.00 O O.mN m 0.0N m HOHOmSHOO Hoonom
m.O H 0.0N m b.OO m HoumuuchHEO¢ Hoonom
N.OH N m.mm O 0.0m O unwemouomcm 3mg
>.OH N m.mm O 0.00 O HOOHMMO cOHumaoum
w w c w c w c m c
Omomlwsulwo O>Hum>ummcoo O>Hum>uwmcoo
ummH HOHOQHH OHOOHZ hHmumumOoz >HOcOHum OOOHO ucmpcommmm
1O amuHO mOmHHmm HmoHuHHoa .muamocommwm .0.0 mHnme

127

 

 

 

O.m H.h NH O.H m.mO OHH N.ON Om mHmuoe

N.OH m.mm O 0.0m O uOHOOO

m.O N.OO OH m.O H HOHOmcsOU

coHumuHHHAOSOOIHOCOHOOOO>

N.OO m N.NN O mmumHO

m.O H m.O 0.0m O N.ON O ucmnmm OHmz

N.Om b b.HO m ucmuwm OHmaOm

m.O O.mh O h.OH N OOOOHOO HOHOOO "HOSOOOB

N.m H N.m N.OH m N.OH N coHumosom HOUHNNHN

nanunOm ”Hmnomma

m.O m.O H N.OO O N.OH N muufl Ommsmcmq

IlanHOcm "ngomma

m.O n.HO HH mOHEocOOm waom

Ilmuu< HOHHumsOcH

Inmmmchsm "HOQOOOB

n.OH N.Om h O.mN m OocmHomlnumz "Hmsomoa

m.O H O.m> O N.OH N HOHOmcsOU Hoonom

m.O H O.mn O N.OH N HoumuuchHEOO Hoonom

O.mN m 0.0m O O.mN m ucmamouomcm 3OH

m.O m.O 0.0m O m.mm O HOOHMMO OOHumnOHm
w w c w w c a c

Ocoz Hmnuo an3OO ucmummuoum OHHonumU msouw pcmwcommmm

 

 

Hm EOOHO mucOOcomwmm mo chHumHHHmmd OOOHOHHOO .h.O OHQOB

128

 

 

 

 

O.N O N.O h N.ON HO H.mm Om m.m OH N.OH OH O.H m mHmuoe
m.O H O.mN m >.HO m O.mN m uOHOO<
0.0m O 0.0m O HOHOmcsou coHumu
IHHHnmsmmlecOHumoo>
0.0m O N.HO O m.O H OOHOHO
O.mN m N.OH N N.ON O O.mN m ucmumm OHmz
N.OH N N.Om b 0.0N m ucmnmm OHOEOO
m.O H 0.0m O O.HO m OOOOHOO HOHOOO
”stomma
0.0m O 0.0m O coHumOSOm HOOHmmnm
IIHUHOOO "Hmsomme
N.ON O N.OO O muum ommsmcma
IISmHHmcm ”HOSOMOB
N.O H N.O H N.NO OH mOHeocoom meow
Ilmuué HOHHumsOcH
Itmmmcwmsm ”HOOOOOH
m.O H 0.0m O >.HO m OOGOHOOInumz
"Hmsomme
0.00H NH HOHOOGOOU Hoonom
m.O H N.OH N O.mn m HoumupchHaum Hoosom
N.ON O h.OO O usmfiwonomcm 3OH
N.O H N.OO O N.O H N.OH N HOOHHHO coHumnoum
w c w c w c w c w G o Q m G
mmmHHoO Hoocom Hoonom smHm
.O.£m OOHOOO OOHOOO OOOHHOU mummy O anz mummy O
HO O.Om OOmm .spm mumummz OQOOHQEOU cmse mmOH OOuOHmEOU cane mmOH msouw ucmvcommom

 

 

Hm smuHo mucoccommmm mo unmachuum HmcoHumosnm mo Hm>mH ummsmHm

.O.v OHnMB

 

 

m.O OH H.h NH m.O OH o.ON HO O.N m H.0H 5H o.mH mm mHOUOB

 

129

 

m.O H N.OH N m.O H MOHOOO

m.O H m.O H O.mN m m.O H 0.0m O HOHOmcsOO cOHumu

IHHHanOmIHchHumOO>

O.Hm HH m.O H wmuOHO

O.mN m m.O H m.O H O.HO m N.OH N ucmumm OHmz

m.O H O.HO m m.O H h.OH N ucmnmm OHOEOO

m.O H N.OH N N.OH N N.Om O OOGOHOO HOHOOO

“Hmnomma

N.NO OH N.OH N coHumosOm HOUHmOOO

IncuHmOm “Hmnomme

O.Hm HH m.O H muu< Ommsmcmq

IIQOHHOcm “Hwnomms

0.0N m O.HO m m.mm O OOHEOOOOM meow

lumped HOOuumOOOH

InmmOchsm "HOHOOOB

m.O H O.HO HH mocmHomlnumz

“Hwnomme

0.00H NH HOHOmasOO Hoonom

0.00H NH HoumuuchHEOO Hoonom

O.mN m unwemouomcm SOH

m.O H N.OO O HOOHmmO OOHquOHm
w c O a w c w a w c w c w c w c
.m .m OOH» mama .coom OOQOHOO OOOOHOO

Hmnuo guHmmm anHmcm Imonwm .OcH meow Ignaz HOHOOO macaw unmpcommmm

 

 

HO EOHHO musmvcommmm mo Hoflmz OOOHHOU .O.O OHHOB

 

O.o H O.H m O.N m b.0H OH b.OH ON O.mO up mHmuOB

 

130

OHQOOHHQQO uoz uOHOOO

.N.O H O.HO HH uonmqsoO

coHuOuHHHnmnmmlecoHumoo>

m.O H N.OH N O.mN m 0.0m O OOHOHO
OHQOOHHOQO uoz ucmumm OHmz

OHQOOHHmmm uoz ucmnmm OHMEOO

m.O H m.mm O O.mN m N.ON O OOOOHOO HOHOOO "HOQOOOB

O.HO N N.O H O.OO O OOHHOOOOO HOOHONOO

:uHmmm ”HOQOOOB

N.O H N.OH N 0.0N O OHHO OOOOOOOH
IlanHOcm "Hmnomma

m.O H m.O H m.O H o.mm m 0.0m O . OOHEOCOOM OBOE
mama HOHHHOOOOH
InmmOchOO "Hwnomwa

 

N.O H N.O H N.NN O O.OO O mocmHomnOumz .mmgomms
N.O H N.OH N N.NN O N.HO N uoHOchoO Hoonom
N.O H N.OH N N.O H N.OO O uoumuumHaHsOO Hoonom
O.mN m O.mb O unmamouomcm 3OH
N.O H N.O H O.NN N N.ON N HOOHOOO coHuOnouN
w c w c w c a c w c a c
ON can» Once ON : HN ON s OH OH s HH OH n O O u H Ozouo Osmocommmm

HHH EOHHO :OHuHmOm HOOOHuOQOOOO ucmmmum co mumm» .mucmwcommmm .OH.O OHQOB

131

Table 4.11. Responses to the Question, "Should marijuana be legalized?"

(Item 14)

 

 

 

 

Respondent Group Yes NO Unsure
% % %
Probation Officer 41.7 50.0 8.3
Law Enforcement 83.3 16.7
School Administrator 33.3 41.7 25.0
School Counselor 25.0 50.0 25.0
Teacher: Math-Science 33.3 41.7 25.0
Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts--
Home Economics 41.7 58.3
Teacher: English--
Language Arts 8.3 58.3 33.3
Teacher: Health--
Physical Education 8.3 66.7 25.0
Teacher: Social Science 16.7 58.3 25.0
Female Parent 25.0 66.7 8.3
Male Parent 50.0 41.7 8.3
Clergy 33.3 41.7 25.0
VOcational-Rehabilitation
Counselor 50.0 33.3 16.7
Addict 75.0 8.3 16.7
Totals 28.6 48.8 22.6

 

 

132

Table 4.12. Acceptance of an Addict into the Respondent's Home as a
Foster—home Situation (Item 50)

 

 

 

Respondent Group Yes NO

% %
Probation Officer 100.0
Law Enforcement 50.0 50.0
School Administrator 16.7 83.3
School Counselor 8.3 91.7
Teacher: Math—Science 33.3 66.7

Teacher: Business-
Industrial Arts--

Home Economics 8.3 91.7
Teacher: English-Language Arts 8.3 91.7
Teacher: Health—~Physica1 Education 25.0 75.0
Teacher: Social Science 25.0 75.0
Female Parent 16.7 83.3
Male Parent 50.0 50.0
Clergy 75.0 25.0
Vocational—Rehabilitation Counselor 41.7 58.3
Addict 58.3 41.7

 

Totals 29.8 g ’ 70.2

 

Table 4.13.

Mean Response Scores for Each Respondent Group on Each Vignette.

 

)

eoueprguoo
go IGAGI
go' 39 'brs
seqeorpulg

'brs go IeAaq

13TPPV

IOIBSUHOD
'qu-'00A

ABJOIQ

quexed
919W

quezed
etemeg

°ros 'OOS
318q099L

’3'd’q1I99H
:ISQOQBL

311v °6ueq
'6ua :IGQOPBL
'033 emOH
811V 'PUI

'sng :JSQOEGL

eoueros-qqew

:JGQOPBL

JoIesunOQ
IOOQOS

uorqezqs;
rurmpv toouos

quem
-eoxo;u3 meg

1931330
uotneqozd

 

'ON eaqeubrA

 

0.007*
0.282

. 2.4 2.1 . 2.3 2.3
1.8
2.4
2.1
1.7

2.2

1.3 ‘ 2.8

1.4
1.3

1.5

3.2

0.0005*
0.011*
0.917

2.4 . 2.4 . 3.0

3.0

1.8 2.3 .

1.5

0.001*
0.026*
0.864
0.104
0.314

1.8
1.8
2.3

1.6
2.8

1.3

1.8

. . 1.7
1.3 2.1 2.2

1.5 1.9

1.3

3.5

1.3

2.3

2.2 . 2.3 . 2.7 . 2.8
2.1 3.2 3.2

2.3
1.7

133

2.6
2.5
2.7

3.3

. 3.3 .
2.4

1.8 2.8

2.4

2.6

2.4
2.4

1.4

10
11

0.0005*
0.715
0.134
0.174

2.6
1.9

1.9
1.7

2.6
1.4

1.4 1.6
1.6
1.8

1.8

1.5

. 1.7

12
13

2.2
2.2

2.4
2.2
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.9

2.3

2.3

1.8 2.2 2.2 . 1.9 2.5
2.2 1.9

2.7

2.2

2.2

1.4
1.3

14
15

0.013*
0.006*
0.0005*
0.052
0.181
0.230

2.6
2.8
1.9

. . . 1.9
2.4 1.8

2.1

3.6

2.4

2.1

1.0
2.3

1.4

16
17

1.0 .

1.8

1.6
1.8

1.5

1.3

1.3

2.6
1.8
1.3
2.8
1.9
2.6
1.5

. 1.8
1.8 2.0

1.7

2.1
1.3

. 1.3
1.3

2.3

18

2.1
1.6

1.6
1.3

19
20
21
22

1.3

0.001*
0.001*
0.054
0.186

2.8

2.4
1.8

2.5
2.1
2.9
1.8

2.8
2.8

2.8
2.2
3.2

2.6

2.3
2.4

1.8
3.3

2.1

3.8

. . 3.4 . 3.3 3.1 . 3.5
2.2 1.9 1.7

23
24

2.0

1.7

1.3

1.4

1.6

 

On.the scale the score 5 represents an entirely

punitive attitude while the score 1 represents an entirely therapeutic approach to drug treatment.

The means depicted are based on a scale Of l to 5.

134

Table 4.14. Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treat—

ment Programs as a Function Of the Addict's Race

 

 

 

 

Respondent Group Mexican- Black White American-
American Indian
Probation Officer 1.33 1.63 1.35 1.50
Law Enforcement 3.01 2.67 3.31 2.85
School Administrator 2.08 2.31 2.36 2.11
School Counselor 2.04 2.06 1.94 1.74
Teacher: Math—Science 2.13 2.25 2.11 1.89
Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts—-
Home Economics 1.93 2.40 1.93 1.96
Teacher: English-~Language Arts 2.15 2.44 1.94 1.97
Teacher: Health--Physica1 Education 2.19 2.40 2.10 1.93
Teacher: Social Science 2.44 2.33 2.36 2.14
Female Parent 2.24 2.32 2.40 1.96
Male Parent 1.97 2.26 2.11 2.07
Clergy 1.93 1.96 1.89 1.57
Vocationa1-Rehabi1itation Counselor 2.15 2.07 2.51 2.22
Addict 2.13 2.24 2.19 1.93
Averages 2.12 2.24 2.18 1.99

 

Table 4.15. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Four-
teen Respondent Groups and the Four Racial Categories as

Levels of the Repeated Measures

 

 

 

Source df mean square F
Between Subjects
Groups 13 4.95 4.53*
Subjects 154 1.09
Within Subjects
Measures 3 1.92 10.43*
Measures X Groups 39 .28 1.51

 

*Significant at .05 level of confidence.

 

135

Table 4.16. Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function Of the Addict's Sex

 

 

 

 

Respondent Group Male Female.
Probation Officer 1.60 1.30
Law Enforcement 3.26 2.66
School Administrator 2.39 2.04
School Counselor 2.19 1.70
Teacher: Math-Science 2.29 1.90
Teacher: Business--

Industrial Arts--

Home Economics 2.29 1.82
Teacher: English—~Language Arts 2.33 1.93
Teacher: Health--Physica1 Education 2.40 1.90
Teacher: Social Science 2.42 2.23
Female Parent 2.48 1.98
Male Parent 2.34 1.97
Clergy 1.95 1.72
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.48 2.00
Addict 2.29 1.96
Averages 2.33 1.94

 

Table 4.17. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Fourteen
Respondent Groups and Two Categories of Sex as Levels Of the
Repeated Measures

 

 

 

Source df mean square F
Between Subjects
Groups 13 2.48 4.53*
Subjects 154 .55
Within Subjects
Measures 1 12.87 77.97*
Measures X Groups 13 .09 .52

1‘1‘

*Significant at .05 level of confidence.

136

Table 4.18. Means Of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function of the Addict's Intelligence

 

 

 

Respondent Group Above Average Below
Average Average
Probation Officer 1.39 1.20 1.74
Law Enforcement 2.77 2.23 3.80
School Administrator 2.32 1.68 2.42
School Counselor 1.94 1.43 2.31
Teacher: Math-Science 2.25 1.83 2.01

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts——

 

Home Economics 2.06 1.98 2.11
Teacher: English--Language Arts 2.20 1.83 2.21
Teacher: Health--Physical Education 2.25 1.72 2.29
Teacher: Social Science 2.40 1.82 2.56
Female Parent 2.44 1.73 2.23
Male Parent 2.17 1.90 2.14
Clergy 2.12 1.50 1.60
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.31 1.98 2.30
Addict 2.11 1.98 2.24
Averages 2.19 1.77 2.28

 

Table 4.19. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Four-
teen Respondent Groups and Three Categories of Intelligence
as Levels of the Repeated Measures.

 

 

Source df mean square F

 

Between Subjects

Groups 13 3.72 4.35*
Subjects 154 .86

Within Subjects
Measures 2 12.38 41.56*
Measures X Groups 26 .64 2.13*

*Significant at .05 level of confidence.

 

13IPPV.

IOIBSUHOQ
'qeqea—'00A'

£61913.

quexea stew.

nuexed eremag.

eoueros

{eroos :JBQOPBL.

'Pa 'KQd ’unteeH
:Jaqoeem-

311v afienbueq
'6ua :zeqoeemo

‘H‘H 'SQIV'PUI

°sna :JGQOEBL-
BDUBIOS
—qnew :JGQDESL

xotesunoo
IOOHDS

101214.
-SIUTmpv IOOHOS

quem
aeoxogua M91

IGSTJJO,
uorqeqoxd

Punitive

 

3.8

3.6

Q'

m

137

 

.l
I
I
I
I
(D Q)
U‘ U'1
(U (U
H H
0) (D
> >
“5wa
U‘
0003
>540
02::
firearm
\
.1
I
/
/
I
-v
I
I
I
\
\
\
L\
\
\
\
x
‘ P
I
/
/
I
7'
I
x
I
/
<\
\
\
\
\‘
‘N

NOCDKOYNOQOQ'NO

G O O

MMNNNNNHr-{r-Ir-II-I

Interaction of the fourteen groups and intelligence levels of the addicts

 

Therapeutic

Figure 4.1.

drug

1n

des toward placement

I'

described in the vignettes regarding attitu

treatment programs.

138

Table 4.20. Means Of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function of the Addict's Socio-economic Status

 

 

 

Respondent Group High Medium Low
Probation Officer 1.42 1.54 1.42
Law Enforcement 2.62 2.96 3.30
School Administrator 2.40 2.43 1.89
School Counselor 1.84 2.16 1.87
Teacher: Math-Science ' 2.22 2.25 1.86

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts—-

 

Home Economics 2.06 2.29 1.87
Teacher: English--Language Arts 2.18 2.23 2.01
Teacher: Health--Physica1 Education 2.18 2.35 1.97
Teacher: Social Science 2.16 2.56 2.29
Female Parent 2.37 2.51 1.89
Male Parent 2.13 2.32 1.92
Clergy 2.04 2.12 1.44
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.33 2.33 2.08
Addict 2.12 2.26 2.02
Averages 2.15 2.31 1.98

 

Table 4.21. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Fourteen
Respondent Groups and Three Categories of Socio—economic
Status as Levels of the Repeated Measures.

 

 

Source df mean square F

 

Between Subjects

Groups 13 3.61 4.50*
Subjects 154 .80

Within Subjects
Measures 2 4.38 19.03*
Measures X Groups 26 .34 1.48

 

*Significant at .05 level Of confidence.

139

Table 4.22. Means Of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function of the Addict's Family Situation

 

 

 

Respondent Group Good Poor
Probation Officer 1.53 1.39
Law Enforcement 3.14 2.83
School Administrator 2.46 2.04
School Counselor 2.08 1.85
Teacher: Math-Science 2.35 1.91

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts--

 

Home Economics 2.32 1.87
Teacher: English-—Language Arts 2.36 1.96
Teacher: Health-—Physical Education 2.42 1.96
Teacher: Social Science 2.51 2.19
Female Parent 2.67 1.92
Male Parent 2.34 1.94
Clergy 2.09 1.66
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.46 2.08
Addict 2.31 1.99
Averages 2.36 1.97

 

Table 4.23. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Fourteen
Respondent Groups and Two Categories Of Family Situation as
Levels of the Repeated Measures

 

 

Source df mean square F

 

Between Subjects

Groups 13 2.52 4.76*
Subjects 154 .53

Within Subjects
Measures 1 12.76 103.92*
Measures X Groups 13 .ll .92

 

*Significant at .05 level of confidence.

140

Table 4.24. Means of the ReSponses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function Of the Addict's School Attendance

 

 

 

Respondent Group Regular Irregular
Probation Officer 1.36 1.53
Law Enforcement 2.42 3.41
School Administrator 2.20 2.23
School Counselor 1.70 2.15
Teacher: Math-Science 2.08 2.10

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts--

 

Home Economics 2.05 2.06
Teacher: English--Language Arts 2.08 2.17
Teacher: Health-~Physical Education 2.02 2.26
Teacher: Social Science 2.16 2.46
Female Parent 2.26 2.21
Male Parent 2.15 2.06
Clergy 1.89 1.79
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.31 2.18
Addict 1.97 2.25
Averages 2.05 2.21

 

Table 4.25. Repeated Measures Analysis Of Variance Table for the Fourteen
Respondent Groups and Two Categories Of School Attendance as
Levels of the Repeated Measures

 

Source df mean square F

 

Between Subjects

Groups 13 2.37 4.61*
Subjects 154 .51

Within Subjects
Measures 1 2.10 9.19*
Measures X Groups 13 .53 2.30*

 

*Significant at .05 level Of confidence.

 

141

 

 

 

 

m l
u u
O O
.H O
O H
O p
O
”WP" I ‘ . 2;
.2 H
a O O
H.H cu :
zotesunoo . 3 3‘ . O.H
qeqeu- DOA D O m u
U) H H c:
- 23:: 22
- . O O
ABIGID H O
O
O H
O Q
quexed eIeW ' ° .g'S
c O
O 3
u 0
u u
quexed etemeg ' . O m d
.H O .
O O
eoueros ,2 B i-[
IEIOOS :Jeqoeem ' . 8:3 '-
'JJ
O O
°eonp3 Ieorsfiqd g m
queeH :IGQOPGL ‘ . m.g
Q-u'U
O H
sqxv '6ueq 8 g‘
'bug :JeqoeeL ' - 0‘8
c
O m
‘3’H 'S‘JJV’PUI 3 3
°sna :JSQOPSL ' . 3 3
O O
O cw
eouemos O‘;
quew :JeqoeeL ' - .fi 0
.c
wa+: .
IOISSUHOQ O c g
'[OOLIDS O 0 80,4 H
-ch O
O O 0
1039133; 3:3 a
'UTWPV IOOHOS ' ' 3 3 u
u m c
c O O
quam H P E
Heoxogug MBI' ° .
N
1901;;0 "‘
uorqeqoxd' “ g
c»
-N
m
E O 'O N O O O) O: N O» O O ‘¢ N O 3
EMMMMNNNNNHHHHHE’
.,.| (D
5 D.
O
m H
O
.c
B

142

Table 4.26. Means of the Responses Regarding Assignment to Drug Treatment
Programs as a Function of the Addict's Record Of Arrest and
Illegal Activity

 

 

 

Respondent Group Neutral Negative Very
Negative
Probation Officer 1.38 1.25 1.79
Law Enforcement 2.21 1.81 2.74
School Administrator 2.36 1.81 2.74
School Counselor 1.67 1.66 2.51
Teacher: Math-Science 2.13 1.90 2.38

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts--

 

Home Economics 2.13 1.76 2.50
Teacher: English—-Language Arts 2.08 1.90 2.50
Teacher: Health-~Physical Education 2.19 1.79 2.67
Teacher: Social Science 2.15 2.18 2.63
Female Parent 2.29 1.90 2.70
Male Parent 2.30 1.83 2.45
Clergy 2.08 1.63 2.02
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselor 2.35 1.97 2.59
Addict 2.21 1.92 2.38
Averages 2.10 1.87 2.54

 

Table 4.27. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Table for the Fourteen
Respondent Groups and Three Categories of Arrest Record and
Illegal Activity as Levels of the Repeated Measures

 

 

Source df mean square F

 

Between Subjects

Groups 13 3.27 4.47*
Subjects 154 .73

Within Subjects
Measures 2 19.10 66.40*
Measures X Groups 26 .49 1.71*

 

*Significant at .05 level of confidence.

naippv-

IOIBSUROD
'q9q38-'30A

£61313-

quexed stew-

quexea etemeg-

.103 0 DOS
:xeqoeem:

'3-d--qnteeH
:IGQDQSL'

sqxv ebenfiueq
°6u3 :xeqoeel-

'H'H 'SQIV'PUI
'sng :xeqoeem'

eoueros—qnew

:JSQOEBL°

Jotesunog
IOOHDS°

1012115:
-UImpv Ioouos'

:uem
—eoxo;u3 meq'

JBDIJJO
UOTQPQOId'

Punitive

 

3.0
2.9

(D

N

143

 

 

O
I
I
I
(D
4 >
\ 'FI
\\ I;
\“ r4 g 8‘
7" \‘) O-H z
’ H-IJ
, b O >
5013-!
’ (DOG)
/ Z Z >
I.
I
I
,4!
/
I
I
O<
\
\
\
\\
\

F®mTMNHOOWmF®Ln¢MN

NNNNNNNNHHHHHHI—IH

Therapeutic

 

Interaction Of the fourteen groups and record of arrests and illegal activity levels of the

Figure 4.3.

addicts described in the vignettes regarding attitudes toward placement in drug treatment

programs.

144

HOHOmcsou :oHuOuHHHQOOOOIHOOOHOOOO>

 

 

 

HOHOOO O.H uoumupchHEOO Hoonom O.N O.N NH
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO N.H HOOOHOOHOHEOO Hooaom H.N O.H NH
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO N.H OCOEOOHOmcm 3OH 0.0 O.N HH
HOOHMOO OOHOOQOHO O.H OQOEOOHOOCH 3OH O.N O.N OH
OOHOHU N.H OOOEOOHOOOO 3OH 0.0 O.N O
OOOHOO OHOS
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO O.H OOHUOOOOm HOOHO>£OII£OHOOO "HOQOOOB O.N O.N O
OOOHOO OHOz
.m.m .<.H |.m5m "HOQOOOB
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO N.H OOOEOOHOOCM BOH O.N O.H O
>OHOHU N.H ucOEOOHomcm 3OH O.N O.H O
OOOOHOO HOHOOO "HOOOOOB
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO N.H IIOQOEOOHOOOM 3OH N.N H.N m
OCOHOO OHOEOm
OOHOOOOOm HOOHO>£OII£OHOOO "HOSOOOB
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO O.H IIOOOOHOO HOHOOO "HOOOOOB O.N N.N O
HOHOOOOOU OOHOOOHHHQOQOO
HOOHOOO COHOOQOHO N.H IHOcOHuOOO>IIucOEOOHOOcm BOH O.N N.N m
OOHOHU N.H “COEOOHOOOH 3OH N.N O.H N
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO N.H OOOEOOHOmcm 3OH O.N H.N H
30H OOHO COOS HOHESZ
OGOHO OqucOH>
OOOOOOH> OOOB OOO OQOOHO
OOOOOOQOOO O>HuHcsm umOOH OCO umoz OOH mo COOHHOQEOU O OO OqucOH> SOOm How OCOOZ OcOHU One .ON.O OHQOB

145

 

.OOO HOOHmmsmllsuHOOm "HOSOOOB
HOOHOOO COHuOnOHm

wmuOHU
OOCOHOOISOOE "HOQOOOB

HOOHMOO COHOOQOHO
HOUHOOO coHumnoum

HOOHOO OHOEOm
wand OOOOOCOHIIOOHHOOO "HOOOOOB
HOOHOOO OOHOOQOHO

HOHOOGOOU Hoonom
HOOHOmO OOHOOQOHO

HOOHOOO COHOOQOHO

OOHOHO
OOOHOO OHOEOO
OOHEOOOOM OEOm

Ilmuud HOHHOOOOGH
IIOOOOHOOO ”HOSOOOB

HOOHOOO OOHuOnOHm
HOOHMMO OOHOOQOHO

HOOHMMO OOHuOnoum

OOQOHOO HOHOOO "HOLOOOB

OOOEOOHOOOM 3OH
OOOEOOHOMOO 3OH

OOOEOOHOOOO BOH

HCOEOUHOMCW 3mg

HOOOHOOHOHEOO HOOQOO
HOHOOO

OOOEOOHOOOO BOH
OOOEOOHOMGO SOH
UOHOOO

OOOOHOO HOHOOO "HOOOOOB

O.H
O.N
N.N
H.N

ON

ON
NN
HN

ON

OH
OH

OH
OH
OH

OH

146

Table 4.29. A Comparison Of the Respondent Groups with Regard to Puni-
tive Attitude of the Groups

 

 

 

Respondent Group Mean Attitude
Law Enforcement 3.0
Vocational-Rehabilitation Counselors 2.3
Teacher: Social Science 2.3
Female Parent 2.2
Teacher: Health--Physical Education 2.2
School Administrator 2.2
Addict 2.1
Male Parent 2.1
Teacher: English--Language Arts 2.1
Teacher: Math—Science 2.1

Teacher: Business--
Industrial Arts--

Home Economics 2.1
School Counselor 1.9
Clergy 1.8

Probation Officer 1.5

 

   

MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIES
3 1293 03015 5245