AN INVESTAGATAON or SELECTED _

NON - INTELLECTUAL AND CERTAIN PERSONALITY

VARIABLES AND THEiR RELATSONSHIP To HEAom
ADmcnoN

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JEROME W GALLAGHER
1973

flame

\
§

 
   
    
 

r-ta' f“

.~ ‘ l —
u. I .’.
.-1 5.“; .3‘
.‘ ‘-¢ "
“(a
.‘ ..

V.. I—
_ and?

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Investigation of
Selected Non-intellectual and
Certain Personality Variables, and
Their Relationship to Heroin Addiction

presented by
JEROME JAY GALLAGHER

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
Ph.D. rkgmehi Counseling and
Educational Psychology

. I :‘I / ,1 "(1" _
('1’ L K, {If v , vs. '\

/ Major professor
./ 4

Date LL16 M 1/472,

' '0"

0-7639

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED
NON-INTELLECTUAL AND CERTAIN
PERSONALITY VARIABLES, AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HEROIN
ADDICTION

by

Jerome Jay Gallagher

It was the purpose of this study to investigate se-
lected non-intellectual and certain personality variables,
and to further investigate the relationship of these varia-
bles to heroin addiction. The study was conducted at the
Ingham County Jail, Mason, Michigan, with a sample of 64
incarcerated, male subjects.

The design of the study used the 16 Personality Fac-
tor Questionnaire to measure the personality variables
for the subjects, and a Demographic Data Composite was
composed to assess the non-intellectual variables for the
subjects.

The subjects were composed of two groups, one of which

had a history of addiction to heroin for a minimum of six

Jerome Jay Gallagher

months, and the other group which did not.

An analysis of variance was performed for differences
between the two groups. This consisted of a total of 30
analyses of variance, 16 being performed for the 16PF
variables, and 14 for the Demographic Data Composite. An
inter-correlational matrix was also constructed for each
of the groups to determine the strength of the relationships
among the variables within each group.

The statistical analysis revealed a significant dif-
ference between the two groups on five of the 16 person-

ality factors of the 16PF. These five factors were:

16PF Item Name of
Number Variable
2 Dull vs Bright F = 32.260, p(.os
3 Easily Upset vs Calm, Stable F = 19.831, p<.05
10 Practical vs Imaginative F = 35.380, p(.05
11 Forthright vs Shrewd F = 5.192, p<.05
12 Self-Assured vs Apprehensive F = 15.474, p<.05

On variable 2, the addicted group demonstrated a sig-
nificantly lower score than did the non-addicted group,
indicating that the addicted group was duller and less
capable of abstract reasoning. On variable 3, the addicted
group produced a significantly lower score than did the
non-addicted individuals, suggesting a less stable, more

emotionally changeable characteristic. On variable 10,

Jerome Jay Gallagher

the addicted group was again lower than the non-addicted
group, indicating that the addicted individuals appeared
more practical and "down-to-earth" than were the non-
addicts. On variable 11, the addicted group possessed a
higher score than did the non-addict, which indicates
that he was more astute and worldly and less forthright
and unpretentious. On variable 12, the addicted group was
higher than the non-addicted group, demonstrating a higher
incidence of troubled, worrysome, insecure, and apprehen-
sive characteristics.

The statistical analysis further indicated that the
two groups differed significantlyron four of the Demo—

graphic Data Composite items. These items were:

Variable DDC Item Name of

Number Number Variable
20 5 Marital status of subject F = 8.001, p(.05
23 8 Grow up with true father F = 7.209, p¢.05
24 9 Educational level of true father F = 4.788, p(.05
26 11 Grow up with true mother F = 4.144, p(.05

On variable 20, the addicted group showed a lower in-
cidence of marriage than did the non-addicted group. On
variable 23, the addicted group showed a higher frequency
of growing up without their true fathers. On variable 24,
the addicted group indicated they were sons of fathers with

a significantly lesser amount of education than were the

Jerome Jay Gallagher

non-addicted group. On variable 26, the analysis revealed
that the addicted group demonstrated a lower frequency of
growing up with their true mothers than did the non-addicted
group.

The inter-correlational matrices for the two groups
indicated that the correlational relationships of the
variables within each group exhibited a degree of internal
consistency, and that the 16PF was more internally consis-
tent for the non-addicted group than for the addicted
group (35 significant correlational relationships for the
nonraddicted group, 23 for the addicted group). Also,
these matrices indicated that the internal consistency for
the Demographic Data Composite was approximately the same
two groups (27 significantly correlational relationships
for each of the two groups).

ApprOpriate to the original intent of the study, the
differences on the total of nine variables were shown to
have definite implications for the clinical approach to
psychotherapy with the incarcerated addict at the Ingham

County Jail.1

 

1This study is related to a collection of studies
based upon the clinical and therapeutic aspects of drug
addiction presently being conducted under the direction
of John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823.

AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED NON-INTELLEC-
TUAL AND CERTAIN PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND

THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HEROIN ADDICTION

BY
Jerome Jay Gallagher

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment for the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

College of Education

1973

Dedicated to

Ms. Felix and Ms. LOOpus,
two sincere and life-long friends.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to pay tribute to the following
peOple who all contributed in some way to the success-
ful completion of this dissertation:

Dr. John E. Jordan, who served as the author's major
advisor and also, as a friend who gave freely of his time
and helpful advice. There were times when the author re-
quired specific assistance with computer and analysis de-
tails, and Dr. Jordan was extremely helpful in enabling
the author to make the most out of his program;

Dr. Gregory A. Miller, doctoral committee member, who
was instrumental in providing the author with numerous
Opportunities at Michigan State University relative both
to the dissertation and the course work. Dr. Miller has
provided genuine friendship and guidance during the past
four years, and knowing him has greatly furthered the author's
educational endeavors;

Dr. Thomas Gunnings and Dr. Alex Cade, members of the
author's doctoral committee, who both gave willingly of
their time and efforts, and helped improve the final

quality of this dissertation;

iii

Sheriff Kenneth Preadmore of Ingham County, who per-
mitted the use of his jail, his turnkey staff, and his
offices to perform the investigation upon which this
dissertation is based;

Dr. 0. Keith Pauley, the jail physician and close
friend, who supplied medical verifications and laboratory
analyses to lend validity to the results of this study.

Mrs. Margaret Jacobs, the research assistant, who
generously gave of her evenings and weekends to assist in
gathering and organizing the data for this study;

Mr. James H. Hightower, the research assistant,‘who
also generously donated his evening and weekend time to
arrange appointments with subjects and research obscure
personal data to insure the authenticity of this study's
results;

James Hightower, Lyman Rate, and Dennis Sykes, fellow
students whose association the author enjoyed;

Dr; and Mrs. William H. Gallagher, the author's
parents who sacrificed for years to enable the author to
reach this point in time;

Sherwood, the author's loving wife, who was a constant
source of support, understanding, and patience. Her en-
couragement was often a lone motivator when hardships

mounted, and she stood by with comforting thought throughout.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter
I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 4
Justification for the Study. . . . . . . . 9
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Assumptions. 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 10
Theory of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
General Objectives and Questions
Addressed by the Study . . . . . . . . . 12
Plan Of the StUdYO O O O O O O O O O O O O 13
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH. . 15
Author Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Terminology and Vocabulary . . . . . . . . 19
Approaching the Review . . . . . . . . . . 20
Basic Questions in the Drug Field. . . . . 21
Q 1 What is a narcotic? . . . . . . . . 21
Q 2 What is heroin, where does it
come from, and how does it
get here? . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Q 3 What is the quality 0 heroin
bought on the street? . . . . . . 34
Q 4 What is it like to take a shot
' Of herein? 0 O O O O O O I O O O O I 36
Q 5 What is the difference between
drug dependent, drug habituated,
and drug addicted?. . . . . . . . 37
Q 6 What is the history of legisla-
tion concerning heroin in the
United States?. . . . . . . . . . 39

III.

IV.

Q 7
Q 8

Q10

Qll

Q12

Q13

Q14

QlS

Briefly, what is the history of
addiction?. . . . . . . . . .

What is the history of treatment

of narcotic addicts in the
United States?. . . . . . . .
What is the present status of
narcotic addiction and treat-
ment in the United States?. .
What is methadone and what role
does it play in treatment of
the narcotic addict?. . . . .
What are some of the problems
which treatment of the heroin
addict involves?. . . . . . .
What additional characteristics
does the literature indicate
about the heroin addict pOpu-
lation? . . . . . . . . . . .
What justification exists for
a study related particularly
to heroin addicts as a sep-

arate and isolated pOpulation?.

What is the Sixteen Personality
Factor (16PF) Questionnaire,
and why was it chosen rather
than some other personality

assessment for this particular

study?. . . . . . . . . . . .
The present study investigated
selected non-intellectual
(demographic) and personality
variables. What have similar
studies in the past found?. .

Conclusions and Remarks. . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . .

Restatement of the Problem
Hypotheses . . .
Related Concerns
P0pu1ation . .
Sample . . . .
Procedure. . .
Instruments. .
Analysis of the Bat

a and Design. . . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

60

64

67

70

83

91

96

101

105
110

113

113
113
114
116
116
119
119
122

123

V.

Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor

One. .
Two. .
Three.
Four .
Five .
Six. .
Seven.
Eight.
Nine .
Ten. .
Eleven
Twelve

Description of the Data Base. . .
Description and

Interpretation of

Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen.
Sixteen.

Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable

SUMMARY .

Additional

Transitional Comment. .

Seventeen. .
Eighteen . .
Nineteen . .

Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Thirty

One .
Two .
Three
Four.
Five.
Six .
Seven
Eight
Nine.

Results. . .

Theory and Methodology.
Findings.

Tables

Conclusions, Practical Implications,
and Limitations for the 16PF.

Summary of Factors from the 16PF. . .

Conclusions and Practical Implica-

tions for the Demographic Data

Composite . .

vii

Page

123
124
128
128
128
129
129
129
130
130
131
131
131
132
132
133
133
133
134
135
135
135
136
137
137
138
138
139
140
140
141
141
142
143

175

175
176

176
182

182

Page

Summary of Variables from Demographic
Data Composite. . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Practical Implications, Limitations,
and Summary of the Inter-Correla-
tional Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Recommendations for Further Research. . . 186
General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Restatement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . 188
Restatement of the Questions. . . . . . 188
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 9 o

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

A.
B.

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Raw Data for Bot Addicted and Non—Addicted
Groups on the 16PF and the Demographic Data
Composite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Means, Sums of Squares, Degrees of Freedom,

Mean Squares, F Values, and Significance

Levels for the Results of the Statistical
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Demographic Data Composite . . . . . . . . . 212
Inter-Correlational Matrix for the Addicte

Group in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Inter-Correlational Matrix for the Non-Ad-

dicted Group in the Study. . . . . . . . . . 217

viii

Table

1.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis

Analysis

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

of

of
of
of

of

LIST OF TABLES

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

One. . .
Two. . .
Three. .
Four . .
Five . .
Six. .

Seven. .
Eight. .
Nine . .
Ten. . .
Eleven .
Twelve .
Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen.

Sixteen.

Variable
Variable
Variable

Variable

Seventeen.
Eighteen .
Nineteen .

Twenty . .

ix

Page
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163

164

Table

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

30.

Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis

Analysis

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

of

Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable

Variable

Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty
Twenty

Twenty

Thirty.

One. .
Two. .
Three.
Four .
Five .
Six. .
Seven.
Eight.
Nine .

Page
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174

16.
17.

Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description
Description

Description

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

LIST OF

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Graph of the Means of

the 16PF

FIGURES

One.
Two.
Three.
Four .

Five .

SiXCOOO

Seven.
Eight.
Nine .
Ten. .
Eleven

Twelve

Thirteen

Fourteen

Fifteen.

Sixteen.

the two Study Groups
on the Significantly Differing Factors of

xi

Page

.145
.146
.147
.148
.149
.150
.151
.152
.153
.154
.155
.156
.157
.158
.159
.160

.178

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Millions of words have been written about the "drug
problem" since it became a headline issue a few years ago.
Many of these words clash and cancel out each other. The
confusion that has resulted makes reading in the drug
field almost as "risky" as taking the drugs themselves. It
is altogether possible to get an overdose of information
adulterated with misinformation if one does not know and
respect the source, and if one proceeds blindly without
guidance.

One trend or approach in recent research has been that
of dealing with personality variables, and investigating
the relationships these variables have with particular be-
haviors. Although an explanation of the relevance of these
studies prOperly belongs in a review of literature section,
it is notable that the concept of investigating personality
characteristics and their relationship to behavior is not
new. What is notable, however, is that these personality
characteristics were specific, isolated, and even predictive

about many pOpulations (i.e., college freshmen, retarded

children, teachers, airline hijackers, etc.) but they
were general and non-specific about other pOpulations
(among them drug abusers).

Another pOpular device for investigating population
characteristics has been that of demographic data. Many
times the investigator feels that a study is much more
meaningful if the personal and historical variables are
summarized about the pOpulation or sample under investiga-
tion. This concept truly does lend a measure of credibil-
ity and interest to a study, but more importantly, demo-
graphic variables have proven to be very indicative of
characteristics within the pOpulation, and relative to par-
ticular behaviOrs. The literature review section of this
research deals at length with this matter, but the rele-
vance of demographic data is also important to the reader
as he approaches the study of investigating a pOpulation.

It is therefore the burden of the investigator's in-
struments to supply the underpinnings anibasic data for his
study. Although the conclusions derived from an intensive
investigation of any data may be somewhat less than cor-
rect, or even unjustified, these conclusions are nonethe-
less modifiable and challengable, based upon the accuracy
and objectivity of the data. Data via analysis leads to

conclusions, and despite vast differences in these con-

 

 

il‘l‘lfl‘ll

clusions among eXperimenters and investigators, the pro-
cess of scientific investigation demands a certain quality
of data.

The present investigation deals mainly with a) Per-
sonality variables, and b) Demographic data. The title
of the present study indicates that there are quantifiers
and modifiers which have been placed upon the data.

Selected Non—Intellectual (variables) refers to the demo-

 

graphic data, a detailed description of which appears
later. Certainly it would be impossible to collect and
analyze all of the demographic and personal characteris-
tics about a sample, but rather it would be more meaning-
ful and applicable to chose those few which appear to lend
themselves to investigational analysis. The term Certain

Personality Variables likewise signifies that the present

 

study dealt with a limited quantity of these variables by
way of a particular testing technique, and the reader must
not be mislead into believing that his or her favorite
personality characteristic will necessarily be included.

It is only by quantifying and delimiting the data that
a generalizable conclusion may be drawn. It is only by
making clear the limits and precautions which the data
(all sample data) imposes that the reader may make a real-

istic and meaningful application and generalization of the

results.

Statement 9; the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine selected
non-intellectual, demographic-type, sociological varia-
bles, and also certain psychological factors and the
relationships that they may have to heroin addiction.
More specifically, an attempt was made to analyze the
relationship of personality characteristics, social and
personal, socio-economic and family backgrounds, and the
apparent commitment to habitual involvement with heroin.

In the State of Michigan arrests for the possession
of narcotics and dangerous drugs increased by 110% in
1969 over 1968. This is particularly alarming since in
1968 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
ranked Michigan fifth in the United States for drug arrests.
Arrests for selling were up 48% for the time period men-
tioned above, with a 79.5% increase in heroin cases. There
was an increase of 98% in arrests of persons under 21 years
of age, 111% of persons over 21, and an 88% increase in
total arrests (90). Locally, in Lansing, the statistics
are similarly alarming.

In actual figures for the period of the year 1970,
222 arrests were made in the Lansing area for the sale of

narcotics, 820 arrests for the possession of narcotics,

and 66 arrests for the use of narcotics (39). Nine hundred
and seventy two males were in this group and 121 females.
Persons arrested in the age bracket of 17 to 21 totaled

603. Four hundred and ninety persons arrested for possession,
use, or sale of narcotics were over 21 years of age. Fur-
ther, the Michigan State Police estimate that approximately
one-third of all the narcotics arrests in the entire state

of Michigan take place in the Lansing area(50).

The Ingham County Sheriff's Office counted an average
of two new heroin cases per week handled through their
office as of September, 1969. From September, 1969 to
March, 1970, a six month period, the Ingham County Sheriff's
Department handled 148 cases of narcotics and dangerous
drugs. Of this number, 107 were arrested in the county as
opposed to 42 cases in Lansing and East Lansing. Of these
cases, approximately 65% were marijuana oriented, and only
15% heroin related. Two arrests were for cocaine sale
or use and the remainder were classified as dangerous drug
cases (28).

A.more recent evaluation of the Ingham County Jail (28)
found that of the 230 incarcerated individuals, approximately
75% had drug related problems. This does not mean that the
person was arrested for drugs per se, however, a large num-

ber of those arrested for Breaking and Entering, Armed and

Unarmed Robbery, and other similar charges, were found to
have drug related problems. This means that in 1971, in
the Ingham County Jail, there were at one point, more
than 130 incarcerated persons with drug problems that
were, at best, correlated or associated with felonious
activities leading to arrest.

Eight years ago, the vast majority of substance abuse
arrests had to do with minors in possession of alcohol,
and drunk and disorderly persons. Now, the majority of
abuse cases are related to "hard" drug abuse, which is a
more prominent arrest factor than even marijuana, classi-
fied as a "soft" drug (90).

An additional barometer which indicates the serious-
ness of the drug problem in the Lansing community is the
increase in reported hepatitis cases. Ingham County
Health Department officials have expressed concern about
the rapid rise of instances of hepatitis. Three times as
many cases were reported in 1970 as compared to 1969, with
the highest frequency among persons 17 to 23 years of age
(70).

Dr. Dean Tribby, Acting Public Health Director for the
county, stated that, "approximately 50% of the reported
hepatitis are due to serum hepatitis, following drug use or
experimentation". A total of 53 cases of hepatitis

were reported in the first ten weeks of 1970 as compared

with 18 for the same period in 1969, and only seven in
1968 (70).

Several professional persons (17) working on the
west side of the city of Lansing have estimated that
there are at least 1500 heroin addicts on that side of
town alone. Although the exact numbers of heroin addicted
persons are not available, and may never be, it has been
the experience of the Tri-County Mental Health Board
staff that the hypothesized statistic is realistic, and
does truly reflect the epidemic magnitude of drug use in
the city of Lansing (90).

The drug users themselves report that 65% to 75% of
their friends between the ages of 17 and 21 use drugs
regularly as Opposed to a one—time experimenter. Many
drug users, when asked, will state that all of their
friends have experimented with drugs at some time (17).

It should be noted that this is almost entirely
heroin use. Conversations with other professional workers,
including physicians, attorneys, law enforcement officials,
emergency room personnel, and educators indicate they
have had a substantial and alarming increase in the num—
bers of persons using drugs (91).

An integral part of the statement of the problem

must include the incidental.costs to the public. Ac-

cording to the 1970 Comprehensive Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice plan of Michigan (65% Project Rehabili-
tation in Grand Rapids estimates that one heroin addict
on the street costs the city $10,500.00 per year. Should
the addict be arrested, an additional estimated cost of
$16,800.00 in jail, police, legal, and court costs is in-
troduced for a total of $27,300.00 per year per addict.

Officials in the city of Detroit estimate that approx-
imately $40,000,000.00 per year is spent by addicts on
drug purchases. They also report subjects with a $150.00
per day, seven days a week, 365 days per year, four year
heroin habit(70). It has been the experience of the
Tri-County Mental Health Drug Program staff in Lansing
that it is not uncommon to see a subject in the Lansing
area who has a $150.00 per day habit. This constitutes
payments of $54,750.00 per year by one addict. The
general rule, however, is somewhere between $50.00 and
$100.00 per day.

It should be becoming clear that the drug abuse prob-
lem is not confined only to the very largest metropolitan
areas, nor is it just "someone else's problem". Drug abuse
is a very serious social, cultural, psychological, educa-
tional, economic, and law enforcement problem in the Lansing

area.

Justification for the Study

 

As the literature review section will indicate,
generalizations concerning the heroin addict are based
on experimentation and investigation, but also on con-
jecture, speculation,and contention. Some of the studies
reveal paradoxical summarizations and conclusions. For
decades, the heroin addict has been a virtual thorn in
the side of psychologists, educators, law enforcement
officials, and researchers. Some experimentation has
been attempted with this pOpulation, but the best results
are anything but generalizable and therapeutically often
meaningless. This is to be expected, however, when con-
clusions and generalizations are supposedly applied to a
pOpulation which is, for the most part, unspecified, un-
limited, undescribed or undefined.

The present study intends to describe and define a
sample of heroin addicted individuals. It further purports
to fill the vacancy which the literature displays concerning
the heroin addicted individual within a social and per-

sonality framework.

Hypothesis

 

The research hypothesis pr0posed by the investigator
was that a significant relationship existed between

selected non-intellecutal variables and heroin addiction,

10

and further that a significant relationship existed be-
tween certain personality variables and heroin ad-
diction. The significance of these relationships was to
be indicated by a difference between the heroin addicted

group of subjects, and the non-heroin addicted group of

subjects.

Assumptions

 

The following assumptions have been made by the inves-
tigator:
1. Certain personality variables are measured by
the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (69).
2. These variables are related to heroin addiction.
3. Selected non-intellectual variables are measured
by the Demographic Data Composite Questionnaire.

4. These variables are related to heroin addiction.

Theory gf the Study

 

The main purpose of the present study is one of describ-
ing rather than "controlling". Likewise, this study
intends more to operationally define rather than predict,
the hypothesis behind the study being that the heroin addicted
male incarcerated within the Ingham County Jail is dif-
ferent than the non-heroin user incarcerated within the
Ingham County Jail. The study further purports to define

and describe each sample in clear and understandable termin—

11

ology, and to demonstrate a difference between the two
groups based upon the chosen indices. An additional
implication related to this study is the fact that the
conclusions are intended to be helpful primarily to the
clinician. The research and investigation which supply
the basic data and concepts were derived from a clinical,
treatment setting, and the conclusions will hopefully
enhance and modify the treatment of the heroin addict.
Moreover, additional material, particularly the litera-
ture review, will demonstrate the lack of coordinated
efforts of treatment which the addict has received.
This problem is one which this study seeks to address,

although somewhat less directly.

Definition 2£_Temms

 

A "comprehensive" glossary of terms and phrases
appears in Appendix 11. Due to the novel and extensive
terminology which has evolved in the drug culture,
this particular approach better serves the descrip-
tive purpose of defining terms rather than listing
them here. Appendix I; is a result of editing numerous
documents concerned with "drug talk", plus an accumula-
tion of those terms which this investigator has become

familiar with through his personal contact with drug

12

users.

In addition, the review of literature is organ-
ized such that a great deal of the terms relative to
the structure of this study are defined therein. An
example would be question number one, which deals with
the definition of a narcotic and its differences and
similarities with hallucinogens, stimulants, and seda—
tives. Another example would be question number two,
which deals with the definition of heroin and its related
derivation and transport. Further, question number five
addresses the issue of defining and differentiating the

terms drug dependent, drug habituated, and drug addicted.

 

 

 

The Ingham County Jail, where this study was con-
ducted, is a maximum detention and correctional facility
located in Mason, Michigan. The jail is quite modern,
being constructed in 1962, and has a capacity for 200
males and 20 females. Mason, the County Seat of Ingham
County, is located 13 miles south of Lansing, Michigan,
and 22 miles north of Jackson, Michigan.

General Objectives and Questions
Addressed §y the Study

 

 

 

The study seeks answers and makes comments relative
to the following:
Two pOpulations will be sampled randomly within the

13

Ingham County Jail. One pOpulation.will be heroin addicted
individuals and the other will be non-heroin addicted
individuals. This study seeks to determine whether there
exists a significant difference on 14 demographic data
variables and to describe the magnitude and extent of

that difference.

The study further seeks to answer the following ques-
tions:

Based upon a personality assessment scale, does the
sample of heroin addicted persons differ significantly
(statistically) from the sample of non-addicted persons?

If the general personality profile for the heroin addicted
pOpulation is significantly different from that of the
non-addicted pepulation, does further analysis yield sample
items and variables within the personality scale which
demonstrate additional significant differences between

the two papulations? The major thrust of this investiga—
tion addresses itself to the issue of yielding a socially,
statistically, and/or therapeutically meaningful picture of

the heroin addict.

Plan of the Study

 

 

Chapter I includes the statement of the problem, the

research hypothesis and assumptions, the justification for

14

the study, and the theory of the study with general ques-
tions and objectives specified.

A review of related conditions, research, history,
and literature is presented in Chapter II, followed by
a design of the study in Chapter III and an analysis of
the data in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of
the study, and the conclusions and recommendations of

the investigator based upon the results of the study.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

In reviewing the research, it became necessary to
select only those books, articles, dissertations, etc.,
which related directly to the purpose and needs of this
study and its objectives. However, in order to meet the
wide variety of needs of the general reader, the educa-
tor, the researcher, and the writer, it was necessary to
uphold a broad criteria of selection while maintaining
relevance. The objective of the review was to be compre-
hensive and inclusive of various Opinions and data. Al-
though one's philOSOphical, ideological, and moral stance
toward drugs is very important, and should be explicit
and apparent, this writer's bias purports to reflect a
spectrum of Opinion. The implication herein is that not
all of the resources are of equal value.

No one needs to know or read everything published to
have a good working knowledge of a particular field. TO
try to read, and likewise, experience everything would de-

feat the purpose Of defined studies and specific research

15

16

papers such as this one. A delineated and focused in-
vestigation, however, presents the reader with a refer-
ence source which fits a particular purpose or interest.
In developing a process of selection and weighing the
reference data which apply to this study, this writer has
coded a criteria which is as follows:

1. Basic reference books which should be included
in any well stocked library concerned with drug
addiction.

2. References which relate to the interests of a
specialist who needs detailed scientific data
concerned with drug abuse.

3. Particularly helpful references to the indivi-
dual reader who is just getting started, and
needs basic orientation into legal and moral
controversies as well as reliable factual know-

ledge.

Author Orientation

 

It is safe to assume that a writer or a researcher will
produce a more meaningful and interesting piece of work if
he is personally enthusiastic about his material. Aside
from isolated academic motivation such as a grade or per-
haps even a degree, the basic theory of higher education

would tend to support the notion that a student eventually

17

becomes immersed in an area of investigation which he
finds fits his needs and interests. This argument or
prOposition may be compared with the statistical impli-
cation Of describing a sample so adequately and com-
pletely that the reader is placed in the position of
generating apprOpriateness and implications of the
study to another poPulation based upon the strong sim-
ilarity between samples. Likewise, it would seem logi-
cal that the reader become familiar with some basic in-
terests and inclinations of the researcher in order to
deem a particular study relevant to himself based upon
his shared similarities with the writer.

As a third year Doctoral Candidate, this writer was
employed by the Community Mental Health Board of Ingham
County, Michigan. He was titled a Clinical Psychologist,

Program Director, and employed full time with a federally

funded program called the Drug Abuse Treatment Program
(DATP). The funds, approved by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in washington, were administered
by the county. The initial grant was approved and funded
on August 1, 1971, for the amount of $384,000.00 per

year for eight years. This writer joined the program on
August 6, 1971, and has taken an active part in organ-

izing a treatment clinic, including testing and all forms

18

of group and individual therapy. He had assisted in im-
plementing and organizing a community approach to rehabil-
itation of the drug addicted individual through: a) in-
tensive psychotherapy within the county jail, b) job
placement service for released inmates, and c) continued
counseling and therapy at the community centers after the
inmate is released.

There are additional factors concerning the DATP
which apply directly to the reader's orientation to this
study. One of these factors is that his program dealt only
with heroin-addicted individuals. The sc0pe of the grant
originally included the field of alcoholism as a group
which was eligible for treatment, but because of large
caseloads and liberal release procedures for alcoholic in-
dividuals (from the county jail), alcoholics were low
priority subjects. Out of an estimated caseload of 150
subjects there usually existed one alcoholic. The prob—
lem was similar to users of marijuana and other "soft"
drugs. These cases were assigned low priority status,
and were relatively obscured by the huge numbers of "hard"
addicts. This group was composed almost entirely of
heroin addicts. Hence, the primary concern of the program
and the true subject under investigation and treatment by

the federal funds and the administration of governmental

 

III-Ii Ill

 

19

monies in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton counties was the
heroin addict.

At the time of this study, the writer was Spending
approximately’forty hours per week involved with the hard
core heroin addict. He was exposed to this individual
continuously either in therapy or group encounter, in
consultation.with defense lawyers or with the prosecutor's
office, in staff meetings, or jail administration. The
heroin addict and his story were a real part of the
author's daily routine...more real than all the literature
available and more real than any one documented case his-
tory could be.

The orientation of this writer is based upon clini-
cal and. empirical evidence. It is h0ped that the reader
has been given the data and material to better relate
with this researcher, either empathically or otherwise.
Regardless of the appropriateness of this background in-
formation to the study, this writer cannot help but be-
lieve that future researchers will be more at ease as
they formulate implications and generate new hypotheses

from this study.

Terminology and VOcabulary»

 

 

Within the United States, all drug "subcultures"

share some well defined characteristics. They' are all

20

mobile, they are all active (securing finances, primarily),
and they are all illegal. Somewhere within the interac-
tion of these factors lies a source of energy for gener-
ating a phenomenal degree of inventiveness. The crimes

are often ingenious, the living conditions are regularly
constructed to accomodate the individual while he is under
the drug influence rather than while he is normal, and
last, the terminology which has evolved is unique and
novel. A "comprehensive" drug glossary appears in Appendix
A, and was drawn from numerous documented sources and per-

sonal observations.

Approaching the Review

 

The method chosen for reporting the related litera-
ture and research was selected for its projected effective-
ness notwithstanding its unorthodox format for a doctoral
thesis. The wide range of data and the varied themes upon
which the review process focused resulted in some fairly
specific areas. Each of these areas has direct meaning
and relevance to the criteria stated earlier in this chap-
ter, but not necessarily are these areas smoothly asso-
ciated with each other in a consecutive manner. Therefore,
the "Question and Answer" form of literature review was
deemed appropriate, wherein the writer sought to anticipate

the questions and concerns of the reader. This approach

21

does permit the grouping of related and similar data

via questions which would naturally follow each other,
but also it permits abrupt jumps in the thought trend
to cover a much broader and more expansive quantity of

meaningful material.

BASIC QUESTIONS IN THE DRUG FIELD

Q 1 What is a narcotic?

There are basically four groups of drugs
which are commonly abused today. They are: a)
hallucinogens, b) stimulants, c) sedatives, and
d) narcotics.

Hallucinogens (also called psychedeliCS) are
drugs capable of provoking changes of sensations,
thinking, self awareness, and emotion. Alterations
of time, distortions in Space perception, illusions,
hallucinations and delusions may be either minimal
or overwhelming, depending on the dose.

LSD is the most potent and testestudied hallu-
cinogen. Besides LSD, a large number of synthetic
and natural hallucinogens are known. Mescaline,
from the peyote cactus, Psilocybin, from the Mexican
Mushroom, morning glory seeds, DNT, STP, ANDA, and

dozens of others are known and abused. Along with

22

its active component THC, marijuana is medically
classified as a hallucinogen.

Sedatives induce sleep. When taken in small
doses they reduce daytime tension and anxiety. Bar-
biturates constitute the largest group of sedatives.
When used without close supervision, the possibilities
of taking increased amounts and becoming extremely
dependent are present.

The tranquilizers are drugs that calm, relax,
and diminish anxiety. Like sedatives, they may
cause drousiness. Tranquilizers are used to treat
serious mental disorders. Some tranquilizers that
are used to treat serious mental disorders are not
dependence producing, but it is tranquilizers like
meprobamate (Miltown, Equinal) to which dependence
can be developed.

Sedatives are physically addicting. Tolerance
to the effects of barbiturates develOpes and withdrawal
effects occur when the drug is stOpped. A strong
desire to continue taking the drug is present after
only a few days on large amounts. Addiction to fifty
or more sleeping tablets a day is commonly reported,
and death may result from unsupervised and medically

unsupported withdrawal from barbiturates.

23

Stimulants are drugs, usually amphetamines,
which increase alertness, reduce hunger, and provide
a feeling of well-being. Their medical uses include
the supression of appetite and the reduction of fatigue
or mild depression. Many stimulants are known, in-
cluding cocaine, amphetamine,benzadrine, dextroampheta-
mine, and methamphetamine.

Since tolerance to high doses of amphetamines
develops, and withdrawal symptoms occur, large
amounts of amphetamines are considered physically
addicting. Small amounts are psychologically hab-
ituating.

A narcotic is a drug that relieves pain and
induces sleep. Narcotics, or Opiates, include opium
and its active components, such as morphine. It can
also include heroin, which is morphine chemically al-
tered to make it about six times stronger. Narcotics
also include a series of synthetic chemicals having
morphine-like action. Heroin accounts for 95% of
the narcotic addiction problem in this county. It
is not used in.medicine, and all heroin in the United
States is smuggled into this country. Morphine,
methadone, and meperidine are used medically and are

frequently seen on the black market. Paregoric and

C22

24

cough syrups containing codeine are also abused.

When addiction exists, stOpping the drug produces
withdrawal sickness some 12 to 16 hours after the last
injection. The addict yawns, shakes, sweats, his nose
and eyes run, and he vomits. Muscle aches and jerks
occur along with abdominal pain and diarrhea. Chills
and backache are also very frequent. Hallucinations
and delusions can develOp, and these are usually
terrifying. An injection of an Opiate usually brings
about immediate relief.

Death resulting from narcotic withdrawal is
very rare. Although the addict may be physically suf-
fering, there exists no medical evidence of a death

resulting from narcotic withdrawal per se.

What is heroin, where does it come from, and how

does it get here?

In November, 1972, the CBS television network
produced a national documentary titled "Sixty Min-
utes" devoted mainly to the tOpic of heroin. This
television presentation researched and summarized
the topic of heroin and its production and traffic
better than most available documents - not only be-

cause of the program's recent and updated nature, but

25

also due to the foreign living and speaking CBS agents
and newsmen and their true-to-life acquaintanceship
with undercover heroin traffic. The answer to this
particular question, therefore, was drawn from a
CBS transcript of that "Sixty Minutes" program (63).
The strongest and the purest heroin in the world
is a deritive of the pOppy plant which grows in Tur-
key. Opium, which comes from the pods of the Turkish
pOppy plant, is one of the main financial enterprises
for the country of Turkey. As the flowers mature,
pods approximately one to one-and-a-half inches in
diameter are formed. These pods, when they reach
maturity, are scored with a knife, by hand, around
their circumference, and twenty four hours later the
"gum" or sap which flows from these pods is collected.
Opium, to the Turkish farmer, has been his most lucra-
tive cash crOp. He has sold most of it to the govern-
ment for a fair price, and the rest of it to the smug-
glers for a great deal more. His wife has used the
seeds to make oil for cooking, the leaves for salads,
and the remains for fodder to feed his livestock.
After it is collected in small ceramic containers,
the Opium gum is formed into blocks which are then

sent to pharmaceutical houses around the world. Many

26

times these blocks of opium gum are used as currency
in bartering situations. Often the farmer will store
and conceal Opium blocks to use as bargaining tools
and tokens in later transactions. The farmers have
used these blocks of Opium.gum as money for centuries.
Opium gum will keep indefinitely and, in many ways,

is as good as gold. The Opium gum blocks can actually
take on the characteristics of dowery money, bank
account money, or a savings for a farmer's old age.

At any time, the smugglers will pay the farmer at
least three times as much for his opimm illegally as
the government will pay him legally. And the farmer
knows that the price can only go up.

Ten pounds of Opium gmm can be converted into one
pound of morphine base. This is the first step on
its way to heroin. Morphine base is smaller, thus
easier to hide than Opium gum. It is usually pro-
cessed in lonely huts on the edge of the Turkish
village. This processing is an easy affair - all
that is needed is running water, a few pots and pans,
some slake-lime and a fire. The product, morphine
base, comes out looking very much like powdered coffee.

In the village the farmer makes his contact with

the smuggler. This man, in Turkish, is called the

27

"Black Sheep". He is not difficult to find and
everyone knows when he arrives in town, but there
aren't enough narcotic agents around to stOp the
connection. A conversation was held with a young
Turkish smuggler, who then stated he was retired,
and he described just how easy smuggling was:

I went to the center of town. I spoke with three vil—
lagers. I told them I wanted to buy base morphine. I told
them I wanted to buy thirty kilograms, and I would pay thirty
dollars per kilogram. At that time I put the thirty kilograms
of'morphine base powder in my car - it had a false bottom in
the floor, and I drove to Istanbul. There I waited for a
couple of days for my exit visa, then I took the morphine base,
by myself, to Marsailles (France). I had the telephone number
of my contact and I called him. He agreed to pay me $750
per kilogram. So during this first trip, I made a profit
of $15,000 American dollars. But the thing is, I am just
a small smuggler. There are big business men doing this
for very big profits.

It is interesting to note that it has only been
during the last three or four years that the farmer
in Turkey has become aware of the damage that his
pOppies are wreaking in the West. Stories of addic-

tion - of misery and death - these stories bewilder

28

him. His family very seldom chews or ingests the
Opium, or even smokes it, for they call it poison,
and they cannot understand why the addict in the
west would Open his veins to heroin. The ancient
capitol, ConstantinOple, now called Istanbul, has be-
come the most hospitable of capitols for the dealings
of the merchant, both illegal and legal, who Operate
in narcotics. Istanbul is a commerical bridge be-
tween the East and the West. Long after Turkey's
poppies wither and die, Istanbul will remain a transit
point for smugglers bringing narcotics from Afghani-
stan and Pakistan, from the far east.

The big time smugglers manipulate from behind the
scenes. These include legitimate businessmen and even
parlimentary leaders whose respectibility goes un-
questioned. Their curriers and agents are the men
out in front. The Turkish police, whose salary
usually amounts to $75 per month, can be tempted
by corrupt money dangled before them if only they
would perform lackadaisically in their pursuit of
smugglers. The police in Turkey are novices at the
narcotics game - their narcotics bureau only being
three years old. The punishment in Turkey for a

narcotics violation is tough, and one would think

29

that it would deter a smuggler. The punishments are
ten years in prison for pushing, life imprisonment
for manufacture, importing or exporting, and death
in extreme cases. Offenders customarily serve quite
short sentences, and by hook or bribery, find them-
selves back on the streets in only a couple of years.
This is a frustration for the Americans who are on
the scene for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs (BNDD). If the Americans are polite about it
in public, in private they fume over the inefficiency
and corruption of the Turkish police.

Of all the morphine base which leaves Turkey, it
was estimated as of January 1, 1973, 50% of it was

being transported by way of surface vehicles such as

autos, trucks and trains. This is a major change in
transportation mode from the year before when almost
80% traveled by way of ship. Regardless of the method
of transportation, however, the morphine base must
reach Marsailles, France, in order to be manufactured
into heroin as Americans know it. Regardless of
whether it travels through Munich, by truck or car,

or across the Bosporus by ship, it is estimated that
99.5% of all heroin in the United States, past or

present, was manufactured in Marsailles, France.

30

The CBS transcript supplies estimates that 10
tons of pure uncut heroin finds its way into the hands
of the United States addict directly from Marsailles,
France, every year. This represents an annual finan-
cial involvement of six billion dollars retail to the
American addict. This is what police and movie makers
mean when they talk about the "French Connection."

It must be remembered at this point, that heroin
in any form, for any purpose, in the United States, is
illegal. It is not used for medicinal purposes.

Marsailles is the biggest port on the Mediterranean.
It sits as a "half-way house" between the Opium growers
of Asia Minor and the heroin addicts of the United
States. In the Port of Marsailles - the port which
was already Asian.when the Greek.mariners came there
600 years B.C. - it is still extremely easy to smug-
gle a pound or two, or a hundred pounds of pure, un-
cut heroin to a waiting ship. The "French Connection"
and the related smuggling relies heavily on the com-
pactness of its goods and the enormity of the trade.

A few bags more, a few pounds more, a few gallons
less oil per barrel - who would ever notice it? Of-
ten a few fistfuls of the white powdered heroin is

worth a great deal more than the leaky tramp steamers

31

which transport it across the oceans.

The city of Marsailles has the distinction of
producing the world's purest and therefore most ex-
pensive heroin. Some 30,000 villas are hidden and
secluded in the surrounding hills which border on
three sides of the seacoast city. Any French kitchen
could easily be converted into a laboratory producing
extremely high quality heroin. This process does not
take a particularly SOphisticated set-up. Two hun-
dred and fifty pounds of morphine base can be converted
into 250 pounds of pure refined heroin in only a few
days. The street value of this heroin is twenty million
dollars. The next step in this Operation is concerned
with getting the heroin into the United States and
distributed to the addict on the streets. Over 88%
of all the heroin used in the United States arrives
through New York. Despite all security and customs
precautions, to a heroin smuggler, the United States
looks like one giant sieve. To begin with, there
are 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. There are
4,000 miles of border with Canada — largely unfenced
and only sporadically patrolled. This provides easy
pickings for a smuggler in a low flying plane. More

than 100000 small, private planes entered the United

32

States illegally last year and it is certainly safe
to say that a few thousand more crossed the border
without the benefit of customs. Add to that more
than 70 million cars and trucks driven into the
United States last year. A cursory check is as much
as most of them can get without tying up border traf-
fic for days. Commercial aircraft - planes from over-
seas - land 200,000 times a year at our international
airports. Customs men have found heroin concealed
in the structure of the planes themselves, not just
in the cargo or in the passengers' luggage. And
ships...46,000 last year (1972) - not counting 60,000
international ferry runs. And the cargo...literally
millions of shipments each year - boxed, bagged,
canned - from every country in the world. Obviously,
heroin can be hidden almost anywhere. And the mails
...55 million packages per year — some of it sniffed
by dogs trained to smell narcotics. Customs inspec-
tors are able to Open just one package in 20.

And finally, peOple. During the 12 months of
1972, 235 million people crossed the United States
borders through more than 450 legal points of entry.

Standing between all those peOple, cars, ships,

planes, and parcels is a mere force of 5,600 customs

33

inspectors trying to keep heroin out. There are
fewer than 2,000 of these inspectors on duty at any
one time.

Once the heroin is on the street, a bag weigh—
ing one kilogram (slightly over one pound) may have
a value of $250,000 to $500,000. It may be "cut"
(deconcentrated by mixing with milksugar, quinine, or
other fairly innocuous soluable chemicals) again and
again and eventually packaged in tiny glascine bags -
enough of them to make injections for one hundred
thousand heroin addicts.

Some of the more pOpular methods of smuggling
heroin into this country include false bottoms in
suitcases, body packs worn as a harness with pockets
which fit tightly around the torso, children's toys
such as dolls, stuffed animals which are stuffed with
bags of heroin, and books which are hollowed out al-
lowing a compartment between the two covers in which
to conceal heroin. The federal government finds,
however, that the most pOpular method of shipping
heroin into the United States is in foreign manufac-
tured cars shipped to this country for resale. En-
gineayalve covers and gasoline tanks are found to

have huge quantities of heroin packed tightly inside...

34

often as much as 400 to 500 pounds per automobile.

Federal and.state agents succeeded in finding
4,000 pounds of illegal heroin last year (1972),
but it was estimated that an additional 6,000 pounds
of heroin found its way to the addict on the street
during the same period of time.

When the heroin arrives in the United States,
it passes down the line from connection to connection -
from the importer to the wholesaler, then to the man
who buys it in kilos and sells it in half kilos,
then to the ounce man who packages it in plastic
bags, then to the bundle man who purchases enough
bags for twenty five fixes and finally to the street
dealer who sells it to the addicts. At each step
along the way the heroin is diluted, and the price
is doubled or tripled. The process is completed
when the addict buys his bags from his "contact"...
bags which may contain 98.5% dilutant (glucose or

quinine) and cost him $100.00 every day.

'Q 3 What is the quality of heroin bought on the street?

Heroin is invariably diluted with milksugar,
quinine, or other materials. Capsules or cellOphane

bags, which may vary from 0 to 10% heroin, are sold

35

to users for two to 15 dollars each. The material is
unsterile. Some of the heroin has been "cut" so
much that the addict has a "needle habit" rather

than a heroin habit. A "needle habit" is one in
which the user obtains gratification from hustling
for narcotics and injecting himself with the material
even though it contains very little or no heroin.
Medically, the introduction of any foreign substance
directly into the venus circulation system will pro-
duce a dizziness which is often mistaken for a ”high".
Addicts have been known to inject mayonnaise, pea-
nut butter, and many other dissolved substances

such as aspirin or alka-seltzer into their veins

to achieve this "high".

Substance analysis centers in Detroit and Lansing
have indicated that the percent of the heroin compound
purchased on the streets has decreased from approxi-
mately 7% to 1%% during the period from 1970 to 1972.

It is not unusual for a heroin addict, once incarcer-

ated in jail, to suffer no withdrawal symptoms what-
ever because he has been buying and injecting pure
glucose or quinine during recent months. The addict
finds this very upsetting.

The quality of the heroin in other United States

36

cities, however, may differ considerably. Heroin
purchased in Miami has been measured as high as 18%
pure heroin. The problem this presents is a very
serious one to the addict who is using $50 a day

worth of "Lansing" heroin, and is presented with the
Opportunity of using $50 worth of "Miami" heroin.

This difference in heroin concentration for the same
amounts of injectable material would undoubtedly cause

death from an overdose.

What is it like to take a shot of heroin?

Immediately upon injection, there is a "rush".
This intense feeling of "high" or euphoria is due
to the introduction of a foreign substance directly
into the circulatory system, and is caused specifi-
cally when the substance reaches the brain cells.
This feeling has been likened to that of sexual or-
gasm. Generally, there follows a feeling of relaxa—
tion and contentment. This is accompanied by an
"aura", or pleasant dreamlike state. This is called
a "nod".

As tolerence is develOped, the "high" is gen-
erally lost. The addict then requires heroin to

avoid the withdrawal sickness. In other words, at

37

this point he is using heroin to feel normal. Cus-
tomarily, the heroin use at this point begins in-
creasing as withdrawal pains and symptoms can begin
if any one dosage level is maintained for too long.
An overdose may occur when someone has lost,
decreased, or never develOped a tolerence because he
was using very diluted heroin. If, by chance, he
obtains pure heroin, he may die moments after the
injection. This is customarily a violent death,

characterized by convulsions and then unconsciousness.

What is the difference between drug dependent, drug
habituated, and drug addicted?

Although a drug may be defined as a substance
which has an effect upon the body or the mind, this
study concentrates only upon those drugs which have
a potential for abuse because of their mind altering
capabilities. Drug dependence is a state of psycho-
logical or physical dependence or both which results
from chronic, periodic, or continuous use. Many
kinds of drug dependency exists and they all have
specific problems associated with them.

Dependency is the use of a drug routinely for

a specific need or purpose. This would include a

38

need which.may be physical (i.e., insulin) but also
which may be psychological. Not everyone who uses
a.mind-a1tering chemical becomes dependent upon it.
Alcohol is one common example of this point. The
majority of persons who drink do not harm themselves
or those around them. However, more than five mil-
lion Americans are dependent on alcohol (1) .
Habituation is thezpsychologicaz desire to re-
peat the use of a drug intermittently or continuously
because of emotional reasons. Escape from tension,
dulling of reality, euphoria (being "high"), are some
of the reasons why drugs come to be used habitually.
Addiction is physical dependence upon a drug.
Its scientific definition includes a development of
tolerence and withdrawal. As a person develops tol-
erence, he requires larger and larger amounts of the
drug to produce the same effect. When use of the
addicting drug is stopped abruptly, the period of
withdrawal is characterized by such distressing symp-
toms as vomiting, convulsions, and even possibly
death. A compulsion to repeat the use of the addict-
ing drug is understandable because the drug tempor-
arily solves one's problems and keeps the withdrawal

symptoms away.

39

Q 6 What is the history of legislation concerning

heroin in the United States?

The vast majority of the articles available
concerning the history of legislation in the United
States center about the theme that the drug laws in
this country represent an epitome of over criminali-
zation, ambitious legislation, and repression. One
reason for this may be that the critic is more be-
lievable than the governmental representative and
therefore finds more favor with the publishers. In
any event, it is difficult to discover articles
which are objective. The precaution must be exercised
in selecting out the ideological favoritism found in
the bulk of the references.

The Narcotics Division, under the United States
Department of the Treasury, was instrumental in pro-
moting congressional passage of the Harrison Act of
1914 (80). This law was originally intended partly
to carry out a treaty obligation between the United
States and numerous EurOpean and Western countries (75),
but mainly to aid the states themselves in combating
a local police problem which had gotten quite out of

hand (76). Quite basically, the Harrison Act made

40

"drugs" illegal, and prescribed penalties for their
use and possession. In other areas of law enforce-
ment and legislation, when Congress had placed feder-
al power and laws in the balance, local problems
usually diminished or disappeared (79). In the case
of narcotics control, the theory was that the state
legislation and law enforcement officials were not
capable of enforcing their laws, and the federal
government was seen as the rescuing agency.

One of the authorities in interpreting and analyz-
ing the resulting impact of the Harrison Act is Rufus
G. King. Dr. King makes clear in his writings that
the Harrison Act was the first piece of legislation
which classified the addict as a criminal. He further
writes that the United States, alone among civilized
nations, was "...driven relentlessly down the long
road dealing with narcotics and narcotic legislation
ever since the end of WOrld War I." He further states
that the most grievous error of the Harrison Act was in
allowing the narcotics addict to be pushed out of
society and relegated to the criminal community (81).

The Harrison Act, which was not enforced until
1918, was described by some as basically a tax measure,

designed and intended to bring the domestic traffic

41

of narcotics into the Open under a licensing system
so that the dispensing practices of the day could be
checked. The law actually said nothing about ”addicts"
(partly because the word had not achieved its wide
current usage), and specifically exempted the I'patient"
in the bona fide doctor - patient relationship. Nar-
cotics users were "sufferers" or "patients" in those
days. They could and did get relief from any repu-
table medical practitioner, and there was not the
slightest suggestion that Congress intended to change
this - beyond cutting off disreputable "pushers" who
were thriving outside the medical profession and along
its peripheries.

Dr. King's analysis indicated that two things,
very likely related, distorted this intent. First,
the Act was assigned, for enforcement, to the same
individuals who were undertaking another piece of
federal legislation - enforcement of the new prohibi-
tion law (60). And secondly, great public debate of
the "d0pe menace" swept the country (54). The narco-
tic user suddenly became a "dOpe fiend". Official
estimates of the addict pOpulation leaped to the fan-
tastic figure of one million - mostly young peOple,

and many "under the age of 20" (85). Dr. King typified

42

the American public as ”terrified". The Narcotics
Division of the Treasury Department came to the
”rescue" with enforcement. The United States prisons
began to fill with addicts and, surprisingly, repu-
table medical men who had tried to help them (60).

In 1922, the Jones - Miller Act was enacted by
the legislature. This law primarily served to close
the loOpholes and tighten the rigid definitions and
offenses described in the Harrison Act of eight years
earlier. The Boggs Act of 1951 mainly increased the
penalties for infraction of existing narcotic laws.
Numerous state laws have also been enacted, and in
practically all cases their purpose has been to make
more effective the objectives of the Harrison Act of
1914. In recent years also, a number of international
agreements have been made in an effort to curtail the
illegal supply of drugs. These international agree-
ments, however, have not been so effective as they
might otherwise have been. This is due to the fact
that in some countries, revenue from the Opium trade
is still a very important factor in the national
economy. Although this aspect is dealt with in detail
in this chapter, some of these elicit sources of Opium

supply may be of interest. They include China, Burma,

43

Malaya, Thailand, Iran, India, Japan, Lebanon, Italy,
Mexico, and mostly Turkey (27).

In spite of the efficient organization of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, it must be recognized
that their assignment to enforce the anti-narcotics
acts was extremely difficult, and this difficulty
fell into two classifications. First was that of
apprehending the persons involved, and the second
was that of obtaining convictions.

Heroin was the principal produce of the illicit
trade. This drug is of small bulk and light in weight
and therefore it is easily concealed. Smuggling
heroin into the United States provided very little
real problem for the smuggler with any basic ingenuity.
Some of the methods for smuggling are dealt with at
length elsewhere in this chapter.

Difficulty in obtaining convictions was also
important. The Constitution of the United States
guarantees to the peOple the right to be secure in
their persons, houses, and effects against unreason-
able searches and seizures, and specifies that no
warrants may be issued except upon probable cause
and upon describing the things to be seized. The

Constitutions of the various states reaffirm these

44

rights. In effect, this has meant that searches
for narcotics cannot be conducted without a war-
rant, which, by the time it is issued, might be
too late to acquire evidence or to save evidence
from destruction, or to place anyone under arrest.
Drugs seized in an arrest without a warrant are
not admissible as evidence in court because they
are illegally acquired. As a result of this and
other legal technicalities guaranteed by the Con-
stitution, the evidence is frequently insufficient,
and the case dismissed.

In the face of such difficulties, the exper—
ience has been that the supply of narcotic drugs
simply has not been shut off during the 60 years
in which the Harrison Act has been on the statute
books. There have, however, been a number Of very
important effects of these statutes. First, of
course, all legal channels of supply for addicts
have been cut off. Second, as a practical matter,
the Harrison Act eliminated physicians as an agency
for attempting narcotic cure because of the fact
that such efforts, in the opinion of the physicians,
left them in danger of being regarded as infringing

the provisions of the law. The third effect of the

45

statute was to create a profitable opportunity of
great magnitude for law breakers who served the il-
legal market.

It is very important to note the unusual inter-
action between federal legislation and the physicians
of America which took place immediately upon passage
of the Harrison Act of 1914. It must be noted that
Section II of the Harrison Act exempted from prosecu-
tion the prescription of drugs "to a patient by a
physician...in the course of his professional prac-
tice only" (81). This was unrevealing draftsmanship
to the eyes of many physicians because they felt
that the agonies of unrelieved addiction were as much
encompassed in their Hippocratic oath as was any
other hwman suffering, and Specification of same was
unnecessary.

The Division's assault on this expression of
the physician's conscience started in the courts.

The government aimed for a construction which would
exclude from the Harrison Act exempting a doctor's
dispensation of narcotics to ease the addict's crav-
ing. The addendum had two Objectives: To end all
so-called ambulatory treatment (92) including the

clinic system for controlled distribution of drugs

46

to addicts (67) , and then, if possible, to drive
the profession away from the addict altogether. It
succeeded in both goals - for a brief period.
Government victories in the Supreme Court, culmin-
ating in United States v. Behrman (37) posed two
problems that were broader than the subject matter
of this discussion. The question arose: To what
extent is it morally justified for an administrative
agency to select the cases it feeds to our appeals
courts in order to gain some desired interpretation
or result? And how far should the government appeals
be extended by way of successive administrative ac-
tions and interpretations - particularly when the
court decision underlying the original action has
meanwhile been effectively overruled?

The cases channeled into the courts for prosecu-
tion were flagrant and violatory at first, but the
reasoning for the verdicts generated by the courts
were very interesting indeed. With each successive
ruling, it became easier to prosecute another physi-
cian based upon the earlier Court decision.

The Harrison Act came through its first consti-
tutional Supreme Court test by a five to four margin

(84). On that day, the Court decided Webb v. United

47

States (77), a physician case appealed under the
exemption II. The facts showed flagrant abuse;
the doctor had sold prescriptions - four thousand
of them in eleven months - indiscriminately, to
anyone for fifty cents apiece. The issue was pre-
sented in a certified question:

If a practicing and registered physician issues an
order for morphine to an habitual user thereof, the order
not being issued by him in the course of professional treat-
ment in the attempt to cure of the habit, but being issued
for the purpose of providing the user with morphine suf-
ficient to keep him comfortable while maintaining his cus-
tomary use, is such an order a physician's prescription under
exemption II?

The Court replied:

To call such an order for the use of morphine a physi-
cian's prescription would be so plain a perversion of mean-
ing that no discussion of the subject is required (90).

Note how the question was loaded: "Sufficient
to keep him comfortable by maintaining his customary
use" is not a description of the facts of the case...
it not only blankets the outright peddling involved
in the case before the court, but it also reaches

toward the bona-fide administration of drugs for the

48

relief of the patient addict.

The next case, Jin Fuey May v. United States
(78) was likewise flagrant in its facts. The doctor
had prescribed morphine to strangers indescriminately,
in bulk, eight to ten grams at a time, for $1.00 a
gram, The Court, this time, apparently choosing its
wording, said:

Manifestly the phrases 'to a patient' and 'in the course
of his professional practice only' are intended to confine
the immunity of a registered physician, in dispensing the nar-
cotic drugs mentioned in the (Harrison) Act strictly within
the appropriate bonds of a physician's professional practice
and not to extend it to include a sale to a dealer or dis-
tribution intended to cater to the appetite or satisfy the
craving of one addicted to the use of the drug (78).

Again, the language goes far beyond the facts of
the case. It separates "professional practice" from
any administration whatsoever "intended to cater to
the appetite or satisfy the craving" of an addict.

Now the stage was set for Dr. Behrman. For pur-
poses of finding the doctor a peddler for profit, the
case presented an ideal set of facts. He was ar-
rested in New York for giving one addict at one time

for use as the addict saw fit, prescriptions for 150

49

grains of heroin, 360 grains of morphine, and 210
grains of cocaine (72). Again, the question posed
was whether this was "in the course of his professional
practice only". The government, however, drew up an
indictment alleging not that the prescriptions were
incompatable with the approved or prOper therapeutic
treatment, but instead alleging that, in effect, the
drugs were given in a good faith attempt to cure the
addict (72).

Behrman demurred. The District Judge delivered
a brief lecture against "ambulatory treatment", but
reluctantly sustained the demure, referring to a
decision in another indictment case (71), and closing
with an inviting conclusion: "For the sake of uni-
formity in this district, however, I am disposed to
follow precedent until the question is concluded by
decision of the Supreme Court" (72).

Soon after, in 1922, the Government appealed the
case directly to the Supreme Court (12) and promptly
moved to advance it, stating in support of its motion:

The case involves (a matter of general public interest,
i.e., what is the meaning of the words 'in the course of his
professional practice only' in that portion of the act which

exempts from its provisions the dispensing or distribution of

50

the drugs to a patient by a physician in the course of his
professional practice only."

The-appeal went on to ask:

The practical administration of the Harrison Narcotic
Act is dependent, to a very large extent, upon the decision
which this court may render in this case." (72)

In the Behrman brief, Solicitor General Beck
made no attempt to gloss over what was being sought,
apparently relying - rightly, as the outcome proved -
on the flagrancy of the case and the prevailing
tempo of the times (73). In the extremely lengthy
and bitter court battle which ensued, Behrman was
accused of a violation of the Harrison Act as a mat-
ter of law, and concerns for the legitimate and lic-
ensed practice of medicine were ignored.

Justice Day and five of his associates sustained
the Government's position, reversing the District
Court and thus putting the stamp of approval on the
Behrman indictment. That the majority of the court
did not see clearly what they were doing — despite
the government's candid brief - is apparent from the
fact that they relied heavily on the mere amounts of
the prescriptions, (72) apparently without realizing

that the doctrine they were setting would make a

51

volume - and good faith, as well - irrelevant. The

other three justices, Holmes, Brandeis, and McReynolds,

were more clarvoyant. Justice Holmes wrote for them:
It seems to me wrong to construe the statute as creating

a crime in this way without a word of warning. Of course the

fact alleged suggest an indictment in a different form, but

the government preferred to trust to a strained interpretation

of the law rather than to a finding of a jury upon the facts.

I think this judgement should be affirmed." (72)

If some members of the court were not fully a-
ware of what they were giving in the Behrman holding,
the Narcotics Division nonetheless saw completely
clear what it had received. The Division reasoned
that if a Behrman indictment was unassailable when
it charged the dispensing of shocking amounts of drugs,
it was no less unassailable when it charged a minute
quantity only. The Division had what it wanted. Any
doctor who prescribed any narcotic drug to an addict
could be threatened by prosecution or packed off to
prison - and good faith was no defense. Immediately
there commenced a "reign of terror".

The medical profession was shamelessly bullied
and threatened until it withdrew, totally and irre-

vocably, as the addict's last and only point of con-

52

tact with legal society(86). The Narcotics Clinics,
which had been established in a number of states to
alleviate the situation, were closed - in some in-
stances as a direct result of threats by Division
Agents (55). In 1924, a special committee of the
American Medical Association.docilely reported "its
firm conviction" that ambulatory treatment of narco-
tic addicts "begets deception, extends the abuse of
habit forming narcotic drugs, and causes an increase
in crime" (58). An earlier version of this report
(prior to its adoption by the AMA) had been reprinted
by the Division (a practice, as to "approved" ma-
terials, that continues to this day) and had been
widely circulated as an officially endorsed pronounce-
ment (66) .

Doctors went to prison (61). The hunt for ad-
dicts was pressed forth relentlessly (87). Prices
rose, prisons filled, "dOpe rings" throve. The
United States acquired the "renoun" of being the
world's best market for illicitnarcotics - a repué
tation which stands unchallenged to this day.

On Wednesday, October 14, 1970, the Congress
passed a new drug law. It was very important to

understand what that law provided because to a cer-

53

tain extent it did add to or detract from some of
the statements and conditions that had been.made in
the past about drug control enforcement (See the
first page of appendix C-513 91st Congress, H.R.
18583, October 27, 1970). This new law of 1970,
called the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control and
Prevention Act of 1970, signed into law by the
President in October of 1970, stood out as the .
first major piece of legislation since the Harrison
Act to deal with the American drug problem.

The real importance of this legislation did
not lie within the 152 pages treating regulation,
import, and export control, the new money for fund-
ing the construction of rehabilitation centers, or
the neW’money for education and rehabilitation.

The focal point of this entire bill was the penal-
ties it provided for criminal violations.

The importance of these penalties was relative
to the discrimination which the law made concerning
the type of offender to be dealt with. The law
recognized that there were several types of offenders.
For example, there was the person who was an experi-
menter. He was the curious, casual user. There was

also the chronic user, but this user, from the point

54

of view of law enforcement and legislation control,
was the lowest rung on the ladder. He was of least
importance for one over-riding reason: To do some-
thing to that individual from a law enforcement
point of vieW'was highly ineffective. It was in-
effective because of the "pyramid" of drug abuse.
At the tOp is the trafficker and at the bottom are
the ultimate users. You can remove a lot of peOple
from the bottom, but you don't stOp the problem, and
you don't stop the traffic. Law enforcement, as
viewed by this law, saw its duty as primarily di-
recting legislation at the trafficker.

This new law also afforded the inception of
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD).
This new bureau was an amalgam of two Old bureaus -
one in the Department of Treasury and one in the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The
new bureau was placed in the Department of Justice.

Michael Sonnenreich took the position of advo-
cating the merits of the new legistation of 1970.
Mr. Sonnenreich recognized that the legislation of
1914 was a hodgepodge of Federal laws dealing piece-
meal with a large problem. He also recognized that

the problem couldn't be treated solely as a matter

55

of law enforcement, but that the problem of drug
addiction in America had educational aspects, re-
search aspects, and rehabilitational aspects. He
pointed out that the new law of 1970 provided ser-
vices and funds in all three of the areas. He
stated that a government does not necessarily change
men's minds, but it can help to provide the funds
with which others can effect the change (64).

The new bill of 1970 provided further indica-
tions of significant changes in the governmental
position. Government recognized that the problem
must be treated with qualified personnel - the
psychiatrist, the psychologist,and the physician.
The authors of the bill had tried to distinguish
for the first time that the law would deal with the
peOple who come before it. And the law had tried
to take into account the fact that many of the young
peOple arrested for drug possession are involved in
the judicial process at the state level for the
first time. At the date of this writing, the num-
ber of such cases at the federal level is fairly
small, but at the State level, there is a real prob-
lem. Of the nearly 162,000 young peOple with an

average age of 21 who were arrested for drug possession

56

in 1971, fully 98.6% of them had never before been
arrested. Something had to be done to make the
process - not just the law, but the process - seem
credible and seem fair. As a result, the new law
attempted to distinguish the crime in terms of the
drug, much the same as it is more important to dis—
tinguish simple possession from traffic (64).

The new Federal bill distinguished no drug in
terms of possession, but rather provided that it
was a misdemeanor to possess a drug for one's own
use on the first offense. The new misdemeanor punish-
ment means simply that anyone convicted by Federal
authority for the first time of possession of heroin,
LSD, marijuana, amphetamines, or any of the other
control drugs, can be sentenced, at most, to one
year in jail. There was no longer a minimum manda-
tory sentence for this violation. The Old law pro-
vided.a minimum mandatory sentence of from 5 to 20
years.

In addition, the new legislation added to the
old law another provision known as the first offen—
der treatment. If it were a person's first offense
and the judge feels that some action other than put—

ting the person in jail would be more beneficial to

57

the culprit, the judge can set whatever conditions
he deems appropriate. The offender can be put in
the custody of his parents or College Dean, or
adhere to any other conditions which the judge
stipulates. If the conditions were fulfilled, the
judge could then expunge the criminal record of
the accused. Of course, usually anyone arrested
would have carried that criminal record with him
the rest of his life. Under the new legislation,
however, the criminal record of the first time of-
fender would be expunged if the conditions deter-
mined by the judge for a suspended or probated
sentence were fulfilled, leaving no public record
of conviction.

There is one category, however, in which manda-
tory penalties have been retained. The professional
criminal, acting in a continuing criminal enter-
prise who supervises five or more individuals, who
has large quantities of money that he cannot explain,
or who acts as a man of violence to subdue the come
petition, would get a minimum mandatory sentence.
The legislation viewed this as a substantive offense.
It.must be proven not only that the accused committed

the act of selling or that he committed the conspiracy,

58

but also that he worked with an organized group.
The legislation views this individual as an ex-
tremely difficult person to rehabilitate. Mr.
Sonnenreich typifies him by saying that he cer-
tainly would not work at a Ford assembly plant
for $150 per week because he has an excellent in-
come, often $100,000 or more, and it is all tax
free. Neither is he addicted to any drug. Mr.
Sonnenreich sees the answer to him as putting him
in jail (64).

The new law of 1970 has not gone unchallenged,
however. On the contrary, with its passage in
Congress, a new barrage of legal and literary criti-
cism arose.

One such critic is Daniel X. Freedman. Dr.
Freedman stated that the new bill will have little
impact on changing public attitudes. He further
stated that the actual intent of the bill, par-
ticularly the training funds available through this
bill, were specifically for the training of police
officers and not school children. Dr. Freedman
further pointed out that the bill did not specifically
discriminate the legal determination of what is a

dangerous drug and when it is for enforcement rather

59

than a drug policy, which was the purpose for
which Congress finally reorganized the bill(64).
Another critic is John A. Robertson. Mr.
Robertson pointed out that the penalties for par-
ticular crimes remained mandatory and stiff in
the new law. He pinpointed the Justice Department
as being in the driver's seat and forcing scien-
tists to grovel if they wanted to do drug research.
He accused the law of temporarily soothing the
nation's troubled conscience, but offering no ac-
tual help to those peOple who misuse drugs. Mr.
Robertson predicted that this law would produce more
drug use, more police power, and more controversy.
Mr. Robertson took the interesting point that the
real controversy concerning drugs was basically law
and not drugs. His view is the reverse of the
usual asswmption that the law is the product of
-attitudes. He views law as the cause. He explained
that the disagreement over how the social role was
embodied in the institution of law should have re-
garded drug use as generating much of the heat given
off by the issue. He says that once deprived of a
criminal aura, drugs would be less of an object of

emotion and more amenable to practical controls(64).

60

He further pointed out the social costs of this
new law, and typifies these costs as "damaging". He
measured the cost of a bad law in deterioration of
authority, social instability, alienation of youth,
and the growing crisis in the legal system. He ex-
emplified the law as continued overcriminalization,
and pictured jail sentences an "totally useless" in-

struments with which to deter drug abuse (64)-

In conclusion, it is quite obvious that contro-
versy and discrepancy typifies the history and pre—
sent day standing of drug abuse legislation. It
would almost appear as though there exists an indi-
vidual approach, theory, or Opinion waiting to grab
credit and glory for any social result or outcome -
whether it be utter failure of new legislation or

national amelioration of the drug problem.

Briefly, what is the history of addiction?

History of use of narcotics in the world -
Narcotics have a long history, even dating back
further than the history of alcohol. In the
Assyrian medical tablets of the 7th century B.C.,

the juice of the poppy was enthusiastically

61

praised. The Sumarian theories, which date from
about four thousand B.C., describe the poppy as

a "plant of joy". Homer states that Helen of
Troy "...cast into the wine...a drug to quiet
pain and strife and bring forgetfullness of every
ailment." In the Ebers Papyrus of Thebes, 1552
B.C., Opium, mixed with another substance was
recommended for children whose crying distracted
their mothers (35).

The Arabs recognized the mercantile value of
opium, and during the 10th and 11th centuries, the
Mohammadans distributed Opium to all known por-
tions of the world. For the past 200 years China
has been the greatest Opium producer with western
countries being largely responsible since they
organized and promoted the far eastern Opium trade
(35) .

History of use of narcotics in the United
States - In the early portion of the 19th century,
Opium was freely prescribed by physicians in this
country. There was practically no other satis—
factory remedy for pain or relief from the symp-

toms grouped under the appellation of "nervousness"

62

Hypodermic methods of administering morphine was
discovered by Alexander Wood in 1843,and was intro-
duced in this country by Fordyce Barker in 1856.

In 1880, Dr. H. H. Kane of New York stated:

There is no proceeding in medicine that has become
so rapidly popular; no method of allaying so prompt in its
action; also, no plan of medication that has been so care-
lessly used and thoroughly abused, but no therapeutic dis—
covery that has been so great a windfall to mankind as a
hypodenmic injection of morphine (35).

In this period, physicians used morphine more
and more generously with the belief that the re-
lief of pain and discomfort was their first duty,
and they undertook other medication designed to
effect a more permanent relief as soon as the most
distressing symptoms had passed away. The patient,

experiencing the miraculous relief of the hypo-

dermic treatment frequently demanded continued
administration of this treatment. Eventually
the treatment produced a drifting into a state
of habituation and then addiction. During this
period, narcotic drugs were as freely accessible
as aspirin is today. There was little public

knowledge concerning their sinister prOperties,

63

and their use became common practice.

In 1882 there was an estimated 400,000 ad-
dicted individuals in this country (57). Since
this number was nearly 1% of the population, the
public became alarmed. Books and articles ex-
plaining the horrors of addiction were written
and many institutions for treatment came into
existence. Through the education of the public,
and through greater care exercised by physicians,
the number of persons addicted decreased so that
by 1914, with almost double the pOpulation of 1882,
there was an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 addicts
(2). As a result of pOpular aggitation, the
Harrison Narcotic Law was enacted by the govern-
ment in 1914. Unfortunately, it provided the nec-
essary setting for a flourishing illicit traffic
in narcotic drugs. From this point forth, the
character of the narcotic problem profoundly
changed.

In 1918, a commission appointed by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury estimated over one million
drug addicted persons in this country. Thus it
was to be seen within a four year period, over

five times as many affected individuals appeared

64

as there was before the.passage of the Harrison
Law (2). There was, however, a radical change in
the method of obtaining Opiates by addicts. The
closure of the legitimate channels brought into
existence illicit traffic of tremendous prOpor-
tions, and, thus, virulent criminality was added

to what was formerly simple immorality and "use

of drugs“.

What is the history of treatment of narcotic addicts

in the United States?

Governmental attempts at legislation and regu-
lation must be included within the realm of treat-
ment attempts. While the principle effort of the
government in the field of narcotics has been in
the area of prohibition, there are two other types
of experiments which should be mentioned here. The
first of these was clinics. A few years after the
passage of the Harrison Law, the public became alarmed
by the great increase in the number of addicted indi—
viduals and sought to find remedies for this serious
condition. It seemed obvious that if the reduction
in the enormous profits realized by those engaged in

smuggling and the promotion of addiction for com-

65

mercial purposes could be stOpped, this whole busi-
ness might disappear.

With this purpose in mind, some 44 clinics were
Opened by municipal or state health officials in the
larger cities where drug addiction was a definite
public health problem. In these clinics, narcotic
drugs were sold to supposedly addicted individuals at
prices as low as 2¢ a grain. Dr. 8. Dana Hubbard of
the Department of Health of New York City, in describ-
ing the Operation of a New YOrk clinic, stated,

”the practice of the clinic is not to prescribe for
any new applicant an amount over 15 grains...10
grains being the usual amount" (27). Reduction was
by daily lessening of the amount prescribed. It
was found that some individuals could be reduced to
as low as two or three grains a day. Others, when
deprived by the clinic, refused to accept clinic
regulations, and bought additional amounts outside.
Dr. Hubbard added, "Many addicts endeavor to get
from the clinic actually more than they themselves
require." The clinics were closed in 1920 by order
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Although
they encountered many difficulties, in retrospect,

it seems that their most important error was the

66

requirement in the law which made it necessary for
them to supply each patient reduced amounts of drugs
in accordance with an arbitrary pre-determined sche-
dule. This arbitrary legal formula for medical treat—
ment, over~riding medical discretion, in the Opinion
of Dr. Hubert S. Howe of New York City, was the fore-
ordained prescription for the failure of the clinics
(27).

The second notable governmental effort to treat
drug addiction occured when the Public Health Ser-
vice opened the Lexington HOSpital in 1935, and
another hospital at Fort WOrth, Texas, in 1938.

The former medical officer in charge, Dr. Vogel,

has stated that in 1951 there had been 38,000

patients admitted for treatment in the two institu-
tions since their Opening. Of those discharged

from Lexington Hospital, approximately 40% apply

for readmission, and no one holds that the entire

60% who do not return are cured. Rather liberal
estimates for "arrested" addiction, with no recurrences
of drug use, range from 3% to 50% of those who have
progressed through withdrawal or detoxification. How-
ever, a number of addicted persons who have been treat-

ed at Lexington have made estimates saying that as

Q 9

67

few as 2% are cured (27).

What is the present status of narcotic addiction

and treatment in the United States?

Vast discrepancies exist in estimates of the
number of addicts in the United States at the present
time. A 1968 article from the United States Govern-
mental Printing Office estimates 62,045 active narco-
tic addicts in the United States at the end of 1967,
which is an increase of 2,325 against the 1966 esti-
mate (78). Dr. Merki, from the Texas Alcohol and
Narcotics Education Center, estimated in 1970, that
there were 200,000 heroin addicts in the United States
(78). Conversations with officials from the Gover-
nor's Office of Drug Abuse from the State of Michi-
gan indicated that both of these estimates are very
conservative, and the addicted population of the
United States may easily be as high as one million
people (23). In any event, these data indicate, be-
yond their discrepancies, a sizeable prOportion of
the population of this country which has used narco—
tics to the extent of becoming addicted, and capable
of demonstrating withdrawal symptoms.

The treatment of the narcotic addict today in

68

the United States, when compared with the treatment

of other diseases and illnesses, does not reflect
the modernization and advanced approaches which
typifies the 1970's. The clinic in Lexington is
still in Operation, and recent statistics do not
indicate a great deal of change from its success
ratio stated above - that of a known 40% failure
rate and frequent estimates of only two to four
percent verifiable'successes. Another unusual
characteristic of this nation's approach to treat-
ment of the heroin addict is the lack of experimen-
tal research concerning differing treatment modalities.
Money has been.made available from State and Federal
Governmental agencies for the treatment of addiction,
and programs have been devised and constructed
around the country which provide enough data to
maintain continued funding, but never quite enough
data to indicate a significant success ratio. Dr.
McCabe points out in his article of 1972, that re-
search methodology has not been used to evaluate the
efficacy, safety, and practicality of experimental
treatment approaches in narcotics addiction. Dr.
McCabe further points out that with practically no

notable exceptions, the lack of scientific knowledge

69

and research has contributed to a vast inadequacy in
our understanding of the narcotics addict (72).

Other reviewers and researchers have indicated
that outcome statistics are lacking and studies are
unavailable based on the narcotics pOpulation.
Williams and Johnston (93) indicated that in.most
studies that they have reviewed, one-third of the
total patients stOpped or drOpped out of treatment
during the first three months. Dole's famous study
(14) with methadone (to be discussed at length be-
low) was particularly ungeneralizable due to the
highly selective population and the initial criteria
for participation.which precluded acceptance of poly-
drug users, alcoholics, or anyone with major medical
or psychiatric disorders. Many studies done with
addicts were done with individuals who entered treat-
ment programs frequently only after being on a wait-
ing list for one year or longer - a practice which
led to the acceptance of very highly motivated addicts.
Further, little is ever mentioned in these studies
of those addicts who drOp out before their term is
completed, or a particular criterion level is main-
tained or accomplished.

In reviewing the treatment modalities available

Q 10

70

today for the narcotics addict, it.must be noted that.

the most popular and prevalent is that of the

methadone maintenance clinic (72).

What is methadone and what role does it play in

treatment of the narcotic addict?

Methadone (Methadone Hydrochloride) is a
potent, synthetic analgesic, and was first pro-
duced by the I. G. Farbenindustrie in Germany dur—
ing WW II. It was later discovered by the United
States intelligence team investigating the German
pharmaceutical industry following the allied inva-
sion. Despite the shortage of morphine in Germany,
methadone had not been used, apparently because the
large doses studied resulted in a substantial inci+
dence of side effects. This early form of methadone
was called dolophine, named in honor of Adolph Hitler.
Ensuing (American) pharmocological investigation
showed that.many of its actions closely resembled
that of morphine in both animals (62, 92, 36, 25),
and man (33, 38, 71) and immediately raised the ques-
tion of addiction liability, which was also experi-
mentally demonstrated (30, 31, 32). In addition to

its use as an analgesic, methadone was later used

71

as a substitute for heroin and morphine to treat
Opiate addicts during detoxification and withdrawal.
The methadone withdrawal syndrome is somewhat pro-
tacted and has less physical intensity than that

of heroin or morphine. This particular advantage
has led to the employment of methadone substitu-
tion as an almost routine means of minimizing with-
drawal symptoms regardless of the Opium on which
the individual is dependent.

Literature indicated that detoxification by
way of methadone, in combination with the usual
rehabilitative efforts, is ineffectual for all but
a very few narcotic addicts. After treatment, con-
sisting of simple withdrawal from drugs in a hospi—
tal setting, patients almost invariably return to
drugs after discharge. Eddy (18) describes the
problem along with the ecological implication of
develOping effective rehabilitative programs:

Segregation of addicts, by law or as volunteers, with
or without psychotherapy, in jails, hospitals and sheltered
communities, has been tried...and has not succeeded in
transtrmi 9 more than a small minority into people capable
of living a normallife in a free society. If a way oould.be

found to change such addicts into productive citizens,

72

society'would not only be spared the cost and the indignity
of massive jails, but would also gain support for families
now’being cared for by public funds and, with improvement of
neighborhoods, it would diminish the rate of new addictions.
In November, 1963, the Health Research Council
of New York City initiated and funded a study of
heroin addiction at Rockefeller University Hospital
under the joint direction of Dr. Vincent P. Dole,
Specialist in metabolic reSearch, and Dr. Marie E.
Nyswander, a psychiatrist with extensive experience
in the treatment of opiate addiction. In the words
of Dole, et. a1. (14) : "Since thousands of heroin
addicts are filling the jails of New York City, it
seemed reasonable to raise the issue of whether some
medication might control the drug hunger of these
criminal addicts and enable them to live in the com-
munity as productive citizens." Clinical studies
which were extended to Beth Israel Medical Center in
1965, indicated that this goal might be achieved by
using the familiar drug methadone hydrochloride in
a new way. The now famous Dole-Nyswander technique
consisted of this basic approach: When the addicted
person enters the program, the oral dose of methadone

is gradually increased to a level of stabilization, and

73

the patient becomes impervious to narcotic drug
effects. His "hunger” for narcotic drugs is also
eliminated (or greatly reduced), presumably by a
methadone blockage of the narcotic drug action.
Once a level of stabilization is reached, most
patients can function well for an indefinite period
of time without further increases in their dosage.
However, some experimentation and regulation of
dosage is occasionally necessary. If medication
is increased too rapidly, the patient will become
over sedated and may experience urinary retention
and constipation along with other side effects.

If the dose is inadequate, a patient previously on
large amounts of heroin will experience withdrawal
symptoms. The Dole-Nyswander experiment has been
described in detail in a succession of scientific
publications (56) and has been featured extensively
in the popular press (4,51). The procedure, as
originally described, encompasses three phases:
Phase one is the in-patient phase. Patients are
administered increasingly larger oral dosages of
methadone hydrochloride in fruit juice until a
stabilizing dosage, between 80 and 120 milograms a

day, is reached. This stabilization is accomplished

74

over a period of approximately six weeks while the
patients reside in an unlocked hospital ward. During
this time they are given a “complete medical work-up",
psychiatric evaluation, help with family and
housing problems, and job placement counseling.
After the first week of hospitalization they
are free to leave the ward for school, library,
shopping, and various amusements, usually accom-
panied by one of the staff.

Phase two is the out-patient stage. In the
early part of phase two, the patient appears
daily for medication, ingesting it in the presence
of a clinic nurse, and also for urine testing for
drug use. After a few months, those patients who
live at a distance and/or who appear to be making
a good adjustment are provided with enough.medi-
cation for several days at a time, and they return
to the clinic once or twice a week for urine test-
ing. Psychiatric, psycho-social, vocational, and
legal support are available as needed during all of
the phases of the process.

Phase three is the goal of treatment. It is
the stage in.which an ex-addict has supposedly be-
come a socially normal, self-supporting individual.

The only distinction between patients in Phase II

75

and Phase III is the degree of social advancement

achieved.

The most recent and comprehensive statistics
available on the efficacy of methadone maintenance
programs in this country were those presented at
the Third National Conference on Methadone Treatment,
November 14, 1970, by Francis R. Gearing, Director
of the Methadone Maintenance Evaluation Unit,
Columbia University School of Public Health and Ad-
ministrative Medicine in New York City. And as of
October 31, 1970, this Evaluation Unit had under its
surveilance, l3 in-patient induction units, 45
active out-patient and ambulatory units incorporating
the Dole-Nyswander approach. There had been 4,376
admissions to date, with 3,485 patients actively
under treatment. To illustrate the rapid expansion
of programs in the area, these figures may be con-
trasted to 2,385 admissions and 1,866 active cases as
of October 31, 1969. Relative "success" rates, de—
fined as retention in the program, were recorded as
80% for both dates.

Results of the New York study indicated four
significant facts:

First: Although a majority of the patients tested

acquired the methadone "blockade" of heroin in the

76

first few months of treatment, "...less than 1%

had returned to regular heroin usage while under

methadone maintenance treatment."

Second: Results indicated that remaining in the
methadone maintenance program decreased anti-social
behavior as measured by arrest and incarceration.
Third: There is a "...steady and rather marked in—
crease in social productivity with a corre5ponding
decrease in the percentage of patients on public
assistance or welfare as time increased."

Fourth: Although alcohol and other drugs continued
to pose a problem for a reported 10% to 12% of the
patients, "...a fair number continue to show improve-
ment in the handling of these problems with the
assistance and support of members of the program
staff" (22).

Based on the results in this Dole-Nyswander
study, this approach has served as a model for
literally hundreds of methadone clinics throughout
the United States. One estimate places the number
of methadone clinics at 500 in the United States
as of January 1, 1972 (43). And yet, a critical
analysis of the Dole-Nyswander study tends to indi-
cate that there existed certain methodological de-

fects which could possibly explain the aforementioned

77

failure of subsequent.methadone clinics to achieve
their objectives.

Dole's cases were VOlunteers who were selected
partly on the recommendation of an addict already
in the program. Also, initial criteria precluded
acceptance of multi-drug users, alcoholics, or any
individual who had a psychiatric disorder or major
medical problem (14). The addicts who entered the
program frequently did so after being on a waiting
list for one year or longer - a practice which
naturally would lead to the acceptance of more highly
motivated addicts. Further, little is ever men-
tioned of those addicts who drOpped out of the Dole-
Nyswander experiment before their stabilization level
was reached and it must be remembered that stabili-
zation level was the criteria for being considered
an official treatment case. One reviewer, Dr.
Williams (93) has indicated that approximately one‘
third of the patients in the DOle-Nyswander eXperi-
ment drOpped out during the first three months.

The biasing impact of the selection procedures
is evident in Dole's demographic statistics. Sixty
eight percent of the patients in the program were

over the age of 30, compared to only 34% of the ad-

78

dicts in the Narcotics Register in New York City.
Mean ages for the two groups were 32.5 and 27.9 re-
spectively. Also, 38% of the patient population was
white versus 25% for the register. The age differ-
ential is particularly significant in light of the
claimed "maturing out" tendency of narcotics addicts
independent of specific treatment (91). While an
investigator is entitled to establish whatever se-
lection criteria he may deem apprOpriate, it seems
inexcusable to emphasize the biased nature of the
end population. This omission invites the inference
that outcome results may be extrapolated to all
addicts.

Some remarks seem aSpecially apprOpriate when
reviewing subsequent methadone clinics as well as
the original Dole-Nyswander clinic. An especially
significant shortcoming in evaluation of methadone
programs to date has been the failure to control 3
and assess therapeutic influence of extra drug fac—
tors. For example, the contribution of the total
methadone program versus the effects produced by
methadone per se has not been differentiated. A
few non-drug aspects of the over-all program need

be evaluated for their own rehabilitative impact.

79

These may include frequency and type of personal con-
tacts with staff, the overall structure of "caring",

the process of urine monitoring, the role of parole

agents, and the effects of a protective and Opti-
mistic environment provided by dedicated professionals
(10).

Another potentially misleading aspect of the
methadone maintenance program evaluations is the
arrest and employment statistics often cited as
criteria for program effectiveness. In addicts,
active participation in a methadone maintenance pro-
gram very often increases the likelihood that, in
the event of arrest, he will be dealt with less
severely because of his apparent motivation to seek
help. Joseph and Dole indicated, for example, that‘
approximately half of the charges were dropped for
those patients on the program who were arrested (34).
Conviction and incarceration statistics are also
likely to be artificially deflated because of legal
and medical complications which arise upon institu-
tionalizing the methadone maintained addict in a
facility where there is no methadone maintenance
provisions (46). This issue underscores the artifi-

cial distortion of the "continuation in program"

80

measure which is Often utilized as a criterion of
program effectiveness. The dependence-producing

nature of methadone maintenance determines this effect

in that psychological addiction to methadone "com-
pells" the patient to remain in the program. This
type of "evaluation" was perhaps acceptable during
the infant phase of investigation (42), but with
over one million doses of methadone taken in New
York alone in 1972, it appears time for a more so-
phisticated program evaluation.

Another area for criticism is the poly-drug
methadone maintenance patients. The Gearing evalua-
tion of the New York Methadone Maintenance Programs
indicates that 20% - a full l/5th - of the patients
in the programs are using drugs such as alcohol, am-
phetamines, barbituates, and additional sedatives.
However, the prOportion of patients at Brookdale
Hospital Center in Brooklyn who are involved with
non-heroin drug usage, especially alcohol, is re-
ported closer to 50% (45). Erickson's (19) data in-
dicate that poly-drug use by methadone maintenance
patients is a general phenomenon with 45% of his
methadone maintenance pOpulation in Sweden discharged

from the program because of the abuse of Central

81

Nervous Systems stimuli and alcohol. Moreover, inter-
current drug abuse on methadone programs seems not to
be limited to the so-called "softer drugs"; a study by
the District of Columbia Narcotics Treatment Admin—
istration reported in the Washington Sunday Star
(49) indicated that 60% of the addicts in metha-
done maintenance prOgrams administered by the Dis-
trict government continue to take illegal narcotics
for months after starting regular methadone treat-
ments." Results of the Washington study may be
regarded as more favorable than those of the recent
study of methadone maintenance patients conducted
in Philadelphia in which a projected 82% of the
Philadelphia addicts were found to be "cheating"
with illicit narcotic usage. A later study of the
same patients showed the incidence of cheating had
risen to 97.4% (49). These figures, as with most
methadone maintenance programs, are based on urine
specimens taken as infrequently as once a week, a
fact which allows for little control and/or feed-
back of "chipping" (occasional drug use) behavior.

In formulating a conclusion concerning the role
of methadone in treatment of the narcotic addict,

the available literature scans the horizon beginning

82

with Dole's metabolic theory of narcotic addiction
(13), and moves across the continuum to the recent
prOposal by the City Council of New York to "put
methadone in drinking water" (21).

Much more research obviously needs to be done
on this pharmaceutical approach to the treatment
of addiction which virtually repudiates all psycho-
logical determinents of chronic Opiate usage. The
scientific shortcomings of most studies in this
area preclude conclusive statements regarding thera-
peutic effectiveness and long-term safety of metha-
done maintenance. However, it must be remembered
that the essence of the procedure is the construc-
tion of pharmacological.dependency, with all the
liabilities which that implies, including unknown
long-term physiological and psychological effects.

It has been prOposed that.methadone maintenance
be considered a radical treatment procedure to be
employed only after more conservative treatment ap-
proaches have been unsuccessful (40). Moreover, it
is suggested that in a continuing treatment program,
periodic attempts be made to withdraw individuals
from methadone, the rationale being that methadone is

a means to an end - a pharmacological "half-way

Q 11

83

house" between Opiate addiction and total abstinance.

What are some of the problems which treatment of

the heroin addict involves?

Following the Dole/Nyswander experiment of 1962,
the methadone clinic for the treatment of heroin ad-
dicts has outnumbered all other treatment approaches
to heroin addiction by approximately 20 to l (3).

A progress report and evaluation of the metha-
done maintenance program conducted in 1967 in New
York City was performed in 1968 (47). The evalua-
tion included a comparative technique which sought
differences and similarities between the addict and
the program and the addict on the street. The eval-
uation revealed the following characteristics about
871 patients admitted to the program during the year
1967. The mean age of the patients was 33, older
than the average street addict. There were fewer
Negroes and Puerto Ricans in this study than in the
New York street addict population. All patients en-
tered the program voluntarily. The major conclusion
was that none of the patients who continued therapy
and involvement with the program could have been re-

addicted to heroin because of the large stabiliza-l

84

tion dose (120 mg/day) of methadone which was used.

The concluding recommendations were that the pro-
gram should be expanded by selective admission of
heroin addicts to make the program's pOpulation
more representative of the street pOpulation. Fur-
ther, recommendations were that the attrition rate,
which was as high as 30% during the first four
months, be accounted for in the analysis and evalua-
tion of the program.

Although there have been documented successes
of methadone maintenance and methadone treatment
programs throughout the United States, the majority
of these studies have been criticized because of
statistical and evaluative techniques which were
less than accurate. In an editorial to the Journal
taken to the favorable reviews of methadone main-
tenance programs in the United States. The writer
stated that the goals of methadone treatment pro-
grams were not adequately evaluated concerning
these particular methadone programs. The assump-
tion that a job, a high school diploma, or a techni-
cal skill are apprOpriate goals in the treatment of

drug addiction is continually Open to question.

85

Since addiction was symptomatic of, in the AMA view—

point, severe emotional maladjustment, the only
tenable approach was to help the addict mature
emotionally. The editor further contended that
methadone maintenance constituted chemical con-
trol, and chemical control of a person poses
severe legal, medical, and ethical questions (3).
Another interesting reference based on the
AMA was made in 1967 (11). This consisted of an
official policy statement of the Committee on
Alcoholism and Drug Dependence of the American
Medical Association. It expressed the following:
The Dole/Nyswander program of Methadone Maintenance
for Narcotic Addiction is as yet an unproven research techni-
que in need of adequate evaluation. To date, evaluation has=
been less than satisfactory, and in many cases, misrepresenta-
tive. Program subjects become dependent physiologically and
psychologically. The statement of the proponent that the
end result is achieved without any effects at all, or that
euphoria is no longer realized by the subject, are not the
important issues at hand. The subjects are also initially
geographically dependent on the program. Currently, no
nation considers maintenance to be a satisfactory answer to

the drug abuse problem. The Dole/Nyswander program raises

86

questions as to whether this maintenance method offers a
reasonable solution, in total or even in part, to the
national heroin problem.

A critical examination of the medical and
legal controversies concerning methadone mainte—
nance for heroin addicts was made in an article
in the YaleyLaw Journal in 1969 (48). This arti-
cle also included an assessment of the Dole/Nys-
wander experimental program in New York, and indi-
cated that the program was neither safe nor effec-
tive. The article further stated that critics of
methadone maintenance argue that:

1. It (methadone maintenance) will create
serious social costs of leading to in-
creased addiction.

2. It has serious physiological, debilitat-
ing effects.

3. Addicts often suffer from serious per-
sonality disorders so that maintenance
on methadone cannot alleviate root
causes of the disease.

4. Use of methadone is still in the research
stage and not considered to be an estab-

lished treatment.

87

In addition, the Yale article indicated that
there were many problems under existing Federal
laws. There were questions as to whether the Fair
Food and Cosmetic Act (concerning narcotics) was
applicable to methadone since methadone was a
synthetic narcotic rather than a natural (Opiate)
narcotic. Under the Harrison Act, any doctor who
used methadone maintenance as treatment for heroin
addicts violated Federal law. The Bureau of Narco-
tics Regulation derived from Webb v. United
States that drugs cannot be prescribed to keep an
addict comfortable by maintaining his customary use.
It is important to note that the Yale article re-
cognized that as a problem comes under the control
of those whose concerns are primarily to reduce
crime, it may take on the characteristics of a
non-therapeutic research effort in which pursuing
a goal of benefit to society may conflict with the
best interests of the patient. In such a situa-
tion, the article pointed out the acute need for
safeguards, particularly for the individuals auto-
nomy which becomes vulnerable. The article could

not involve itself with remarks concerning evalua—

88

tion of statistical generalizability of methadone
maintenance programs.

New develOpments and research have involved
a quest for additional or substitute chemical agents
which would counteract heroin addiction. The use
of Thiamine in the treatment of the morphine absti-
nency syndrome was investigated (26). The subjects
of the study were ten morphine addicts who had been
hospitalized for treatment. All of the subjects
were still actively addicted to one of the Opiates.

Administration of Thiamine failed to have any signi

ficant effect on the human abstinence syndrome and
accompanying symptoms.

The possibility that the United States Depart-
ment of Defense may have found a heroin antagonist
in their search for chemical warfare agents but
classified its existence was also discussed. A
request for information about this matter from the
Defense Department was made by Dr. Jerome Jaffe,
Director of the Professional Office for Action on
Drug Abuse. Dr. Jaffe stated that the response
from the government was unsatisfactory (15).

Dr. Jaffe further submitted a report to the

89

Federal Government including the details of the
pharmaceutical manufacturers Association report
on the fight against heroin addiction (15). The
report urged that the Federal Clinical activities
at Lexington Kentucky and other drug addiction
treatment centers be greatly expanded. The report
also covered seven new develOpments in the search
for heroin antagonists that were made by the phar-
maceutical industry. Included were two chemical
relatives of Naloxone, a new form of Cyclazozine,
which was a synthetic compound, a tranquilizer,
and sedative. HalOperidol, which may help in nar-
cotic withdrawal when combined with a narcotic
antagonist (such as methadone or Naloxone) was
tested as a new pain killer which appeared to in—
duce a long-lasting aversion to morphine in monkeys.
The report further included a discovery of an ef-
fective and "pure" heroin antagonist, but was never
further elaborated.

There have been other treatment approaches which
have arrived on the scene in addition to the chemi-
cal therapy concept. Such examples are that of

SYNANON and DAYTOP. Synanon, founded in New York in

90

the early 1960's, was based on an Alcoholics
Anonymous model of group interaction and con-
frontation. DAYTOP is similar in its approach,
using the group psychotherapy setting, but it
is thought of as being more empathetic and
warm. Success statistics are virtually un-
available with these two concepts, although un-
documented reports of increasing successfulness
are available. The DAYTOP program has made
references to 90 to 95% of its patients meeting
a criteria for successful treatment. This cri-
terion involves "clean" urinalysis when tested
for further drug abuse (23).

In conclusion, it appears as though the prob-
lems which plague treatment of the heroin addict
are as wideSpread and diverse as the treatment
modalities themselves. .Methadone maintenance
certainly appears not to be the total answer
if it is the answer at all. Specific and clear
criteria for successes are established for each
particular program and are not necessarily those
which the government, the American Medical Asso-
ciation, or society in general, believe the heroin

addict should aspire to. It appears that a more

91

universal criteria for success, and reliable
evaluative measures for assessing the attain-
ment of these criteria is needed. Unless
these measures are established with uniformity
throughout all programs and approaches, the
problems of treatment of the heroin addict

are not likely to prove amenable to repair.

Q 12 What additional characteristics does the literature

indicate about the heroin addict pOpulation?

Because the administration of methadone,
either by way of a methadone maintenance pro-
gram, a methadone detoxification regiment, or
the administration of methadone as a treatment
by way of a private physician, there does exist
the requirement that a physician acquaint him-
self with the patient's physical health history.
Thus it evolves that most of the data relevant
to the narcotic addict and his history is based
on medical records, mostly gathered from.metha-
done programs. The following data represents a
list of accompanying and related medical disorders

of addicts gathered from three of the nation's

92

largest methadone programs (53).

1.

Serum Hepatitis: The acute form is the
most common of the serious medical diseases
that requires hOSpitalization. It is
treated conservatively with rest and a
good, well balanced diet. Storage (hOSpi-
talization) should be reserved for the rare
cases that fail to respond to conservative
measures.

Even more common than the acute form is

the low grade, chronic form of serum
hepatitis . In.a screening study at the

New York Methadone Program, 40% of the
patients were found to have mild to

moderate indications of serum hepatitis.

Venereal Disease (Syphilis and Gonorrhea):
About 11% of the patients admitted in the
last fiscal year had a positive reaction
to the V.D.R.L. (Syphilis and Gonorrhea)
test upon admission (New York Methadone

Maintenance Program).

Malnutrition: During active addiction,

addicts neglect their dietary needs and

93

are often underweight. They generally

gain considerable weight after withdrawal

has been completed.

Skin Affections: Tinea vericolor and

dermatophytosis are both very common due

to lack of cleansing of the skin. Scars

are common from injecting heroin adulterants
under the skin as well as from healed in-
fections. Staph absesses are common, and
they may spread to produce metastatic

absesses and septicemia.

Vascular: The superficial veins often
become thrombosed and scarred from the
frequent, irritating injections. It is
often very difficult to get blood for
laboratory tests and I.V. therapy can
be very difficult to carry out. Also,
edema of the hands and feet is often
seen due to venus insufficiency result-

ing from.many thrombosed veins and scars.

Endocarditis: This coronary disorder is

generally recognized to occur frequently

10.

94

in addicts. The acute form is generally
due to staph and the tricuspid valve is

Often involved. The sub-acute form is

.generally due to staph viridams.

Tetanus: Tetanus is not extremely common,
but it does show a higher occurance rate
among heroin addicts than among the normal
population. The portal of entry is consid-

ered to be by injecting drugs under the skin.

Death from Overdosage: Addicts generally
don't know the dose of heroin they inject.
After going through withdrawal or losing
some of their tolerance, they may take a
dose that they can no longer tolerate and
they die. They present fever, shortness
of breath, pulmonary infiltrates, and they

generally resemble acute pulmonary edema.

Convulsions, Delierium, Psychosis, and
Death: These may occur from withdrawal and

its related complications .

Respiratory Diseases: Pneumonia, T.B.,

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

95

upper respiratory infections, asthma and

chronic nasal congestion are also common.

Hematological Abnormalities: LeuCOpenia,
relative lymphocytosis, and atypical lymphs
also appear. These could be due to the
immunological abnormalities associated with

the adulterants in heroin.

Immunological Abnormalities: Coomb's test
for erythroblastosis may be positive and

immunization procedures against fairly

typical diseases may induce complications.

Periodontal Disease and Dental Care: These
are due to poor dental hygeine, usually a

result of neglect.

Amenorrhea: This is related to the effect of
Opiates on the central nervous system, dis-
ordered lives, prostitution, high incidence

of V.D., and related emotional disorders.

Hemorrhoids: This is common due to the chronic

constipation during active Opiate addiction.

Q 13

96

16. Psychosomatic Disorders: These are very com-
mon. Headaches due to the skeletal muscle
contraction or vascular varieties, genetal
gastrointestinal symptoms, cardio-respiratory
symptoms and premature beats, are often seen
and may be related to the use of stimulants
such as amphetamines, mace, etc. in conjunc-
tion with the heroin. Dizziness and weakness
are common complaints as well as muscular-
skeletal pains. Heroin addicts are frequent

complainers and malingerers, generally.

What justification exists for a study related
particularly to heroin addicts as a separate

and isolated population?

The intention of the present study was to
investigate the heroin addict not as a seperate
and isolated pOpulation, but rather to investigate
some of the variables which were related to heroin
addiction. There exists many poly-drug users in
the country today without necessarily their being
addicted to heroin. One assumption of the present

study was that the heroin addict, due to the nature

97

of his addiction, the nature of the narcotic, the
nature of his life style, and "social illness",

was different from the marijuana smoker or the glue
sniffer or any other drug user who was not addicted
to heroin. The definition of the term "drug addict"
varies as much as the individual personalities of
each person and his relationship to each drug being
used. The present study purports to investigate
heroin addicts, not drug addicts, and literature is
available which justifies independent categorization
of the heroin addict from, for instance, the mari-
juana smoker. Dr. Roy C. Smith (5)initiated a
study which sought to "determine the utilization
rates for high school seniors of a list of sub-
stances which included marijuana, LSD, and alco-
hol". In this study which was prepared for a

final report of a study conducted for the Special
Committee on Narcotics for the Michigan Department
of Health, the author. further purported to inves—
tigate "demographic, sociological, and social-
psychological correlates of the utilization prin-
cipally of marijuana, but also of alcohol." The

results of the study yielded an impressive and

98

suprising table of percentages of high school
seniors with drug histories, but a major conclusion
was that:

Marijuana smokers were found to come from families
much the same in size as families of non-smokers, and
wealth does not appear to be a factor. Socio—economic
backgrounds Show little differences between the marijuana
smoker and the non-smoker.

Supportive data for the investigation of the
heroin addicted population independently from the
marijuana user was gained from a study performed
in 1967, by Suchman (68). Suchman took a repre-
sentative sample in November of 1967, of 600 stu-
dents from a California University with an under-
graduate enrollment of 12,200. Suchman's conclu-
sions are based primarily on marijuana users, and
he asserts, "...drug use on campuses today repre-
sents a social form for recreation far removed in
nature from the traditional problem of narcotics
addiction, and for that matter, alcoholism." Such-
man did not find that the marijuana user was signi-
ficantly different from the non-marijuana user in

responses to questions designed to measure anomie.

99

Anomie, a concept originally based on Emile Durk-
heim's classic work on suicide (16) has come to
denote apathy, withdrawal, despair, a feeling of
aloneness, mistrust of others, and perhaps an over-
all 'dim world view'."

Two previous studies have, by definition of
drug use, implied that marijuana use is a subset of
drug abuse. Each investigation set out to test
and discover qualities and prOperties of drug abuse.
Each study eventually focused primarily upon mari-
juana, and neither study discovered data which was
particularly meaningful concerning the heroin ad-
dicted individual. Only Suchman asserted that the

drug use on campus today was far removed in nature

from the traditional problem of narcotics "addic-
tion" (68).

It would seem that the literature produces sup-
port for the prOposition that heroin addicts are
quite a different population of "drug abusers" than
are marijuana users albeit the term "drug abuse"
incorporates both categories. Justification for
this premise, and implications for differentiation

between marijuana and heroin users, is available.

100

'Suchman concludes (68):

...for students, marijuana served much the same func-
tion as 'social drinking' does for their parents, and their
'law breaking' has the same social sanctions as drinking
during prohibition. And just as 'social drinking' is a far
cry from 'alcoholism' so is smoking marijuana far removed
from"the narcotics addiction'.

In conclusion, it appears to be unwarranted
and unjustifiable to group and characterize the
narcotics addict in the same pOpulation as the
marijuana user. In the heterogenous group called
'drug abusers', there exists a multitide of quali-
fiers and quantifiers which produce a measured a
assessment which does not differ significantly from
the non-drug user of non-drug abuser. In other
words, the general feeling derived from the
literature available indicates that the pOpu—
lation called 'drug abusers' is so heterogen-
eous and diverse a population that statistical
investigation will indicate that it does not
differ from the 'normal' non-drug using or non-
drug abusing pOpulation. Heroin addiction, which

is mutually agreed to be the most severe, dan-

Q 14

101

gerous, expensive, and deleterious drug abuse and
social problem in this country today, must be re-

searched independently from other drug abuse.

What is the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF)
Questionnaire, and why was it chosen rather
than some other personality assessment for this

particular study?

1 The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire was
chosen by this researcher after an investigation
of 4 personality measure inventories and a pilot
study on each. The instruments which were con-
sidered for this study were:

1. Contact Personality Factor Test

2. Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire

3. Personality Orientation Inventory

4. Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire

The following characteristics or prOperties
were carefully weighed concerning each test before
the decision was made:

1. The length of administration time

2. Maximum yield of data for time involved

102

3. Workable, meaningful definitions of per—

sonality characteristics

4. Personality characteristics which deal

realistically with practical implications

5. Costs of administration and scoring

6. Highest reliability and validity scales

for most conclusions

7. Time involved in ordering, machine scoring,

and receiving tests

All four tests were administered to a group
of five subjects and the results were analyzed.
The two tests which applied themselves best were
the Personality Orientation Inventory and the 16
Personality Factor Questionnaire. The decision
was based on the recent material which the Person-
ality Orientation Inventory did not have and the
16PF Questionnaire did have.

In a paper prepared for the 1971 Annual
Conference for the American Society of Criminology
and International Association of Human Law, Dr.
Carl D. Chambers (8) reported on the Personality
Profiles of female narcotic users. Dr. Chambers

used the 16PF Questionnaire, and in subsequent con-

Illilllillll i.ll

 

103

versations with Dr. Chambers by telephone, this
author was encouraged to use this particular in-
strument.

The 16PF is a self administering paper/pencil
inventory check list which has the same general
characteristics of the Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory. The test was develOped and
standardized by Cattell at the University of
Illinois Laboratory of Personality Analysis. All
test instruments were machine scored and analyzed
at the Laboratory of Personality Analysis.

The test comes in two forms; form C, which
is made up of multiple choice items for use with
persons having average intelligence, and form D,
which is made up of forced choice items (either
/or) for lower literacy levels. For this par-
ticular study, form C was used.

The Chambers study was interested in des-
cribing only three of the 16PF characteristics.
It dealt with broad influence patterns, which
were: a) Personality Orientation (either intro—
verted or extroverted), b) Approach to task/prob-

lem solving (emotional versus rational), and c)

104

Lifestyle (independent versus subdued). These
broad patterns are mentioned now to familiarize
the reader with the test and its applicability

to the particular population under investigation.
A more detailed investigation of the relevancy
of Dr. Chambers' study will appear below.

Another important factor about the 16PF

Questionnaire which contributed to its selection
as the instrument for this study included the test's
psychometric prOperties. The taste consistencies,
validities, and reliability data are available in
the Handbook for the 16PF (69). The Handbook pro-
vides data concerned with equivalence coefficients
for equivalent forms of the test, direct concept
validity material, indirect or circumstantial con-
cept validity data, and a section concerned with
concrete (direct) validity (69). Another section
of the Handbook describes the circumstantial, in-
direct validities for the full 16PF. In addition,
data describing the test's homogeniety (generally
mislabeled 'reliability') and equivalence is also
in the Handbook. All of this data, when compared

with similar data of the other three possible

Q 15

105

choices for instruments, indicated that the 16PF

was the best choice for this study.

The present study investigated selected non-in-
tellectual (demographic) and personality varia-
bles. What have similar studies in the past

found?

In regards to the personality variable of the
heroin addict, the Carl D. Chambers publication
of 1971 (8), used the 16PF to investigate and ex-
plain personality profiles of female narcotic users.
The study was performed during the 1967-1968 Re-
search Clinic at Lexington, Kentucky, at the Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health Hospital. The
most significant portion of that study reported
upon the personality deviances of the female drug
abuser. From one viewpoint, the applicability of
Dr. Chambers' results are not especially relevant
to this particular study due to, in part, the
fact that his study involved females only, and the
present study involves males only. Dr. Chambers
did, however, plot the mean scores for the 16

personality factors for the pOpulation he investi-

106

gated which consisted of 150 female narcotic users.
From the 16 personality factors which the test
describes (8), Dr. Chambers chose three in particular
to analyze. They include: 2:) Personality Orien-
tation {3) Approach to Task/Problem Solving and

c) Life Style. Part of his results are as follows:

Distributions of Broad Personality Patterns

Among 150 Female Narcotic Users

a. Personality Orientation N % of Sample
Introverted 42 28.0 %
Balanced 69 46.0 %
Extroverted 39 26.0 %

b. Approach to Task/Problem

Solving
Emotional 10 6.7 %
Balance 61 40.7 %
Rational 79 52.6 %

c. Lifestyle
Independent 46 30.7 %
Balanced 81 54.0 %
Subdued 23 13.3 %

When the results of the Chambers study are
compared with those of the norms as they appeared
in the Handbook for the 16PF (8), the comparison
reveals that there does not exist a significant

difference between Dr. Chambers' female addict popu-

107

lation and the normal population for which the test
was normed. It should be pointed out at this time,
however, that the present study differs quite Sig-
nificantly from Dr. Chambers' study in so far as
it compares nothing with the "normal" population,
but seeks to describe and define differences be—
tween the pOpulations within the Ingham County
Jail. More clearly, the present study, as earlier
stated, does not seek differences between each
pOpulation under investigation and a "normal"
pOpulation, but differences between the two pOp-
ulations under investigation - that of the heroin
addicted and the non-heroin person.

Numerous other studies have concentrated on
the personal or demographic type of data. There
are ever-present precautions, however, surround-
ing this type of data collection, and it is these
precautions which are particularly relevant to
the present study. Dr. Johnathon D. Rosenthal (59)
states that from his experiences, both patients
and the families history may be very unreliable.
The amount of drugs used may be over or under esti-

mated. Dr. Rosenthal states that this can occur

108

because the patient may become confused, lose track
of time and the amount of drugs ingested, and be-
cause of dishonesty. Suppliers of the drug, i.e.,
legal sources such as drug stores, may also be un-

reliable because of potential repercussions. This

unreliability of information is a serious pitfall
which plagues research.related to addiction in
many ways, and precaution will continue to be an
important consideration when drawing blind con-
clusions about tests and questionnaires from ad-
dicts. Dr. Rosenthal further explains, however,
that demographic and personal data is a very im-
portant part of the case history of an addicted
patient. In general, Dr. Rosentaal's article ex-
presses the feelings that demographic and personal
data about addicted persons may be very relevant
to the quest for meaningful rehabilitative treat-
ment.

The most concise and meaningful studies which
collected demographic data about heroin addicts
were done by Dr. Carl Chambers in 1970 (7). The
data for his report were collected while Dr.

Chambers was the Director of Research for the

109

Narcotics Addicts Rehabilitation Program in Phila—
delphia. Although Dr. Chambers' study was inter-
ested in descriptive data in order to display dife
ferences in similarities in out—patient and in-
patient heroin addicts, the demographic data he
collected on these patients appears particularly
relevant to the present study.

Based on a population of 53 out-patient nar-
cotic addicts with an age range of 18 to 63 years
and a mean age of 28 years, the following charac-

teristics were found:

 

 

Characteristic Percent of Sample

Males 81.1%
Negroes 67.9%
Active members of a religious 7.5%

faith
Reared in a broken home 24.5%
Never married 39.6%
Married, intact 18.9%
Married, broken 41.5%
Rejected from Military service 43.4%
School Dropouts 77.4%
Father was "white collar" 22.5%
Addict was "white collar" worker 5.7%
Worked continuously during 60.4%

past year
Primary source of financial 49.1%

support was illegal

When questioned on the basic characteristics of his

110

addiction, the data were as follows:

A. Onset situation (first use of heroin) % Sample
1. With friends of same age 69.8%
2. Curiosity from peers already using 83.0%
B. Heroin at daily drug costs
1. $30 and below 56.0%
2. $31 - $50 20.7%
3. $51 and above 22.7%

Some additional characteristics of this pOpula-

tion were:

1. No history of prior treatment 80.2%
2. No history of criminal convic-

tion 55.8%
3. No history of welfare 74.4%
4. No history of alcohol abuse 87.2%
5. No history of concurrant drugs 60.5%

One can gather, from reviewing this data, an
overall picture of Dr. Chambers' pOpulation. It
may or may not coincide with the descriptive data
about the pOpulation in the present study, but it
does provide justification for the usefulness of

demographic data.

Conclusions and Remarks

By way of a question and answer approach, a re-
view of literature and controversial concepts about

heroin addiction has been presented. Hopefully, the

111

reader has not only been familiarized with data
Specifically related to the present study, but also

he has had the Opportunity to learn about heroin and

the extent and seriousness of addiction in the United
States today. The outstanding characteristic which
seems dominant throughout the vast majority of litera-
ture is the lack of a universal consensus in describ-

ing the heroin addict, and those treatment methods

which will enable him to approach a prescribed "recovery"
criteria.

But this is truly where the problem lies. Al-
though the research and literature include revealing
data concerning approximations and estimates of sub-
stance qualities, quantities, concentrations, availa-
bility, prices, and the number of addicts and their
characteristics, one fact emerges with increasing clarity:
As long as the reward for smuggling and selling heroin
remains astronomical; as long as it is easy to conceal
and easy to transport, it is going to be easily avail-

able for a price. If we, as Americans, are ever going
to cure the heroin epidemic, it won't be done by
stepping heroin. Somehow, we're going to have to

stOp young Americans - they are the addicts — young

112

Americans mostly. They must be stOpped from pierc-
ing their veins and pouring in the poison. The at-
tack on the "supply" end of the connection cannot
be as effective as the eradication of the "demand"
portion of the cycle. The demand must be steamed if
the supply is to be dissolved. The demand is
stemmed when the addict no longer desires heroin,
and it is to this end - that of understanding and

treating the addict, that this study is directed.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Restatement g: the Problem

 

 

The purpose of this investigation is to examine
selected non-intellectual, sociological, and psycholo-
gical factors, and the relationships which they may
have to heroin addiction. More specifically, an attempt
was made to analyze the relationships of certain per-
sonality characteristics, values, socio-economic back-
ground, and the apparent commitment to habitual involve-

ment with heroin.

Hypotheses

 

The research hypotheses under investigation in
this study is:
HO: Heroin addicted persons, homogeneous
in the degree of heroin addiction, will
not demonstrate significant differences
from the heroin addicted persons on the
16PF and thelDemographic Data Composite (DDC)

used in this study.

113

114

The alternative hypotheses is:

Ha: The heroin addicted persons, homogeneous
in degree of heroin addiction, will demon-
strate significant differences from the
non-heroin addicted persons on the 16PF and
the DDC used in this study.

Related Concerns

This investigation sought to measure and compare
certain non-intellectual, sociological, demographic, and
psychological factors of heroin addicts and non-heroin
addicts.

All of these factors are, within the terms of this
study, dependent variables. Heroin addiction and non-
heroin addiction are the independent variables. The gen—
eralizability and general usefulness of this study,
however, lies within the relationships between these dif-
ferent psychological and sociological factors and heroin
addiction. If the above dependent variables are known,
and considered to be independent variables, then the
heroin addiction takes the role of the dependent variable.
Therefore, the usefullness of this study lies within its
ability to show a relationship with heroin addiction

based upon the knowledge of the above mentioned non-in-

115

tellectual and demographic variables.

The above hypotheses are closely associated with in-

vestigating and discussing the following empirical ques-

tions:

1.

Do the personality variables and personality
traits have a potential relationship to heroin
addiction?

Does demographic and personal data regarding

the individual background, as measured by the
instrument constructed for this specific purpose
and this specific investigation, have a poten-

tial relationship to heroin addiction?

Further, this study will supply the basic underpin-

nings for further investigations of the following ques-

tions:

3.

Will a significant difference between the heroin
addicted pOpulation on the personality assess-
ment scale be a useful variable in describing and
predicting heroin addiction?

Will a significant difference between the heroin
addicted pOpulation and the non-heroin addicted
pOpulation on the demographic data composite be

a useful variable in describing and predicting

heroin addiction?

116

Population

 

The pOpulation for this study consisted of inmates
at the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan. Specific
generalizations are restricted to this particular pOpu-
lation. In reality, the conclusions of this investigation
were specifically concerned with only the pOpulation under
investigation. The data provided, however, are clearly
defined and quite concise. All characteristics, whether
they be personality, demographic, or social, are fully
described. This was done in hopes that the reader‘would
be placed in a position of generalizing the results of
this study to another pOpulation should he deem them ap-

propriate.

Sample

The sample consisted of 64 individuals--32 in the
experimental group, and 32 in the control group. The
sample possessed the following characteristics for the
experimental group:

1. Incarcerated male inmates at the Ingham County

Jail
2. No psychosis present
3. Physically addicted to heroin to an equal extent

4. Addiction of more than six months duration

5. No exposure to previous therapy programs

117

The sample for the control group was identical
except for conditions number three and four. Sub-
stituted were:

3. Not physically addicted to a drug

4. No obtainable history of addiction whatsoever

The sample was obtained by employing the follow-
ing procedure: All inmates at the Ingham County Jail
were screened to determine the evidence of any drug
use. This was accomplished by the following means:

1. Identifying inmates that have been arrested

for drug-related charges

2. Inmates who have been brought in previously

for drug-related charges

3. Subjects who have been identified by the

physician as having drug—related problems

4. Subjects who have indicated they have drug-

related problems, and seek treatment although
they were not arrested for drug offenses.

5. Subjects referred to the drug rehabilitation

programs through other professionals on the

jail rehabilitation staff.

6. Physical observation of the subject's with-

drawal symptoms, or overt behavioral changes.

118

All of the subjects obtained from the above sample

were further screened by the professional staff at the

Community Mental Health Drug Program where the follow-

ing questions were asked and data obtained:

1.

Was there any indication of psychosis? If so,
these persons were not included in the study.
An indication was noted as to the type of drug
used and level of addiction, including the ex-
tent and amount of drug use. Only heroin users

qualified for the experimental group.

The determination Of the amount and duration of drug

use was based upon:

1.
2.

Subjects self-report

Observed physiological symptoms and severity of
withdrawal, including evidence of flashbacks or
needletracks

Report from the attending physician

Interviews by the professional drug rehabilita-
tion staff

Reports of known pushers who have had inmates
as "clients"

Previous records

119

Procedure

 

Subjects for this study possessed the basic charac-
teristics as listed above. These characteristics of the
sample helped control for certain confounding variables
such as type of drug, duration of addiction, and previous
exposure to therapy. Selection for each group was ran-
dom from each pOpulation...heroin user and non—heroin
user. All subjects were given the personality instrument,
and were interviewed and surveyed for the demographic
data composite. It was imperative that the latter be ac-
curate, and therefore, confidential records were used to

maintain and guarantee authenticity.

Instruments

 

Basically, there were two instruments which were
involved in the present study. One was the Demographic
Data Composite, and the other was the Sixteen Personality

Factor Questionnaire. The Demographic Data Composite
consisted ofthe following material:
1. Age
. Race
. Sex

2
3
4. Marital status of true parents
5. Number of children of subject
6

. True father alive or dead?

12.
13.
14.

120

Did you grow up with your true father?
Educational level of true father.

True mother alive or dead?

Grow up with true mother?

Educational level of true mother?
Parents true marital status
Alcoholism history of mother or father

Educational level of subject.

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was

chosen after an investigation of four Personality Mea-

sure Inventories, and a pilot study on each. Those in—

struments which were considered for the present study

are:

1.
2.
3.

4.

Contact Personality Factor Test
Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire
Personality Orientation Inventory

Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire

The following characteristics and prOperties were

carefully weighed concerning each test before the deci-

sion was made:

1.
2.

3.

The length of administration time
Maximum yield of data for time invested
Workable, meaningful definitions of personality

characteristics

121

4. Personality characteristics which deal realis-
tically with practical implications
5. Costs of administration and scoring
6. Higher reliability and validity values than the
other three tests
7. Time involved in ordering, machine scoring, and
receiving tests
All four tests were administered to a group of five
subjects, and the results were then analyzed. The two
tests which "worked" best were the Personality Orien-
tation Inventory (the P01), and the Sixteen Person-
ality Factor Questionnaire (the 16PF). The decision was
based on the recent relevant material which the POI did
not have, and the 16PF did.
The 16 personality factors which the 16PF assesses
included:

cool, reserved...............warm, easygoing
dull.........................bright

easily upset.................calm, stable
not assertive................dominant

sober, serious...............happy-go-lucky
exPedient....................conscientious
shy, timid...................venturesome
toughminded..................tenderminded
trusting.....................suSpicious
practical....................imaginative
forthright...................shrewd
self-assured.................apprehensive
conservative.................experimenting
group oriented...............self sufficient
undisciplined................self disciplined
relaxed......................tense, driven

122

Analysis pf the Data and Design

 

The analysis of the data consisted mainly of two
parts. Part one was a correlation matrix constructed
for the thirty variables for the heroin addicted per-
sons, and a correlation matrix for the thirty variables
for the non-heroin addicted persons. The meaningfullness
and relevance of this design indicated various patterns
and relationships between the variables within each of
the groups in the investigation.

The second part consisted of an analysis of variance
between the means of each variable for each group in the
experiment. In other words, for variable one (cool,
reserved...warm, easygoing) an analysis of variance was
performed to evaluate and describe significant differences
which existed between the mean score of the experimental
group and the mean score of the control group. This

analysis of variance was performed on all thirty variables.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter will present the analysis of the data
in order to examine the hypotheses under investigatiOn.
The primary hypothesis predicted there would be signifi-
cant differences on each of the 30 variables between
the two groups under investigation. Appendix B contains
a complete breakdown of the distributions of the indi-
vidual scores on the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF) and also on the Demographic Data Composite (DDC).
Appendix C contains a composite table of all means, sums
of squares, degrees of freedom, mean squares, F values,
and significance levels for the results of the statisti-

cal analysis of the data.

Description pf the Data Base

 

 

Specifically, the data collected for this investiga-
tion and presented in this chapter represents the basis for

an anlaysis of the differences between the two groups of

123

124

subjects on each of 30 variables. As each variable is
presented along with its data and analysis, the reader
will be supplied with some additional materials to make
the analysis more meaningful. A description and defini-
tion of the variable will be presented to assure agree-
ment of implied meaning with defined meaning. For each
of the factors on the 16PF profile, a description taken
from the Handbook for the 16PF (69) will be presented in
order to familiarize the reader with the implications
and limitations of the instrument's scores. Similarly,
a description of each of the demographic variables will
be presented to enable the reader to evaluate the mean-

ingfullness of each of these factors.

Description and Interpretation
2: Tables

 

The tables are uniform throughout this chapter, and
a brief description of how these tables are compiled and
interpreted is as follows:

1. Grogp 001 represents the heroin addicted persons.

 

2. Group 002 represents the non-heroin addicted per-

 

sons.
3. p_signifies the sample size. This figure is 32
for each group on each variable.

4. Mean Score signifies the total of the individual

 

125

scores for that particular variable divided by
the N, yielding an average or mean value

5. Standard Deviation is a statistical computation
measuring the degree of central tendency. The

equation upon which this figure is based is:

 

2
s 25(133 - x)
n
where
s = standard deviation of
sample
xij = each observation

x = mean for distribution
n = sample size

The other portions of the table represents the sources of
variation and the results of the analysis of variance for
the groups of the study.

6. Source pf Variance indicates the source of the
variances within the analysis yielding the basis
for determining significance.

7. Spm'pf_ngares is a statistical computation which
is based upon the following equation:

éxijz = 5x2 - ._(__€IX_L_2

where N = total sample size

10.

11.

126

Dggrees pf Freedom is a figure based upon the
number of characters or treatments under in-
vestigation, minus one. The degrees of free-
dom also serves as the guide for locating the
appropriate F value within the F tables which
corresponds to the degree of freedom in the
numerator and the degrees of freedom in the
denomenator as a ratio of the sample variances.
Mean Square represents an estimate of variance,
and is derived by dividing the sum of squares

by the degrees of freedom, as such:

sum of squares
degrees of freedom

 

= mean square

F_yglpg is the resulting quotient from the above
equation. This F value represents a relation-
ship or ratio between two estimates of variances.
Significance level is, in reality, a measure or
indication of chance occurrence. The resulting
figure represents the number of times in 1000
trials that pure chance will produce the ratio
of the two variances and the differences between
the two samples. For this particular study, an

outcome which could result from chance less than

127

50 times in 1000 trials (.050) was deemed to

be significant.

In general, the F test is often referred to as a

test for homogeneity of variance. If the two sample

2 2
S001 002

(for noneheroin addicted persons) are not equal for a

variances, (for heroin addicted persons) and 3
given variable, then a test is performed to determine
if the difference between them is significant. If a non-
significant value is obtained, the two sample variances
are said to be homogeneous, that is, they are both assumed
to be estimates of the same pOpulation variance. With a
significant value of F, the variances are said to be
heterogeneous, or from different pOpulations.

A very important consideration is sample size,
since smaller differences between the two variances
become significant as sample size increases. Generally,
a sample size of 30 is required to satisfactorily ac-
knowledge the F test as meaningful. The present study

uses 32 subjects per group.

The format for the following chapter consists of
a brief narrative for each of the 30 variables of the
study, and the tables and figures are found in their num-

erical order at the end of the chapter.

128

FACTOR ONE
Name: Cool vs. Warm
Figure 1 presents the characteristics of factor one
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 1 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor one. This factor is not significant
beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance are as-

sumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

FACTOR TWO
Name: Dull vs. Bright

Figure 2 presents the characteristics of factor two
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 2 presents the data and the analysis for factor
two. The difference between the two groups is significant
beyond the .05 level. A review of the means indicates
that the difference is a result of the heroin addicted
group having a Anna mean score (36.500) and the non-heroin

addicted group having a higher mean score (70.513) .

FVHZPOR. ENHREE}
Name: Easily Upset vs. Stable
Figure 3 presents the Characteristics of factor three
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 3 presents the data and the analysis for factor

129

three. The difference between the two groups is signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level. A review of the means indicates
that the difference is a result of the heroin addicted
group having a unmm mean score (22.063) and the non-heroin

group having a hkflwr mean score (54.125).'

FACTOR FOUR
Name: Not Assertive vs. Dominant
Figure 4 presents the characteristics of factor four
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 4 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for factor 4. This factor is not signi-
ficant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance

are assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

FACTOR FIVE
Name: Sober vs. Happy-go-lucky
Figure 5 presents the characteristics of factor five
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 5 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor five. This factor is not signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance

are assumed to estimates of the same population.

FACTOR SIX

Name: Expedient vs. Conscientious

130

Figure 6 presents the characteristics of factor
six as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 6 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor Six. This factor is not significant
beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance are

assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

FACTOR SEVEN
Name: Shy vs. Venturesome
Figure 7 presents the characteristics of factor seven
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 7 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor seven. This factor is not signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance

are assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

FACTOR EIGHT
Name: Tough Minded vs. Tender Minded
Figure 8 presents the characteristics Of factor
eight as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 8 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor eight. This factor is not significant
beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance are as-

sumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

131

FACTOR. NINE
Name: Trusting vs. Suspicious
Figure 9 presents the characteristics of factor nine
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 9 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor nine. This factor is not signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance

are assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

IRACTKHR TERI
Name: Practical vs. Imaginative

Figure 10 presents the characteristics of factor ten
as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 10 presents the data and the analysis for factor
ten. The difference between the two groups is significant
beyond the .05 level. A review of the means indicates that
the difference is a result of the heroin addicted group
having a Zamn'mean score (34.031) and the non-heroin group

having a higher mean score (71.656) .

FAKEHDR EHJTVEN
Name: Forthright vs. Shrewd
Figure 11 presents the characteristics of factor ele-
ven as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 11 presents the data and the analysis for fac-

132

tor eleven. The difference between the two groups is sig-
nificant beyond the .05 level. A review of the means in-
dicates that the difference is a result of the heroin ad-
dicted group having a higher mean score (59.875) and the

non—heroin group having a lower mean score (43.781).

FACTOR TWELVE
Name: Self Assured vs. Apprehensive

Figure 12 presents the characteristics of factor
twelve as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).

Table 12 presents the data and the analysis for factor
twelve. The difference between the two groups is signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level. A review of the means indicates
that the difference is a result of the heroin addicted
group having a higher mean score (78.219) and the non-heroin

addicted group having a lower mean score (52.781).

FACTOR THIRTEEN
Name: Conservative vs. Experimenting
Figure 13 presents the characteristics of factor thir-
teen as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 13 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for factor thirteen. This factor is not
significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of

variance are assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

133

FACTOR FOURTEEN
Name: Group Oriented vs. Self Sufficient
Figure 14 presents the characteristics of factor four-
teen as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 14 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for factor fourteen. This factor is not
significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of

variance are assumed to estimates of the same population.

FACTOR FIFTEEN
Name: Undisciplined vs. Self Disciplined
Figure 15 presents the characteristics of factor fif—
teen as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 15 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for factor fifteen. This factor is not
significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of

variance are assumed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

FACTOR SIXTEEN
Name: Relaxed vs. Tense
Figure 16 presents the characteristics of factor six-
teen as described by the Handbook for the 16PF (69).
Table 16 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for factor sixteen. This factor is not signifi-
cant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of variance

are assmmed to estimates of the same pOpulation.

134

Transitional Comment

The above 16 factors complete the 16 Personality Fac-
tor Questionnaire which served as the personality variables
for the study. The following 14 variables are those demo-
graphic characteristics which comprise the non-intellectual
type data of the study. Because the 16PF specifies each of
its components as a "factor", the following data will be
classified as "variables" to enable the reader to differ-
entiate the factors (personality) and variables (non-in-

tellectual) of the study.

The layout of the following variables will be very
similar to those of the factors with minor changes. Added
will be a brief description of the variable name and its
meaning relative to this particular study.

Also, a range of scores will be presented with each
variable to permit the reader to determine the meaningful-
ness of the respective means relative to a score range.
Another added feature will be the number of the item on
the questionnaire (Demographic Data Composite) which cor-
responded with that particular variable. Appendix D repre-
sents the Demographic Data Composite (DDC) exactly as it was
originally presented to the subjects of the study during

the collection of the data.

135

VARIABLE SEVENTEEN

Variable: Age
Description: Cronological age, in years, at last birthday
Range: Two digits, 00 through 99 years
Demographic Data Composite (DDC) item number: 2
Table 17 presents the analysis of the data between the
two groups for variable seventeen. This variable is not

significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates of

variance are assumed to be estimates of the same pOpulation.

\HXRIAHILE IEIGHHEEEHQ

variable: Race

Description: code 1 = Black
code 2 == Chicano
code 3 = White

Range: One digit, 1 through 3
DDC item number: 3

Table 18 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for variable eighteen. This variable is
not significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates
of variance are assumed to be estimates of the same pOpu-

lation.

VARIABLE NINETEEN

variable: Sex
Description: code 1
code 2

female
male

136

Range: One digit, 1 or 2
DDC item number: 4

Note: All subjects were males, therefore, there was no doubt but
that the san'pling was performed upon a homogeneous popula-
tion for this variable.

Table 19 presents the analysis of the data between
the two groups for variable nineteen. This variable is
not significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates
of variance are assumed to be estimates of the same pOpu-

lation.

VARIABLE TWENTY

Variable: Marital Status of Subject

Description: 0068 l = single
0066 2 = divorced
code 3 = separated
code 4 = widowed
code 5 = common law
code 6 - married

Range: One digit, 1 through 6
DDC item number: 5

Table 20 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty. The difference between the two groups
is significant beyond the .05 level. A review of the
means and the above description indicates that the heroin
addicted group have a lower mean score (3.31) and the non-

heroin addicted group have a higher mean score (4.88).

137

VARIABLE TWENTY ONE

Variable: Number of Children of Subject

Description: Number of children to whom subject is the father
without concern for legitimacy

Range: two digits, 00 through 99; representing the quantity
DDC item number: 6

Table 21 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty one. The difference between the two
groups is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the
estimates of variance are assumed to be estimates of

the same pOpulation.

VAdKLABIE! TMHHTTY CNNO

Variable: True father, alive or dead

Description: By way of the subject's stated word, and the central
data file with the Michigan State Police, it was
determined whether the subject's true father was
living or deceased. If it was undeterminable whether
the subject's true father was alive or dead, then
the subject was not used in the study.

Range: one digit, 1 or 2, code 1 = Dead, code 2 = Alive

DDC item number: 7

Table 22 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty two. The difference between the two
groups is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the

estimates of variance are assumed to be estimates of

the same pOpulation.

138

VARIABLE TWENTY THREE

Variable: Grow up with true father

Description: This was an affective question seeking specifically
whether the subject felt that he grew up with his
true father. Locating evidence would not necessarily
disprove nor verify the subject's feelings that he
did or didn't grow up with his father.

Range: One digit, 1 or 2, code 1 = No, code 2 = Yes

DDC item number: 8

Table 23 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty three. The difference between the two
groups is significant beyond the .05 level. A review of
the means and the above description indicates that the
heroin addicted group have a lower mean score (1.47) and

the non-heroin addicted group have a higher mean score

(1.78).

VARIABLE TWENTY FOUR

variable: Educational level of True father

Description: By way of the subject's stated word and.phone con-
tacts with relatives, it was determined how much
educational background and formal schooling the
subject's true father had experienced.

code 1 = don't know'

code 2 = first through sixth grade

code 13 = seventh through eighth grade

code «4 = nineth through tenth grade

code 5 = eleventh through twelfth, no high school
. graduate ‘

code 6 = high school graduate

code 7 = one through two years college

code 8 = three through four years college

code 9 = any graduate work at all

139

Range: One digit, 1 through 9
DDC item number: 9

Table 24 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty four. The difference between the two
groups is significant beyond the .05 level. A review
of the means and the above description indicates that
the heroin addicted group have a.lower mean score (4.50)

and the non-heroin addicted group have a higher mean

score (5.56).

VARIABLE TWENTY FIVE

Variable: True mother, alive or dead

Description: By way of the subject's stated word, and the central
data file with the Michigan State Police, it was
determined whether the subject's true mother was
living or deceased. It it was undeterminable whether
the subject's true mother was alive or dead, then
-the subject was not used in the study.

Range: One digit, 1 or 2 , code 1 = Dead, code 2 = Alive

DDC item number: 10

Table 25 presents the data and the analysis for
variable 25. The difference between the two groups is
not significant beyond the .05 level, and the estimates
of variance are assumed to be estimates of the same pOpu-

lation.

140

VARIABLE TWENTY SIX

variable: Grow up with true mother

Description: This was an affective question seeking specifically
whether the subject felt that he grew up with his
true mother. Locating evidence would not necessarily
disprove nor verify the subject's feelings that he
did or didn't grow up with his father.

Range: One digit, 1 or 2, code 1 = No» code 2 = Yes

DDC item number: 11

Table 26 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty Six. The difference between the two
groups is significant beyond the .05 level. A review
of the means and the above description indicates that
the heroin addicted group have a lower mean score (1.81)
and the non-heroin addicted group have a higher mean

score (1.97).

VARIABLE TWENTY SEVEN

variable: Educational level of true mother.

Description: By way of the subject's stated word and phone con-
tacts with relatives, it was determined how much
educational background and formal schooling the
subject's true mother had experienced.

code 1 = don't know

code 2 = first through sixth grade

code 3 = seventh through eighth grade

code 4 = nineth through tenth grade

code 5 = eleventh through twelfth, no high school
graduate

code 6 = high school graduate

code 7 = one through two years college

code 8 = three through four years college

code 9 = any graduate work at all

141

Range: One digit, 1 through 9
DDC item number: 12

Table 27 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty seven. The difference between the two
groups is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the
estimates of variance are assumed to be estimates of

the same pOpulation.

VARIABLE TWENTY EIGHT

Variable: Marital Status of Subject's true parents

Description: code 1, — single
code 2 = divorced
code 3 = separated
code 4 = widowed
code 5 = common law
code 6 = married

Range: One digit, 1 thr ugh 6
DDC item number: 13

Table 28 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty eight. The difference between the two
groups is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the
estimates of variance are assumed to be estimates of

the same population.

VARIABLE TWENTY NINE

Variable: History of Alcoholism or Alcohol Abuse in Subject's Mother
or Father

142

Description: By way of the subject's stated.word, and through phone
contacts with relatives and also additional social service
agencies, it was determined whether the subject's father
or mother was alcoholic or abused alcohol. This abuse was
deemed significant if the subject recalled particular
periods of his life where alcohol was a definite prOblem
with one of his parents and their relationship with the
family.

Range: One digit, 1 through 4

DDC item number: 14

Table 28 presents the data and the analysis for
variable twenty eight. The difference between the two
groups is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the

estimates of variance are assumed to be estimates of

the same pOpulation.

VARIABLE THIRTY

variable: Educational level of subject
Description: By way of the subject's stated word and phone con-
tacts with relatives, it was determdned how much
educational background and fOrmal schooling the
subject has experienced.
code 1 = don't know
code 2 = first through sixth grade
code 3 = seventh through eighth grade
code 4= nineth through tenth grade
codes = eleventh through twelfth, no high school
graduate
code6= high school graduate
code7 = one through two years college
code8 = three through four years college
code9 = any graduate work at all
Range: One digit, 1 through 9
DDC item number: 15

Table 30 presents the data and the analysis for

143

variable thirty. The difference between the two groups
is not significant beyond the .05 level, and the esti-
mates of variance are assumed to be estimates of the

same population.

Additional Results

 

An inter-correlational matrix was constructed for
each of the two groups in this study. This was done
for the purpose of identifying the existance of signi-
ficant correlational relationships between the 30 variables
within each group. Appendices E and F represent these
matrices for heroin addicted persons and non-heroin ad-
dicted persons respectively.

The construction of these matrices did not yield
particularly meaningful results. However, there are two
particular indications which a review of these two ma-
trices suggest.

First, the inter-correlations for the 16PF are
represented by the figures appearing for the first 16
factors on both the ordinate and the abcissa. A compari-
son of the two groups revealed that the heroin addicted
persons showed a total of 23 significant correlations,
either negative or positive, while the non-heroin addicted

group showed 35 significant correlations. The inter-corre-

144

lation of factors and their mutual prediction of each

other is one measure of internal consistence, which is a

form of reliability.

Secondly, the inter-correlations between the last 14
variables on each axis, those of the Demographic Data
Composite, reveal that this instrument was more consistent
and more reliable for the two groups as indicated by 27
significant correlations for each of the two pOpulation

samples in the study.

145

Figure 1

Description of Factor One

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

L

Reserved, Detached, Critical vs. warmhearted, Outgoing, Easygoing,
Aloof , Stiff Participating

Additional Characteristics

 

critical vs. good natured, easygoing
stands by his own ideas vs. ready to cooperate, likes to
participate
cool, aloof vs. attentive to people
precise, objective vs. soft-hearted, casual
distrustful, skeptical vs. trustful
rigid vs. adaptable, careless, "Goes along"
cold vs. warmhearted
prone to sulk vs. laughs readily
Table 1

Analysis of Factor One

 

It 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score 4 Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 53.188 25.248
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 42.094 29.907
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 1969.141 1 1969.141 2.571 0.114
mean)
Error 47487.594 62 765.930

TOtal (about mean) 49456.734 63

 

146

Figure 2

Description of Factor Two

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1)

High Score (Possible 99)

 

Crystallized, Power Measure vs.

Crystallized, Power Measure

Bright

high general mental capacity

Dull
Additional Characteristics
low mental capacity vs.
unable to handle abstract vs.

problems

mdwfiu,fifidmemim
tellectually adaptable

The measurement of intelligence has been shown to carry with it, as
a factor in the personality realm, some of the following ratings;

the correlations, however, are quite low.

apt to be less well organized vs.

inclined to have more intellec-

tmlmmmfis

 

poorer judgement vs. showing better judgement
of lower morale vs. of higher morale
quitting vs. persevering

Table 2

Analysis of Factor Two

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 36.500 22.871
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 70.313 24.718
Source of Sum of Mean Signifi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F cance
Regression (about 18292.562 1 18292.562 32.260 0.0005 *

mean)

Error 35256.874 62 567.046

Total (about mean) 53449.43?

*p (.05

 

147

Figure 3

Description of Factor Three

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

 

Affected by Feelings, Emo- vs. Emotionally Stable, Mature, Faces
tionally less Stable, Easily Reality, Calm
Upset, Changeable

Additional Characteristics

 

gets emotional when frus- vs. emotionally mature
trated
changeable in attitudes and vs. stable, constant in interests
interests
easily perturbed vs. calm
evasive of responsibilities, vs. does not let emotional needs
tending to give up obscure realities of a situa-
tion, adjusts to facts

worrying vs. unruffled
gets into fights and prob- vs. shows restraint in avoiding
lem situations difficulties

Table 3

Analysis of Factor Three

 

 

Mean Standard

 

 

 

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 22.063 22.957
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 54.125 33.642
Source of Sum.of Mean Signifi-
Variance Square d.f. Square - F .1 Acance
Regression (about 16448.063 1 16448.063 19.831 0.0005*
mean)
Error 51423.375 62 829.409
Total (about mean) 67871.437 63

*p (.05

 

148

Figure 4

Description of Factor Four

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

 

Obedient, Mild, Easily Led, vs. Assertive, Aggressive, Competitive,
Docile, Accomodating Stubborn

Additional Characteristics

 

submissive vs. assertive
dependent vs. independent-minded
considerate, diplomatic vs. stern, hostile
expressive vs. solemn -
conventional, conforming vs. unconventional, rebellious
easily upset by authority vs. headstrong
humble vs. admiration demanding

Table 4

Analysis of Factor Four

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 45.719 27.485
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 59.906 30.221
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 3220.562 1 3220.564 3.899 0.054
mean)
Error 51731.188 62 834.374

Total 54951.750 63

 

149

Figure 5

Description of Factor Five

 

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)
Sober, Taciturn, Serious vs. Enthusiastic, Heedless, Happy-
go-lucky

Additional Characteristics

 

uhM,MUmdee w. tdhdw
full of cares vs. cheerful
concerned, reflective vs. happybgo-lucky
incommunicative, sticks to vs. frank, expressive, reflects
inner values the group
slow, cautious vs. quick and alert

Table 5

Analysis of Factor Five

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 52.469 29.669
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 62.188 34.367
Source of Sum.of Mean Signifi-
variance Square d.f. Square F cance
Regression (about 1511.266 1 1511.266 1.466 0.231

mean)

Error 63902.844 62 1030.691

Total (about mean) 65414.109 63

 

150

Figure 6

Description of Factor Six

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

 

Disregards Rules, Expedient vs. Conscientious, Persistent, Moral-
istic, Staid

Additional Characteristics

 

qflfihmfmne vs Pummfim,®mmma
frivolous vs. responsible
self-indulgent vs. emotionally disciplined
slack, indolent vs. consistently ordered
undependable vs. conscientious, dominated by
sense of duty

disregards obligations to vs. concerned about moral standards
people and rules

Table 6

Analysis of Factor Six

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation

Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 36.906 24.155

Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 32.406 29.034

Source of Sum of Mean Signi-

Variance Square .4 d.f.yy Square . F‘ .ficance
Regression (about 324.000 1 324.000 0.454 0.503

mean)
Error 44542.437 62

Total(about mean) 44542.437 63

 

151.
Figure 7

Description of Factor Seven

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

 

Shy, Timid, Restrained, Threat— vs. Adventurous, "Thick-skinned",
Sensitive Socially Bold

Additional Characteristics

 

shy, withdrawn vs. adventurous, likes meeting
people
retiring in face of Opposite vs. active, overt interest in
sex opposite sex
emotionally cautious vs. responsive, genial
apt to be embittered vs. friendly
restrained, rule-bound vs. impulsive
restricted interests vs. emotional and artistic
interests
careful, considerate, quick to vs. carefree, does not see danger
see dangers Signals
Table 7

Analysis of Factor Seven

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 45.063 31.324
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 51.625 35.221
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 689.063 1 689.063 0.621 0.434
mean)
Error 68769.375 62 1109.183

Total (about mean) 69458.43? 63

 

152

Figure 8

Description of Factor Eight

 

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)
Tough-minded, Rejects Il- vs. Tender-minded, sensitive, depen-
lusions dent, over-protected

Additional Characteristics

 

unsentimental, expects little vs. fidgety, expecting affection and
attention

self-reliant, taking respon- vs. clinging, insecure, seeking help

sibility and sympathy

hard (to point of cynicism) vs. kindly, gentle, indulgent to self
and others

few artistic responses (but vs. artistically fastidious, affected,

not lacking in taste) theatrical

unaffected by "fancies" vs. imaginative in inner life and in
conversation

acts on practical, locical vs. acts on sensitive intuition

evidence

keeps to the point vs. attention-seeking, flighty

does not dwell on physical vs. hypochondriacal, anxious about self

disabilities

Table 8

Analysis of Factor Eight

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons 32 75.188 19.390
Group 002 (non-addicted.persons) 32 71.781 21.491
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 185.641 1 185.641 0.443 0.508
mean)
Error 25972.344 62 418.909

Total (about mean) 26157.984

 

153

Figure 9

Description of Factor Nine

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1)

High Score (Possible 99)

 

Trusting, Accepting Conditions vs.

accepts personal unimportance vs.
pliant to changes vs.
unsuspecting of hostility vs.

ready to fOrget difficulties vs.
understanding and permissive, vs.
tolerant

Suspecting, Jealous

jealous

dogmatic

suspicious of interference
swelling upon frustrations
tyrannical

 

lax over correcting people vs. demands people accept respon-
' sibility over errors
concilatory vs. irritable
Table 9

Analysis of Factor Nine

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

Score Deviation

Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 64.313 24.320
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 51.625 30.892
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance

 

Regression (about 2575.563
mean)
Error 47918.375

Total (about mean) 50493.93?

1 2575.563 3.332 0.073
62 772.877

63

 

.154

Figure 10

Description of Factor Ten

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1)

High Score (Possible 99)

 

 

Practical, Has "Down to Earth" vs. Imaginative, Bohemian, Absent
Concerns Minded
conventional, alert to practi— vs. unconventional, absorbed in ideas
cal needs
concerned with immediate in- vs. interested in art, theory, basic
terests and issues beliefs
prosaic, avoids anything vs. imaginatively enthralled by inner
far-fetched creations
guided by objective realities, vs. fanciful, easily seduced fran
dependable in practical judge- practical judgement
ment
earnest, concerned or worried, vs. generally enthused, but occasional
but steady hysterical swings of "giving up"
Table 10
Analysis of Factor Ten

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 34.031 24.720
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 71.656 25.871
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 22650.250 1 22650.250 35 . 380 0. 0005 *

mean)

Error 39692.18? 62 640.19?
Total (about mean) 62342.438

*p( .05

 

Figure 11

155

Description of Factor Eleven

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1)

High Score (Possible 99)

 

Forthright, Unpretentious

genuine, but socially clumsy

VS.

VS.

has vague and injudicious mind vs.

gregarious, gets warmly emo-
tionally involved
spontaneous, natural

has simple tastes

lacking self-insight

VS.

VS.
V8.
V8.

unskilled in analyzing motives vs.

content with what comes

VS.

has blind trust in human naturevs.

Astute, Worldly

polished, socially aware

has exact, calculating mind
emotionally detached and disci-
plined
artful
esthetically fastidious
insightful regarding self
insightful regarding others
ambitious, possibly insecure
smart , "cuts corner 9"

 

Table 11

Analysis of Factor Eleven

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 59.875 27.447
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 43.781 29.033
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 4144.141 1 4144.141 5.192 0.026*

mean)

Error 49482.969 62 798.112
TOtal (about mean) 5362?.109 63

*p(.05

 

156

Figure 12

Description of Factor Twelve

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1)

High Score (Possible 99)

 

 

Self-assured, placid, secure, vs. apprehensive, self-reproaching,

complacent insecure, worrying, troubled
self-confident vs. worrying, anxious
cheerful, resilient vs. depressed, cries easily
impenitent, placid vs. easily touched, overcome by’moods
expedient, insensitive to vs. strong sense of obligation, sensi-
people's approval or disap- tive to people‘s approval and
proval disapproval
does not care vs. scrupulous, fussy
rudely vigorous vs. hypochondriacal and inadequate
no fears vs. phobic symptoms
given to simple action vs. lonely, brooding

Table 12

Analysis of Factor Twelve

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation

Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 78.219 24.381

Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 52.781 27.270
Source of Sum of Mean Signifi-

Variance Square d.f. Square F cance

 

Regression (about 10353.062
mean)
Error 51834.000

Total (about mean) 51834.000

1 10353.062 15.474 0.0005*
62 669.04?

63
*p (.05

157

Figure 13

Description of Factor Thirteen

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

 

Conservative, Respecting, Es- vs. experimenting, liberal, analy-
tablished ideas, tolerant of tical, free-thinking
traditional difficulties

 

Table 13

Analysis of Factor Thirteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 68.969 24.919
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 67.375 27.129
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 40.641 1 40.641 0.060 0.80?
mean)
Error 42064.469 62

Total (about mean) 42105.109 63

 

158

Figure 14

Description of Factor Fourteen

 

 

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)
Sociably group dependent, a vs. self-sufficient, resourceful,
joiner and sound follower prefers own decisions

Table 14

Analysis of Factor Fourteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 44.719 34.828
Group 001 (non-addicted persons) 32 59.813 31.19?
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 3645.141 1 3645.141 3.335 0.073
mean)
Error 67773.344 62

Total (about mean) 71418.484 63

 

159

Figure 15

Description of Factor Fifteen

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)

uncontrolled, Lax, Follows Own vs. Controlled, exacting Will Power,
urges, Careless of Social Rules Socially Precise, Compulsive,
Following Self-Image

 

Table 15

Analysis of Factor Fifteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
..n _ Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 38.313 24.386
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 36.031 26.891
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 83.266 1 83.266 0.126 0.723
mean)
Error 40851.844 62 658.901

Total (about mean) 40935.110 63

 

160

Figure 16

Description of Factor Sixteen

 

 

 

 

Low Score (Possible 1) High Score (Possible 99)
Relaxed, Tranquil, Torpid, vs. Tense, Frustrated, Driven, Over-
Unfrustrated, Composed wrought, Fretful

Table 16

Analysis of Factor Sixteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 75.531 23.033
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 61.750 33.320
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square id.f. .. Square _.. F ficance
Regression (about 3038.766 1 3038.766 3.704 0.059
mean)
Error 50861.969 62 820.354

Total (about mean) 53900.734 63

 

161

Table 17

Analysis of Variable Seventeen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 23.094 6.34?
Group 002 (nonraddicted persons) 32 25.344 4.863
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 81.000 1 81.000 2.533 0.11?
mean)
Error 1981.937 62 31.96?

Total (about mean: 2062.938 63

 

162

Table 18

Analysis of Variable Eighteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n, Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 1.977 0.911
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 1.952 0.965
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0.391 1 0.391 0.405 0.52?
mean)

Error 59.844 62 0.965
Total (about mean) 60.234 63

 

Table 19

163

Analysis of Variable Nineteen

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 2.000 0.000
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 2.000 0.000
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1.000
mean)
Error 0.000 62 0.000
Total (about mean) 0.000 63

 

164

Table 20

Analysis of Variable Twenty

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 3.313 2.389
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 4.875 2.012
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d. f. Square F f icance
Regression (about 39.063 1 39.063 8.001 0.006 *

mean)

Error 302 . 375 62 4 . 877
Total (about mean) 341.437 63

*p<.05

 

165

Table

21

Analysis of variable Twenty One

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 1.895 1.150
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 1.800 0.941
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 1.266 1 1.266 0.875 0.353

mean)

Error 89 . 7 19 62 l. 448
Total (about mean) 90.984 63

 

166

Table 22

Analysis of Variable Twenty Two

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 1.781 0.420
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 1.875 0.336
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0.141 1 0.141 0.972 0.328
mean)
Error 8.969 62 0.145
Total (about mean) 9.109 63

 

167

Table 23

Analysis of Variable Twenty Three

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 1.469 0.507
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 1.781 0.420
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 1.563 1 1.563 7.209 0.009*

mean)

Error 13.438 62 0.217
Total (about mean) 15.000 63

*p(.05

 

168

Table 24

Analysis of variable TWenty Four

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 , 4.500 2.200
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 5.563 1.645
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 18.063 1 18.063 4.79 0.032*

mean)

Error 233.875 62 3.772
Tbtal (about mean) 251.936 63

*p< .05

 

169

Table 25

Analysis of Variable Twenty Five

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted.persons) 32 1.813 0.397
Group 002 (nonraddicted persons) 32 1.875 0.336
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance .. .Squares d.f.. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0.063 1 0.063 0.463 0.499
mean)
Error 8.375 62 0.135
Total (about mean) 8.438 63

 

170

Table 26

Analysis of Variable Twenty Six

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 1.813 0.397
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 1.969 0.177
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance , Square_ _, _ d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0. 390 ' l 0. 390 4. 144 0.046*

mean)

Error 5.844 62 0.095
Total (about mean) 6.234 63

*p( .05

 

171

Table 27

Analysis of Variable Twenty Seven

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 5.250 2.155
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 5.625 1.070
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Squares d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 2.250 1 2.250 0.777 0.381
mean)
Error 179.500 62 2.895

Total (about mean) 181.750 63

 

172

Table 28

Analysis of Variable Twenty Eight

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

n Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 4.844 1.706
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 5.000 1.524
Source of Sum of Mean Signi—
Variance .Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 0.390 1 0.390 0.149 0.701

mean)

Error 162.219 62 2.616
Total (about mean) 162.609

 

173

Table

29

Analysis of Variable Twenty Nine

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard

.n .. .Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 3.281 0.958
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 3.656 0.653
Source of Sum of Mean Signi-
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 2.250 1 2.250 3.346 0.072

mean)

Error 41.688 62 0.672
Total (about mean) 43.938

 

Table 30

174

Analysis of Variable Thirty

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Standard
n. ‘ Score Deviation
Group 001 (addicted persons) 32 4.938 1.190
Group 002 (non-addicted persons) 32 5.188 1.281
Source of Sum of Mean Signi—
Variance Square d.f. Square F ficance
Regression (about 12000 1 1.000 0.654 0.422
mean)
Error 94.750 62 1.528
Total (about mean) 95.750 63

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to investigate select-
ed non—intellectual and personality variables, and their
relationship to heroin addiction. The study was under—
taken at the Ingham County Jail, a county detention facil-

ity in Mason, Michigan. Sixty four male inmates comprised

the subjects for the study.

Theory and Methodology

The Sixteen Personality Factor'Questionnaire (69) was
administered to the subjects in the study to determine if
there was a significantly different response between the
inmates who demonstrated a history of heroin addiction and
those inmates which demonstrated no history of heroin ad-
diction.

The Demographic Data Composite (DDC) was also admin-
istered to all subjects, and its results were analyzed.
This analysis was performed in order to determine if there
was a significantly different response between the heroin
addicted subjects and the non-heroin addicted subjects on
certain demographic and historical variables.

An analysis of variance was performed for each of the

175

l. “J

 

 

176

16 factors on the 16PF, and for each of the 14 variables
on the Demographic Data Composite, for the two groups.
This total of thirty analyses of variance was performed
in order to indicate statistically significant differences
between the heroin addicted and the non-heroin addicted
groups on each of the variables.

In addition, an inter-correlational matrix table
was constructed for both the control and the experimental
groups. The purpose of this undertaking was to allow an
analysis of the correlational relationships between each

of the variables within each group.

Findings

Conclusions, Practical Implications,
and Limitations for the 16PF

The statistical analysis of the 16PF indicated a
significant difference at the .05 level of confidence for
the following five factors:

Factor 2. Crystallized, Power Measure Dull vs.
Crystallized, Power Measure Bright

Factor 3. Affected by feelings, emotionally less
stable, easily upset, changeable vs.
Emotionally stable, mature, faces reality,
calm

Factor 10. Practical, Has "down-to-earth" concerns
vs. Imaginative, Bohemian, Absent-Minded

Factor 11. Forthright, Unpretentious vs. astute,
worldly

177

Factor 12. Self assured, placid, secure, complacent
vs. apprehensive, self-reproaching, in-
secure, worrying, troubled.
Since these factors are truly more representative of
a scale or a continuum rather than an isolated factor, it
would be easier to interpret the meaningfulness of the
score differences if they were to be graphically illustrated.

Figure 16 presents a graphical illustration of the means

of the five factors along with a brief description of each

 

 

 

 

factor.
Data for Figure 16
Means
addicted non-addicted
factor name Persons persons
2 dull vs. bright 36.5 70.3
3 easily upset vs. calm 22.1 54.1
10 practical vs. Imaginative 34.0 71.0
11 forthright vs. astute 60-0 43.8
12 self assured vs. apprehensive 78.2 52.8

 

 

As the present study was designed to lend itself

particularly to the clinical setting, it would be rele-

8

17

octane.» .musommcH
.wcoumluafinw .m>flmcoamngmm

savages .muauma

3835283.32§L§3m
.mafiumfimmfin . HmowuomumEH

same
.muaamom manna .manmum
afiaaaoauose .omm vacuum

huflommmu Houses
Hmumamo nose .uauegm

B: cote.-

mucom

cm on .00 on . 0v .. on on

5...... ex

cooouoouoousa mgmHmm gggglcoz
Gill I ll|-l 20mm“ ”floflgd

“E8338 £8388
.musoom .wmusmmMImaom NH

msOHucou
nouns: .uamausuuom Ha

183558.53m
nouuasoc .Hmoauomnm oH

names sesame
.manmumaa saamaoeu
65.8mޤ.m

announce
dunno: son .Haso m

mama may no nouomm manganese sauamoamacmam

gnu so mmaouu monum,ozp on» no menu: may no sauna

)II).‘.II|

OHMNV

.Hm>

.Hm>

on>

Cg>

179

vant and practical to limit the commentary to the clinical
area.
1. Factor 2. Crystallized, Power Measure Dull vs.
Crystallized, Power Measure Bright
The findings suggest that the heroin addict exhibits
a significantly lower mental capacity and ability towards
abstract reasoning than did the non-addict. While this
information.may well have some very useful applications
within the therapeutic setting, there do exist some limi-
tations on these generalizations. It is very difficult
to determine whether a measure of aptitude or organiza-
tional abilities is closely associated with academic back-
ground or not. As the present study will so state later,
there existed no significant difference between the two
groups in educational level attained.
2. Factor 3. Affected by feelings, emotionally less
stable, easily upset, changeable vs.
Emotionally stable, mature, faces reality.
calm
The findings suggest that the heroin addicts are more
affected by feelings, and are emotionally more unstable
than are the non-addicts. This indication may be of
special relevance to the clinician as he formulates his

approach to ‘psychotherapy with the addicted person.

These findings may also indicate some clinical investiga-

180

tion in the area of peer and family relationships and
their meanings to the addict. These findings may further
suggest the basis for the "poor" emotional stability which
the literature characterizes as common to the addict.

An additional possible explanation for this score
may lie within the design of the present study. The
addicts were all incarcerated and deprived of family
and friends. For the purpose of this study, they were
removed from their cells by a counselor and talked with
for a short time, and then given the instrument. Possi-
bly, this score difference was a reflection of a reac-
tion to an interruption of lonliness and/or boredom.
Even in this context, however, it must be remembered
that both groups were treated identically, and although
the instrument was perhaps measuring an emotionally based
response, there was a significant difference between the
two groups.

3. Factor 10. Practical, Has "down-to-earth" concerns
vs. Imaginative, Bohemian, Absent-Minded

The significant difference between the means of the
two groups on this factor suggest that the addict is more
practical and down—to—earth than the non-addict. The
implications here would be useful in avoiding a clinical

approach which was not practical and pragmatic, but rather

181

geared to the addict's lesser imaginative and concrete

mode of Operation. V

4. Factor 11. Forthright, unpretentious vs. astute,
worldly

The findings lend validity to the suggestion that
the addict is aware of his surroundings, and is astute
in his perceptions. Somewhat contradictory to Factor 10
above, there are indications that the addict is not as
forthright and unpretentious as is the non-addict. One
possible explanation of this apparent conflict may be
that the non-addict pOpulation and the addicted pOpula-
tion are truly not a great deal different with respect
to statistical means, but rather that one group or the
other was quite homogeneous on its distribution about its
mean and therefore, a smaller difference became significant.
5. Factor 12. Self assured, placid, secure, complacent,

vs. apprehensive, self-reproaching, in-
secure, worrying, troubled.

When compared with the non-addict, the evidence here
indicates that the addict is less self-assured, more appre-
hensive, worrying, and troubled. Clinically, this infor-
mation may be extremely helpful in the areas of self-concept
and ego develOpment types of therapeutic endeavors. This
finding may also indicate some of the possible pre-drug

use conditions or factors which perhaps supplied the mo-

182

tivations and impetus for heroin use in the first
place. -

An additional suggestion for an explanation of
this factor may be the following: A great deal of the
addicted inmates are, or have been, convicted of a drug-
related crime. These crimes are "victimless crimes" to
the addict's way of thinking,,and not worthy of the same
punishment as is armed robbery or aggravated assault.
There exists a general feeling of apprehension or worry
about their legal status based upon the moral question
in addition to the legal question. This apprehension
would be most apparent in the jail, as the addict sits
in the "establishment's house" waiting for justice for

what he sees as nothing criminal.

Summary of Factors from the 16PF

There ‘were some specific differences between the
addicted and non-addicted inmates which lend themselves
to therapeutic implication. Although these findings are
not as easily generalized and conclusive as they first
appear, there exists adequate underpinnings for tendencies
and biases within the psychotherapeutic process.
Conclusions and Practical Implications
for the Demographic Data Composite

The analysis of the remaining 14 variables, the Demo-

183

graphic Data Composite, yielded some interesting and
relevant data. While the findings here are not as
specifically clinically oriented as those above, there
does appear to be the basis for identifying a trend
or characteristic pattern for the addicted pOpulation.

There existed four variables which proved to be
statistically different for the two groups. They were
as follows:

1. Variable 20. Marital Status of Subject

2. Variable 23. Grow up with true father

3. Variable 24. Educational level of true father

4. Variable 26. Grow up with true mother

A discussion of each of these variables follows:

1. Variable 20. Marital Status of Subject

Description: code 1 = single
code 2 = divorced
code 3 = separated
code 4 = widowed
code 5 = common law
code 6 = married
Mean Score, addicted group = 3.313
Mean Score, non-addicted group = 4.875

In order to meaningfully interpret the difference be-
tween the groups it is necessary to visually place the
groups' means upon the scale of the codes above.

As the scores indicate, the mean for the addicts falls
somewhere between the separated and the widowed range,

while the mean for the non-addicted group falls between the

184

widowed and common law classifications. It must be remem-
bered that these means are scores upon a continuum and not
specifically located within a particular category. One

can conclude, however, that on the scale as it is presented,
the addicted group tended more to the bottom end of the
scale (single, divorce, separated) than did the non-addicted
group.

2. Variable 23. Grow up with true father

Description: code 1 = no

code 2 = yes
Mean Score, addicted group = 1.469
Mean Score, non-addicted group = 1.781

Data from the DDC indicates that the addicted group
showed a higher frequency of not growing up with their
true father.

One implication for this finding may lie within the
formulation of a therapeutic plan dealing with the role
of the significant male model in the developmental stages
of the child. Another possible implication would evolve
around the analytical framework of the oedipus complex
and the resolution of the oedipal conflict through identi-
fication.

3. Variable 24. Educational level of true father

Description: code 1 = don't know
code 2 = first through sixth grade
code 3 = seventh through eighth grade
code 4 = nineth through tenth grade
code 5 = eleventh through twelfth, no high
school graduate
code 6 = high school graduate
code 7 == one through two years college

185

code 8 = three through four years college
code 9 = any graduate work at all

Mean Score, Addicted group = 4.500

Mean Score, Non-addicted group = 5.563

The demographic data composite yields data to support
the fact that the heroin addicted group were sons of
fathers with a significantly lesser amount of education
than were the non-addicted group.

The high frequency of the lesser educated father among
the heroin addicts may or may not serve as guideposts to
aid and formulating a therapeutic approach. This informa-
tion does serve, however, to supply the therapist with a

basic generality or characterization of the addict as a

pOpulation.
4. Variable 26. Grow up with true mother
Description: code 1 = no
code 2 = yes
Mean Score, addicted group = 1.813
Mean Score, non-addicted group = 1.969

The DDC yields information which supports the fact
that the heroin addicted pOpulation more often do not
grow up with their true mothers.

Ramifications for therapy here are extensive. The
mother model plays a significant role in develOpmental
theory as well as the psychoanalytical approach to psycho-

therapy.

186

Summary of Variables from
Demographic Data Composite

 

 

The DDC yields numerous characteristic and relevant
differences between the addicted and non-addicted groups.
These differences lend themselves to therapeutic impli-
cations as well as enabling the therapist to make gen-
eralizations about the addicted pOpulation.

Practical Implications, Limitations,
and Summary of the Inter-Correlation
Matrix

Appendices E and F present the inter-correlational
matrices showing the correlational relationships which
each variable has with the other variables in that par—
ticular group. The main point of concern here is that
the correlational relationships between those variables
on the DDC which one would expect to correlate highly, did
in fact correlate highly. An example of this would be the
high positive correlation between item number 28 (Marital
Status of true parents) and item number 23 (Did you grow
up with your true father?). This correlation is logical
and would tend to indicate that the DDC was yielding a
"truthful" response. These kind of data in the correlational

matrix are an index of high internal consistency.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

1. Replication of this study should be repeated at the

 

187

Ingham County Jail in order to ascertain whether the
same findings of non-intellectual and personality varia-
bles produced the same relationship to heroin addic-
tion, and the same differences between the two groups
on this relationship.

Replication of this study should be repeated at other
treatment centers (i.e., hospitals, residential treat-
ment centers, etc.) to determine the differences be-
tween the incarcerated and non-incarcerated heroin
addicts.

Some procedural method utiliZing the results of

this study in a psychotherapeutic technique, should

be performed and compared to a psychotherapeutic tech-
nique which does not incorporate the results of this
study. An analysis of the results of these two
therapeutic endeavors should be performed.

The need of a longitudinal study is indicated to
determine whether the profile which this study yields
could, in fact, predict drug use. Perhaps a pOpula-
tion of high school students could be sampled and
followed for a length of time to determine the rela-
tionship of each particular subject's develOpmental
activity with his profile on the indicators and mea-

sures in this study.

188

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Restatement of Hypotheses

 

The research hypothesis under investigation in this
study was:

Ho: The heroin addicted persons, homogeneous
in the degree of heroin addiction, will
not demonstrate significant differences
from the heroin addicted persons on the
dependent variables of this study.

The alternative hypotheses was:

Ha: The heroin addicted persons, homogeneous
in degree of heroin addiction, will demon-
strate significant differences from the
non-heroin addicted persons on the depen-
dent variables of this study.

This investigation basically sought to compare, mea-
sure, and describe certain non-intellectual, sociological,
demographic, and psychological factors of heroin addicts

and non-heroin addicts.
Restatement 9f the Questions

The above hypotheses are closely associated with in-

vestigating and discussing the following empirical ques-

189
tions:

1. Do the personality variables and personality
traits have a potential relationship to heroin
addiction?

2. Does demographic and personal data regarding
the individual background, as measured by the
instrument constructed for this specific pur-
pose and this specific investigation, have a

potential relationship to heroin addiction?

Summary

From the results mentioned above, and the practical
implications accompanying them, there appear to be a num-
ber of factors and variables which are statistically dif-
ferent between the addicted,incarcerated male at the
Ingham County Jail, and the non-addicted,incarcerated
male at the Ingham County Jail. An analysis of 30 pairs
of scores yielded nine items which differed significantly
at the .05 level of confidence. The particular items
upon.which these two groups differ have been shown to
lend themselves meaningfully to the therapeutic process,
and further, to facilitate generalizations about the

incarcerated pOpulation at the Ingham County Jail.

REFERENCES

190

10.

REFERENCES

American Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse.
CBS television report, July, 1972.

 

Anslinger, J. J. & Tomkins, W. F. The traffic
in narcotics. Funk & Wagnells, New York, 1953.

 

Bates, G. M. Methadone for narcotics addicts.
Journal of the American Medical Association,

I969, 2439.

 

Berg, R. H. New hOpe for drug addicts. Look,
November 30, 1965.

Bogg, R. A., Smith, R. G., & Russell, S. D.
Drugs and high school students: A_final report
of a study conducted for the special committee

22 narcotiCs. Michigan Department of Health,
April, 1969.

 

 

Bureau of Narcotics. Traffic ig Opium and other
dangerous drugs. U. 8. Government Printing Office,
1968.

 

 

Chambers, D. D. The detoxification 9£_narcotic
addicts in outpatient clinics. Unpub. article, 1970.

 

 

Chambers, D. D. Personality profiles of female
narcotic users. American Society g£_Criminolog¥'
and International AssociatiOn of Penal Law, 197
Annual Conference, Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

Chicago Daily News. December 15, 1952.

Committee on Alcoholicm and Drug Dependence.

Management of narcotic-drug dependence by high-
dosage methadone HCL technique. Dole-Nyswander
program. Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation, No. 201, T967.

 

191

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

192

Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence.
Management of narcotic-drug dependence by high-
dosage. Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion, No. iGI,'I9€7.

 

Criminal Appeals Act, 34 Stat 1246 (1907), now
as amended 18 U.S.C.

Dole, V. P., & Nyswander, M. E. Heroin addiction:
A metabolic disease. Archives g£_Internal Medi-
cine, Vol. 120, July, 967. k

 

Dole, V. P., Nyswander, M. E., & Werner, A.

Successful treatment of 750 criminal addicts. ]
Journal of the American Medical Association, No.
206, 1968.

 

Do secret pentagon files contain formula for heroin k
antagonist? No author, American Druggist, December
13, 1971.

 

Durkheim, E. Suicide, Translated by John A.
Spaulding and George Simpson, The New York Free
Press, 1951.

DVR (Division of Vocational Rehabilitation), Report
on Data, Courtesy of Roger Smith, 910 Southland Ave.
Lansing, Michigan, October, 1971.

Eddy, N. B. Methadone maintenance for the manage-
ment of persons with drug dependence of morphine
type. Unpublished, Bureau glearcotics and Dan-
gerous Drugs, GPO 898.092.

 

 

Erikson, J. H. Methadone maintenance treatment of
Opiate addicts in Sweden. Paper presented at the

Third National Conference on Methadone Treatment,

New York, November, 1970.

Federal Narcotics Bureau. Memorandum Regarding Nar-
cotic Clinics, Their History and Hazards. 6, 1938.

Gearing, F. R. Evaluation of the methadone main-
tenance treatment program. International Journal of
Addiction, No. 5, 1970.

 

 

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

193

Gearing, R. R. Successes and failures in metha-
done maintenance treatment of heroin addiction in
New York City. Paper presented at the Third
National Conference on Methadone Treatment, New
York, November, 1970.

Geizer, M. Conversations at the Governor's Office
of Drug Abuse with Mike Geizer, 1971.

Green, Stevenson, Governors of the State of Illinois
who vetoed incarceration July 24, 1947, August 9, 1949.

Haag, H. B., Finnegan, J. M., & Larson, P. S. Pharma—
cologic observations on 1, l-Diphenyl-l-(Dimethyl-aminio-
s0pr0pyl)-Butanone-2. Federation Proceedings, No. 6,
1947.

 

Himmelsback, C. K. Thiamine in the treatment of the
morphine abstinence syndrome in man. Journal of
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 70(3),
1940.

 

Howe, H. S. A physician's blueprint for the management
and prevention of narcotic addiction. New York State
Journal 9f Medicine, February 1, 1955.

 

Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program, Re—
port Courtesy of Kenneth Preadmore, October, 1971.

Illinois Legislative Council, DiSposition of Narcotic
Law Offenders and Addicts, 1951.

Isbell, H., & Eisenman, A. J. The addiction liability
of some drugs of the methadon series. Journal 2f
Pharmacological and Experimental Therapy, No. 93, 1948.

 

Isbell, H., & Vogel, V. H. The addiction liability of
methadon (Amidone, D010phine, 10820) and its use in the
treatment of the morphine abstinency syndrome. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, No. 105, 1949.

 

 

Isbell, H., Wikler, A., Eisenman, A. J., Dangerfield,
M., & Frank, K. Liability of addiction to 6-Dimethy-
lamino-4-4-Diphenyl—3-Heltanone (Methadone, 'Amidone'
or '10820') in man. Experimental addiction to metha-
done. Archives gf_Internal Medicine, Vol. 82, 1948.

 

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

194

Isbell, H., Wikler, A., Eisenman, A. J., & Frank, K.
Effects of single doses of 10820 (4-4-Diphenyl-6-Dimethy-
lamino3-Heptanone-3) on man. Federation Proceedings,
No. 6, 1947.

 

Joseph, H., and Dole, V. P. Methadone patients on
probation and parole. Federal Probation, June, 1970.

 

Kane, H. H. Drugs that enslave. Philadelphia, Presley
Blakeston, 1881.

Karr, N. W. Effects of 6-Dimethylanimo-4, 4-Diphenyl-
3-Heptanone (DolOphine) on intestinal motility. Fed-
eration Proceedings, No. 6, 1947.

 

King, R. G. The narcotics bureau and the Harrison act:
Jailing the healers and the sick. Yale Law Journal,
62, 1953.

Kirchhof, A. C., & David, N. A. Clinical trial of 6-
Dimethylamino-4-4-Diphenyl-3-Heptanone (DoloPhine),
a synthetic analgesic. Federation Proceedings, No.
6, 1947.

Lansing Police Department, Report Courtesy of Gerald
Husby, Capitol at Michigan Streets, Lansing, Michigan,
October, 1971.

McCabe, O. J. Methadone maintenance: Boon or bane?
The Drug Abuse Controversy, edited Brown, C. C., &
Savage, C., 1971.

McCarthy. A prosecutor's vieWpoint on narcotic addic-
tion in federal prohibition. October, 1943.

Martin, W. R. Commentary on the second national con-
ference on methadone treatment. International Journal
of the Addictions, No. 5, 1970.

 

 

Maslansky, R. A., Sukov, R., & Beaumont, G. Pregnancies
in methadone maintained mothers. Paper presented at

the Third National Conference on Methadone Treatment,
New York, November, 1970.

Merki, D. J. Narcotics: The first of a long line.
Dallas, Texas Alcohol Narcotics Education, 1970.

 

 

195
45. Methadone, cracks in the panacea. Science News,
No. 97, 1970.

46. Methadone in jail. The Eveninngun, Baltimore,
July 14, 1969.

 

47. Methadone Maintenance Evaluation Committee. Progress
report of evaluation of methadone maintenance treat-
ment program as of March 31, 1968. Journal of Egg
American Medical Association, 206:12, 1968.

48. Methadone maintenance for heroin addicts. No author,
Yale Law Journal, 78(7), 1969.

 

49. Methadone patients 'cheat'. washington Sunday Star,
November 29, 1970.

50. Michigan State Police. Special Report Prepared for
Committee Northern Michigan University, By Lieute-
nant Jack Weirmen, Michigan State Police Main Head-
quarters, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

51. Moritz, 0. Is methadone less harmful than heroin?
Controversial drug for addicts gets a major test. The
National Observer, February 3, 1963.

 

52. National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information.
Answers Eg_the most frequently askeg’ uestions about
drug abuse. 5454 Wisconsin Ave., Cherry Chase, Maryland.

 

53. Nelson, A. S. Medical complications of drug addic-
tion. Unpublished document delivered at the National
Institute of Mental Health Conference on Drug Abuse,
University of Miami, Miami, Florida, February, 1972.

54. New York Times. U.S. treasury department report of
special committee to investigate the traffic in nar-
cotic drugs. April 10, 1919

 

55. New York Times, June 23, 1920.

 

56. Nyswander, M. E. The methadone treatment of heroin
addiction. Hospital Practice, April, 1967.

 

57. Report of the Mayor's Committee for the Rehabilitation
of Narcotic Addicts. Detroit, 1953.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.
67.

68.

69.

Rep. Ref.

196

Committee on Legislation and Public

Relations. 1924.

Rosenthal, J. D. The management of barbiturate-
sedative drug withdrawal. Unpublished document
Delivered at the National Institute of Mental Health
Conference on Drug Abuse, University of Miami,
Miami, Florida, February, 1972.

Schmeckebier. The bureau of prohibition in service
monograph 57, institute for government research.
Brookings Institute 3, 1929.

Simmons v United States, 300 Fed 321, (6th Cir, 1924)
Hobart v United States, 299 Fed 784 (6th Cir. 1924)
Manning v United States 287 Fed. 800 (8th Cir. 1923).

Scott, C.

C., & Chen, K. K. The Action of 1, l-

Diphenyl-l-(Dimethylamino-ISOprOphyl)-Butanone-2,
a potent analgesic agent. Journal of Pharmacological

and Experimental Therapyp No. 87, 1946.

 

 

Sixty Minutes Program, Transcript Data from Documen-

tary, Fall, 1972.

 

Sonnenreich, M. Drugs, education, and the law.
The Drug Abuse Controversy, edited by Brown, C. C.,

 

& Savage,

C., 1971}

State of Michigan, Special Report on Attitudes and
Actions of Young People in Michigan, Prepared for
the Governor's Investigation of Drug Abuse, 1970.

Stevens. New York Times, June 23, 1920.

 

Stevens. Make dOpe legal. Harper's Magazine, Novem-
ber, 1966.

 

Suchman, E. A. The 'hang-loose' ethic and the spirit
of drug abuse. Journal 9f Health and Social Behavior,

Ix, June,

Tatsuoka,
book for

 

1966.

M. M., Eber, H. W., & Cattell, R. B. Hand-
the sixteen personality factor questionnaire

 

 

(IBPF):
1970.

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing,

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.
79.
80.
81.

82.

83.
84.

85.
86.

Tribby, D.

197

Public Health Director, written Report,

Unpublished, Presented at Board Meeting, 1970.

 

Troxil, E. B.
Diphenyl—l—(Dimethylamino—ISOpropyl)—Butanone-2)

in man.

United States v Balient, C 28/136, S.D.N.Y., June
28, 1921,

United States v Behrman,

United States v Behrman,

Federal Proceedings, No.

258.

The analgesic action of l, 1,

6, 1947.

U.S. 250 (1922).

258 U.S.

for United States.

United States Congress Congressional Record, 31

Stat.

United States Congress Congressional Record,
1912.

Stat.

United
Cong.,

United
United
United

United
United

United

U.S.C.,
United States Congress, lst Session, pt 14, 1951.

United States Congress, H. R. 3307,

States

lst Sess. 2

States
States
States

States
States

States

2554 (c)

188 (1900).

38

Congress, H. R. Rep. No. 23, 63rd

(1913).

Congress, 249, U.S. 96, 1919.

Congress, 254 U.S. 189 (1920).

Congress, 47, Stat. 326, 1932.

38 Stat. 785 (1914), 26
1946.

Congress,
Congress 2550,

Congress, 38 Stat. 786 (1914), 26
(1) 1946.

83rd Cong.,

lst Sess., 1953.

United States v Doremus,

249 U.S. 86, 1919.

United States Treasury Department, the traffic
ixlhabit-forming narcotic<irugs, 1923.

258 U.S. 280, 289 (1922).

280 (1922) Brief

198

87. United States Treasury Department. Traffic in
Opium and other dangerous drugs, 3(1926); 3(1927);
4(1928).

88. United States Treasury Department. The traffic in
Opium and other dangerous drugs, 1926.

89. Updike, T. F. Community Mental Health Board 32?
search Grant, 1971.

 

90. Updike, T. F. Conversations with T. F. Updike,
1972.

91. Webb v United States, 249, U.S. 96, 99, 1919.

92. Wikler, A. Opiate addiction, Springfield, Illinois,
Thomas, C. C. 1953.

 

93. Wikler, A., Frank, K., & Eisenman, A. J. Effects
Of single doses Of 10820 (4-4-Diphenyl-6-Dimethy-
lamino-Heptanone-B) on the nervous system Of dogs
and cats. Federal Proceedings, NO. 6, 1947.

 

94. Williams, H. R., & Johnson, W. Abstinence: Relapse
patterns among heroin addicts receiving methadone
treatment on an outpatient basis.

ADDITIONAL:

Hightower, J. H. Relationships between the Minnesota
multiphasic personality inventory and the bipolar psy-
chological inventory to each other and to incarcerated
heroin addicts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1973.

Kaple, J. M. DevelOpment Of an attitude-behavior toward
drug users scale employing Guttman facet design and analy-
sis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1971

Kapoor, S. D. Cross-validation Of the Hindi version of
the 16 PF test. Indian Journal 2: Psychology, 40, 1965.
115-120.

 

 

Kline, P. The use Of the Cattell 16PF test and Eysenck's
EPI with a literate pOpulation in Ghana. British Journal
g£_Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 1967. 92-107.

 

 

199

Levonian, E. A statistical analysis Of the 16 Personality
Factor Questionnaire, Education and Psychological Measure-
ment, 21’ 1961. 589-5960

Nicholson, W. N. A Guttman facet analysis Of attitude-
behaviors toward drug users by heroin addicts and mental
health therapists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

APPENDICES

200

APPENDIX A

Glossary

201

Acid
Acidhead

Bag
Ball

Bang

Barbs
Bennies
Bindle
Blank

Blast

Blue angels
Blue velvet

Bombita

Bread
Bum trip
Bummer
Busted
Buttons

Cap
Chipping
Coasting
Cokie

Cold turkey

Coming down
Connection
COp

COp out
Crash
Crash pad
Cubehead
Cut

GLOSSARY

LSD, LSD-25, (lysergic acid diethylamide)
Frequent user of LSD

Packet Of drugs

Absorption of stimulants and cocaine via
genitalia

Injection of drugs

Barbiturates

Benzedrine, an amphetamine

Packet Of narcotics

Extremely low-grade narcotics

Strong effect from a drug

Amytal, a barbiturate

Paregoric (camphorated tincture Of Opium)
and Pyribenzamine (an antihistamine) mixed
and injected

Amphetamine injection, sometimes taken with
heroin

Money

Bad experience with psychedelics

Bad experience with psychedelics

Arrested

The section of the peyote cactus

Capsule

Taking narcotics occasionally

Under the influence Of drugs

Cocaine addict

Sudden withdrawal of narcotics (from the goose-
flesh, which resembles the skin of a cold,
plucked turkey)

Recovering from a trip

Drug supplier

TO Obtain heroin

Quit, take Off, confess, defect, inform

The effects Of stOpping the use Of amphetamines
Place where the user withdraws from amphetamines
Frequent user of LSD

Dilute drugs by adding milk sugar or another
inert substance

202

Dealer
Deck
Dexies
Dime bag
Dirty
DO
Dollies

DOper
Downers

DrOp
Dummy
Dynamite

Fix

Fire
Flash
Flip
Floating
Freakout

Fuzz
Gage
Good trip
Goofballs
Grass

H

Hard narcotic
Hard stuff

Hash
Hay
Head
Hearts
Heat
High
Holding
Hooked
HOphead
Horse
Hustle

Hustler
Hype

203

Drug supplier

Packet Of narcotics

Dexedrine, an amphetamine

$10 package Of narcotics

Possessing drugs, liable to arrest if searched
Take or inject a drug

DOlOphine (also known as methadone), a syn-
thetic narcotic

Person who uses drugs regularly

Sedatives, alcohol, tranquilizers, and narco-
tics

Swallow a drug

Purchase which did not contain narcotics
High-grade heroin

Injection Of narcotics

Inject or inhale a drug

The initial feeling after injecting
Become psychotic

Under the influence Of drugs

Bad experience with psychedelics; also a
chemical high

The police

Marihuana

Happy experience with psychedelics
Sleeping pills

Marihuana

Heroin

Opiates, such as heroin and morphine
Heroin

Hashish, the resin of Cannabis
Marihuana

Person dependent on drugs

Dexedrine tablets (from the shape)
The police

Under the influence Of drugs

Having drugs in one's possession
Addicted

Narcotics addict

Heroin

Activities involved in Obtaining money to buy
heroin

Prostitute

Narcotics addict

 

Joint
Jolly beans
Jones
JOY'POP
Junkie

Kick the
habit

Kite

Layout
Lemonade

M

Mainline
Maintaining
(The) Man
Manicure
Mesc

Meth
Methhead
Mikes

Narc
Nickel bag

O.D.
On the nod

Panic
Pillhead

POp
Pot
Pothead

Purple hearts

Pusher

Quill

Rainbows

204

Marihuana cigarette

Pep pills

A habit, an addiction

Inject narcotics irregularly
Narcotics addict

StOp using narcotics (from the withdrawal
leg muscle twitches)

Illegally written and passed notes within a
jail or a hospital

Equipment for injecting drug
Poor heroin

Morphine

Inject drugs into a vein

Keeping at a certain level Of drug effect

The police

Remove the dirt, seeds, and stems from marijuana
Mescaline, the alkaloid in peyote
Methamphetamine

Habitual user of methamphetamine

Micrograms (Millionths Of a gram)

Narcotics detective
$5 packet Of drugs

Overdose Of narcotics
Sleepy from narcotics

Shortage Of narcotics on the market

Heavy user Of pills, barbiturates or amphe-
tamines or both

Inject drugs

Marihuana

Heavy marihuana user

Dexamyl, a combination Of Dexedrine and Amytal
(from the shape and color)

Drug peddler

A matcthOk cover for sniffing Methedrine, co-
caine, or heroin

Tuinal (Amytal and Seconal), a barbiturate com—
bination in a blue and red capsule

Red devils
Reefer
Reentry
Roach

Roach holder

Run
Satch cotton

Scag
Score
Shooting
gallery
Skin pOpping
Smack
Smoke
Snorting
Snow
Speed
Speedball

Speedfreak
Stash
Stick
StOOlie
Strung out

Tracks
Tripping out
Turned on
Turps

25
Uppers

Weed
Words

Yellow jacket

Yen sleep

205

Seconal, a barbiturate

Marihuana cigarette

Return from a trip

Marihuana butt

Device for holding the butt Of a marihuana
cigarette

An amphetamine binge

Cotton used tO strain drugs before injection;
may be used again if supplies are gone
Heroin

Make a purchase of drugs

Place where addicts inject
Injecting drugs under the skin
Heroin

Wood alcohol

Inhaling drugs

Cocaine

Methamphetamine

An injection of a stimulant and a depressant,
originally heroin and cocaine
Habitual user Of speed

Supply Of drugs in a secure place
Marihuana cigarette

Informer

Addicted

Scars along veins after many injections

High on psychedelics

Under the influence of drugs

Elixir of Terpin Hydrate with Codeine, a cough
syrup

LSD (from its original designation, LSD-25)

Stimulants, cocaine, and psychedelics

Marihuana
Equipment for injecting drugs

Nembutal, a barbiturate
A drowsy, restless state during the withdrawal
period

APPENDIX B

Raw Data For Both Addicted And
Non-Addicted Groups On The 16PF And

The Demographic Data Composite

206

207

 

 

 

mm as mm mm be be mm as mm ow mm om he mm mm HH mm mm mm mm om om on as am as mm mm an an mm ow mH
mm HH HH mm mm ov mm ow ow e ov om mm 04 cm om mm om ov om ov he HH ow v ow ov mm HH mm he ow mH
mm v mm v HH >5 mm ov mm om mm HH mm mm HH v be mm mm 0v HH H mm om mm om HH HH om he nu mm «H
as oo as mm ow he mm be an as H he he mm an be mm mm om he be mm he om mm om mm mm mm mm cm as mH
om om mm as mm mm as mm mm mm mm mm es ov om mm mm as mm mm om mm he mm mm am am es mm 04 mm om NH
an en mm 4 mm as ow ow mm mm om mm om oe mm om mm as ow mm ow ow mm mm mm mm mm MN mm oo oo be HH
mm mm om oe mm HH a HH HH oe HH ov me mm om ow HH HH mm a HH mm oe mm ow om mm mm on ow ow om 0H
mm oo oo mm ow ow mm mm es ov an an om om an ow mm mm ow mm he om om mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 04 oo m
be he mm mm oo oo he mm mm ow as ea mm as om mm mm an mm mm ow he ow om mm ow om ow mm mm mm mm m
be mm mm om he v es ov om ov H mm HH >5 mm he HH up cm H we mm HH HH H HH ov ov co co HH HH 5
ow ov HH om mm H mm oe ow 04 oo 04 HH HH ow mm mm ow HH oe om om om mm mm mm as HH H om HH a m
ow mm om ma ow he an om HH HH HH om ov an as oo HH om ov HH om mm ow om v om mm mm 04 mm HH ow m
an oo oo mm mm ov om HH mm ow H HH om om an 04 mm HH om mm oo 04 om ov H as mm mm as HH mm cm a
4 oo v v ow om H H mm mm HH om v om ov he as mm HH H HH om HH H H HH HH HH 4 mm HH mm m
HH mm ow mm mm ow mm HH mm ow ow mm ow mm ea ow mm ow ow ow ow v ow ow HH ow a he mm mm HH om m
oo oo oo ow mm ow he mm om ow mm es ov oe ow as on mm mm mm he mm mm om v ow ow ow be HH he mm H
Houomm
«m Hm on mm mm em mm mm em mm mm Hm om mH mH AH 6H mH 4H mH NH HH 0H m m e m m e m N H
muumnnsm 1

 

HHooV macho OOHOHOOH Hon mama 3mm

xii II. \II‘

 

 

 

mm be mm mm 2. >5 mm 2. mm ow mm om be mm mm HH mm mm mm pm 00 om oo 2. mm 2. mm mm t. 2. mm mm 0H
mm HH HH mm mm 0v mm co co e co om mm 0v om 00 mm om ov om ow E. HH ov v 0v 0v mm HH mm 2. v mH
mm v mm o HH 2. mm 0v mm om mm HH mm mm HH v 2. mm mm ov HH H mm 00 mm 00 HH HH mm 2. R. 2. OH
t. 09 2. mm 0v 2. mm K. we ow H E. 2. mm C. E. mm mm om E. E. mm E. 00 mm om mm mm mm mm cm 2. mH
mm om mm 2. mm mm 2. mm mm mm mm mm 2. co om mm mm 2. mm mm 00 mm he mm mm mm mm 5. mm ov mm mm NH
HE 2. mm v mm 2. co co mm mm om mm om 0v mm 00 mm co co mm co 9» .mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ow om mm HH
mm mm 00 co mm HH v HH HH 0v HH 0v 2. mm co co HH HH mm v 2. mm ow mm 0v om mm mm 2. ow ow HH 0H
mm cm 00 mm ov ov mm mm 2. ow :- E. om om 2. cu mm mm ov mm .2. oo ow mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 9» E. m
E. 2. mm mm om om 2. mm mm ow we 2. mm HE om mm mm he mm mm ow 2. co om mm ov ow ow mm mm mm mm m
be mm mm 00 2. H. E. ow om ov H mm HH E. mm 2. HH 2. om H R. mm HH HH H HH co co om ow HH 2. H.
ow 0v HH om mm H mm ow co co 00 av HH HH 00. mm mm .ov HH co op 00 om mm mm mm 2. HH H om HH mm o
ov mm om mm 0v 2. E. ow HH HH HH om ow E. g ow HH om ow HH om mm oo om v om mm mm 0v mm HH mm m
2. cm 00 mm mm ow ow HH mm 0v H HH om om E. ow mm HH om mw 00 co 00 co H ow mm mm 2. HH mm t. w
v 00 v w ov om H H mm mm HH om v 00 ov E. ow mm HH H HH 00 HH H H HH HH HH v mm HH v m
HH mm ov mm mm 0v mm HH mm om 0v mm ov mm E. 0v mm 0v co co co v ow. ov HH 0v o 2. mm mm HH om m
om om om ov mm ow E. mm co co mm ow 0v co co 3. om mm mm mm 2. mm mm 00 v co co co K. HH E. E. H
Houomm
Nm Hm om mm mm 5.0. mm mm om mm mm Hm ON 3 mH hH mH mH «H mH NH HH 0H m m H. m m v m m H
muummnsm

 

Hmoov macaw emuoHeeancoz you name gem

APPENDIX C

Means, Sums Of Squares, Degrees Of
Freedom, Mean Squares, F Values, And
Significance Levels For The Results

Of The Statistical Analysis

209

210

 

mOcOOHchO mo Hm>OH
m0. mop ocommn pcMOHMHsmHm«

 

 

mmo.o oe.m mm.mm me.Hm mm mo.m~ mm.ma mm OH mmamu m» emmemu
mme.o mH.o mm.o~ mo.om mm mm.v~ Hm.mm mm mH emaHHaHomHe HHmm m> emcHHmHumHecs
meo.o mm.m mH.Hm Hm.mm mm mm.em ~e.ee mm «H HcmHonmsm HHmm m> omucmHuo ozone
hom.0 00.0 mH.>N mm.hm mm mm.vm 00.00 mm mH mcHuGOEHHmoxm m> O>Hum>ummcoo
.mooo.o ee.mH e~.em me.mm mm mm.e~ «a.me mm «H m>Hmamamummm m> emusmmm «Ham
.mwo.o mH.m mo.mm we.mv «m me.em mm.mm mm HH csmuam m> pamHuauuow
.mooo.o mm.mm mm.m~ mo.He mm me.vm mo.em mm 0H m>HumaHmmeH m» HmoHpomua
meo.o mm.m mm.om mm.Hm um mm.e~ Hm.em «m m msoHoHamsm m> mcHHmauu
mom.o «v.0 mu.Hm we.He mm mm.mH mH.me mm m emeaHs umecmu m> emeaHa amsou
«no.0 no.0 hH.mm m0.Hm mm mm.Hm 00.mv mm b mEOmOHsusm> m> mam
mom.o mv.o mo.mm He.~m mm mH.e~ Hm.mm mm m msoHuamHomcoo m» ucmHemaxm
Hm~.o ee.H em.em mH.~o mm ao.mm av.mm mm m exosHuomueaama m> umaom
vmo.o ow.m mm.om Hm.mm mm mq.e~ Ne.ma mm a pamaHeoe m» m>Huummmm no:
.mooo.o mm.mH em.mm mH.em mm mm.- oo.mm mm m mHanm m> pmmms HHHmmm
.mooo.o m~.~m me.vm Hm.oe mm em.m~ om.mm an N usmHun m> HHse
«HH.o em.~ Hm.em Ho.~e mm m~.m~ mH.mm mm _H sums. m> H000
M MD Oon> sOHumH>mQ com: 2 sOHumH>ma com: 2 Honsuz OHQMHHO>
mosMOHuHGOHm m pumpcmum pudendum Houomm

 

HmoovpmuOpre cHOHmmucoz

HHoovOOUOHOUd sHoumm

ousmpHchO mo HO>OH
m0. may ecosmn unmoHHHcmHm.

 

 

«00.0 00.0 mm.H 0H.m mm 0H.H 00.0 mm on Hm>mH HmaoHumusem m.uomnnsm
~50.0 mm.m m0.0 00.m mm 00.0 0~.m mm mm museums was» cH smHHoeouHm mo snoumHm
H0k.0 mH.0 mm.H 00.m mm He.H 00.0 mm mm msumum Hmanme_muamumm may» m.uomnnsm
Hmm.0 mn.0 >0.H mm.m mm 0H.~ mm.m mm em “wanes was» no Hm>mH HmcoHumosem
.0e0.0 0H.0 0H.0 e0.H mm 0m.0 Hm.H mm mm Hmtuos wane euHs as 30am Homhnsm 0H0
000.0 00.0 em.0 00.H mm 0m.0 H0.H mm mm 0000 no m>HHm .Hmsuos was» m.uumhnsm
amm0.0 0a.v m0.H 00.0 mm 0m.m 0m.v mm 0m umeumm menu 00 Hm>mH HmaOHumosom
«000.0 Hm.n No.0 mh.H mm Hm.0 0v.H mm mm Hwnuwm wasp nqu ma 30mm Humansm 0H0
0mm.0 50.0 em.0 00.H mm «0.0 me.H mm mm 0000 Ho m>HHm .umeumm may» m.uomnnsm
n“ mmm.0 50.0 00.0 00.H mm mH.H mm.H mm Hm pummnsm 0o cmueHHgo 00 M352
.2 «000.0 H0.0 H0.m 00.0 mm 0m.m Hm.m mm on Homflnsm mo msumum HmuHumz
000.H 00.0 00.0 00.m mm 00.0 00.0 mm 0H Homflnsm mo xmm
00H.0 H0.0 0e.0 H0.H mm Hm.0 00.H mm 0H Homflnsm mo moms
eHH.0 mm.~ 00.0 0m.m mm mm.0 00.mm mm eH Homnnsm mo 000
.m MO ODHM> GOHpMH>wQ Gmwz Z GOHUMH>OQ COTE Z HUGHESZ 0HQMHHM>
OOGMOHMHsmHm m pumpcmum onmocsum OHanHm>

 

ANOOVUOUOvad CHOHmmIGOZ

2000033000 cHOHmm

APPENDIX D

Demographic Data Composite

212

213

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA COMPOSITE
DIRECTIONS

On this questionnaire there are some very important but
personal questions. As you answer these now, with your
counselor, please keep in mind that your answers are
confidential but that your answers MUST BE HONEST in or-
der for the Drug Abuse Treatment Program to serve the
inmate pOpulation fairly. Your answers will be checked
out , and if you don't know an answer, please say so.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Your full, legal name, with any aliases

>Your true age at your last birthday

Your race
Your sex
Your present marital status

The number Of children you have ( by present marriage,
past marriages, or without being married)

Is your TRUE FATHER alive or dead?
Did you GROW UP with your TRUE FATHER?

What is (was) the EDUCATIONAL LEVEL that your Father
reached?

Is your TRUE MOTHER alive or dead?
Did you GROW UP with your TRUE MOTHER?

What is (was) the EDUCATIONAL LEVEL that your Mother
reached?

What is the MARITAL STATUS Of your TRUE PARENTS?

Is there (was there) any history Of ALCOHOLISM or
ALCOHOL ABUSE in either Of your parents?

What is your present EDUCATIONAL LEVEL?

APPENDIX E

Intercorrelational Matrix For

Addicted Persons In The Study

214

V‘Q

VAR

VA}

VI?

P00

VIQ

10

f0

)1

2‘

25

26

27

26

30

 

215

3:.LA34ifi Slalpqu
C09RE.IY!)'
infiiifi

SIJiIFl:‘\CE

cPuuP llAnulCYS

-s.11?
3?
0.328
0.191 -1.10&
12 32
0.279 ..551

, CORRELATION COEFFICIENY
as '. 4 .-
0.2 1’ . 20,, .1112 SAMPLE 512:
3.1;? 1;. ..137 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL
Cm?“ -,o.2I’ '.?H“
15 '2 '?
0.15‘ .n'dri 001)‘

0.01’ -).i9” .251 -1.29) ".04‘
‘2 72 '¢ 52 52
3.31: ./d‘ ..15? J.191 1.004

ll 1‘. 4.3.}: 3.29.,
'P ‘0 . 3!
..‘7' I. 3 .).nI0

 

    
 

 

   

..u/~ -..'.~ -..141 -.,:;I -..101 -u.1¢3 c.00u
13 a; €¢ 12 *2 ‘2 32
1.5)“ .)?‘ l.|"" "0‘,“ "02,9 ”"“ ('5“
3.0.2 ,. -. - ..nw 1.1nn -a.1o4 0.10! 0.001
9? ‘4 1] ‘2 $2 32 32
7.‘)‘ . ‘4 l.": 4.))? ”-'>‘ 3.l09 0.90"
'...7- ;. L' -..‘01 ,'.' -..Jo~- -a.1*~ -o.1au -o.o'5 -o.1>5
‘2 a" 7: ‘2 fl) ,‘l 5‘ 5d 5‘
U.~/; ,.,. . 3‘ 1.105 3.717 n./3A c.0vn 0.001 0.303
°I.211 . 0.040 0.330
1? 32 32
0.1) 0.02 0.0:
or.?g -,. ., u91 0.113
'7 " 32 32
1.11“ .71 0.602 0.?74
L_‘;; . .. .‘uU 3:1 ..1u‘ 0.04! 0.120 0.419 0.211
.. .. . 5; 3g 32 32
a '1/ . " . .1 ..13' 0.051 n.lv1 n.1vv 0...; 0.241
"o’h’ .o' 0.316 .0013,
53 SJ 5!
0.15 . 0.00” 0.‘J9
,1: . ' 0.036 -n.216
3) 3I l
u.),’ . Uon‘1 0.?‘1
OI.]-,fi - .'0 Ogla‘ 00°06
'? 2 32 32
1.~1' . 0.0v2 0,2v7 0.627
.’61 - .‘5 .’10 0.159 0.013
1; J 32 32
1.110 . 0.419 0,109 0.900
'7.053 ,. I . J4 [.110 4.13? 0.013 '0.046 00.313 0.211
'2 an :2 13 32 Ag 32 32 52
5.0:: .u)7 .,017 3.59! 0.456 n.vso 0.70) 020/1 0.202
‘.01. . 1 1.13 3.010 H.Juu 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1g «g 15 12 12 5g 34 3‘ 33
1. 1 '. fl. 1..1) 1.‘J) 1.000 1.000 1.00" 1.000 1.000
.J5‘ "0 7 '.73“ 9.1“ 0.100 0.21. 0010. Ogu’, 002,9
'g .g y, 32 s 32 32 32 32
g.t57 .135 ~,n¢) 3.:55 4.155 0.220 0.9:n 0,700 0.140
1.?3. -..v’5 .200 0 3'1 0.1‘5 0.303 - 0.099 0.03.
13 «2 '2 32 12 3: 32 J
a...) 1;: ;,71e 0.009 0.404 0.0: 0,0V’ 0.650
".?15 ‘.1s' ~a.727 on.u‘7 1.195 -0.030 -0.175 o0.310 0.294
1: 32 32 32 32 32
0.799 0.730 0.321 0.069 0.0V1
0.205 0.1/0 -o.1su 0.190
3 32 J2
0.125 ".137 0.03. 0.373
v.1an 0.009 -0.000 0.092 -0.3o¢
$3 (2 :7 12 32 32 32 32 32
9.114 _. a; ,.457 H.729 0.575 0.901 0.006 0.604 0.001
'0.11? .rbv -..°‘. 0.1’0 u.09' -o.o‘2 -o.05' 00.193 '0.051
92 '2 :2 12 3; 32 34 32 32
0.1g? ..15. «.127 0.13" 0.501 0.012 0.141 0.3:? 0.00.
'u.?2? 3.; ..31: 0,116 -n.1o? 0.029 -0.201 ~0.117 '0.130
9? 12 32 52 32 02 02 02 3
0.277 1.?31 0.960 oo‘la 0.159 0.090 0.139 0,310 0.030
'0.3!; 7.?lY -:.333 -0.01‘ -L.143 0.01. 0.001 -0.27‘
12 12 82 32 52 32 32 32
0.11! ..105 0.933 0.937 0.421 0.91 0.995 0.117
0.009 0,106 0.070 -0.072 00.124 0.11.
I: . J. 32 32 32 32
|.°8 0.3 0.074 0.007 0.005 0.310
. 1.14” 0.055 . 0.20? -0.007 0,10' -o.1?2 0.270
)2 '2 32 52 02 02 3
(0“: 007’“ 001’, 00.!“ 00". 0.2,. 0011’
‘0.15’ 0.135 n.00c -u.2>5 -0.127 0.146 '0.050 0.026 -0.2J$
SI 12 ‘2 32 32 52 32 32 3
0.5’1 L.“¢ 0.9'9 0.145 0.174 0.‘11 0.792 0.009 0.10.
van 1 v01 4 VA. 3 VA. 0 VAR 5 VAR 0 v1! 7 VAR I VAR 9

PRODUCY rurg~1 gnnflganlnus

   
   
   
  

 

    
 

0.110
‘2
0.533
0.037 0.203
‘2 32
0.62? 0.2.3
0.110 -c.oea -o.03¢
32 32 32
0.007 0.610 0.021
0.193 0.210 oo.1o1
!' 32 32
0.’7'i 0.21 0.1uo
-u.15‘ 0.113 0.106 -0.2I0
1‘ 3 .2 32
0.336 0.3 0.330 0.111
.0000! °.°fl_ .p‘GO '0‘“ ..1’?‘
3' 32 32 34 32
0.000 0.72- 0.530 0.300 0.171
-o.199 0.100 0.001 ~0.1>3 0:0(0
32 32 3: s2 :2
0.759 0.95 0.543 0.300 01:11
9.904 .9.020 0.09! 0.009 '0.228 'I;1(!
32 3 12 32 32 :2
0.397 0.070 0.5!! 0.7uo 0.201 0.122
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:000
32 32 32 32 32 :2
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000
0.161 -0.175 -0.107 0.201 ~0.1:¢ 03096
32 32 32 32 32 :2
0.303 0.323 0.30: 0.099 0.3!: 0,020
-u.1oo 0.007 -0,139 -0.ovs 0.090
32 32 32 .4 :2
0.340 0.909 0.321 0.5v 0.000
0.00‘ 0.051 0.172 0.000 0.027 '01!!!
3 32 3. 32 31 12
0.277 .0.072 0.010 ~0.ov1 0.001 'Illlt
32 32 32 32 32 22
0.111 0.003 0.937 0.010 0.030 0.403
0.152 .0.073 0.029 0.0v0 0.107 -0;320
32 32 32 32 14 32
0.390 0.603 0.073 0.501 0.7?! 0.000
0.22: 0.090 0.109 0.01: 0.039 -n.197
32 32 32 32 32 :2
0.207 0.610 0.2ve 0.90! 0.203 0.309
0.233 0.008 0.101 0.277 0.127 '01110
3 32 2 32 3
0.176 0.721 0.2!! 0.113 0.0?1 0.004
0.270 0.29. 0.120 0.106 0.200 '01224
32 32 32 82 32 28
0.122 0.091 0.410 0.430 0.097 0.101
0.217 -o.197 0.000 0.133 0.10. 0.0!:
32 8 32 32 32 32
0.717 0.203 0.701 o.¢¢¢ 0.7’0 0.010
0.121 -0.040 0.077 0.211 -0.010
32 02 I 2
0.‘90 0.700 0.00 0.0!: 0.1 I
0.102 -|.I¢l 0.100 'I;0?9
3 2 32 1
0.303 0.70 0.402 0.074
VA! 10 VAR 11 VA! 12 VAR 1| VAN 14 VA! 0!

‘l

.7...

K].

J

u ,
v' l'l

0

216

4.1.; a 1:01.11505

.IUN
1}
10 0"
,.uUW _.;“
12 Si
7..qV u.‘15
-..L.. -..}(3 .Z‘..\b,
‘2 1) 5i
1. fin 0.4V? n./Jb
|.nLn .“~“ -2./VC 0.19‘
‘d '( 5! 0c
1. nu 0.197 0.000 0.611
:.'0' ..0‘ -V.1’1 0.017
'k 1! 5( it
1.vn| 3.073 n.135 3.y¢a
'0‘t‘ . 07*. 'C.“X* 0013’
«2 !; 3 fit
. n ..101 n.~¢” 3.“?!
'. NI ' ..17 '3.1‘/ 'f.’5‘
‘) 1) 54 ‘1
l. “I 0.004 P“(‘ 0.1"
..u‘ - .10“ -o,30( -0.co*
‘2 *2 ‘d 1:
.. u: ...‘07 ”.001 1;.VOU
.I0 .004 'c.19' '3.r9‘
.2 4t 3‘ 1(
I. a “.030 h./:k 5.3vn
.'U; .115 c.12' '0..05
‘2 ‘Z 9! 3t
1.13: ..s1n n.013 ,,00g
I'Jg 1.467 afl.]°‘ C.J35
12 3: 0‘
1.1nn I.*Rh ”0”, U053”
.1-4 J." 0"! 7.) vm (7 III-0 2!

PECUHCY ‘U'CKT Lrnthavlphs

   
  

   

 

0.109
34
00369
n.zVI 0.111
4 3a
0.150
A!
00‘51
0.303
3r
D.LD
0.0.0u 0.090
32 12
o.0¢0 0.500
oc.s1> 0.058 0.31! 0.313 0,202 0.107
31 32 12 ‘2 3 Si
u.v39 0.030 0.071 0.071 0.135 0."0
0.304 -0,020 0,333 .0.007 -0.200
1: 32 3¢ 32 ‘1
0.13 0.000 0.020 0.056 0.1"
vnu :3 VAN l‘ VAN 20 vnn 20 VAR 27 010 40 Vlh 20

APPENDIX F

Intercorrelational Matrix For
Non-Addicted Persons In The

Study

217

013

11

13

15

10

Zn

21

2?

25

27

26

‘0

73.1
:JA~5.1
..JH04h

..floq

II)

QIAVHKUI

1170!‘!IA\“

'c.17s
3?
0.52.

[.321

.01‘

0.3h

I

.-
K
.0

-n.n!0
12
0.5?1
J.o13
1?
0.003
0.02?

2

3.
0.330

(’01,,
32
0.511
“.177
3.»
0.517
'0.?01
32

0.225

4"

  
 
     
    

   
   

0
..;* ...4~
'3 1
. 3‘ 1.7
.0. ‘
.fi
1“
).16‘.
.?
.70

218

ciuUP (:NUN-IHJICVS

2 onnELAYXON COEFFICIENY

25 AMPLE sxze
SIGNXFICANCE LEVEL

2

32

n.101 ~L.?22
32 32

0.56‘

0.206

   

0.300 0.09’
32 32

0.845

0.070 0.304 0.201
3.03’ ‘.L09 -n.7vt 0.004 0.200
2 32 32 34 32 32
Rb 0.554 “.961 C.055 0.’1 0.141

0.111 'n01v7
32 32
0.032 0.204

 

0.u31 -0.110
1

32 .2 .
0.100 0.037 0.22

n 000 0.006
32 32
0.171 0.379 0.627

0.340 ‘0.1UJ -0.127
32 34 3

0.001 0.001 0.0/3
003°, .00‘51
3 s:

3.705

   

   

 

    

PECUUC‘ “JFENY

-o.040
12
0.02‘

 

0.007 0.205
‘2

. 32
0.02“ 0.244

-0.33‘
34
0.024

0.105 00.070
32 32

0.555 0.660
0011‘

32
00‘2'

0.020
32
0.°1

   

 
 
  
   
  

 

 

g'uugLA'thS

   
 

 

'.?>4 -n.1oo -o.1oJ 0.204 0.327 0.009 -0.105 0.10! ~0.200
12 3 34 32 32 32 32 32 32
0.147 0.309 o.>03 0.240 0.059 0.001 0.55 0.342 0.3:
0.041 -u.?‘0 0.213 -o.ov3 0.030 -0.072 -0.177 0.200 -0.1>1 '011¥‘
. 12 3: 32 32 1 32 32 32 32 :2
~.w00 0.219 0.177 0.770 0.150 0.22- 0.599 0.033 0.000 0.317 0.230 0.393 0.001
.. '7 ...077 -u.51r -..?00 0.073 -o.1oo -0.0I1 -0.223 0.324 0.205 -0.043 0.010 0.210
:2 12 32 s2 2 32 32 32 32 3 32 3' 32
.715 0.001 0.074 0.101 0.002 0.340 0.0vo 0.149 0.001 0.244 0.01: 0.007 0.02
. 0. 9.00. 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
«p 1 52 1' 32 32 32 3 32 32 32 3 32 :2
1. o: 1.101 1.000 1.005 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
.-.714 .1,039 0.190 -c.140 0.077 0.150 -0.210 ~0.213 0.007 -0.097 -0.:00 0.111 0.110 0.192
*2 12 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
.225 “.029 0.700 0.410 0.007 0.370 0.233 0.110 0.720 0.505 0.130 0.031 0.501 0.405
-..17’ ...010 u_071 -0.u/A .0.090 0.004 0.102 -0.150 -0.250 o0.105 -0.100 -0.210 0.023
'2 <2 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 2 32
.13. 0.0.2 c.¢01 0.000 0,550 0.03 0.504 0.370 0.153 0.520 0.520 0.230 03000
..-3? -..?24 -0.207 -o.101 0.130 0.009 -u.os7 0.250 0.307 0.340 0.001 '01090
«2 32 32 32 1a 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
.040 0.203 0.100 0.569 0.43- ‘ 0.005 0.010 0.740 0.140 0.07 0.04 0.0?7 0.730
..150 0.150 0.014 0.137 -o.uz- 0.092 0.273 -0.111 0.243 0.049 -o.332 -0.045 -0.014
12 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
,,279 0,370 0.930 0.440 0.072 0.004 0.110 0.53 ‘ 0.103 0.702 0.025 0.000 0.030
., rn -c.07? 0,313 0.203 0.005 0.123 -o.ooo 0.104 0.000 -0.097 0.045 0.278 0.011 '|10!7
2 x 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 3 32
..035 0.600 0.07? 0.105 n.r10 0.470 o.°I1 0.359 0.654 0.500 0.00? 0.1‘0 0.01’ 0103‘
1.701 -L.030 -o.110 -0.007 0.019 -0.132 0.139 0.204 0.100 o0.190 0.214 -0.104 00.120
' ‘P *2 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 3 32
..250 0.041 0.515 0.025 0.917 0.409 0.433 0.240 0.207 0.27- 0.920 0.520 0.230
...14 0.26“ 0.120 0.272 0.197 0.149 0.100 0.o°° 0.223 0.006 -0.000 0.110 0.090
' 3 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 2
5.70: 0.370 0.090 0.120 0.203 0.002 0.210 0.700 0.20 0.031 0.710 0.010 0.010
..700 0.076 0.320 -o.156 0.200 0.010 0.2>5 0.208 -0.219 0.109 0.007 -I.204 '01127
1 12 32 32 32 32 32 2 32 02 32 02
L073, 0067 00062 00‘!3 00:2. 0.9‘1 00“, '01,, 0.21‘ 0.2.! ..,II 0.003 '03,,
1.:70 v1.055 0.107 0.317 ~0.217 0.233 0.279 0.000 -0.170 00.130
3 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 2
2.079 0.730 0.344 0.000 0.219 0.104 0.139 0.735 0.390 0.401
1.167 0.33? 0.147 '0.000 0.201 0.132 '0.210 00.170 0.020
12 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 2
..140 0.055 0.400 0.713 0.130 0.430 0.214 0.211 0.023 0.300 0.402
3.072 oJ.1os -0.2>¢ 0.000 -0.021 -0.174 20.075 0.049 o0.032 -0.000 0.179 -0.100 -0.000 0.000
12 32 32 32 32 32 32 3 32 32 32 02 2 3
c.0a4 0.502 0.140 0,974 0.90! 0.320 0.070 0.703 0.007 0.734 0.310 0.890 0.010 0.002
a.» 2 019 3 v-0 4 vnn s VAR 0 010 7 010 a v10 0 v00 10 0‘0 11 v00 12 010 00 000 10 '0! 30

bl.LA;4rR S‘I'QOUY
CURHE,FT')N
3111145!-

SIEIIIY31hCC

0.?01
32
0.205
0.0‘1 3.233
3: 2
U.‘|1 0.18‘
3.00. J.LCH 0.00“
S? S? 92
1..3i 3.30( 1.30;
".01’ 1.36?
1) I;
J.”' {H.726
'0.07>
‘?
u.«l3
.13i
1!
..41-
'*:.b0’ .
‘f 12 $2
0.’)I .11/ a."%”
0.245 0.031
1. 1)
botl< U.HJJ
L.005) ' 441‘ Jo’l‘.‘
5! .2 ‘2
3.7’1 ..‘3‘ UNI“j
...‘4; ..335
‘: 12
1.”.1 U.0‘n.’
‘5.LU‘ :./“ -u.u?‘
"{ :7 I?
n.'3‘ .Lh' u.PvU
|.12) -|.‘f- - ’0‘“
‘2 >2 ‘i
3.‘37 .57‘ n.”35
.1013" 4'14 .‘JQUU"
‘E ‘2 ‘2
0.‘1‘ .."h4 3.077
..11‘ J.-F‘
'9 ./
U."I? .‘*$_
VA; 35 012 1? 010 19

 

219

5900? Z-NonoAODICVS Paouacr nurgny cnuReLavxons

  
 

0.000
12
1.000
0,000 0.280
32 32
1.r00 0.109
0,002 ~0.21%
F 32
1.000 0.22
1,1131%. '1‘.11C .0.71‘ 04C?V
32 12 3 32
1.000 3.537 0.244 0.513
c_uua 0.n>A -c.21v -0.003
32 32 2 32
1.000 3./32 0.214 o.val
0,003 v.324 0.209 0.163 0.029 -o.21°
32 32 32 32 32 3!
1.000 0.091 0.233 :.320 0.013 0.113
0,000 o1.102 u.13v -0.005
32 32 3 32
1.000 0.500 u.‘34 c./u
0.1"” 0.157 0.13v -O.132 0.777
*2 32 32 32 32
1.”00 0.571 D.‘35 5.44“ 0.113
..000 -L.108 -c.027 0.125 0.120 0.040
‘2 32 3 32 32 34
1.000 0.341 0.740 0.4! 0.500 0.844
0.000 0.310 0.190 '0.?04 , 0.103 0.102
32 ‘2 32 32 32 .. 32 x‘
1.003 0.01. 0.751 0.2)? 0.206 0.070 0.505 0.29 0,300
2.000 -u.195 0.094 oc.2<1 -u.092 0.703 0.31? 0.194 oo.204 ~0,030
32 32 32 32 2 32 32 32 32 3
1.00: 0.30 0.9vn 0.209 0.7!? 0.73? 0.073 0.2!1 0.131 0.039
130 1° FIR 20 VIE 41 VAR 22 VAN 23 VAN 24 VAN 2% VAR 20 v0“ 27 VIN (F VAn 20

 

HICHI IES

wivfiflujfifllflfiylfiLivfifl/Mflm