reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be ...patrick m. o'malley, ph.d. jerald g....

ED 457 480

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

CONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CG 031 261

Johnston, Lloyd D.; O'Malley, Patrick M.; Bachman, Jerald G.Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent DrugUse: Overview of Key Findings, 2000.Michigan Univ., Ann Arbor. Inst. for Social Research.National Inst. on Drug Abuse (DHHS/PHS), Bethesda, MD.NIH-01-49232001-00-0076p.; Written by the Monitoring the Future project. For the1999 report, see ED 443 066.3-R01-DA-01411U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent ofDocuments, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Tel:202-512-1800.Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports Research

(143)

MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.Cocaine; Crack; Drinking; Drug Use; Grade 10; Grade 12;Grade 8; Heroin; *Illegal Drug Use; *Longitudinal Studies;Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Marijuana; Peer Influence;Secondary Education; Secondary School Students; Sedatives;Sex Differences; Smoking; Sociocultural Patterns; *SubstanceAbuse; Trend AnalysisAmphetamines; Inhalants; *Monitoring the Future; Risk TakingBehavior; Smokeless Tobacco; Steroids

This publication presents an overview of the 2000 survey of8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, with a particular emphasis on recenttrends in the use of various licit and illicit drugs. It also shows trends inthe levels of perceived risk and personal disapproval associated with eachdrug, which this study has shown to be particularly important in explainingtrends in use. The first section presents trends in the overall proportionsof students at each grade level reporting illicit drug use. A separatesection is then presented for each class of drugs. These sections containgraphs showing trends in past-year use. They also show trends in perceivedrisk, disapproval, and perceived availability of marijuana, inhalants, LSD,cocaine, crack cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, tranquilizers, barbiturates,club drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and steroids. Keyfindings show that the overall illicit drug use among teens remained steadyin 2000 in all three grades as well as for specific drugs such as marijuana,amphetamines, hallucinogens other than LSD, tranquilizers, barbiturates, andalcohol. (Contains 9 tables.) (JDM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

O Minor changes have been made'toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Ai

CN

C:)

.A.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

! Min

I I I

MONITORING THE FUTURE

NATIONAL RESULTS ON ADOLESCENT DRUG USE

Overview of Key Findings, 2000

by

Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D.Patrick M. O'Malley, Ph.D.Jerald G. Bachman, Ph.D.

The University of MichiganInstitute for Social Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse6001 Executive BoulevardBethesda, Maryland 20892

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESPublic Health Service

National Institutes of Health

2001

3

This publication was written by the principalinvestigators and staff of The Monitoring theFuture project, at the Institute for SocialResearch, the University of Michigan, underResearch Grant No. 3 RO1 DA 01411 from theNational Institute on Drug Abuse.

Public Domain Notice

All material appearing in this volume is in thepublic domain and may be reproduced or copiedwithout permission from the National Institute onDrug Abuse or the authors. Citation of thesource is appreciated.

Recommended Citation

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J.G. (2001). Monitoring the Future national resultson adolescent drug use: Overview of keyfindings, 2000. (NIH Publication No. 01-4923).Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

National Institute on Drug AbuseNIH Publication No. 01-4923

Printed 2001

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC 20402

4

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Study Design and Methods 2

Overview of Key Findings 3

Specific Results by Drug

Any Illicit Drug Use 6

Marijuana 8Inhalants 10

LSD 12

Cocaine 14

Crack Cocaine. 16Amphetamines 18Methamphetamine and Ice 20Heroin 22Tranquilizers 24Barbiturates 26Club DrugsRohypnol and Ecstasy 28Alcohol 30Cigarettes 32Smokeless Tobacco 34Steroids 36

Subgroup Differences 38

Tables Covering All Drugs

1. Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Use 40Footnotes for Tables 1-3 43

2. Trends in Annual and 30-Day Prevalence of Use 443. Trends in 30-Day Prevalence of Daily Use 474. Trends in Perceived Harmfulness among

8th and 10th Graders 485. Trends in Perceived Harmfulness among

12th Graders 496. Trends in Disapproval among

8th and 10th Graders 507. Trends in Disapproval among

12th Graders 51

8. Trends in Perceived Availability among8th and 10th Graders 52

9. Trends in Perceived Availability among12th Graders 53

Introduction

Monitoring the Future is a long-term study ofAmerican adolescents, college students, andadults through age 40. It is conducted by theUniversity of Michigan's Institute for SocialResearch and is supported under a series of in-vestigator-initiated, competing research grantsfrom the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

This volume presents an overview of the keyfindings from the 2000 survey of 8th, 10th, and12th grade students, with a particular emphasison recent trends in the use of the various licitand illicit drugs covered by the study. It alsoshows trends in the levels of perceived risk andpersonal disapproval associated with each drug,which this study has shown to be particularlyimportant in explaining trends in use.

The first section of findings presents trends inthe overall proportions of students at eachgrade level reporting illicit drug use of anykind.

A separate section is then presented for eachclass of drugs. These sections contain graphsshowing trends in past-year use and (whenavailable) trends in perceived risk, disapproval,and perceived availability of the drug. The sta-tistics underlying the trend lines contained inthese graphs are given in the tables at the endof this report, covering the period 1991-2000.1

I Statistics for the earlier period, 1975-1990, may be found on the proj-ect's Web site or in its annual volumes, both of which are referenced inthis section.

1

6

These tables also contain the data on lifetimeprevalence, 30-day prevalence, and (for se-lected drugs) daily prevalence.2 Furthermore,the tables indicate for each prevalence periodwhich 1999-2000 one-year changes are statisti-cally significant.

A more extensive analysis of the study's- find-ings on secondary school students may befound in a volume to be published later thisyear.3 The volumes in this series also contain amore complete description of the study's meth-odology as well as an appendix on how to testthe significance of differences between groupsor for the same group over time.

The study's findings on American college stu-dents and young adults are not covered in thisearly highlights report because the 2000 dataare not available at the time of this writing.They are covered in a second series of volumesthat will be updated later this year.4 Volumesin these two annual series are available fromthe National Clearinghouse for Alcohol andDrug Information at (800) 729-6686 or bye-mail at [email protected].

Further information on the study, including itslatest press releases and a listing of all publica-tions, may be found on the Web atwww.MonitoringTheFuture.org.

2 Prevalence refers to the proportion or percentage of the sample re-porting use of the given substance on one or more occasions in a giventime intervale.g., lifetime, past 12 months, or past 30 days. Theprevalence of daily use usually refers to use on 20 or more occasions inthe past 30 days.

3 The forthcoming publication in this series is: Johnston, L. D.,O'Malley, P. M., and Bachman, J. G. (2001). Monitoring the Futurenational survey results on drug use, 1975-2000: Volume 1, Secondaryschool students. (NIH Publication No. 01-4924). Bethesda, MD: Na-tional Institute on Drug Abuse.

4 The most recent in this series is: Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M.,and Bachman, J. G. (2000). Monitoring the Future national surveyresults on drug use, 1975-1999: Volume 11, College students andadults ages 19-40. (NIH Publication No. 00-4803). Bethesda, MD:National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Study Design and Methods

At the core of Monitoring the Future is a seriesof large, annual surveys of nationally repre-sentative samples of students in public and pri-vate secondary schools throughout the cotermi-nous United States. Every year since 1975 anational sample of 12th graders has been sur-veyed. Beginning in 1991, the study was ex-panded to include comparable national samplesof 8th graders and 10th graders each year.

Sample SizesThe 2000 sample sizes were 17,300, 14,600,and 13,300 in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, re-spectively. In all, about 45,000 students in 435schools participated. Because multiple ques-tionnaire forms are administered at each gradelevel, and because not all questions are con-tained in all forms, the numbers of cases uponwhich a particular statistic are based can be lessthan the total sample. The tables at the end ofthis volume contain the sample sizes associatedwith each statistic.

Field ProceduresUniversity of Michigan staff members admin-ister the questionnaires to students, usually intheir classrooms during a regular class period.Participation is voluntary. Questionnaires areself-completed and formatted for optical scan-ning. In 8th and 10th grades the questionnairesare completely anonymous, and in 12th gradethey are confidential (to permit the longitudinalfollow-up of a subsample of participants forsome years after high school in a panel study).

Measures

A standard set of three questions is used to de-termine usage levels for the various drugs (ex-cept for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). Forexample, we ask, "On how many occasions (ifany) have you used LSD ("acid")...(a)...inyour lifetime?, (b)...during the past 12months?, (c)...during the last 30 days?" Eachof the three questions is answered on the sameanswer scale: 0 occasions, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-19,

2

20-39, and 40 or more occasions. For the psy-chotherapeutic drugs (amphetamines, barbitu-rates, tranquilizers, and opiates other than her-oin), respondents are instructed to include onlyuse "...on your ownthat is, without a doctortelling you to take them."

For cigarettes, respondents are asked two ques-tions about use: "Have you ever smoked ciga-rettes?" (the answer categories are "never,""once or twice," and so on); and "How fre-quently have you smoked cigarettes during thepast 30 days?" (the answer categories are "notat all," "less than one cigarette per day," "oneto five cigarettes per day," "about one-halfpack per day," etc.) Parallel questions areasked about smokeless tobacco.

Alcohol use is measured using the three ques-tions illustrated above for LSD. A parallel-setof three questions asks about the frequency ofbeing drunk. Another question asks, for theprior two-week period, "How many times haveyou had five or more drinks in a row?" Per-ceived risk is measured by a question asking,"How much do you think people risk harmingthemselves (physically or in other ways), ifthey..." "...try marijuana once or twice," forexample. The answer categories are "no risk,""slight risk," "moderate risk," "great risk," and"can't say, drug unfamiliar." Disapproval ismeasured by the question, "Do YOU disap-prove of people doing each of the following?"followed by "trying marijuana once or twice,"for example. Answer categories are: "don'tdisapprove," "disapprove," "strongly disap-prove," and (in 8th and 10th grades only) "can'tsay, drug unfamiliar." Perceived availability ismeasured by the question, "How difficult doyou think it would be for you to get each of thefollowing types of drugs, if you wanted some?"Answer categories are: "probably impossible,""very difficult," "fairly difficult," "fairly easy,"and "very easy."

7

Overview of Key Findings

The surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade stu-dents in the United States conducted in 2000generated mixed results, as did the 1999 sur-veys.

Drugs Holding SteadyAfter one or two years of decline, overall illicitdrug use among teens remained steady in 2000in all three grades, as did the use of a numberof important specific drugsmarijuana, am-phetamines, hallucinogens other than LSD,tranquilizers, barbiturates, and alcohol.(Sections specific to each of these drugs maybe found later in this volume.)

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug.The annual prevalence rates in grades 8, 10,and 12, respectively, are 16%, 32%, and 37%.Current daily prevalence rates (defined as theproportion using it on 20 or more occasions inthe prior thirty days) are 1.3%, 3.8%, and 6.0%.Annual prevalence peaked in 1996 for 8thgraders and a year later in the upper grades.There has been a steady, but gradual decline in8th grade since 1996, but not much change ingrades 10 and 12.

While the use of a number of drugs held steadyin 2000, the use of certain other drugs in-creased, while the use of still others decreased.

Drugs Increasing in UseThe most important increase was observed forMDMA ("ecstasy"), although the increase insteroid use also continued among 10th gradersthis year and heroin use increased among 12thgraders.

Ecstasya so-called "club drug" because of itspopularity at nightclubs and "raves"hadshown a sharp rise in use in 1999 among olderteens, following several years of gradual de-cline. In 2000 ecstasy use increased at all threegrade levels. While the 1999 increase was con-centrated mainly in the Northeast, the increase

3

in 2000 showed up primarily in the other threeregions of the country, suggesting a diffusionof the drug out from the Northeast, as well asdown the age spectrum. Ecstasy use is nowmore prevalent among American teens thancocaine use, with one in thirty 8th graders(3.1%) using it in the prior 12 months, as wellas one in every twelve 12th graders (8.2%).Reported availability of the drug continues toincrease sharOy.

Steroid use among younger male teens had in-creased sharply in 1999. In 2000 this increasecontinued among 10th grade boys, but use heldsteady in the other two grades. (Rates of use aremuch lower among girls and their use haschanged little since 1998.) Concurrent withthis sharp increase in use has been a sharp dropbetween 1998 and 2000 in the amount of risk12th graders saw as associated with steroid use(8th and 10th graders are not asked this ques-tion). It seems likely that students at all gradelevels would have shown such a decline, werethe data available.

Heroin use (without using a needle) showed asignificant increase in 12th grade in 2000, ris-ing from 1.0% in 1999 to 1.6%. At the sametime, heroin use in 8th grade showed the firstdecline in some years, after having doubledbetween 1993 and 1999.

Drugs Decreasing in UseUse rates for a number of drugs are down byfair proportions at all grades from their peaklevels in the mid-'90s, including inhalants,LSD, crystal methamphetamine, and Rohypnol.However, the only statistically significant de-clines in any of these particular drugs this yearoccurred for LSD use among 12th graders. The12th graders, who have tended to be the last todecline and have shown the least decline, alsoshowed significant declines in their use ofcrack cocaine and powder cocaine this year.

It is noteworthy that the downturns in the '90sstarted first, and have been the most sustained,among the 8th graders for a number of drugs.These include marijuana, crack cocaine, pow-der cocaine, tranquilizers, Rohypnol, cigarettes,and smokeless tobacco.

Inhalant use, which had shown a gradual on-going decline at all three grade levels over theprevious four years, only showed a continua-tion of that decline in 2000 at 8th grade (notstatically significant). Inhalants, the only classof drugs that tends to be more popular amongyounger teens than older ones, include a widerange of common household products thatyoungsters inhale or "huff' in order to get high,such as glues, solvents, butane, gasoline, andaerosols. The annual prevalence rates for 8th,10th, and 12th graders in 2000 were 9%, 7%,and 6%, respectively.

In sum, while the use of a number of illicitdrugs remained stable, and three (ecstasy, her-oin, and steroids) showed some increase, use ofseveral important classes of drugs have exhib-ited important declines, particularly across thelast several years.

Reasons for the Diverging TrendsThe wide divergence in the trajectories of thedifferent drugs in this single year helps to il-lustrate the point that, to a considerable degree,the determinants of use are often specific to thedrugs. These determinants include both theperceived benefits and the perceived risks thatyoung people come to associate with each drug.

Unfortunately, word of the supposed benefits ofusing a drug usually spreads much faster thaninformation about the adverse consequences.The former takes only rumor and a few testi-monials, the spread of which has been hastenedgreatly by the electronic media and the Internet.The latterthe perceived risksusually takemuch longer for the evidence (e.g., of death,disease, overdose reactions, addictive potential)to cumulate and then to be disseminated. Thus,

4

when a new drug comes onto the scene, it has aconsiderable "grace period" during which itsbenefits are alleged and its consequences arenot yet known.

Implications for PreventionTo some considerable degree, prevention mustoccur drug by drug, because knowledge of theadverse consequences of one drug will not nec-essarily generalize to the use of other drugs.Many of young people's beliefs and attitudesare specific to the drug. A review of the chartsin this voluine on perceived risk and disap-proval for the various drugsattitudes and be-liefs which we have shown to be important inexplaining many drug trends over the yearswill amply illustrate this contention. These atti-tudes and beliefs are at quite different levels forthe various drugs and, more importantly, oftentrend differently over time.

New Drugs Help to Keep the EpidemicGoing

Another point well illustrated by this year's re-sults is the continuous flow of new drugs intro-duced onto the scene or of older ones being"rediscovered" by young people. Many drugshave made a comeback years after they first fellfrom popularity, often because young people'sknowledge of their adverse consequences fadedas generational replacement took place. Wecall this process "generational forgetting." Ex-amples of this include LSD and methamphet-amine, two drugs used widely in the beginningof the broad epidemic of illicit drug use, whichoriginated in the '60s. Heroin, cocaine, PCP,and crack are some others that made a come-back after their initial popularity faded.

As for newer drugs coming onto the scene forthe first time, examples include the nitrite in-halants and PCP in the '70s, crack and crystalmethamphetamine in the '80s, and Rohypnoland then GHB in the '90s. The perpetual intro-duction of new drugs (or of new forms of tak-ing older ones, as illustrated by crack andcrystal methamphetamine) helps to keep the

9

country's "drug problem" alive. Because of thelag times described previously, during whichevidence of adverse consequences must cumu-late and be disseminated, the forces of con-tainment are always playing "catch up" withthe forces of encouragement and exploitation.

Where Are We Now?As the country begins the 21st century, clearlythe problems of substance abuse remain wide-spread among American young people. Todayover half (54%) have tried an illicit drug by thetime they finish high school. Indeed, if inhalantuse is included in the definition of an illicitdrug, more than a third (35%), have done so asearly as 8th gradewhen most students areonly 13 or 14 years old. Between a quarter anda third (29%) have tried some illicit drug otherthan marijuana by the end of 12th grade, and20% of 12th graders used some illicit drugother than marijuana in just the 12 months priorto the survey.

Cigarettes and AlcoholThe statistics for use of the licit drugs, ciga-rettes and alcohol, are also alarming. Nearlytwo-thirds (63%) have tried cigarettes by 12thgrade, and almost a third (31%) of 12th gradersare current smokers. Even as early as 8thgrade, four in every ten students (41%) havetried cigarettes, and 15% already are currentsmokers. Fortunately, we have seen some im-provement in smoking statistics in just the lastseveral years, after a dramatic increase in theserates earlier in the '90s.

Cigarette use reached its recent peak in 1996at grades 8 and 10, capping a rapid climb of

some 50% from the 1991 levels (when datafirst were gathered on these grades). Since1996, smoking in these grades has fallen offconsiderably (by 30% and 21%, respectively),including the further decline in 2000. In 12thgrade, peak use occurred a year later, in 1997,from which there has been a more modest de-cline of 14%. In 2000, specifically, there weresignificant declines in smoking in all threegrades. Increases in perceived risk and disap-proval of smoking may be contributing to thisdownturn. (See the section on cigarettes formore detail.)

Smokeless tobacco use has also been in de-cline in recent years. Concentrated amongmales, like steroid use, it has shown fair pro-portional declines.

Alcohol use remains extremely widespreadamong today's teenagers. Four out of everyfive students (80%) have consumed alcohol(more than just a few sips) by the end of highschool; and about half (52%) have done so by8th grade. In fact, 62% of the 12th graders and25% of the 8th graders in 2000 report havingbeen drunk at least once in their life. To a con-siderable degree, alcohol trends have tended toparallel the trends in illicit drug use. Thesetrends include some modest increase in bingedrinking (defined as having five or more drinksin a row at least once in the past-two weeks) inthe early part of the '90s, but a proportionallysmaller increase than was seen for most of theillicit drugs. Fortunately, binge drinking ratesleveled off two or three years ago, just aboutwhen the illicit drugs began a turnaround.

5fj

Any DRicit Drug Use

In the remainder of this report, separate sec-tions are provided for each of the many classesof illicit drugs, but we will first consider theproportions of American adolescents who useany drug, regardless of type. Monitoring theFuture routinely reports three different indexesof illicit drug usean index of "any illicit druguse," an index of the use of "any illicit drugother than marijuana," and an index of the useof "any illicit drug including inhalants."5 Inthis section we discuss the first two, but thestatistics for the third may be found in Table 1.

In order to make comparisons over time, wehave kept the definitions of these indexes con-stant, even though some new substances appearas time passes. The index levels would be littleaffected by the inclusion of these new sub-stances, however, primarily because almost allusers of them are also using the more prevalentdrugs included in the indexes. The major ex-ception has been inhalants, the use of which isquite prevalent in the lower grades. Thus, afterthe lower grades were added to the study, aspecial index was added that includes inhalants.

Trends in UseIn the last third of the twentieth century, youngAmericans achieved extraordinary levels of il-licit drug use, either by historical comparisonsin this country or by international comparisonswith other countries. The trends in lifetime useof any illicit drug are given in the first panelon the facing page.6 By 1975, when the studybegan, the majority of young people (55%) hadused an illicit drug by the time they left highschool. This figure rose to two-thirds (66%) by1981, before a long and gradual decline to 41%by 1992the low point. Today, the proportionis back to 54%, after a period of considerable

' Footnote I to Tables 1 through 3 provides the exact definition of "anyillicit drug."

6 This is the only set of figures in this volume presenting lifetime usestatistics. For other drugs, lifetime statistics may be found in the tablesat the end of the volume.

6

rise in the '90s. The comparable trends for an-nual, as opposed to lifetime, prevalence appearin the second (upper right) panel. They show agradual and continuing falloff after 1996among 8th graders. Peak rates were reached in1997 in the two upper grades, but there hasbeen no further decline since 1998.

Because marijuana is so much more prevalentthan any other illicit drug, trends in its use tendto drive the index of "any illicit drug use." Forthis reason we have an index excluding mari-juana use, showing the proportion of thesepopulations willing to use the other, so-called"harder," illicit drugs. The proportions usingany illicit drug other than marijuana are inthe third panel (lower left). In 1975 over one-third (36%) of 12th graders had tried some il-licit drug other than marijuana. This figurerose to 43% by 1981, followed by a long periodof decline to a low of 25% in 1992. Some in-crease followed in the '90s, as the use of anumber of drugs rose steadily, and it reached30% by 1997. (In 2000 it was 29%.) Thefourth panel presents the annual prevalencedata for the same index, which shows a patternof change over the past few years similar to theindex of any illicit drug use.

Overall, these data reveal that, while use of in-dividual drugs (other than marijuana) mayfluctuate widely, the proportion using any ofthem is much less labile. In other words, theproportion of students prone to using suchdrugs and willing to cross the normative barri-ers to such use changes more gradually. Theindividual drugs, on the other hand, react tomany, more rapidly changing determinantsspecific to them: how widely their psychoactivepotential is recognized, how favorable the re-ports of their supposed benefits are, how riskyit is seen to use them, how acceptable they arein the peer group, how accessible they are, andso on.

11

100

80

60

40

20

100

80

60

40

20

Trends in Illicit Drug UseEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who used any illicit drug in lifetime

-0-Twelfth Grade

-0-Tenth Grade

-0- Eighth Grade

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% who used any illicit drug other thanmarijuana in lifetime

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

100

80

60

40

20

% who used any illicit drug in past year

100

80

60

40

20

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% who used any illicit drug other thanmarijuana in past year

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Marijuana

Marijuana has been the most widely used illicitdrug for the 25 years of this study. Marijuanacan be taken orally, mixed with food, andsmoked in a concentrated form as hashishtheuse of which is much more common in Europe.However, nearly all the consumption in thiscountry involves smoking it in rolled cigarettes("joints"), in pipes or, more recently, in hol-lowed-out cigars ("blunts").

Trends in UseAnnual marijuana use peaked at 51% among12th graders in 1979, following a rise that be-gan during the '60s. Then, use declined fairlysteadily for thirteen years, bottoming at 22% in1992a decline of more than half. The '90s,however, saw a resurgence in use. After a con-siderable increase in the '90s (one that actuallybegan among 8th graders a year earlier thanamong 10th and 12th graders), annual preva-lence rates peaked in 1996 at 8th grade and in1997 at 10th and 12th grades. There has beensome very modest decline since those peak lev-els, though no one-year change was significantin 2000.

Perceived RiskThe amount of risk associated with usingmarijuana fell during the earlier period of in-creased use and again during the more recentresurgence of use in the '90s. Indeed, at 10thand 12th grades, perceived risk began to de-cline a year before use began to rise in the up-turn of the '90s, making perceived risk a lead-ing indicator of change in use. (The same mayhave happened at 8th grade, as well, but we donot have data starting early enough to checkthat possibility.) The decline in perceived riskhalted by 1996 in 8th and 10th grade, and usebegan to decline a year or two later. Again,

perceived risk was a leading indicator ofchange in use.

DisapprovalPersonal disapproval of marijuana use slippedconsiderably among 8th graders between 1991and 1996, and among 10th and 12th gradersbetween 1992 and 1997. For example, the pro-portions of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, respec-tively, who said they disapproved of tryingmarijuana once or twice fell by 17, 21, and 19percentage points over those intervals of de-cline. There has since been some increase indisapproval among 8th graders (including in2000) but not yet much among 10th and 12thgraders.

AvailabilitySince the study began in 1975, between 83%and 90% of every senior class has said that theycould get marijuana fairly easily or very easilyif they wanted some; therefore, it seems clearthat this has remained a highly accessible drug.Since 1991, when data were also available for8th and 10th graders, we have seen that mari-juana is less accessible to younger adolescents.Still, in 2000 nearly half of all 8th graders(47%) and more than three-quarters of all 10thgraders (78%) reported it as being accessible.This compares to 89% for seniors.

As marijuana use rose sharply in the early andmid-'90s, reported availability increased aswell, perhaps reflecting the fact that moreyoung people had friends who were users.Availability peaked for 8th and 10th graders in1996 and has shown some falloff since, par-ticularly at 8th grade. Availability peaked a bitlater for 12th graders.

1 3

100

80

60

40

20

Marijuana: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who used in last twelve months

- o- Twelfth Grade-a- Tenth Grade

Eighth Grade

100

80

60

40

20

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of using regularly

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year

14

100

80

60

40

20

% seeing "great risk" in using regularly

76 '78 VO 82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get

100

80

60

40

20

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Inh nts

Inhalants are any gases or fumes that can beinhaled for the purpose of getting high. Theseinclude many household products, the sale andpossession of which is perfectly legal, includ-ing such things as airplane glue, nail polishremover, gasoline, solvents, butane, and pro-pellants used in certain commercial products,such as whipped cream dispensers. Unlikenearly all other classes of drugs, their use ismost common among younger adolescents andtends to decline as youngsters grow older. Theearly use of inhalants may reflect the fact thatmany inhalants are cheap, readily available,and legal. The decline in use with age no doubtreflects their coming to be seen as "kids'drugs." Also, a number of other drugs becomeavailable to older adolescents, who are moreable to afford to buy them.

Trends in UseAccording to the long-term data from 12thgraders, inhalant use (excluding the use of ni-trite inhalants) rose gradually for some years,from 1976-1987. This rise in use was some-what unusual in that most other forms of illicitdrug use were in decline during the 1980s. Userose among 8th and 10th graders from the timedata were first gathered on them, 1991, through1995, and also rose among 12th graders from

10

1992-1995. All grades exhibited a steadydecline in use through 1999, though it halted at8th and 10th grades in 2000. The Partnershipfor a Drug-Free America launched an anti-inhalant advertising initiative in 1995, whichmay help to explain the turnaround in use afterthat point.

Perceived RiskOnly 8th and 10th graders have been askedquestions about the degree of risk they associ-ate with inhalant use. Relatively low propor-tions of them think that there is a "great risk" inusing an inhalant once or twice, although therewas an upward shift in this belief between 1995and 1996, specifically.

DisapprovalQuite high proportions say they would disap-prove of even trying an inhalant. There was aslight upward drift in this attitude from 1995through 1999, but both 8th and 10th gradesshowed a leveling in 2000.

AvailabilityRespondents have not been asked about theavailability of inhalants. We have assumed thatthese substances are universally available toyoung people in these age ranges.

30

24

18

12

6

100

Inhalants: Trends in nnual Use, Risk, and DisapprovalEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice

100

80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of using once or twice % saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get

'342;i1

76 78 '80 '82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 BO

Year

100

80

60

40

20

0

(no data)

'76 '78 BO '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 BO

Year

LSD

LSD is the most widely used drug within thelarger class of drugs known as hallucinogens.Statistics on overall hallucinogen use, and onthe use of hallucinogens other than LSD, maybe found in the tables at the end of this report.

Trends in UseThe annual prevalence of LSD use has re-mained below 10% for the last 25 years. Usehad declined some in the first 10 years of thestudy, likely continuing a decline that had be-gun before 1975. Use had been fairly level inthe latter half of the '80s but, as was true for anumber of other drugs, use rose in all threegrades between 1991 and 1996. Annual preva-lence at all three grades is now below the peaklevel reached in 1996 by between a quarter anda third. Use continued to drop in the upper twogrades in 2000.

Perceived RiskWe think it likely that perceived risk for LSDuse had grown in the early '70s, before thisstudy began, as concerns about possible neu-rological and genetic effects spread (most werenever scientifically confirmed), and also asconcern about "bad trips" grew. However,there was some decline in perceived risk in thelate '70s. The degree of risk associated withLSD experimentation then remained fairly levelamong 12th graders through most of the '80s

12

but began a substantial decline after 1991,dropping 12 percentage points by 1997, beforeleveling. From the time that perceived risk wasfirst measured among 8th and 10th graders, in1993, through 1998, perceived risk fell in bothof these grades, as well.

DisapprovalDisapproval of LSD use was quite high among12th graders through most of the '80s but be-gan to decline after 1991 along with perceivedrisk. All three grades exhibited a decline indisapproval through 1996, with disapproval ofexperimentation dropping a total of 11 percent-age points between 1991 and 1996 among 12thgraders. After 1996 there emerged a slight in-crease in disapproval among 12th graders, ac-companied by a leveling among 10th gradersand some further decline among 8th graders.

AvailabilityReported availability of LSD by 12th gradershas varied quite a bit over the years. It fellconsiderably from 1975-1983, remained levelfor a few years, and then began a substantialrise after 1986, reaching a peak in 1995. LSDavailability also rose among 8th and 10th grad-ers in the early '90s, reaching a peak in 1995 or1996. There has been some falloff in availabil-ity in all three grades since those peak years.

17

30

24

18

12

6

100

80

60

40

20

0

LSD: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who used in past year

-c- Twelfth Grade

-4F- Tenth Grade

-4,- Eighth Grade

76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of using once or twice

76 78 '80 82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 VO '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

is

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Cocaine

For some years cocaine was used almost exclu-sively in powder form, though "freebasing"emerged for a while. Then in the early '80scame the advent of crack cocaine. Our originalquestions did not distinguish among differentforms of cocaine or different modes of admini-stration, but simply asked about using cocaine.The findings contained in this section report onthe results of those more inclusive questionsasked of 12th graders over the years.

In 1987 we also began to ask separate questionsabout the use of crack cocaine and "cocaineother than crack," which was comprised almostentirely of powder cocaine use. Data on thesetwo components of overall cocaine use arecontained in the tables in this report, and crackis discussed in the next section.

Trends in UseThere have been some important changes in thelevels of overall cocaine use (which includescrack) over the life of the study. Use among12th graders originally burgeoned in the late'70s, then remained fairly stable through thefirst half of the '80s, before starting a precipi-tous decline after 1986. Annual prevalenceamong 12th graders dropped by about three-quarters between 1986, when it was 12.7%, and1992, when it was 3.1%. Between 1992 and1999, use reversed course again and doubled to6.2%, before making its first significant declineto 5.0% in 2000. Use also rose in 8th and 10thgrades after 1992, before leveling in 8th gradeafter 1996 and in 10th after 1997.

Perceived RiskGeneral questions about the dangers of cocaineand disapproval of cocaine have been askedonly of 12th graders. The results tell a fasci-nating story. They show that perceived risk forexperimental use fell in the late '70s (when usewas rising), stayed level in the first half of the'80s (when use was level), and then jumpedvery sharply in a single year (by. 14 percentagepoints between 1986 and 1987), just when the

14

substantial decline in use began. The year 1986was marked by a crescendo of a national mediafrenzy over crack cocaine but, but also by thewidely publicized cocaine-related death of LenBias, a National Basketball Association first-round draft pick. Bias' death was originally re-ported as resulting from his first experiencewith cocaine. Though that later turned out notto be the case, the message had already"taken." We believe this event helped to per-suade many young people that use of cocaine atany level, no matter how healthy the individual,was dangerous. Perceived risk continued to risethrough 1990, and the fall in use continued.Perceived risk began to decline after 1991, anduse began a long rise a year later.

DisapprovalDisapproval of cocaine use by 12th gradersfollowed a cross-time pattern similar to that forperceived risk, although its 7 percentage pointjump in 1987 was not quite so pronounced.There was some decline from 1991 to 1997, butfair stability since then.

AvailabilityThe proportion of 12th graders saying that itwould be "fairly easy" or "very easy" for themto get cocaine if they wanted some was 33% in1977, rose to 48% by 1980, held fairly levelthrough 1985, increased further to 59% by1989 (in a period of rapidly declining use), andthen fell back to about 48% by 1993. Sincethen, perceived availability has remained fairlysteady. Note that the pattern of change doesnot map all that well onto the patterns ofchange in actual use, suggesting that changes inoverall availability may not have been a majordeterminant of useparticularly of the sharpdecline in use in the late '80s. The advent ofcrack cocaine in the early '80s, however, pro-vided a lower cost form of cocaine, thus re-ducing the prior social class differences in use.

19

30

24

18

12

6

100

80

60

Cocaine (including Crack): Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, andAvailability

Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0- Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade

Eighth Grade

40

20

0

'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Crack Cocaine

Several indirect indicators in the study sug-gested that crack use grew rapidly in the period1983-1986, starting before we had direct meas-ures of crack use. In 1986 we asked a singleusage question in one of the five questionnaireforms given to 12th graders: those who indi-cated any cocaine use in the prior 12 monthswere asked if they had used crack. The resultsfrom that question represent the first data pointin the first panel on the facing page. After that,our usual set of three questions about use wasasked about crack and was inserted into severalquestionnaire forms.

Trends in UseAfter 1986 there was a precipitous drop incrack use among 12th graders, one which con-tinued through 1991. After 1991, all threegrades showed a slow and steady increase incrack use through 1998. Indeed, crack was oneof the few drugs still increasing in use in 1998.In 1999, crack use finally started to drop in 8thgrade and in 10th. The recent peak in 12thgrade was reached in 1999 (2.7%), but therewas a significant drop to 2.2% in 2000.

Perceived RiskBy the time we added questions about the per-ceived risk of using crack in 1987, it was al-ready seen as one of the most dangerous of allthe illicit drugs by 12th graders: 57% saw agreat risk in even trying it. This compared to54% for heroin, for example. (See the previoussection on cocaine for a discussion of changesin perceived risk in 1986.) Perceived risk forcrack rose still higher through 1990, reaching64% of 12th graders who said they thoughtthere was a great risk in taking crack once ortwice. (Use was dropping during that interval.)After 1990 some falloff in perceived risk be-gan, well before crack use began to increase in1994. Thus it was a leading indicator. Be-tween 1991 and about 1998 there was a consid-erable falloff in this belief in grades 8 and 10,

16

as use rose quite steadily. Risk leveled in 2000in grades 8 and 12. We think that the declinesin perceived risk for crack and cocaine duringthe '90s may well reflect an example of "gen-erational forgetting," wherein the class cohortsthat were in adolescence when the adverse con-sequences were most obvious are replaced bynewer cohorts who know less about the dangersof the drug.

DisapprovalDisapproval of crack use was not included inthe study until 1990, by which time it was at avery high level, with 92% of 12th graders say-ing that they disapproved of even trying it.Disapproval of crack use eased steadily in allthree grades from 1991 through about 1997,before stabilizing in 1999.

AvailabilityCrack availability remained relatively stableacross the interval for which data are available,as the fourth panel on the facing page illus-trates. In 1987 some 41% of 12th graders saidit would be fairly easy for them to get crack ifthey wanted some, and there has been littlechange since. Eighth and tenth graders, how-ever, did report some modest increase in avail-ability in the early '90s.

NOTE: The distinction between crack cocaine andother forms of cocaine (mostly powder) was notmade until the middle of the life of the study. Thecharts on the .facing page begin their trend lineswhen these distinctions were introduced for the dif-ferent types of measures. Charts are not presentedhere for the "other forms of cocaine" measures,simply because the trend curves look extremelysimilar to those for crack. (All the statistics arecontained in the tables presented later.) The abso-lute levels of use, risk, etc., are somewhat different,but the trends are very similar. Usage levels tendto be higher for cocaine powder compared to crack,the levels of perceived risk a bit lower, while dis-approval and availability are quite close for the twodifferent forms of cocaine.

21

10

8

6

4

2

100

80

60

40

20

Crack: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0- Twelfth Grade-e-Tenth Grade-0- Eighth Grade

'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


"1"Ittelt*e

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

100

80

60

40

20

glhARTFaral".4111

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Amphetamines

Amphetamines, a class of psychotherapeuticstimulants, have had a relatively high preva-lence of use in the youth population for manyyears. The behavior reported here is supposedto exclude any use under medical supervision.Amphetamines are controlled substancestheyare not supposed to be bought or sold without adoctor's prescriptionbut some are divertedfrom legitimate channels, and some are manu-factured and/or imported illegally.

Trends in UseThe use of amphetamines rose in the last half ofthe '70s, reaching a peak in 1981two yearsafter marijuana use peaked. We believe thatthe usage rate reached in 1981 (annual preva-lence of 26%) may have been an exaggerationf true amphetamine use, because "look-alikes"were in common use at that time. After 1981 along and steady decline in use by 12th gradersbegan, and did not end until 1992.

As with many other illicit drugs, amphetaminesmade a comeback in the '90s, with `annualprevalence starting to rise by 1992 among 8thgraders and by 1993 among the 10th and 12thgraders. Use peaked in the lower two gradesby 1996 and in 12th grade by 1997. Sincethose peak years, use has declined by about aquarter in 8th grade, by less in 10th, and not atall in 12th.

Perceived RiskOnly 12th graders are asked questions about theamount of risk they associate with ampheta-mine use or about their disapproval of that be-havior. Overall, perceived risk has been lessstrongly correlated with usage levels (at the ag-gregate level) for this drug than for a number of

18

others, although the expected inverse associa-tion pertained during much of the period 1975-2000. There was decrease in risk during theperiod 1975-1981 (when use was rising), someincrease in risk in 1986-1991 (when use wasfalling), and some decline in perceived riskfrom 1991-1995 (in advance of use risingagain). But in the interval 1981-1986, risk wasquite stable even though use fell considerably.Of course, since those are the years of peak co-caine use, it is quite possible that some of thedecline in amphetamine use in the '80s was notdue to a change in attitudes specific to thatdrug, but rather due to some displacement byanother stimulantcocaine.

DisapprovalRelatively high proportions of 12th gradershave disapproved of even trying amphetaminesthroughout the life of the study (between 70%and 87%). Disapproval did not change in thelate '70s, despite the increase in use, thoughthere seemed to be a one-year drop in 1981.From 1981-1992 disapproval rose graduallyfrom 71% to 87% as use steadily declined. Dis-approval then fell back about 6 or 7 percentagepoints in the next couple of years (as use rose),before stabilizing.

AvailabilityWhen the study started in 1975, amphetamineshad a high level of reported availability. Thelevel fell by about 10 percentage points by1977, drifted up a bit through 1980, jumpedsharply in 1981, and then began a long, gradualdecline through 1991. There was a modest in-crease in availability at all three grade levels inthe early '90s, followed by some decline laterin the '90s.

23

60

48

36

24

12

100

80

60

40

20

0

Amphetamines: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


- o-Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade

Eighth Grade

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year


1 oo

80

60

40

20

0

'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

hfiethampheta Dne and Dc

One subclass of amphetamines is called meth-amphetamine. This subclass (at one time called"speed") has been around for a long time andgave rise to the phrase "speed kills" in the '70s.Probably because of the reputation it got at thattime as a particularly dangerous drug, it wasnot very popular for a long time. As a result,we did not even include a full set of questionsabout its use in the study's questionnaires. Oneform of methamphetamine, crystal metham-phetamine or "ice," made a comeback in the'80s. It comes in crystallized form, as the nameimplies, and the chunks can be heated and thefumes inhaled, much like crack cocaine.

Trends in UseFor most of the life of the study the only ques-tion about methamphetamine use has beencontained in a single 12th grade questionnaireform. Respondents who indicated using anytype of amphetamines in the prior 12 monthswere asked in a sequel question to check on apre-specified list which types they had usedduring that period. "Methamphetamine" wasone type on the list, and data exist on its usesince 1976. In 1976, annual prevalence was1.9%; it then rose to 3.7% by 1981 (the peakyear), before declining for a long period of timeto 0.4% by 1992. It then rose again in the '90s,reaching 1.3% by 1998, before declining to0.9% in 1999. In other words, it followed across-time trajectory very similar to that foramphetamines as a whole.

That questionnaire form also had "crystalmeth" added in 1989 as another answer cate-gory that could be checked. It showed a levelrate of use from 1989 to 1993 (at around 1.1%)followed by a period of increase to 2.5% by1998 and then a decline to 1.9% in 2000.

In 1990, in the 12th grade questionnaires only,we introduced our usual set of three questions,

-20

and 1.3% of 12th graders indicated any crystalmethamphetamine ("ice") use in the prior year,a figure which climbed to 3.0% by 1998, fol-lowed by a decline to 2.2% by 2000. (Note thatthese prevalence rates are quite close to thosederived from the other question procedures, justdescribed.)

Responding to the growing concern aboutmethamphetamine use in generalnot justcrystal methamphetamine usewe added a fullset of three questions about the use of anymethamphetamine to the 1999 questionnairesfor all three grade levels. These questions yielda somewhat higher annual prevalence for 12thgraders: 4.3% in 2000, compared to the sum ofthe crystal meth and methamphetamine answersin the other question format, which totals 2.8%.It would appear, then, that the long-termmethod we had been using for tracking meth-amphetamine use probably yielded an under-statement of the absolute prevalence level, per-haps because some proportion of methamphet-amine users did not correctly categorize them-selves initially as amphetamine users. Wethink it unlikely that the shape of the trendcurve was distorted, however.

The newer questions show fairly high levels ofmethamphetamine use: annual prevalence ratesin 2000 of 2.5%, 4.0%, and 4.3% for 8th, 10th,and 12th grades, respectively. These levels aredown some from 1999 in all three grade levels(not statistically significant).

Other MeasuresNo questions have yet been added to the studyon perceived risk, disapproval, or availabilitywith regard to overall methamphetamine use.Data on two of these variables for crystalmethamphetamine, specifically, may be foundon the facing page.

25

1 0

8

6

4

2

1 00

80

60

40

20

Ice: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0-Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade'el' Eighth Grade

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


(no data)

76 78 SO 82 84 '86 88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

so

ao

20

'76 '78 SO 82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


1 00

80

60

40

20

26

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 96 98 '00

Year

Heroin

Heroin is a derivative of opium. For many dec-ades it has been taken primarily by means ofinjection into a vein. However, in the 1990sthe purity of available heroin reached very highlevels, making other modes of administration(like snorting and smoking) practical alterna-tives to injection. Therefore, in 1995, we intro-duced questions that asked separately aboutusing heroin with and without a needle, so thatwe might see to what extent use without injec-tion helped to explain the upsurge in use thenoccurring. The usage statistics presented in thefacing page are based on heroin use by anymethod.

Trends in UseThe annual prevalence of heroin use among12th graders fell by half between 1975 and1979, from 1.0% to 0.5%. The rate then heldamazingly steady for about 14 years. Afterabout 1993, though, heroin use began to rise,and it rose substantially until 1996 (among 8thgraders) or 1997 (among 10th and 12th grad-ers). The prevalence rates roughly doubled ateach grade level. Use then stabilized through1999. In 2000 it declined significantly at 8thgrade while rising significantly at 12th.

The questions about use with and without aneedle were not introduced until the 1995 sur-vey, so they did not encompass much of theperiod of increasing use. Responses to thesequestions showed that by then about equal pro-portions of all users at 8th grade were usingeach of the two methods of ingestion, andsomenearly a third of the userswere usingboth ways. At 10th grade a somewhat higherproportion of all users took heroin by injection,and at 12th grade a higher proportion still.Much of the remaining increase in overall her-oin use beyond 1995 occurred in the propor-tions using it without injecting, which westrongly suspect was true in the immediately

22

preceding period of increase as well. All of theincrease among 12th graders in 2000 was dueto increasing use without injecting.

Perceived RiskStudents have long seen heroin to be one of themost dangerous drugs, which no doubt helps toaccount both for the consistently high level ofpersonal disapproval of use (see below) and thequite low prevalence of use. There have beensome changes in perceived risk levels over theyears, nevertheless. Between 1975 and 1986,perceived risk gradually declined, even thoughuse dropped and then stabilized in that interval.There was then an upward shift in 1987 (thesame year that perceived risk for cocainejumped dramatically) to a new level, where itheld for four years. In 1992 risk dropped to alower plateau again, a year or two before usestarted to rise. Perceived risk then rose again inthe latter half of the '90s as use leveled off.Based on the short interval for which we havesuch data from 8th and 10th graders, it may beseen that perceived risk rose among them be-tween 1995 and 1997, foretelling an end to theincrease in use.

DisapprovalThere has been very little fluctuation in thevery high disapproval levels for heroin use overthe years, though what change there was in thelast half of the '90s was consistent with theconcurrent changes in perceived risk and use.

AvailabilityThe proportion of 12th grade students sayingthey could get heroin fairly easily, if theywanted some, remained around 20% throughthe mid-'80s; it then increased considerablyfrom 1986 to 1992, before stabilizing at about35%. At the lower grade levels, reported avail-ability has been less, and has declined somesince the mid-'90s.

27

5

4

3

2

Heroin: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


Twelfth Grade-a-Tenth Grade-6- Eighth Grade

100

80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of using once or twice*

76 78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 SO

Year

% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice*

100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 78 '80 82 84 86 88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

*Prior to 1995, the question asked about heroin use in general. Since 1995, the question has asked about heroin use without eneedle.

TranquDiizers

Tranquilizers constitute another class of psy-chotherapeutic drugs that are legally sold onlyby prescription, like amphetamines. They arecentral nervous depressants and for the mostpart are comprised of benzodiazepines (minortranquilizers, such as Valium). Respondentsare told to exclude any medically prescribeduse from their answers.

Trends in UseDuring the late '70s and all of the '80s, tran-quilizers fell steadily from popularity, with usedeclining by three-quarters among 12th gradersbetween 1977 and 1992. Their use made a bitof a comeback during the '90s, along withmany other drugs. Annual prevalence morethan doubled among 12th graders by 2000 to5.7%. (This rate compares to 10.8% in thepeak year of 1977.) Use peaked among 8thgraders in 1996 and has dropped a bit sincethen.

24

Perceived RiskData have not been collected on this variabledue to questionnaire space limitations.

DisapprovalData have not been collected on this variable,either.

AvailabilityAs the number of 12th graders reporting non-medically prescribed tranquilizer use fell dra-matically during the '70s and '80s, so did theproportion saying that tranquilizers would befairly easy to get. Whether declining usecaused the decline in availability, or vice versa,is unclear. Perceived availability fell from 72%in 1975 to 34% in 2000. Most of that declineoccurred before the '90s, though there wassome further drop in the '90s at all three gradelevels, despite the fact that use rose some.

4 9

30

24

18

12

6

100

80

60

40

20

0

Tranquzers: Trends in Annual Use and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0- Twelfth Grade-3-Tenth Grade

Eighth Grade

76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year


(no data)

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

(no data)

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Barbiturates

Like tranquilizers, barbiturate sedatives areprescription-controlled psychotherapeutic drugsthat are central nervous system depressants.They are used to assist sleep and relieve anxi-ety. Respondents are instructed to excludefrom their answers any use that occurred undermedical supervision. Usage data are reportedonly for 12th graders, because we believe thatstudents in the lower grades tend to over-repOrtuse, perhaps including their use of nonpre-scription sleep aids or other over-the-counterdrugs.

Trends in UseLike tranquilizers, the use of barbiturates by12th graders fell in popularity rather steadilyfrom the mid-'70s through the early '90s.From 1975 to 1992, use fell by three-fourths,from 10.7% annual prevalence to 2.8%. Bar-biturates showed some resurgence through2000, though, reaching 6.2%.

Another class of sedatives, methaqualone, hasbeen included in the study from the beginning.In 1975 methaqualone use was about half thelevel of barbiturate use. Its use also declinedsteadily from 1981, when annual prevalencewas 7.6%, through 1993, when annual preva-lence reached the negligible level of 0.2%. Useincreased some for a couple of years, reaching1.1% in 1996, where it remained through 1999.Use then dropped significantly to 0.3% in 2000.

26

Perceived RiskTrying barbiturates was never seen by moststudents as being very dangerous, and it is clearfrom the second facing panel that perceivedrisk cannot do much to explain the trends in usewhich occurred through 1986, at least. Per-ceived risk actually declined a bit between1975 and 1986an interval in which use alsowas declining. But then perceived risk shiftedup some through 1991, consistent with the factthat use was still falling. It then dropped back'some through 1995, as use was increasing.

DisapprovalLike many of the illicit drugs other than mari-juana, barbiturates have received the disap-proval of the great majority of all high schoolgraduating classes over the past 25 years,though there have been some changes in level.Those changes have been consistent with thechanges in actual use observed. Disapproval ofusing a barbiturate once or twice rose from78% in 1975 to a high of 91% in 1990, where itheld for two years. Then disapproval eroded abit to 86% by 2000 during a period of increas-ing use.

AvailabilityAs the fourth facing panel shows, the availabil-ity of barbiturates has generally been decliningduring most of the life of the study, except forone shift up which occurred in 1981.

31

30

24

18

12

6

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Barbiturates: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0-Twelfth Grade-II-Tenth Grade

-a- Eighth Grade

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 94 96 '98 '00

Year


'76 78 SO '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 96 98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

76 78 80.82 4 6 88 SO 92 94 S6 S8 DO

Year


32

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 SO '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

"Club Drugs" Rohypnol and Ecstasy

There are a number of so-called "club drugs,"so labeled because they are popular at nightclubs and all-night dance parties called "raves."This informal category includes LSD, MDMA("ecstasy"), Rohypnol, methamphetamine, ke-tamine ("special K"), and GHB. We will dealhere primarily with ecstasy and Rohypnol.LSD and methamphetamine already have beendiscussed, and ketamine and GHB were justadded to the questionnaire in 2000.

The annual prevalence of GHB use in 2000was 1.2%, 1.1%, and 1.9% in grades 8, 10, and12. The annual prevalence of ketamine usewas 1.6%, 2.1%, and 2.5%.

Rohypnol and GHB have been labeled "daterape drugs" because both can induce amnesiaof events that occurred while under the influ-ence of the drug and have been used in connec-tion with rapes or seductions. Use is likely un-derreported since the user may be unaware ofhaving used the drugs.

Trends in Rohypnot UseQuestions about the use of Rohypnol wereadded to the survey in 1996. They revealedlow levels of use that the respondent was ableto reportaround 1% in all three grade levels.At '8th grade, use began falling immediatelyafter 1996 and by 1999 had fallen by half. Inthe upper two grades, use first rose for a year ortwo before beginning to fall back to its originallevel by 1999. All three grades showed somefurther decline in 2000, though no one of thosedeclines reached statistical significance.

28

Limitations on questionnaire space precludedasking about perceived risk, disapproval, oravailability.

Trends in MDIVIA (Ecstasy) Use

Ecstasy is actually a form of methamphetaminebut is used more for its mildly hallucinogenicproperties. Questions about the use of MDMA,or ecstasy, were added to the surveys of secon-dary school students in 1996. (We have hadquestions on this drug since 1991 in the ques-tionnaires answered by college students andyoung adults. Their results showed ecstasy usebeginning to rise above trace levels in 1995,and continuing to rise at least through 1999.)Annual prevalence in 10th and 12th grades in1996 was 4.6%actually considerably higherthan among college students and young adultsat that pointbut fell in both grades over thenext two years. In 1999, and again in 2000,use rose sharply in both grades, bringing annualprevalence up to 5.4% among 10th graders and8.2% among 12th graders. In 2000 use alsorose among 8th graders, to 3.1%.

The charts on the facing page show littlechange in perceived risk or disapproval of ec-stasy since 1997, but they do show a dramaticrise in perceived availability since 1991par-ticularly in the year 2000. The increase in ec-stasy use in 1999 occurred primarily in theNortheast and in large cities, whereas in 2000the increase diffused into all of the other re-gions, showing no further increase in theNortheast.

33

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

MDM (Ecstasy): Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


-0-Twelfth Grade-D-Tenth Grade

-6- Eighth Grade

80

60

40

20

0

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

80

60

40

20

0-04A

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


100

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

80

60

40

20

34

76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Alcohol

Alcoholic beverageswhich include beer,wine, wine coolers, and hard liquorhave beenamong the most widely used substances byAmerican young people for a very long time.In 2000 the proportions of 8th, 10th, and 12thgraders who admitted drinking an alcoholicbeverage in the 30-day period prior to the sur-vey were 22%, 41%, and 50%, respectively.There are quite a number of usage measures ofrelevance for alcohol, all of which are con-tained in the tables at the end of this report.Here we will focus on the pattern of alcoholconsumption which probably is of the greatestpublic health concernepisodic heavy drink-ing, or what we call "binge drinking" for short.It is measured in this study by the reportednumber of occasions on which the respondenthad five or more drinks in a row during theprior two-week interval. We present theprevalence of such binge drinking behavior inthe first panel.

Trends in UseJudging by the data from 12th graders, bingedrinking reached its peak at about the time thatoverall illicit drug use did, in 1979. It heldsteady for a couple of years and then declinedsubstantially from 41% in 1983 to a low of28% in 1992 (also the low point of any illicitdrug use). This was an important improve-menta drop of almost one-third in bingedrinking. Although illicit drug use rose consid-erably in the '90s in proportional terms, bingedrinking rose only by a small fractionaboutfour percentage points among the 12th grad-ersbetween 1992 and 1998. At 8th gradethere was some upward drift between 1991(12.9%) and 1996 (15.6%), as was true at 10thgrade between 1992 (21.1%) and 1997(25.1%). Use has been level over the past threeyears in all three grades.

One point to note in these findings is that thereis no evidence of any "displacement effect" in

30.

the aggregate between alcohol and marijuanaa hypothesis frequently heard. The two drugshave moved much more in parallel over theyears than in opposite directions.

Perceived RiskWhile for most of the study the majority of12th graders have not viewed binge drinking onweekends as carrying a great risk (see paneltwo), there was in fact a fair-sized increase inthis measure between 1982, when it was 36%,and 1992, when it reached 49%. There thenfollowed a modest decline to 43% by 1997, be-fore it stabilized. These changes track fairlywell the changes in actual binge drinking. Webelieve that the public service advertising cam-paigns in the '80s against drunk driving, ingeneral, as well as those that urged use of des-ignated drivers when drinking, may have con-tributed to the increase in perceived risk ofbinge drinking. As we have published else-where, drunk driving by 12th graders declinedduring that period by an even larger proportionthan did binge drinking.

DisapprovalDisapproval of weekend binge drinking movedpretty much in parallel with perceived risk,suggesting that increasingly such drinking (andvery likely the drunk-driving behavior oftenassociated with it) became unacceptable in thepeer group. Note that the rates of disapprovaland perceived risk for binge drinking are higherin the lower grades than in 12th grade. Bothvariables showed some erosion at all grade lev-els in the early '90s.

AvailabilityPerceived availability of alcohol, which until1999 was asked only of 8th and 10th graders,has been very high and fairly steady in the '90s,although there may have been some decline in8th grade since 1997.

35

100

80

60

40

20

0

Alcohol: Trends in Binge Drinking, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who had 5+ drinks in a rowin previous two weeks

-0-Twelfth Grade-n- Tenth Grade

-0- Eighth Grade

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of having 5+ drinks in a rowonce or twice each weekend

100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 VO 82 '84 '86 88 '90 92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% seeing "great risk" in having 5+ drinks in a rowonce or twice each weekend

100

36

80

60

40

20

100

80

60

40

20

0

'76 '78 VO 82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 98 '00

Year

% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy"to get alcohol

0-0

76 78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Cigarettes

Cigarette .smoking has been called the greatestpreventable cause of disease and mortality inthe United States. At current rates of smoking,this statement surely remains true for thesenewer cohorts of young people.

Trends in UseWe know that differences in smoking ratesbetween different birth cohorts (or, in this case,high school class cohorts) tend to stay withthose cohorts throughout the life cycle. Thismeans that it is critical to prevent smoking veryearly. It also means that the trends observed atone grade level may not correspond to thetrends observed in another in a given historicalperiod. Among 12th graders, 30-day preva-lence of smoking reached a peak in 1976, at39%. (The peak likely occurred considerablyearlier for lower grade levels, as these sameclass cohorts passed through them in previousyears.) There was about a one-quarter drop in30-day prevalence between 1976 and 1981,when the rate reached 29%, a level at which itremained for more than a decade, until 1992(28%).

In the '90s, smoking began to rise sharply,starting in 1992 (and quite possibly earlier)among 8th and 10th graders, and in 1993among 12th graders. Over the next four to fiveyears smoking rates increased by about one-half in the lower two grades and by almost one-third in grade 12very substantial increases.Smoking peaked in 1996 for 8th and 10th grad-ers arid in 1997 for 12th graders, before begin-ning a decline in all three grades, which contin-ued into 2000. Since the peak levels in themid- #90s, the thirty-day prevalence of smokinghas declined by 30% in 8th grade, 21% in 10th,and 16% in 12th. (In 2000 a single questionwas, introduced to measure the annual preva-lence of "bidis," a type of flavored cigaretteimported from India, and the annual rates for

32

8th, 10th, and 12th graders were 3.9%, 6.4%,and 9.2%.)

Perceived RiskAmong 12th graders, the proportion seeinggreat risk in pack-a-day smoking rose beforeand during some of the time that use first de-clined. It leveled in 1980 (before use leveled),declined a bit in 1982, but then started to riseagain gradually for five years. (It is possiblethat cigarette advertising effectively offset theeffects of rising perceptions of risk during thatfive-year period.) Perceived risk fell some inthe early '90s at all three grade levels as useincreased; but after 1995 perceived risk beganto climb in all three grades (coincident with usestarting to decline in grades 8 and 10, but a yearbefore it started to decline in 12th grade). Notethe considerable disparity of the levels of per-ceived risk among grade levels. For someyears, only around 50% of 8th graders sawgreat risk in pack-a-day smoking.

DisapprovalDisapproval rates for smoking have been fairlyhigh throughout the study and, unlike perceivedrisk, are higher in the lower grade levels.Among 12th graders there was a gradual in-crease in disapproval of smoking from 1976-1986, a slight erosion over the following fiveyears, then a steeper erosion from the early '90sthrough 1997. In the two lower grades a de-cline in disapproval occurred between 1991 and1996, the period of sharply increasing use.Since those low points, there has been a steadyincrease in disapproval.

AvailabilityAvailability of cigarettes is reported as veryhigh by 8th and 10th graders. (We do not askthe question of 12th graders, for whom we as-sume accessibility is nearly universal.) Since1996 availability has been declining, particu-larly among the 8th graders.

37

100

80

60

40

20

100

80

60

40

20

Cigarettes: Trends in 30-Day Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who used in past 30 days

-0-Twelfth Grade-13- Tenth Grade

--a- Eighth Grade

76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of smoking a packor more per day

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

100

80

60

40

20

0

% seeing "great risk" in smoking a packor more per day

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to gei

100

80

60

40

20

3 8,

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Smokeless Tobacco

Smokeless tobacco comes in two forms:"snuff' and "chew." Snuff is finely ground to-bacco usually sold in tins, either loose or inpackets. It is held in the mouth between the lipor cheek and gums. Chew is a leafy form oftobacco, usually sold in pouches. It too is heldin the mouth and may, as the name suggests, bechewed. In both cases, nicotine is absorbed bythe mucous membranes of ,the mouth. Becausesmokeless tobacco stimulates saliva production,it is sometimes referred to as "spit" tobacco.

Trends in UseThe use of smokeless tobacco by teens hasbeen decreasing gradually from recent peaklevels in the mid-'90s, and the overall declineshave been substantial. Among 8th gradersthirty-day prevalence is down from a 1994 peakof 7.7% to 4.2% in 2000; 10th graders' use isdown from a 1994 peak of 10.5% to 6.1% in2000; and 12th graders' use is down from a1995 peak of 12.2% to 7.6% in 2000. Thesereflect relative declines from peak levels of45%, 42%, and 38%, respectively. One couldsay, more generally, that teen use of smokelesstobacco is down by about 40% from the peaklevels reached in the mid-'90s.

Thirty-day prevalence of daily use of smoke-less tobacco also has fallen gradually, but ap-preciably, in recent years. The daily usagerates in 2000 are 0.9%, 1.9%, and 3.2% ingrades 8, 10 arid 12. These are down by be-tween a quarter and a half from the peak levelsrecorded in the early '90s, with the greatestproportional decline in 8th grade and the leastin 12th.

It should be noted that smokeless tobacco useamong American young people is almost ex-clusively a male behavior. For example,among males the thirty-day prevalence rates in2000 are 6.7%, 11.4% and 14.4% in grades 8,

34.

10, and 12, respectively, versus 1.8%, 1.3%,and 1.3% among females. The current dailyuse rates for males are 1.5%, 3.9%, and 6.5%compared to 0.3%, 0.2%, and 0.4% for females.There are some other important demographicdifferences as well. Use tends to be muchhigher in the South and North Central regionsof the country than in the Northeast and West.It also tends to be more concentrated in non-metropolitan areas than metropolitan ones andto be negatively correlated with the educationlevel of the parents. Use is also much higheramong Whites than it is among African Ameri-cans or Hispanics.

Perceived RiskThe recent low point in the level of perceivedrisk for smokeless tobacco was 1995 in allthree grades. Since then there has been a grad-ual but substantial increase in proportion sayingthere is a great risk in using it regularlyamong 8th graders, from 34% to 39% in 2000;among 10th graders, from 38% to 47%; andamong 12th graders, from 33% to 42%. Theseincreases continued in 2000. It thus appearsthat one important reason for the appreciabledeclines in smokeless tobacco use during thelatter half of the '90s was the fact that an in-creasing proportion of young people were per-suaded of the dangers of using it.

DisapprovalOnly 8th and 10th graders are asked about theirpersonal disapproval of using smokeless to-bacco regularly. The recent low points for dis-approval in both grades were 1995 and 1996.Since 1996, disapproval has risen from 74% to79% among 8th graders and from 71% to 76%among 10th graders.

AvailabilityThere are no questions in the study concerningthe perceived availability of smokeless tobacco.

39

30

24

18

12

6

100

80

60

40

20

0

Smokeless Tobacco: Trends in 30-Day Use, Risk, Disapproval,and Availability

Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders

% who used in past 30 days

-0-Twelfth Grade

-a-Tenth Grade

Eighth Grade

'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

% disapproving of using regularly

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

4 0

% seeing "great risk" in using regularly

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year


(no data)

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Steroids

Unlike all of the other drugs discussed in thisvolume, anabolic steroids are not usually takenfor their psychoactive effects, but rather fortheir physical effects on the body, in particularfor their effects on muscle and strength devel-opment. They are similar to the other drugsstudied here, though, in that they are controlledsubstances for which there is an illicit marketand which can have adverse consequences forthe user. Questions about their use were addedto the study beginning in 1989. Respondentsare asked: "Steroids, or anabolic steroids, are-sometimes prescribed by doctors to promotehealing from certain types of injuries. Someathletes, and others, have used them to try toincrease muscle development. On how manyoccasions (if any) have you taken steroids onyour ownthat is, without a doctor telling youto take them...?"

Trends in UseSteroids are used predominately by males;therefore, data based on all respondents canmask the higher rates and larger fluctuationsthat occur among males. For example, in 2000the annual prevalence rates were two to fivetimes as high among males as among females.Boys' annual prevalence rates were 2.2%,3.6%, and 2.5% in grades 8, 10, and 12, com-pared with 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.9% for girls.Between 1991 and 1997 the overall annualprevalence rate was quite stable in 8th grade,ranging between 0.9% and 1.2%; and in 10thgrade it was similarly stable, ranging between1.0% and 1.2%. (See the first panel on thefacing page.) In 1999, however, use jumpedfrom 1.2% to 1.7% in 8th and 10th grades.Almost all of that increase occurred amongboys (increasing from 1.6% to 2.5% in 8thgrade and from 1.9% to 2.8% in 10th). In otherwords, the rates among boys increased by about

36

50% in a single year. In 12th grade there was adifferent trend story. With data going back to1989, we can see that steroid use first fell from1.9% overall in 1989 to 1.1% in 1992the lowpoint. From 1992-1999 there was a more grad-ual increase in use, reaching 1.7% in 2000. In2000 use continued to rise only among 10thgraders.

Perceived RiskPerceived risk and disapproval were asked onlyof 8th and 10th graders for a few years, beforethe space was allocated to other questions. Allgrades seemed to have a peak in perceived riskaround 1993. The longer-term data from 12thgraders, however, show a distinct drop since1998. This 10 percentage point drop is quiteunusual and highly significant, suggesting thatsome particular event (or events) in 1998changed beliefs about the dangers of steroids.(It seems likely that there was at least as large adrop in the lower grades, as well, where thesharp upturn in use occurred that year.)

DisapprovalDisapproval of steroid use has been quite highfor some years. (Along with the high levels ofperceived risk, disapproval rates no doubt helpto explain the low absolute prevalence rates.)There has been only slight falloff in disap-proval so far, "despite the decline in perceivedrisk.

AvailabilityPerceived availability is quite high for steroidsand considerably higher at the upper gradesthan in the lower ones. However, it should benoted that some over-the-counter substances,like androstenedione, are legally available to allage groups and are sold in-health food stores,drugstores, and even supermarkets.

41

Steroids: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders


1 00

80

60

40

20

0

76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 96 '98 '00

Year


76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year


1 00

80

60

40

20

0

'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 DO

Year


1 00

80

60

40

20

42

'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00

Year

Subgroup Differences

Space does not permit a full discussion or thedocumentation of the many subgroup differ-ences on the host of drugs covered in this re-port. However, the much longer versions ofVolume I in this same seriesboth the onepublished in 2000 and the one forthcoming in2001contain an extensive appendix with ta-bles giving the subgroup prevalence levels andtrends for nearly all of the classes of drugs dis-cussed here. Chapters 4 and 5 in those volumesalso present a more in-depth discussion and in-terpretation of those differences. Comparisonsare made by gender, college plans, region ofthe country, community size, socioeconomiclevel (as measured by the educational level ofthe parents), and race/ethnicity.

Gender. Generally, we have found males tohave somewhat higher rates of illicit drug usethan females (particularly higher rates of fre-quent use), much higher rates of smokeless to-bacco and steroid use, higher rates of heavydrinking, and roughly equivalent rates of ciga-rette smoking (though among 12th graders thetwo genders have reversed order twice duringthe life of the study). These differences appearto emerge as students grow older, since formany drugs these gender differences aresmaller or non-existent at the lower grade lev-els. Use of the various substances tends tomove pretty much in parallel across time forboth genders, although the absolute differencestend to be largest in the higher prevalence peri-ods.

College Plans. Those students who are notcollege-bound (a decreasing proportion of thetotal youth population) are considerably morelikely to be at risk for using illicit drugs, fordrinking heavily, and particularly for cigarettesmoking than are the college-bound. Again,these differences are largest in periods of high-est prevalence. In the lower grades, the collegebound showed a greater increase in cigarette

38

smoking in the early to mid-'90s than did theirnon-college-bound peers.

Region of the Country. The differences asso-ciated with region of the country are suffi-ciently varied and complex that we cannot dojustice to them here. In general, though, theNortheast and the West have tended to have thehighest proportions of students using any illicitdrug, and the South the lowest (though theserankings do not apply to many of the specificdrugs). In particular, the cocaine epidemic ofthe early '80s was much more pronounced inthe West and the Northeast than in the othertwo regions, though the differences decreasedas the overall epidemic subsided. While theSouth and the West once had lower rates ofdrinking among students than the other two re-gions had, those differences have narrowedsome in recent years. Cigarette smoking rateshave consistently been lowest in the West. Theupsurge of ecstasy use in 1999 occurred pri-marily in the Northeast, but that drug's new-found popularity spread to the three other re-gions of the country in 2000, while stabilizingin the Northeast.

Population Density. There have not been verylarge or consistent differences in overall illicitdrug use associated with population densityover the life of the study, which helps to dem-onstrate just how ubiquitous the illicit drugphenomenon has been in this country. In thelast few years, the use of a number of drugs hasdeclined more in the urban areas than in thenon-urban ones, leaving the non-urban areaswith higher rates of use. The upsurge in ec-stasy use in 1999 was largely concentrated inurban areas, but in 2000 use increased in com-munities of all sizes. Crack and heroin use arenot concentrated in urban areas, as is com-monly thought, meaning that no parents shouldassume their youngsters are immune to thesethreats simply because they do not live in acity.

4 3

Socioeconomic Level. For many drugs the dif-ferences in use by socioeconomic class are verysmall, and the trends have been highly parallel.One very interesting difference occurred forcocaine, which was positively associated withsocioeconomic level in the early '80s. That as-sociation had nearly disappeared by 1986,however, with the advent of crack, which of-fered cocaine at a lower price. Cigarettesmoking showed a similar narrowing of classdifferences, but this time it was a large negativeassociation with socioeconomic level that di-minished considerably, between roughly 1985and 1993. In more recent years that negativeassociation is re-emerging in the lower grades,as use declines faster among students frommore educated families. Rates of binge drink-ing are roughly equivalent across the classesand have been for some time among 12th grad-ers.

Race/Ethnicity. Among the most dramatic andinteresting subgroup differences are thosefound among the three largest racial/ethnicgroupsWhites, African Americans, and His-panics. Contrary to popular assumption, at allthree grade levels African American youngstershave substantially lower rates of use of most

licit and illicit drugs than do Whites. Theseinclude any illicit drug use, most of the specificillicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. In fact,African Americans' use of cigarettes is dra-matically lower than for Whites, and this is adifference that emerged largely during the lifeof the study (i.e., since 1975).

Hispanics have rates of use that tend to fallbetween the other two groups in 12th gradeusually closer to the rates for Whites than forBlacks. (Hispanics do have the highest re-ported rates of use for some drugs in 12thgradecrack and ecstasyand their level ofheroin use is equivalent to that of Whites.) Butin 8th grade they tend to come out highest ofthe three racial/ethnic groups on nearly allclasses of drugs, including alcohol (ampheta-mines being the major exception). One possi-ble explanation for this change in ranking be-tween 8th and 12th grade may lie in the factthat Hispanic youngsters have considerablyhigher school dropout rates. Thus, more of the"drug-prone" segment of that ethnic group mayleave school before 12th grade than in the othertwo racial/ethnic groups. Another explanationcould be that Hispanics are more precocious intheir initiation of these sorts of behaviors.

4439

45

TA

BL

E 1

Tre

nds

in L

ifet

ime

Prev

alen

ce o

f U

se o

f V

ario

us D

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

(Ent

ries

are

per

cent

ages

)

Lif

etim

e'9

9-'0

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

geA

ny I

llici

t Dru

g°8t

h G

rade

18.7

20.6

22.5

25.7

28.5

31.2

29.4

29.0

28.3

26.

8-1

.510

th G

rade

30.6

29.8

32.8

37.4

40.9

45.4

47.3

44.9

46.2

45.6

-0.6

12th

Gra

de44

.140

.742

.945

.648

.450

.854

.354

.154

.754

.0-0

.7

Any

Illi

cit D

rug

Oth

er T

han

Mar

ijuan

a°8t

h G

rade

14.3

15.6

16.8

17.5

18.8

19.2

17.7

16.9

16.3

15.8

-0.6

10th

Gra

de19

.119

.220

.921

.724

.325

.525

.023

.624

.023

.1-0

.912

th G

rade

26.9

25.1

26.7

27.6

28.1

28.5

30.0

29.4

29.4

29.0

-0.3

Any

Illi

cit D

rug

Incl

udin

g In

hala

nteb

8th

Gra

de28

.529

.632

.335

.138

.139

.438

.137

.837

.235

.1-2

.010

th G

rade

36.1

36.2

38.7

42.7

45.9

49.8

50.9

49.3

49.9

49.3

-0.6

12th

Gra

de47

.644

.446

.649

.151

.553

.556

.356

.156

.357

.0+

0.8

Mar

ijuan

a/H

ashi

sh8t

h G

rade

10.2

11.2

12.6

16.7

19.9

23.1

22.6

22.2

22.0

20.3

-1.8

10th

Gra

de23

.421

.424

.430

.434

.139

.842

.339

.640

.940

.3-0

.712

th G

rade

36.7

32.6

35.3

38.2

41.7

44.9

49.6

49.1

49.7

48.8

-0.9

Inha

lant

sb.`

8th

Gra

de17

.617

.419

.419

.921

.621

.221

.020

.519

.717

.9-1

.8s

10th

Gra

de15

.716

.617

.518

.019

.019

.318

.318

.317

.016

.6-0

.412

th G

rade

17.6

16.6

17.4

17.7

17.4

16.6

16.1

15.2

15.4

14.2

-1.2

Nitr

itesd

8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

12th

Gra

de1.

61.

51.

41.

71.

51.

82.

02.

71.

70.

8-0

.8

Hal

luci

noge

ns'

8th

Gra

de3.

23.

83.

94.

35.

25.

95.

44.

94.

84.

6-0

.110

th G

rade

6.1

6.4

6.8

8.1

9.3

10.5

10.5

9.8

9.7

8.9

-0.8

12th

Gra

de9.

69.

210

.911

.412

.714

.015

.114

.113

.713

.0-0

.7L

SD 8th

Gra

de2.

73.

23.

53.

74.

45.

14.

74.

14.

13.

9-0

.210

th G

rade

5.6

5.8

6.2

7.2

8.4

9.4

9.5

8.5

8.5

7.6

-1.0

12th

Gra

de8.

88.

610

.310

.511

.712

.613

.612

.612

.211

.1-1

.1

Hal

luci

noge

nsO

ther

Tha

n L

SD8t

h G

rade

1.4

1.7

1.7

2.2

2.5

3.0

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

L0.

110

th G

rade

2.2

2.5

2.8

3.8

3.9

4.7

4.8

5.0

4.7

4.8

+0.

112

th G

rade

3.7

3.3

3.9

4.9

5.4

6.8

7.5

7.1

6.7

6.9

+0.

2PC

Pd8t

h G

rade

10th

Gra

de12

th G

rade

2.9

2.4

2.9

2.8

2.7

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.4

3.4

-0.1

(Tab

le c

ontin

ued

on n

ext p

age)

46

TA

BL

E 1

(co

nt.)

Tre

nds

in L

ifet

ime

Prev

alen

ce o

f U

se o

f V

ario

us D

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Lif

etim

e'9

9-'0

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

geM

DM

A (

Ecs

tasy

) .

8th

Gra

de-

--

-3.

43.

22.

72.

74.

3 +

1.6s

s10

th G

rade

--

-5.

65.

75.

16.

07.

3+

1.3

12th

Gra

de-

--

-6.

16.

95.

88.

011

.0+

3.0s

Coc

aine

8th

Gra

de2.

32.

92.

93.

64.

24.

54.

44.

64.

74.

5-0

.210

th G

rade

4.1

3.3

3.6

4.3

5.0

6.5

7.1

7.2

7.7

6.9

-0.9

12th

Gra

de7.

86.

16.

15.

96.

07.

18.

79.

39.

88.

6-1

.2C

rack 8th

Gra

de1.

31.

61.

72.

42.

72.

92.

73.

23.

13.

10.

0,

10th

Gra

de1.

71.

51.

82.

12.

83.

33.

63.

94.

03.

7-0

.312

th G

rade

3.1

2.6

2.6

3.0

3.0

3.3

3.9

4.4

4.6

3.9

-0.7

sO

ther

Coc

aine

'8t

h G

rade

2.0

2.4

2.4

3.0

3.4

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.5

-0.3

10th

Gra

de3.

83.

03.

33.

84.

45.

56.

16.

46.

86.

0-0

.812

th G

rade

7.0

5.3

5.4

5.2

5.1

6.4

8.2

8.4

8.8

7.7

-1.1

Her

oing

8th

Gra

de1.

21.

41.

42.

02.

32.

42.

12.

32.

31.

9-0

.410

th G

rade

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.5

1.7

2.1

2.1

2.3

2.3

2.2

-0.1

12th

Gra

de0.

91.

21.

11.

21.

61.

82.

12.

02.

02.

4+

0.4

With

a n

eedl

eb8t

h G

rade

--

--

1.5

1.6

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.1

-0.5

ss10

th G

rade

--

-1.

01.

11.

11.

21.

31.

0-0

.212

th G

rade

--

-0.

70.

80.

90.

80.

90.

8-0

.1W

ithou

t a n

eedl

e'8t

h G

rade

--

-1.

51.

61.

41.

51.

41.

3-0

.110

th G

rade

--

1.1

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.7

0.0

12th

Gra

de-

-1.

41.

72.

11.

61.

82.

4+

0.6

Oth

er N

arco

tics'

8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

12th

Gra

de6.

66.

16.

46.

67.

28.

29.

79.

810

.210

.6+

0.4

Am

phet

amin

es'

8th

Gra

de10

.510

.811

.812

.313

.113

.512

.311

.310

.79.

9-0

.810

th G

rade

13.2

13.1

14.9

15.1

17.4

17.7

17.0

16.0

15.7

15.7

+0.

112

th G

rade

15.4

13.9

15.1

15.7

15.3

15.3

16.5

16.4

16.3

15.6

-0.7

Met

ham

phet

amin

e''k

8th

Gra

de-

--

--

4.5

4.2

-0.3

10th

Gra

de-

--

--

-7.

36.

9-0

.512

th G

rade

--

--

--

8.2

7.9

-0.3

(Tab

le c

ontin

ued

on n

ext p

age)

4748

TA

BL

E 1

(co

nt.)

Tre

nds

in L

ifet

ime

Prev

alen

ce o

f U

se o

f V

ario

us I

:Dru

gs f

or E

ight

h, T

enth

, and

Tw

elft

h G

rade

rsL

ifet

ime

'99-

'00

kek

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

0 ch

ange

8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

12th

Gra

de3.

32.

93.

13.

43.

94.

44.

45.

34.

84.

0-0

.8

Bar

bitu

rate

s'8t

h G

rade

10th

Gra

de12

th G

rade

6.2

5.5

6.3

7.0

7.4

7.6

8.1

8.7

8.9

9.2

+0.

2

Tra

nqui

lizer

s'8t

h G

rade

3.8

4.1

4.4

4.6

4.5

5.3

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.4

0.0

10th

Gra

de5.

85.

95.

75.

46.

07.

17.

37.

87.

98.

0+

0.1

12th

Gra

de7.

26.

06.

46.

67.

17.

27.

88.

59.

38.

9-0

.5

Roh

ypno

ld'I

8th

Gra

de1.

51.

11.

41.

31.

0-0

.310

th G

rade

--

-1.

51.

72.

01.

81.

3-0

.512

th G

rade

1.2

1.8

3.0

2.0

1.5

-0.6

Alc

ohol

mA

ny u

se8t

h G

rade

70.1

69.3

67.1

--

--

--

--

55.7

55.8

54.5

55.3

53.8

52.5

52.1

51.7

-0.4

10th

Gra

de83

.882

.380

.8-

-71

.671

.170

.571

.872

.069

.870

.671

.4+

0.9

12th

Gra

de88

.087

.587

.0-

--

--

-80

.080

.480

.779

.281

.781

.480

.080

.3+

0.2

Bee

n D

runk

'8t

h G

rade

26.7

26.8

26.4

25.9

25.3

26.8

25.2

24.8

24.8

25.1

+0.

310

th G

rade

50.0

47.7

47.9

47.2

46.9

48.5

49.4

46.7

48.9

49.3

+0.

412

th G

rade

65.4

63.4

62.5

62.9

63.2

61.8

64.2

62.4

62.3

62.3

0.0

Cig

aret

tes

Any

use

8th

Gra

de44

.045

.245

.346

.146

.449

.247

.345

.744

.140

.5-3

.6ss

s10

th G

rade

55.1

53.5

56.3

56.9

57.6

61.2

60.2

57.7

57.6

55.1

-2.5

s12

th G

rade

63.1

61.8

61.9

62.0

64.2

63.5

65.4

65.3

64.6

62.5

-2.1

Smok

eles

s T

obac

cee

8th

Gra

de22

.220

.718

.719

.920

.020

.416

.815

.014

.412

.8-1

.610

th G

rade

28.2

26.6

28.1

29.2

27.6

27.4

26.3

22.7

20.4

19.1

-1.3

12th

Gra

de32

.431

.030

.730

.929

.825

.326

.223

.423

.1-0

.4

Ster

oids

k8t

h G

rade

1.9

1.7

1.6

2.0

2.0

1.8

1.8

2.3

2.7

3.0

+0.

310

th G

rade

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.8

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.7

3.5

+0.

8ss

12th

Gra

de2.

12.

12.

02.

42.

31.

92.

42.

72.

92.

5-0

.4

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es:

s =

.05,

ss

= .0

1, s

ss =

.001

.in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

to r

ound

ing

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.

TA

BL

E 2

Tre

nds

in A

nnua

l and

30-

Day

Pre

vale

nce

of U

se o

f V

ario

usD

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Ann

ual

'99-

'00

30-D

ay'9

9-'0

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

ge19

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

geA

ny I

llici

t Dru

gs8t

h G

rade

11.3

12.9

15.1

18.5

21.4

23.6

22.1

21.0

20.5

19.5

-1.1

5.7

6.8

8.4

10.9

12.4

14.6

12.9

12.1

12.2

11.9

-0.4

10th

Gra

de21

.420

.424

.730

.033

.337

.538

.535

.035

.9 3

6.4

+0.

511

.611

.014

.018

.520

.223

.223

.021

.522

.122

.5+

0.4

12th

Gra

de29

.427

.131

.035

.839

.040

.242

.441

.442

.140

.9-1

.216

.414

.418

.321

.923

.824

.626

.225

.625

.9 2

4.9

-1.0

Any

Illi

cit D

rug

Oth

er T

han

Mar

ijuan

a°8t

h G

rade

8.4

9.3

10.4

11.3

12.6

13.1

11.8

11.0

10.5

10.2

-0.4

3.8

4.7

5.3

5.6

6.5

6.9

6.0

5.5

5.5

5.6

+0.

110

th G

rade

12.2

12.3

13.9

15.2

17.5

18.4

18.2

16.6

16.7

16.7

0.0

5.5

5.7

6.5

7.1

8.9

8.9

8.8

8.6

8.6

8.5

-0.1

12th

Gra

de16

.214

.917

.118

.019

.419

.820

.720

.220

.720

.4-0

.37.

16.

37.

98.

810

.09.

510

.710

.710

.410

.40.

0A

ny I

llici

t Dru

gIn

clud

ing

Inha

lant

s*.b

8th

Gra

de16

.718

.221

.124

.227

.128

.727

.226

.225

.324

.0-1

.48.

810

.012

.014

.316

.117

.516

.014

.915

.114

.4-0

.710

th G

rade

23.9

23.5

27.4

32.5

35.6

39.6

40.3

37.1

37.7

38.0

+0.

313

.112

.615

.520

.021

.624

.524

.122

.523

.123

.6+

0.5

12th

Gra

de31

.228

.832

.537

.640

.241

.943

.342

.442

.842

.5-0

.317

.815

.519

.323

.024

.825

.626

.926

.626

.426

.40.

0M

ariju

ana/

Has

hish

8th

Gra

de6.

27.

29.

213

.015

.818

.317

.716

.916

.515

.6-0

.93.

23.

75.

17.

89.

111

.310

.29.

79.

79.

1-0

.610

th G

rade

16.5

15.2

19.2

25.2

28.7

33.6

34.8

31.1

32.1

32.2

+0.

28.

78.

110

.915

.817

.220

.420

.518

.719

.419

.7+

0.3

12th

Gra

de23

.921

.926

.030

.734

.735

.838

.537

.537

.836

.5-1

.313

.811

.915

.519

.021

.221

.923

.722

.823

.121

.6-1

.6In

hala

nte.

`8t

h G

rade

9.0

9.5

11.0

11.7

12.8

12.2

11.8

11.1

10.3

9.4

-0.9

4.4

4.7

5.4

5.6

6.1

5.8

5.6

4.8

5.0

4.5

-0.5

10th

Gra

de7.

17.

58.

49.

19.

69.

58.

78.

07.

27.

3+

0.1

2.7

2.7

3.3

3.6

3.5

3.3

3.0

2.9

2.6

2.6

0.0

12th

Gra

de6.

66.

27.

07.

78.

07.

66.

76.

25.

65.

9+

0.3

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.7

3.2

2.6

2.5

2.3

2.0

2.2

+0.

2N

itrite

sd. 8

th G

rade

10th

Gra

de-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

- -

-12

th G

rade

0.9

0.5

0.9

1.1

1.1

1.6

1.2

1.4

0.9

0.6

-0.3

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.7

1.0

0.4

0.3

-0.1

Hal

luci

noge

ns'

8th

Gra

de1.

92.

52.

62.

73.

64.

13.

73.

42.

92.

80.

00.

81.

11.

21.

31.

71.

91.

81.

41.

31.

2-0

.110

th G

rade

4.0

4.3

4.7

5.8

7.2

7.8

7.6

6.9

6.9

6.1

-0.9

1.6

1.8

1.9

2.4

3.3

2.8

3.3

3.2

2.9

2.3

-0.6

s12

th G

rade

5.8

5.9

7.4

7.6

9.3

10.1

9.8

9.0

9.4

8.1

-1.3

s2.

22.

12.

73.

14.

43.

53.

93.

83.

52.

6-0

.9ss

LSD 8t

h G

rade

1.7

2.1

2.3

2.4

3.2

3.5

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.4

+0.

10.

60.

91.

01.

11.

41.

51.

51.

11.

11.

0-0

.110

th G

rade

3.7

4.0

4.2

5.2

6.5

6.9

6.7

5.9

6.0

5.1

-0.9

1.5

1.6

1.6

2.0

3.0

2.4

2.8

2.7

2.3

1.6

-0.7

ss12

th G

rade

5.2

5.6

6.8

6.9

8.4

8.8

8.4

7.6

8.1

6.6

-1.5

s1.

92.

02.

42.

64.

02.

53.

13.

22.

71.

6-1

.2ss

sH

allu

cino

gens

Oth

er T

han

LSD

8th

Gra

de0.

71.

11.

01.

31.

72.

01.

81.

61.

51.

4-0

.10.

30.

40.

50.

70.

80.

90.

70.

70.

60.

6+

0.1

10th

Gra

de1.

31.

41.

92.

42.

83.

33.

33.

43.

23.

1-0

.10.

40.

50.

71.

01.

01.

01.

21.

41.

21.

20.

012

th G

rade

2.0

1.7

2.2

3.1

3.8

4.4

4.6

4.6

4.3

4.4

+0.

10.

70.

50.

81.

21.

31.

61.

71.

61.

61.

7+

0.1

(Tab

le c

ontin

ued

on n

est p

age)

5152

53

TA

BL

E 2

(co

nt.)

Tre

nds

in A

nnua

l and

30-

Day

Pre

vale

nce

of U

se o

f V

ario

us D

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Ann

ual

'99-

'00

30-D

ay'9

9-'0

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

ge19

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99 2

000

chan

gePC

PI8t

h G

rade

10th

Gra

de12

th G

rade

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.6

2.3

2.1

1.8

2.3

+0.

50.

50.

61.

00.

70.

61.

30.

71.

00.

80.

9 +

0.1

MD

MA

(E

csta

sy)d

''8t

h G

rade

--

--

2.3

2.3

1.8

1.7

3.1

+1.

4sss

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

1.4

+0.

7ss

10th

Gra

de-

4.6

3.9

3.3

4.4

5.4

+1.

0-

--

1.8

1.3

1.3

1.8

2.6

+0.

8s12

th G

rade

-4.

64.

03.

65.

68.

2 +

2.6s

s-

--

-2.

01.

61.

52.

53.

6 +

1.1

Coc

aine

8th

Gra

de1.1

1.5

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.0

2.8

3.1

2.7

2.6

-0.1

0.5

0.7

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.1

1.4

1.3

1.2

-0.1

10th

Gra

de2.2

1.9

2.1

2.8

3.5

4.2

4.7

4.7

4.9

4.4

-0.5

0.7

0.7

0.9

1.2

1.7

1.7

2.0

2.1

1.8

1.8

-0.1

12th

Gra

de3.5

3.1

3.3

3.6

4!0

4.9

5.5

5.7

6.2

5.0

-1.3s

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.4

2.6

2.1

-0.5

Cra

ck 8th

Gra

de0.

70.

91.

01.

31.

61.

81.

72.

11.

81.

80.

00.

30.

50.

40.

70.

70.

80.

70.

90.

80.

8-0

.110

th G

rade

0.9

0.9

1.1

1.4

1.8

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.4

2.2

-0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.8

0.9

1.1

0.8

0.9

+0.

112

th G

rade

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.9

2.1

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.7

2.2

-0.5

s0.

70.

60.

70.

81.

01.

00.

91.

01.

11.

0-0

.1

Oth

er C

ocai

ne`

8th

Gra

de1.0

1.2

1.3

1.7

2.1

2.5

2.2

2.4

2.3

1.9

-0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.8

1.0

1.1

0.9

-0.2

10th

Gra

de2.1

1.7

1.8

2.4

3.0

3.5

4.1

4.0

4.4

3.8

-0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

1.0

1.4

1.3

1.6

1.8

1.6

1.6

0.0

12th

Gra

de3.2

2.6

2.9

3.0

3.4

4.2

5.0

4.9

5.8

4.5

-1.4s

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.6

2.0

2.0

2.5

1.7

-0.7s

Her

oing

8th

Gra

de0.

70.

70.

71.

21.

41.

61.

31.

31.

41.

1-0

.3s

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

-0.2

10th

Gra

de0.

50.

60.

70.

91.

11.

21.

41.

41.

41.

40.

00.

20.

20.

30.

40.

60.

50.

60.

70.

70.

5-0

.212

th G

rade

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.6

1.1

1.0

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.5

+0.

4s0.

20.

30.

20.

30.

60.

50.

50.

50.

50.

7 +

0.2

With

a n

eedl

eh8t

h G

rade

--

--

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.6

-0.3

ss-

-0.

40.

50.

40.

50.

40.

3-0

.110

th G

rade

--

--

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.5

-0.1

--

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.3

-0.1

12th

Gra

de-

--

-0.

50.

50.

50.

40.

40.

40.

00.

30.

40.

30.

20.

20.

20.

0W

ithou

t a n

eedl

eh8t

h G

rade

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.7

-0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.3

-0.1

10th

Gra

de0.

80.

91.

11.

01.

11.

10.

00.

30.

30.

40.

50.

50.

4-0

.212

th G

rade

--

-1.

01.

01.

20.

81.

01.

6 +

0.6s

s-

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.7

+0.

3O

ther

Nar

cotic

s'8t

h G

rade

10th

Gra

de12

th G

rade

3.5

3.3

3.6

3.8

4.7

5.4

6.2

6.3

6.7

7.0

+0.

31.

11.

21.

31.

51.

82.

02.

32.

42.

62.

9 +

0.3

Am

phet

amin

es'

8th

Gra

de6.

26.

57.

27.

98.

79.

18.

17.

26.

96.

5-0

.42.

63.

33.

63.

64.

24.

63.

83.

33.

43.

4 +

0.1

10th

Gra

de8.

28.

29.

610

.211

.912

.412

.110

.710

.411

.1 +

0.7

3.3

3.6

4.3

4.5

5.3

5.5

5.1

5.1

5.0

5.4

+0.

512

th G

rade

8.2

7.1

8.4

9.4

9.3

9.5

10.2

10.1

10.2

10.5

+0.

33.

22.

83.

74.

04.

04.

14.

84.

64.

55.

0 +

0.5

(Table continued on next page)

TA

BL

E 2

(co

nt.)

Tre

nds

in A

nnua

l and

30-

Day

Pre

vale

nce

of U

se o

f V

ario

usD

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Aimgd

'99-

'00

30-D

ay'9

9-20

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

981222

2000

cha

nge

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

192a

1999

200

0 ch

ange

Met

ham

phet

amin

ehk

8th

Gra

de3.

22.

5-0

.71.

10.

8-0

.310

th G

rade

4.6

4.0

-0.6

1.8

2.0

+0.

212

th G

rade

4.7

4.3

-0.3

1.7

1.9

+0.

2Ic

e' 8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

--

--

--

--

- -

--

--

--

--

--

--

12th

Gra

de1.

41.

31.

71.

82.

42.

82.

33.

01.

92.

2+

0.3

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.7

1.1

1.1

0.8

1.2

0.8

1.0

+0.

2B

arbi

tura

tes"

8th

Gra

de-

--

--

--

--

--

10th

Gra

de-

--

--

--

--

--

12th

Gra

de3.

42.

83.

44.

14.

74.

95.

15.

55.

86.

2+

0.4

1.4

1.1

1.3

1.7

2.2

2.1

2.1

2.6

2.6

3.0

+0.

4T

ranq

uiliz

ers"

8th

Gra

de1.

82.

02.

12.

42.

73.

32.

92.

62.

52.

6+

0.2

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.5

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.4

+0.

310

th G

rade

3.2

3.5

3.3

3.3

4.0

4.6

4.9

5.1

5.4

5.6

+0.

21.

21.

51.

11.

51.

71.

72.

22.

22.

22.

5+

0.4

12th

Gra

de3.

62.

83.

53.

74.

44.

64.

75.

55.

85.

7-0

.11.

41.

01.

21.

41.

82.

01.

82.

42.

52.

6+

0.1

Roh

ypno

ld'k

8th

Gra

de1.

00.

80.

80.

50.

5+

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.0

10th

Gra

de1.

11.

31.

21.

00.

8-0

.30.

50.

50.

40.

50.

4-0

.212

th G

rade

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.0

0.8

-0.2

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

+0.

1G

HW

A 8th

Gra

de1.

2-

10th

Gra

de1.

1-

12th

Gra

de1.

9-

Ket

amin

e8t

h G

rade

1.6

-10

th G

rade

2.1

-12

th G

rade

2.5

-A

lcoh

ol'

Any

use

8th

Gra

de54

.053

.751

.6-

--

--

- -

-25

.126

.126

.2-

--

--

--

-45

.446

.845

.346

.545

.543

.743

.543

.1-0

.424

.325

.524

.626

.224

.523

.024

.022

.4-1

.710

th G

rade

72.3

70.2

69.3

--

--

--

--

42.8

39.9

41.5

--

--

--

--

63.4

63.9

63.5

65.0

65.2

62.7

63.7

65.3

+1.

638

.239

.238

.840

.440

.138

.840

.041

.0+

0.9

12th

Gra

de77

.776

.876

.0-

--

--

- -

-54

.051

.351

.0-

--

--

--

-72

.773

.073

.772

.574

.874

.373

.873

.2-0

.648

.650

.151

.350

.852

.752

.051

.050

.0-1

.0B

een

Dru

nki

8th

Gra

de17

.518

.318

.218

.218

.419

.818

.417

.918

.518

.50.

07.

67.

57.

88.

78.

39.

68.

28.

49.

48.

3-1

.110

th G

rade

40.1

37.0

37.8

38.0

38.5

40.1

40.7

38.3

40.9

41.6

+0.

720

.518

.119

.820

.320

.821

.322

.421

.122

.523

.5+

1.0

12th

Gra

de52

.750

.349

.651

.752

.551

.953

.252

.053

.251

.8-1

.431

.629

.928

.930

.833

.231

.334

.232

.932

.932

.3-0

.6

(Tab

le c

ontin

ued

on n

ext p

age)

5556

Cig

aret

tes

Any

use

8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

12th

Gra

deB

idis

bk

TA

BL

E 2

(co

nt.)

Tre

nds

in A

nnua

l and

30-

Day

Pre

vale

nce

of U

se o

f V

ario

us D

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Ann

ual

30-D

ay'9

9-'0

0'9

9-'0

019

91 1

992

1993

199

4 19

95 1

996

1997

199

8 19

99 2

000

chan

ge19

91 1

992

1993

199

4 19

95 1

996

1997

199

8 19

99 2

000

chan

ge

14.3

15.5

16.7

18.6

19.1

21.0

19.4

19.1

17.5

14.6

-2.8

sss

20.8

21.5

24.7

25.4

27.9

30.4

29.8

27.6

25.7

23.9

-1.8

28.3

27.8

29.9

31.2

33.5

34.

0 36

.535

.134

.631

.4-3

.2ss

8th

Gra

de-

3.9

-10

th G

rade

-6.

4-

12th

Gra

de-

9.2

-Sm

okel

ess

Tob

acco

d8t

h G

rade

6.9

7.0

6.6

7.7

7.1

7.1

5.5

4.8

4.5

4.2

-0.3

10th

Gra

de10

.09.

610

.410

.59.

78.

68.

97.

56.

56.

1-0

.512

th G

rade

-11

.410

.711

.112

.29.

89.

78.

88.

47.

6-0

.7

Ster

oid&

8th

Gra

de1.

01.

10.

91.

21.

00.

91.

01.

21.

71.

70.

00.

40.

50.

50.

50.

60.

40.

50.

50.

70.

8 +

0.1

10th

Gra

de1.

11.

11.

01.

11.

21.

21.

21.

21.

72.

2+

0.5s

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.9

1.0

0.0

12th

Gra

de1.

41.

11.

21.

31.

51.

41.

41.

71.

81.

7-0

.10.

80.

60.

70.

90.

70.

71.

01.

10.

90.

8-0

.1

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es: s

= .0

5, s

s =

.01,

sss

=. 0

01.

'-' in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.Se

e T

able

1 f

or r

elev

ant f

ootn

otes

.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

to r

ound

ing

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.

57

TA

BL

E 3

Tre

nds

in 3

0-D

ay P

reva

lenc

e of

Dai

ly U

se o

f V

ario

usD

rugs

for

Eig

hth,

Ten

th, a

nd T

wel

fth

Gra

ders

Mar

ijuan

a/H

ashi

sh, d

aily

"1.

391

1992

1993

1994

1995

Dai

ly

1997

1998

19.9

.9_

2.9_

2Q'9

9-'0

0ch

ange

1996

8th

Gra

de0.

20.

20.

40.

70.

81.

51.

11.

11.

41.

30.

010

th G

rade

0.8

0.8

1.0

2.2

2.8

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.8

3.8

0.0

12th

Gra

de2.

01.

92.

43.

64.

64.

95.

85.

66.

06.

00.

0A

lcoh

olm

."A

ny d

aily

use

8th

Gra

de0.

50.

60.

8-

--

--

--

1.0

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.8

-0.3

s10

th G

rade

1.3

1.2

1.6

--

--

--

-1.

81.

71.

71.

61.

71.

91.

91.

8-0

.112

th G

rade

3.6

3.4

2.5

--

--

--

3.4

2.9

3.5

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.4

2.9

-0.4

Bee

n D

runk

, dai

lyk

8th

Gra

de0.

10.

10.

20.

30.

20.

20.

20.

30.

40.

3-0

.110

th G

rade

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.5

-0.2

12th

Gra

de0.

90.

80.

91.

21.

31.

62.

01.

51.

91.

7-0

.25+

dri

nks

in a

row

in la

st 2

wee

ks8t

h G

rade

12.9

13.4

13.5

14.5

14.5

15.6

14.5

13.7

15.2

14.1

-1.1

10th

Gra

de22

.921

.123

.023

.624

.024

.825

.124

.325

.626

.2+

0.6

12th

Gra

de29

.827

.927

.528

.229

.830

.231

.331

.530

.830

.0-0

.8C

igar

ette

sA

ny d

aily

use

8th

Gra

de7.

27.

08.

38.

89.

310

.49.

08.

88.

17.

4-0

.710

th G

rade

12.6

12.3

14.2

14.6

16.3

18.3

18.0

15.8

15.9

14.0

-1.9

s12

th G

rade

18.5

17.2

19.0

19.4

21.6

22.2

24.6

22.4

23.1

20.6

-2.5

s1/

2 pa

ck+

/day

8th

Gra

de3.

12.

93.

53.

63.

44.

33.

53.

63.

32.

8-0

.510

th G

rade

6.5

6.0

7.0

7.6

8.3

9.4

8.6

7.9

7.6

6.2

-1.4

ss12

th G

rade

10.7

10.0

10.9

11.2

12.4

13.0

14.3

12.6

13.2

11.3

-1.9

ssSm

okel

ess

Tob

acco

,8t

h G

rade

-1.

61.

81.

51.

91.

21.

51.

01.

00.

90.

90.

010

th G

rade

3.3

3.0

3.3

3.0

2.7

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.5

1.9

+0.

312

th G

rade

-4.

33.

33.

93.

63.

34.

43.

22.

93.

2+

0.3

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es:

s =

.05

ss =

.01,

sss

=. 0

01. "

- in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.Se

e T

dble

1 f

or r

elev

ant f

ootn

otes

.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

to r

ound

ing

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.

'6 0

Foot

note

s fo

r T

able

1 to

Tab

le 3

App

roxi

mat

e W

eigh

ted

Ns

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

8th

Gra

de17

,500

18,6

0018

,300

17,3

0017

,500

17,8

0018

,600

18,1

0016

,700

16,7

0010

th G

rade

14,8

0014

,800

15,3

0015

,800

17,0

0015

,600

15,5

0015

,000

13,6

0014

,300

12th

Gra

de15

,000

15,8

0016

,300

15,4

0015

,400

14,3

0015

,400

15,2

0013

,600

12,8

00

Tor

12t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: U

se o

f "a

ny il

licit

drug

" in

clud

es a

ny u

se o

f m

ariju

ana,

LSD

, oth

er h

allu

cino

gens

, cra

ck, o

ther

coc

aine

, or

hero

in, o

r an

y us

eof

oth

er n

arco

tics,

am

phet

amin

es, b

arbi

tura

tes,

or

tran

quili

zers

not

und

er a

doc

tor's

ord

ers.

For

8th

and

10t

h gr

ader

s: T

he u

se o

f ot

her

narc

otic

san

d ba

rbitu

rate

s ha

s be

en e

xclu

ded,

bec

ause

thes

e yo

unge

r re

spon

dent

s ap

pear

to o

verr

epor

t use

(pe

rhap

s be

caus

e th

ey in

clud

e th

e us

e of

nonp

resc

ript

ion

drug

s in

thei

r an

swer

s).

bFor

12t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

fiv

e of

six

for

ms

in 1

991-

98; N

is f

ive-

sixt

hs o

f N

indi

cate

d. B

egin

ning

in 1

999,

dat

a ba

sed

onth

ree

of s

ixfo

rms;

N is

thre

e-si

xths

of

N in

dica

ted.

`Inh

alan

ts a

re u

nadj

uste

d fo

r un

derr

epor

ting

of a

myl

and

but

yl n

itrite

s; h

allu

cino

gens

are

una

djus

ted

for

unde

rrep

ortin

g of

PC

P.dF

or 1

2th

grad

ers

only

: Dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne f

orm

; N is

one

-six

th o

f N

indi

cate

d.

eFor

8th

and

10t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: M

DM

A d

ata

base

d on

one

for

m in

199

6; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d. B

egin

ning

in 1

997,

dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne-t

hird

of

N in

dica

ted

due

to c

hang

es o

n th

e qu

estio

nnai

re f

orm

s. S

mok

eles

s to

bacc

o da

ta b

ased

on

one

of tw

o fo

rms

for

1991

-96

and

on tw

o of

fou

rfor

ms

begi

nnin

g in

199

7; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d.

Tor

12t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

fou

r of

six

for

ms;

N is

fou

r-si

xths

of

N in

dica

ted.

gIn

1995

, the

her

oin

ques

tion

was

cha

nged

in th

ree

of s

ix f

orm

s fo

r 12

th g

rade

rs a

nd in

one

of

two

form

s fo

r 8t

h an

d 10

thgr

ader

s. S

epar

ate

ques

tions

wer

e as

ked

for

use

with

inje

ctio

n an

d w

ithou

t inj

ectio

n. D

ata

pres

ente

d he

re r

epre

sent

the

com

bine

d da

ta f

rom

all

form

s. I

n 19

96, t

hehe

roin

que

stio

n w

as c

hang

ed in

all

rem

aini

ng 8

th a

nd 1

0th

grad

e fo

rms.

'For

8th

and

10t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

one

of

two

form

s in

199

5; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d. F

or 1

2th

grad

ers

only

:D

ata

base

d on

thre

eof

six

for

ms;

N is

thre

e-si

xths

of

N in

dica

ted.

'Onl

y dr

ug u

se w

hich

was

not

und

er a

doc

tor's

ord

ers

is in

clud

ed h

ere.

iFor

8th

and

10t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

one

of

four

for

ms;

N is

one

-thi

rd o

f N

indi

cate

d.

'For

12t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

two

of s

ix f

orm

s; N

is tw

o-si

xths

of

N in

dica

ted.

'For

8th

and

10t

h gr

ader

s on

ly: D

ata

base

d on

one

of

two

form

s in

199

6-97

; N is

one

-hal

f of

N in

dica

ted.

Dat

a ba

sed

on th

ree

of f

our

form

s in

199

8;N

is tw

o-th

irds

of

N in

dica

ted.

Beg

inni

ng in

199

9, d

ata

base

d on

two

of f

our

form

s; N

is o

ne-t

hird

of

N in

dica

ted.

"'Fo

r al

l gra

des:

In

1993

, the

que

stio

n te

xt w

as c

hang

ed s

light

ly in

hal

f of

the

form

s to

indi

cate

that

a "

drin

k" m

eant

"m

ore

than

afe

w s

ips.

" T

heda

ta in

the

uppe

r lin

e fo

r al

coho

l cam

e fr

om f

orm

s us

ing

the

orig

inal

wor

ding

, whi

le th

e da

ta in

the

low

er li

ne c

ame

from

for

ms

usin

gth

e re

vise

dw

ordi

ng. I

n 19

93, e

ach

line

of d

ata

was

bas

ed o

n on

e of

two

form

s fo

r th

e 8t

h an

d 10

th g

rade

rs a

nd o

n th

ree

of s

ixfo

rms

for

the

12th

gra

ders

. N is

one-

half

of

N in

dica

ted

for

all g

roup

s. B

egin

ning

in 1

994,

dat

a w

ere

base

d on

all

form

s fo

r al

l gra

des.

"Dai

ly u

se is

def

ined

as

use

on tw

enty

or

mor

e oc

casi

ons

in th

e pa

st th

irty

day

s ex

cept

for

cig

aret

tes

and

smok

eles

s to

bacc

o, f

or w

hich

act

ual d

aily

use

is m

easu

red,

and

for

5+

dri

nks,

for

whi

ch th

e pr

eval

ence

or

havi

ng f

ive

or m

ore

drin

ks in

a r

ow in

the

last

two

wee

ksis

mea

sure

d.

62

Tm

erad

o fu

m E

lgar

met

anha

em o

f Dam

p

How

muc

h do

you

thin

k pe

ople

risk

har

min

g th

emse

lves

(phy

sica

lly o

r in

oth

er w

ays)

, if

'99-

'00

they

..

.19

9119

9219

93 1

994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

cha

nge

Try

mar

ijuan

a on

ce o

r tw

ice

40.4

39.

1 36

.2 3

1.6

28.9

27.

9 25

.3 2

8.1

28.0

29.

0 +

0.9

Smok

e m

ariju

ana

occa

sion

ally

57.

9 56

.3 5

3.8

48.6

45.

9 44

.3 4

3.1

45.0

45.

7 47

.4 +

1.8

Smok

e m

ariju

ana

regu

larl

y83

.8 8

2.0

79.6

74.

3 73

.0 7

0.9

72.7

73.

0 73

.3 7

4.8

+1.

4T

ry in

hala

nts

once

or

twic

e°35

.9 3

7.0

36.5

37.

9 36

.4 4

0.8

40.1

38.

9 40

.8 4

1.2

+0.

3T

ry in

hala

nts

regu

lar!

?65

.6 6

4.4

64.6

65.

5 64

.8 6

8.2

68.7

67.

2 68

.8 6

9.9

+1.

1T

ake

LSD

onc

e or

twic

e'-

- 42

.1 3

8.3

36.7

36.

5 37

.0 3

4.9

34.1

34.

0 -0

.2T

ake

LSD

reg

ular

ly°

- -

68.3

65.

8 64

.4 6

3.6

64.1

59.

6 58

.8 5

7.5

-1.3

Try

cra

ck o

nce

or tw

ice°

62.8

61.

2 57

.2 5

4.4

50.8

51.

0 49

.9 4

9.3

48.7

48.

5 -0

.2T

ake

crac

k oc

casi

onal

!?82

.2 7

9.6

76.8

74.

4 72

.1 7

1.6

71.2

70.

6 70

.6 7

0.1

-0.5

Try

coc

aine

pow

der

once

or

twic

e°55

.5 5

4.1

50.7

48.

4 44

.9 4

5.2

45.0

44.

0 43

.3 4

3.3

0.0

Tak

e co

cain

e po

wde

roc

casi

onal

!?T

ry h

eroi

n on

ce o

r tw

ice

with

out u

sing

a n

eedl

e'T

ake

hero

in o

ccas

iona

llyw

ithou

t usi

ng a

nee

dle'

- 76

.8 7

6.6

79.2

79.

0 78

.9 7

8.6

-0.3

Try

one

or

two

drin

ks o

f an

alco

holic

bev

erag

e (b

eer,

win

e, li

quor

)11

.0 1

2.1

12.4

11.

6 11

.6 1

1.8

10.4

12.

1T

ake

one

or tw

o dr

inks

near

ly e

very

day

31.8

32.

4 32

.6 2

9.9

30.5

28.

6 29

.1 3

0.3

Hav

e fi

ve o

r m

ore

drin

kson

ce o

r tw

ice

each

wee

kend

59.1

58.

0 57

.7 5

4.7

54.1

51.

8 55

.6 5

6.0

Smok

e on

e or

mor

e pa

cks

ofci

gare

ttes

per

dayd

51.6

50.

8 52

.7 5

0.8

49.8

50.

4 52

.6 5

4.3

Use

sm

okel

ess

toba

cco

regu

larl

y35

.1 3

5.1

36.9

35.

5 33

.5 3

4.0

35.2

36.

5 37

.1 3

9.0

+1.

9T

ake

ster

oids

°64

.2 6

9.5

70.2

67.

6A

ppro

x. N

(in

thou

sand

s) =

17.

4 18

.7 1

8.4

17.4

17.

5 17

.9 1

8.8

18.1

16.

7 16

.7

TA

IET

TR

nam

eriv

ed b

y E

fight

lara

d T

ernt

llaG

T

Perc

enta

ge s

ayin

g "g

reat

ris

k"'

derr

o,, 1

190]

1-26

1D©

8th

Gra

de

77.0

74.

3 71

.8 6

9.1

66.4

65.

7 66

.8 6

5.2

65.4

65.

5 +

0.1

- -

- -

60.1

61.

3 63

.0 6

2.8

63.0

62.

0 -1

.0

10th

Gra

de'9

9-'0

019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

96 1

9971

9981

9992

000

chan

ge30

.0 3

1.9

29.7

48.6

48.

9 46

.182

.1 8

1.1

78.5

37.8

38.

7 40

.969

.8 6

7.9

69.6

- -

48.7

- -

78.9

70.4

69.

6 66

.687

.4 8

6.4

84.4

24.4

21.

5 20

.038

.9 3

5.4

32.8

71.3

67.

9 65

.942

.7 4

1.6

47.2

71.5

71.

8 75

.846

.5 4

4.7

45.1

75.9

75.

5 75

.364

.7 6

0.9

60.9

83.1

81.

2 80

.3

59.1

59.

2 57

.5 5

6.4

53.5

53.

6

82.2

80.

1 79

.1 7

7.8

75.6

75.

0

- -

- -

70.7

72.

1-

85.1

85.

8

11.6

11.

9 +

0.3

9.0

10.1

10.

99.

49.

38.

9

29.7

30.

4 +

0.7

36.1

36.

8 35

.9 3

2.5

31.7

31.

2

55.3

55.

9 +

0.6

54.7

55.

9 54

.9 5

2.9

52.0

50.

9

54.8

58.

8 +

4.0s

s60

.3 5

9.3

60.7

59.

0 57

.0 5

7.9

40.3

39.

6 44

.2 4

2.2

38.2

41.

067

.1 7

2.7

73.4

72.

514

.7 1

4.8

15.3

15.

9 17

.0 1

5.7

18.8

19.6

19.2

18.5

-0.7

31.9

32.5

33.5

32.4

-1.1

65.9

65.8

65.9

64.7

-1.2

47.5

45.8

48.2

46.6

-1.6

74.5

73.3

76.3

75.0

-1.3

44.5

43.5

45.0

43.0

-2.1

73.8

72.3

73.9

72.0

-1.9

59.2

58.0

57.8

56.1

-1.7

78.7

77.5

79.1

76.9

-2.2

s

52.2

50.9

51.6

48.8

-2.

8ss

73.9

71.8

736

70.9

-2.

7ss

73.1

71.7

73.7

71.7

-1.9

86.5

84.9

86.5

85.2

-1.3

9.0

10.1

10.5

9.6

-1.0

31.8

31.9

32.9

32.3

-0.6

51.8

52.5

51.9

51.0

-0.9

59.9

61.9

62.7

65.9

+3.

3s

42.2

42.8

246

.7+

2.5s

15.6

15.0

13.6

14.3

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es: s

= .0

5, s

s =

.01,

sss

= .0

01.

indi

cate

s da

ta n

ot a

vaila

ble.

Any

app

aren

t inc

onsi

sten

cy b

etw

een

the

chan

ge e

stim

ate

and

the

prev

alen

ce o

f us

e es

timat

es f

or th

e tw

o m

ost r

ecen

t cla

sses

is d

ue to

roun

ding

err

or.

SOU

RC

E: T

he M

onito

ring

the

Futu

re S

tudy

, the

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

ichi

gan.

°Ans

wer

alte

rnat

ives

wer

e: (

1) N

o ri

sk, (

2) S

light

ris

k, (

3) M

oder

ate

risk

, (4)

Gre

at r

isk,

and

(5)

Can

'tsa

y, d

rug

unfa

mili

ar.

"Beg

inni

ng in

199

7, d

ata

base

d on

two-

thir

ds o

f N

indi

cate

d du

e to

cha

nges

in q

uest

ionn

aire

for

ms.

'Dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne o

f tw

o fo

rms

in 1

993-

96; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d. B

egin

ning

in 1

997,

dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne-t

hird

of

N in

dica

ted d

ue to

cha

nges

inqu

estio

nnai

re f

orm

s.°B

egin

ning

in 1

999,

dat

a ba

sed

on tw

o-th

irds

of

N in

dica

ted

due

to c

hang

es in

que

stio

nnai

re f

orm

s.'D

ata

base

d on

two

form

s in

199

1 an

d 19

92. D

ata

base

d on

one

of

two

form

s in

199

3 an

d 19

94; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d.

63

65

TA

IE11

,13:

5IL

eEng

-Ten

ma

TT

erra

ello

ium

ffila

tirm

ainb

inec

o of

Drr

ans3

eac

'Per

ceiv

ed b

y T

wel

fthG

rrau

derc

Perc

enta

ge s

ayin

g "g

reat

ris

e°Q

.H

ow m

uch

do y

ou th

ink

peop

letis

k ha

rmin

g th

emse

lves

(phy

sica

lly o

r in

oth

er w

ays)

,if

they

..

.

Try

mar

ijuan

a on

ce o

r tw

ice

Smok

e m

aitu

ana

occa

zion

ally

Smok

e m

ariju

ana

regu

larl

yT

ry L

SD o

nce

or tw

ice

Tak

e L

SD r

egul

arly

Try

PC

P on

ee o

r tw

ice

Try

MD

MA

onc

e or

twic

e

12th

Gra

deC

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ssC

lass

Cla

ssof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

of'9

9-'0

01975 1976 Au 1E8 1979 mg 193.1 1982 1283 1284 1933 1233 1282 1293 1293 1222 1991 1222 1993 1224 3,233 1223 1222 1228 12222000 gigung

15.1

11.

49.

58.

19.

4 10

.0 1

3.0

18.1

15.

0 13

.4 1

2.4

13.6

14.

7 19

.143

.3 3

8.6

33.4

34.

9 42

.0 5

0.4

57.6

49.4

45.

7 43

.2 4

2.7

41.6

43.

9 45

.581

.4 8

0.8

79.1

81.

1 82

.4 8

3.0

83.5

11.5

12.

7 14

.7 1

4.8

15.1

18.

418

.3 2

0.6

22.6

24.

5 25

.0 3

0.4

60.4

62.

8.9

70.

4 71

.3 7

3.5

44.9

44.

7 45

.4 4

3.5

42.0

44.

983

.5 8

3.2

83.8

82.

9 82

.6 8

3.8

55.6

19.0

23.

6 23

.1 2

7.1

24.5

21.

9 19

.531

.7 3

6.5

33.9

40.

6 39

.6 8

5.6

30.1

77.0

77.

5 77

.8 7

8.6

76.5

72.

5 65

.045

.7 4

6.0

44.7

46.

6 42

.3 3

9.6

38.8

84.2

84.

3 84

.5 8

4.3

81.8

79.

4 79

.158

.8 5

6.6

55.2

51.

7 54

.8 5

0.8

51.5

16.3

25.6

60.8

36.4

78.1

49.1

15.6

25.9

59.9

36.2

77.8

61.0

14.9

16.

724

.7 2

4.4

58.1

58.

534

.7 3

7.4

76.6

76.

548

.8 4

3.8

33.8

34.

5

15.7

23.9

57.4

34.9

76.1

44.8

35.0

13.7

23.4

58.3

34.3

75.9

45.0

37.9

-1.9

-0.4

+0.

9-0

.7-0

.2+

0.1

+2.

9

Try

coc

aine

mom

or

twic

e42

.6 3

9.1

35.6

33.

2 31

.5 3

1.3

32.1

32.

8 33

.0 3

5.7

34.0

33.

5 47

.9 5

1.2

54.9

59.

4 59

.4 5

6.8

57.6

57.

2 63

.7 6

4.2

58.6

54.

6 62

.151

.1-1

.0

Tak

e =

min

e om

ecio

nally

54.2

63.

8 69

.2 7

1.8

73.9

76.

5 75

.1 7

8.3

73.7

70.

8 72

.1 7

2.4

70.1

70.

1 69

.5-0

.6T

erse

coc

aine

1..,

,ula

rly73

.1 7

2.3

68.2

68.

2 39

.5 6

9.2

712

78.0

74.

8 78

.8 7

9.0

82.2

08.

5 e9

.2 9

0.2

911

88.4

90.

2 90

.1 8

9.3

87.9

08.

3 87

.1 8

3.3

05.8

83.2

+0.

4

Try

cra

ck o

nce

or tw

ice

57.0

62.

1 62

.9 6

4.3

60.6

62.

4 57

.6 5

8.4

54.6

56.

0 54

.0 5

2.2

48.2

48.

4+

0.2

Tak

e cr

ack

occa

sion

ally

70.4

73.

2 75

.3 8

0.4

76.5

76.

3 73

.9 7

3.8

72.8

71.

4 70

.3 6

8.7

67.3

65.

8-1

.5

Tak

e cr

ack

regu

larly

84.6

84.

8 85

.6 9

16 9

0.1

89.3

87.

5 89

.6 8

8.6

88.0

86.

2 85

.3 8

5.4

85.3

0.0

Try

=m

ins

pow

der

mac

e or

IxA

ca46

.8 5

1.7

&La

63.

9 53

.657

.153

.2 6

5.4

52.0

58.

2 51

.4 4

8.93

68.

1 47

.0 +

0.9

Milo

=ai

m p

owde

rcc

saci

irla

Ry

63.8

61.

9 65

.8 7

11 3

8.8

70.8

68.

6 70

.6 6

8.1

68.8

67.

7 65

.4 3

4.2

64.7

+0.

5T

ake

=ak

a po

wde

r re

gukI

rly

81.4

82.

9 83

.9 2

0.2

38.9

88.

4 87

.0 8

8.6

87.8

88.

8 83

.0 8

4.1

84.6

85.

6+

0.9

Try

her

oin

once

or

twic

e60

.1 5

8.9

55.8

62.

9 50

.4 5

2.1

52.9

51.

1 50

.8 4

9.8

47.3

45.

8 53

.6 5

4.0

53.8

66.

4 55

.2 5

0.9

50.7

52.

8 50

.9 5

2.5

56.7

57.

8 56

.054

.2-1

.7

Tak

e he

roin

occ

asio

nally

75.6

75.

6 71

.9 7

1.4

70.9

70.

9 72

.2 6

9.8

71.8

70.

7 69

.8 6

8.2

74.6

73.

8 75

.5 7

6.6

74.9

74.

2 72

.0 7

2.1

71.0

74.

8 76

.3 7

6.9

77.3

74.6

-2.8

Tak

e he

roin

reg

ular

ly87

.2 8

8.6

86.1

86.

6 87

.5 8

6.2

87.5

86.

0 83

.1 8

7.2

86.0

87.

1 88

.7 8

8.8

89.5

90.

2 89

.6 8

9.2

88.3

88.

0 87

.2 8

9.5

88.9

89.

1 89

.989

.2-0

.7T

ry h

eroi

n on

ce o

r tw

ice

with

out u

sing

a n

eedl

e55

.6 6

8.6

60.5

59.

6 58

.5 6

1.6

+3.

1T

ake

hero

in o

ccas

iona

llyw

ithou

t usi

ng &

need

le71

.2 7

1.0

74.3

73.

4 73

.6 7

4.7

+1.

1

Try

anz

phat

alni

neo

once

or

twic

e35

.4 8

3.4

80.8

29.

9 29

.7 2

9.7

28.4

25.

3 24

.7 3

6.4

25.2

26.

1 29

.1 2

9.6

82.8

32.

2 33

.9 3

2.6

31.3

31.

4 20

.8 3

0.8

31.0

86.

3 32

.232

.6+

0.4

Tith

e am

phot

amin

ao r

egul

arly

69.0

67.

363

.3 3

7.1

69.9

39.

1 63

.1 6

4.7

934.

8 37

.1 6

7.2

67.3

39.

4 39

.8 7

1.2

71.2

76.

1 72

.4 6

9.9

67.0

65.

9 66

.8 6

3.0

67.7

933

.4 6

3.3

-0.1

Try

cry

stal

met

h. (

ice)

once

or

twic

e61

.6 6

1.9

57.5

58.

3 54

.4 5

5.3

54.4

52.

7 51

2 51

3 +

0.1

Try

har

bitu

rate

z W

m o

r tw

ice

34.8

32.

5 31

.2 3

1.3

80.7

30.

9 28

A 2

7.5

27.0

27.

4 26

.1 2

3.4

30.9

29.

7 32

.2 3

2.4

35.1

32.

2 29

.2 2

9.9

23.3

29.

1 23

.9 2

9.0

23.1

25.0

-1.1

Tem

bar

bitu

rate

:I ts

gula

rly69

.1 6

7.7

68.6

&la

71.

6 72

.2 6

9.9

67.6

87.

7 68

.6 6

8.3

67.2

69.

4 69

.6 7

0.5

70.2

70.

5 70

.2 6

3.1

63.3

61.

6 60

.4 6

6.8

63.3

64.

1 52

.3-1

.7

Try

one

or

two

drin

ks o

f an

aloo

holic

bev

erag

e (b

eer,

win

e,liq

uor)

5.3

4.8

4.1

3.4

4.1

3.8

4.6

3.5

4.2

4.6

5.0

4.6

6.2

6.0

6.0

8.3

9.1

8.6

8.2

7.6

5.9

7.3

6.7

8.0

8.3

6.4

-1.9

s

Tak

eon

rrao

rtwo

drin

ks n

early

21.5

21.

2 18

.5 1

9.6

22.6

20.

3 21

.6 2

1.6

21.6

23.

0 24

.4 2

5.1

26.2

27.

3 28

.5 3

1.3

32.7

30.

6 28

.2 2

7.0

24.8

25.

1 24

.8 2

4.3

21.8

21.7

-0.1

Tak

erlo

ury

r fiv

e dr

inks

nea

rlyda

;63

.5 6

1.0

62.9

63.

1 66

.2 6

5.7

64.5

65.

5 66

.8 6

8.4

69.8

66.

5 69

.7 6

8.5

69.8

70.

9 69

.5 7

0.5

67.8

66.

2 62

.8 6

5.6

63.0

62.

161

.1 5

9.9

-1.2

Hav

e fiv

e or

mor

e dr

inks

onc

eor

twic

e ea

ch w

eeke

nd37

.8 3

7.0

34.7

34.

5 34

.9 3

5.9

36.3

36.

0 38

.6 4

1.7

43.0

39.

1 41

.9 4

2.6

44.0

47.

1 48

.6 4

9.0

48.3

46.

5 45

.2 4

9.5

43.0

42.

843

.1 4

2.7

-0.4

Sm

oke

one

or m

ore

park

o of

cigu

retb

eo p

er d

ay51

.3 5

3.4

684

68.0

63.

0 63

.7 6

8.3

60.6

01.

2 63

.8 a

z63

.0 6

8.6

68.0

67.

2 68

.2 6

9.4

69.2

69.

5 87

.6 6

5.6

68.2

38.

7 70

.8 7

0.8

78.1

+2.

3

Use

sm

okel

ess

toba

cco

regu

larl

y25

.8 3

0.0

33.2

32.

9 34

.2 3

7.4

35.5

38.

9 36

.6 3

3.2

37.4

38.

6 40

.9 4

1.1

42.2

+11

Tak

e ot

eroi

do63

.8 6

9.9

65.6

70.

7 68

.1 6

3.1

63.4

67.

6 67

.2 6

8.1

62.1

57.

9-4

.3o

App

rox.

N =

280

4 29

18 3

052

3770

325

0 32

34 3

604

3557

330

5 32

62 3

250

3020

331

5 32

76 2

796

2553

254

926

84 2

759

2591

260

3 24

49 2

579

2564

230

6 21

30

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es: a

= .0

5, s

s =

.01,

gas

= .0

01. '

-' in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

entc

lass

es is

due

to r

ound

ing

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.°A

nsw

er a

ltern

ativ

es w

ere:

(1)

No

risk

, (2)

Slig

ht r

isk,

(3)

Mod

erat

e ri

sk, (

4) G

reat

ris

k, a

nd (

5) C

an't

say,

dru

g un

fam

iliar

.

66

Ifire

moi

o fa

a Ift

o11

111:

DIN

IV

MIE

LE 6

©r

Doi

ng M

e by

Eilg

ran

&E

nd li

renn

thde

m, L

asa-

-261

13

Perc

enta

ge w

ho "

disa

ppro

ve"

or "

stro

ngly

dis

appr

ove"

'8t

h G

rade

10th

Gra

deD

o yo

u di

sapp

rove

of

peop

le'9

9-'0

0'9

9-'0

0w

ho .

..

1991

1992

199

3 19

94 1

995

1996

199

7 19

98 1

999

,200

0 ch

ange

1991

1992

199

3199

4 19

95 1

996

1997

199

8 19

99 2

000

chan

geT

ry m

ariju

ana

onoe

or

twic

e84

.6 8

2.1

79.2

72.

9 70

.7 6

7.5

67.6

69.

0Sm

oke

mar

ijuan

a oc

casi

onal

ly 8

9.5

88.1

85.

7 80

.9 7

9.7

76.5

78.

1 78

.4Sm

oke

mar

ijuan

a re

gula

rly

92.1

90.

8 88

.9 8

5.3

85.1

82.

8 84

.6 8

4.5

Try

inha

lant

s on

ce o

r tw

ice"

84.9

84.

0 82

.5 8

1.6

81.8

82.

9 84

.1 8

3.0

Tak

e in

hala

nts

regu

larl

y"90

.6 9

0.0

88.9

88.

1 88

.8 8

9.3

90.3

89.

5T

ry L

SD o

nce

or tw

ice'

- -

77.1

76.

2 71

.6 7

0.9

72.1

69.

1T

ake

LSD

reg

ular

ly'

- -

79.8

78.

4 75

.6 7

5.3

76.3

72.

5T

ry c

rack

onc

e or

twic

e"91

.7 9

0.7

89.1

86.

9 85

.9 8

5.0

85.7

85.

4T

ake

crac

k oc

casi

onal

ly"

93.3

92.

5 91

.7 8

9.9

89.8

89.

3 90

.3 8

9.5

Try

coc

aine

pow

der

once

or

twic

e"91

.2 8

9.6

88.5

86.

1 85

.3 8

3.9

85.1

84.

5 85

.2 8

4.8

Tak

e co

cain

e .p

wde

roc

casi

onal

ly'

93.1

92.

4 91

.6 8

9.7

89.7

88.

7 90

.1 8

9.3

89.9

88.

8T

ry h

eroi

n on

ce o

r tw

ice

with

out u

sing

a n

eedl

e'T

ake

hero

in o

ccas

iona

llyw

ithou

t usi

ng a

nee

dle'

Try

one

or

two

drin

ks o

f an

alco

holic

bev

erag

e (b

eer,

win

e, li

quor

)61

.7 5

2.2

50.9

47.

8 48

.0 4

5.5

Tak

e on

e or

two

drin

ks n

earl

yev

ery

day

82.2

81.

0 79

.6 7

6.7

75.9

74.

1na

ve f

ive

or m

ore

drin

ks o

nce

or tw

ice

each

wee

kend

85.2

83.

9 83

.3 8

0.7

80.7

79.

1Sm

oke

one

or m

ore

pack

s of

ciga

rette

s pe

r da

y'U

se s

mok

eles

s to

bacc

ore

gula

rly

Tak

e st

eroi

ds°

App

rox.

N (

in th

ousa

nds)

= 1

7.4

18.5

18.

4 17

.4

70.7

79.3

84.5

85.2

90.3

69.4

72.5

86.0

89.9

72.5

80.6

85.3

85.4

90.2

66.7

69.3

85.4

88.8

+1.

8s74

.6 7

4.8

70.3

62.

4 59

.8 5

5.5

54.1

56.

0 66

.2 5

4.9

-1.3

+1.

383

.7 8

3.6

79.4

72.

3 70

.0 6

6.9

66.2

67.

3 68

.2 6

7.2

-1.0

+0.

890

.4 9

0.0

87.4

82.

2 81

.1 7

9.7

79.7

80.

1 79

.8 7

9.1

-0.8

+0.

285

.2 8

5.6

84.8

84.

9 84

.5 8

6.0

86.9

85.

6 88

.4 8

7.5

-0.9

-0.1

91.0

91.

5 90

.9 9

1.0

90.9

91.

7 91

.7 9

1.1

92.4

91.

8-0

.6-2

.8-

- 82

.1 7

9.3

77.9

76.

8 76

.6 7

6.7

77.8

77.

0-0

.8-3

.28

- -

86.8

85.

6 84

.8 8

4.5

83.4

82.

9 84

.3 8

2.1

-2.3

-0.6

92.5

92.

5 91

.4 8

9.9

88.7

88.

2 87

.4 8

7.1

87.8

87.

1-0

.7-1

.194

.3 9

4.4

93.6

92.

5 91

.7 9

1.9

91.0

90.

6 91

.5 9

0.9

-0.6

-0.4

90.8

91.

1 90

.0 8

8.1

86.8

86.

1 85

.1 8

4.9

86.0

84.

8-1

.2

-1.0

94.0

94.

0 93

.2 9

2.1

91.4

91.

1 90

.4 8

9.7

90.7

89.

9-0

.6

- -

- -

85.8

85.

0 87

.7 8

7.3

88.0

87.

2-0

.8

- -

- -

88.5

87.

7 90

.1 8

9.7

90.2

88.

9-1

.2

82.8

82.

3 80

.6 7

8.4

78.6

77.

3

45.7

47.

5 48

.3 4

8.7

+0.

437

.6

76.6

76.

9 77

.0 7

7.8

+0.

881

.7

81.8

81.

0 80

.3 8

1.2

+0.

976

.7

80.3

80.

0 81

.4 8

1.9

+0.

579

.4

- -

- 89

.7 8

9.5

89.1

88.

6 90

.1 9

0.1

+0.

1

- 91

.6 9

1.7

91.4

90.

5 91

.8 9

2.3

+0.

5

39.9

38.

5 36

.6 3

6.1

34.2

33.

7 34

.7

81.7

78.

6 75

.2 7

5.4

73.8

75.

4 74

.6

77.6

74.

7 72

.3 7

2.2

70.7

70.

2 70

.5

77.8

76.

5 73

.9 7

3.2

71.6

73.

8 75

.3

35./

33.4

-1.7

75.4

73.

8-1

.6

69.9

68.

24.

7

76.1

76.

7+

0.6

79.1

77.

2 77

.1 7

5.1

74.0

74.

1 76

.5 7

6.3

78.0

79.

2+

1.1

75.4

74.

6 73

.8 7

1.2

71.0

71.

0 72

.3 7

3.2

75.1

75.

8+

0.7

89.8

90.

3 89

.9 8

7.9

90.0

91.

0 91

.2 9

0.8

17.6

18.

0 18

.8 1

8.1

16.7

16.

714

.8 1

4.8

15.3

15.

9 17

.0 1

5.7

15.6

15.

0 13

.6 1

4.3

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es: s

= .0

5, 8

8.0

1, s

ss =

.001

.in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

toro

undi

ng e

rror

.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.°A

nsw

er a

ltern

ativ

es w

ere:

(1)

Don

't di

sapp

rove

, (2)

Dis

appr

ove,

and

(3)

Str

ongl

y di

sapp

rove

, and

(4)

Can

'tsa

y, d

rug

unfa

mili

ar.

"Beg

inni

ng in

199

7, d

ata

base

d on

two-

thir

ds o

f N

indi

cate

d du

e to

cha

nges

in q

uest

ionn

aire

for

ms.

'Dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne o

f tw

o fo

rms

in 1

993-

96; N

is o

ne-h

alf

of N

indi

cate

d. B

egin

ning

in 1

997,

dat

a ba

sed

on o

ne-t

hird

of

N in

dica

ted

due

to c

hang

es in

ques

tionn

aire

for

ms.

°Beg

inni

ng in

199

9, d

ata

base

d on

two-

thir

ds o

f N

indi

cate

d du

e to

cha

nges

in q

uest

ionn

aire

for

ms.

°Dat

a ba

sed

on tw

o fo

rms

in 1

991

and

1992

and

on

one

of tw

o fo

rms

in 1

993

and

1994

; N is

one

-hal

f of

N in

dica

ted.

6768

69

Q. Do

you

disa

ppro

ve o

f pe

ople

(who

are

18

or o

lder

) do

ing

each

of

the

follo

win

g?'

Try

mar

ijuan

a on

ce o

r tw

ice

Seno

e m

ariju

ana

oaca

nion

ally

Ehn

o._%

e m

ariju

ana

regu

larl

y'P

ry L

SD o

nce

or tw

ice

Tak

e L

SD r

egul

arly

Try

B/1

1)11

dA o

nce

Or

ftri

Ce

Try

coc

aine

onc

e or

twic

eT

ake

coca

ine

regu

larl

yT

ry a

rta

cam

or

twic

eT

ake

crac

k on

ceni

onal

lyT

atle

cra

cr.1

reg

ular

lyT

ry c

ocai

ne p

owde

r on

ce o

rtw

ice

Tak

e co

cain

e po

wde

roc

casi

onal

lyT

ake

coca

ine

pow

der

regu

larl

yT

ry h

eroi

n on

ce o

r U

nice

Tak

e bw

oin

oeca

thon

ally

Tal

Ke

hwai

n in

sula

rly

Try

her

oin

once

or

tuic

ew

ithou

t min

g a

n=lie

Tal

mo

hero

in o

ccat

iona

llyw

ithou

t min

g a

need

leT

ry a

mph

etam

ines

onc

e or

twic

eT

ake

amph

etam

ines

reg

ular

lyT

ry b

arbi

tura

ilea

once

or

twic

eT

alie

bar

l:dtu

rate

o re

gula

rly

Try

one

or

two

drin

ks o

f an

alco

holic

bev

erag

e (b

eer,

win

e,liq

uor)

Tak

e on

e or

two

drin

ks n

earl

yev

ery

day

Tak

e fo

ur o

r fi

ve d

rink

s ne

arly

ever

y da

yH

ave

five

or

mor

e dr

inks

onc

eor

twic

e ea

ch w

eeke

ndSm

oke

one

or m

ore

paca

o of

cign

rette

o pe

r da

yT

ake

ster

oids

MB

ILIE

Lon

nff-

Uer

eram

Tre

enai

e fi

rm la

imag

geov

Eal

l of

IfIr

onff

Use

by

Tw

ellf

th G

mal

lerr

oPe

rcen

tage

'`di

sapp

rovi

ne12

th G

rade

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ssC

lass

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

'99-

'00

1975

1225 1221 12711 1979 1282 1281 1984 1285 1284 1285 1285 au 1288 1282 1222 1221 1222 1259 1224 1259 1225 102 1228 1225 aNaghmgg

47.0

38.

4 33

.4 3

3.4

34.2

39.

0 40

.0 4

6.5

43.3

49.

3 61

.4 5

4.6

53.6

60.

8 64

.3 6

7.8

68.7

69.

9 63

.3 6

7.6

53.7

52.

6 61

.0 6

1.6

40.8

52.6

+3.

8154

.8 4

7,8

44.3

43.

5 46

.3 4

9.7

52.6

59.

1 60

.7 6

3.5

65.8

69.

0 71

.6 7

4.0

77.2

80.

5 79

.4 7

9.7

76.6

68.

9 63

.7 6

2.9

63.2

64.

4 62

.566

.8+

3.4

712

69.6

66.

5 67

.5 6

9.2

74.6

77.

4 01

6 81

6 01

7 85

.5 8

16 8

9.2

ms

-z0.8

91.0

892

811

07.

6tms OLO MO PIO

012

786

79.7

+1.

182

.8 8

4.6

83.9

85.

4 86

.6 8

7.3

86.4

88.

8 89

.1 8

8.9

89.5

89.

2 91

.6 8

9.8

89.7

89.

8 90

.1 8

8.1

85.9

82.

5 81

.1 7

9.6

80.5

82.

1 83

.082

.4-0

.694

.1 9

6.3

95.8

98.

4 96

.9 9

6.7

96.8

96.

7 97

.0 9

6.8

97.0

96.

6 97

.8 9

6.4

98.4

96.

3 96

.4 9

5.5

95.8

94.

3 92

.5 9

3.2

92.9

93.

5 94

.394

.2-0

.102

.2 0

2.5

02.1

81,

0-1

.2

81.3

82.

4 79

.1 7

7.0

74.7

76.

3 74

.6 7

6.6

77.0

79.

7 79

.3 8

0.2

87.3

89.

1 90

.5 9

1.5

93.6

93.

0 92

.7 9

1.6

90.3

90.

0 88

.0 8

9.6

89.1

88.2

-0.9

93.3

93.

9 92

.1 9

1.9

90.8

91.

1 90

.7 9

1.5

93.2

94.

6 93

.8 9

4.3

96.7

96.

2 96

.4 9

6.7

97.3

96.

9 97

.5 9

6.6

96.1

95.

6 96

.0 9

5.6

94.9

95.5

+05

92.3

92.

1 93

.1 0

9.9

89.5

91.

4 37

.4 0

7.0

83.7

07.

6 07

.6-0

.184

.3 9

4.2

95.0

92.

8 92

.8 9

4.0

91.2

91.

3 80

.9 9

2.9

91.9

-0.4

94.9

95.

0 95

.5 9

3.4

93.1

94.

1 93

.0 9

2.3

91.9

93.

2 92

.0-0

.4

91.5

94.0

83.7

92.6

93.0

97.6

92.6

96.0

97.2

92.0

83.4

97.8

93.4

93.8

97.9

93.6

83.7

97.6

93.5

97.2

97.8

94.6

96.9

97.5

96.3

94.

096

.0 9

7.1

97.7

88.

0

94.0

3.8

97.6

93.3

932

93.6

97.

997

.6 E

8.1

95.0

93.9

972

95.4

97.2

97.4

87.9

88.

0 89

.4 8

6.6

87.1

88.

3 83

.1 8

3.0

83.1

84.

3 84

.1-0

.2

92.1

9/0

9/4

91.

2 91

.0 9

/7 8

/7 8

/3 8

87 V

10 9

13 +

0.3

9/7

94.4

94.

3 9/

0 92

.5 9

/8 R

/9 9

L5

91.1

9/3

9/6

+0.

395

.1 V

IO 9

19 0

4.4

MAMO

R/1

92.

6 23

.7 9

3.5

9/0

-0.6

9/7

9/3

me

9/0

9/2

8/7

8/0

96.4

03.1

9/7

RIO

+0.

397

.5 9

7.8

97.2

9/5

07.1 63.4

932

VI4

83.3 M4 93.6

4.0.3

74.8

92.1

77.7

93.3

76.1

92.8

81.8

93.6

74.2

92.6

81.1

93.0

74.8

93.6

82.4

94.3

75.1

94.4

84.0

95.2

76.4

93.0

83.9

95.4

71.1

91.7

82.4

94.2

72.6

92.0

84.4

94.4

21.6

18.

216

.6 1

5.6

15.8

16.

0 17

.2 1

8.2

67.6

68.

9 66

.8 6

7.7

68.3

69.

0 69

.1 6

9.9

88.7

90.

7 88

.4 9

0.2

91.7

90.

8 91

.8 9

0.9

60.3

58.

6 57

.4 5

6.2

66.7

55.

6 56

.6 5

8.8

72.3

72.

892

.6 9

3.6

83.1

04.

195

.1 9

5.1

18.4

17.4

68.9

72.

9

90.0

91.

0

66.6

69.

6

74.9

93.3

84.9

95.6

20.3

70.9

92.0

60.4

76.6

80.

793

.6 9

5.4

63.8

24.9

23.

4

92.9

0.8

92.

3 93

.0 9

2.6

94.0

<4.

4

24.7

03.

204.4

V5.

8 93

.8 2

5.2

+1.

4

82.6

83.

3 85

.3 8

6.6

86.9

84.

2 81

.3 8

2.2

79.9

81.

3 82

.6 8

1.9

82.1

+0.

294

.2 9

4.2

95.5

96.

0 95

.6 9

6.0

94.1

94.

3 93

.6 9

4.3

94.0

93.

7 94

.1+

0.4

89.4

09.

3 90

.5 8

0.6

90.3

89.

7 87

.6 0

7.3

842

53.4

53.

0 23

.8 8

5.9

-0.7

95.3

96.

3 93

.4 9

7.1

83.5

97.

0 93

.1 0

5.2

94.8

852

9/6

et.7

E6.

2+

0.6

20.9

21.

4 22

.6 2

7.3

29.4

29.

8 33

.0 3

0.1

28.4

27.

3 26

.6 2

6.1

24.5

24.

6 26

.2+

0.6

72.8

74.

2 76

.0 7

6.5

77.9

76.

5 75

.9 7

7.8

73.1

73.

3 70

.8 7

0.0

69.4

67.

2 70

.0+

2.8

91.4

92.

2 92

.8 9

1.6

91.9

90.

6 90

.8 9

0.6

89.8

88.

8 89

.4 8

8.6

86.7

86.

9 88

.4+

1.5

62.4

62.

0 65

.368

.9 6

7.4

70.7

70.

1 65

.1 6

6.7

64.7

65.

0 63

.8 6

2.7

65.2

+2.

666

.5

67.6

65.

9 66

.4 6

7.0

70.3

70.

8 69

.9 6

9.4

70.8

73.

0 72

.9 7

6.4

74.3

73.

1 72

.4 7

2.8

71.4

73.

6 70

.6 6

9.8

90.8

90.

6 92

.1 9

2.1

91.9

App

rox.

N =

2677

295

7 30

85 3

686

3221

326

1 36

10 3

651

3341

325

4 32

65 3

113

3302

331

1 27

99 2

566

2547

264

5 27

23 2

588

69.2

37.2

67.

1 61

3.8

69.5

70.

1+

0.6

91.0

91.

7 91

.4 9

0.8

88.9

88.

8-0

.1

2603

239

9 26

01 2

545

2310

215

0N

OT

ES:

Lev

el o

f si

gnif

ican

ce o

f di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o m

ost r

ecen

t cla

sses

: s =

.05,

ss

= .0

1, a

ss =

.001

.in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

to r

ound

ing

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

:T

he M

onito

ring

the

Futu

re S

tudy

, the

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

ichi

gan.

'The

197

6 qu

estio

n as

ked

abou

t peo

ple

who

are

"20

or

olde

r."

"Ans

wer

alte

rnat

ives

wer

e: (

1) D

on't

disa

ppro

ve, (

2) D

isap

prov

e, a

nd (

3) S

tron

gly

disa

ppro

ve. P

erce

ntag

es a

re s

how

n fo

r ca

tego

ries

(2)

and

(3)

com

bine

d.

70

ITA

IBIL

E 0

Tre

rcad

e fin

n P

en-c

alve

d A

vadt

habl

ility

of D

rcun

go b

y In

ghth

mad

Mem

el G

r

How

dif

ficu

lt do

you

thin

k it

wou

ld b

e fo

ryo

u to

get

eac

h of

the

follo

win

g ty

pes

of d

rugs

,if

you

wan

ted

som

e?

Perc

ent s

ayin

g "f

airl

y ea

sy"

or "

very

eas

y" to

get

*

dem

, 119

92-2

060

8th

Gra

de10

th G

rade

'99-

'00

'99-

'00

1992

129

a _a

94 1

995

1996

199

7 19

98 1

999

2000

cha

nge

1992

.1.9

_91

1994

199

5 19

96 1

997

1998

A9_

2 20

00 c

hang

e

Mar

ijuan

a42

.343

.849

.952

.454

.854

.250

.648

.447

.0 -

1.5

65.2

68.4

75.0

78.1

81.1

80.5

77.9

78.2

77.7

-0.6

LSD

21.5

21.8

21.8

23.5

23.6

22.7

19.3

18.3

17.0

-1.

333

.635

.836

.139

.841

.038

.334

.034

.332

.9-1

.3PC

P°18

.018

.517

.719

.019

.619

.217

.517

.116

.0 -

1.2

23.7

23.4

23.8

24.7

26.8

24.8

23.9

24.5

25.0

+0.

5C

rack

25.6

25.9

26.9

28.7

27.9

27.5

26.5

25.9

24.9

-1.

033

.733

.034

.234

.636

.436

.036

.336

.534

.0-2

.4s

Coc

aine

pow

der

25.7

25.9

26.4

27.8

27.2

26.9

25.7

25.0

23.9

-1.

135

.034

.134

.535

.336

.937

.136

.836

.734

.5-2

.2s

Her

oin

19.7

19.8

19.4

21.1

20.6

19.8

18.0

17.5

16.5

-1.

024

.324

.324

.724

.624

.824

.423

.023

.722

.3-1

.5O

ther

nar

cotic

s°19

.819

.018

.320

.320

.020

.617

.116

.215

.6 -

0.6

26.9

24.9

26.9

27.8

29.4

29.0

26.1

26.6

27.2

+0.

6

Am

phet

amin

es32

.231

.431

.033

.432

.630

.627

.325

.925

.5 -

0.4

43.4

46.4

46.6

47.7

47.2

44.6

41.0

41.3

40.9

-0.5

Cry

stal

met

h. (

ice)

°16

.015

.114

.116

.016

.316

.716

.014

.714

.9 +

0.2

18.8

16.4

17.8

20.7

22.6

22.9

22.1

21.8

22.8

+0.

9B

arbi

tura

tes

27.4

26.1

25.3

26.5

25.6

24.4

21.1

20.8

19.7

-1.

038

.038

.838

.338

.838

.135

.632

.733

.232

.4-0

.8

Tra

nqui

lizer

s22

.921

.420

.421

.320

.419

.618

.117

.316

.2 -

1.1

31.6

30.5

29.8

30.6

30.3

28.7

26.5

26.8

27.6

+0.

8A

lcoh

ol76

.273

.974

.574

.975

.374

.973

.172

.370

.6 -

1.8s

88.6

88.9

89.8

89.7

90.4

89.0

88.0

88.2

87.7

-0.5

Cig

aret

tes

77.8

75.5

76.1

76.4

76.9

76.0

73.6

71.5

68.7

-2.

8sss

89.1

89.4

90.3

90.7

91.3

89.6

88.1

88.3

86.8

-1.5

sSt

eroi

ds24

.022

.723

.123

.824

.123

.622

.322

.622

.3 -

0.3

37.6

33.6

33.6

34.8

34.8

34.2

33.0

35.9

35.4

-0.5

App

rox.

N =

835

5 16

775

1611

9 15

496

1631

8 16

482

1620

8 15

397

1518

070

14 1

4652

151

92 1

6209

148

87 1

4856

144

23 1

3112

136

90N

OT

ES:

Lev

el o

f si

gnif

ican

ce o

f di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o m

ost r

ecen

t cla

sses

: s =

.05,

ss

= .0

1, s

ss =

.001

.in

dica

tes

data

not

ava

ilabl

e.A

ny a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sist

ency

bet

wee

n th

e ch

ange

est

imat

e an

d th

e pr

eval

ence

of

use

estim

ates

for

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es is

due

toro

undi

ng e

rror

.SO

UR

CE

: The

Mon

itori

ng th

e Fu

ture

Stu

dy, t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n.

°Ans

wer

alte

rnat

ives

wer

e: (

1) P

roba

bly

impo

ssib

le, (

2) V

ery

diff

icul

t, (3

) Fa

irly

dif

ficu

lt, (

4) F

airl

yea

sy, (

5) V

ery

easy

, and

(6)

Can

't sa

y, d

rug

unfa

mili

ar.

°Beg

inni

ng in

199

3, d

ata

base

d on

hal

f of

for

ms;

N is

one

-hal

f of

N in

dica

ted.

72

°MIE

LE 9

Lona

ff-lre

ma

Ifram

aito

Per

ceilv

ed A

vaiiI

llabE

LV o

f II l

amp

by T

wel

lfth

a-v1

ers:

3

How

dif

ficu

lt do

Perc

ent s

ayin

g "f

airl

y ea

sy"

or "

very

eas

y" to

get

°yo

u th

ink

it w

ould

be f

or y

ou to

get

12th

Gra

deea

ch o

f th

e fo

llow

-in

g ty

pes

of d

rugs

, Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ssC

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

Cla

ss C

lass

if y

ou w

ante

dof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

ofof

of'9

9-'0

019

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

82 ja

U19

94 1

985

1986

198

719

8819

8919

9019

_91

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

87.4

87.9

87.8

90.1

89.0

89.2

88.5

86.

284

.6 8

5.5

85.2

885

.084

.384

.483

.382

.783

.085

.588

.588

.789

.6-

--

--

--

23.9

25.9

26.8

24.4

22.7

25.9

25.9

26.7

26.0

23.9

23.8

37.4

34.5

32.2

34.2

35.3

35.0

34.2

30.9

30.6

30.5

28.5

31.

433

.338

.340

.739

.5. 5

49.2

50.8

53.8

51.3

50.7

35.7

33.8

33.8

34.6

35.0

32.7

30.6

26.6

26.6

26.1

24.9

25.

026

.228

.228

.328

.029

.933

.533

.835

.833

.933

.9-

--

--

--

--

22.8

24.9

28.9

27.7

27.6

31.7

31.7

31.4

31.0

30.5

30.0

--

--

--

--

21.7

22.0

22.1

24.2

28.1

31.2

34.2

36.9

38.8

34.0

33.0

37.8

45.5

47.9

47.5

47.4

43.1

45.0

48.9

51.5

54.

255

.058

.754

.551

.052

.748

.546

.647

.748

.148

.5

- 41

.142

.147

.042

.439

.943

.543

.640

.541

.940

.740

.6

--

--

--

--

- -

- 52

.950

.353

.749

.04.

048

.045

.443

.743

.8.4

43.3

18.4

17.9

16.4

18.9

21.2

19.2

20.8

19.3

19.9

21.0

22.0

23.

728

.031

.431

.930

.634

.933

.734

.135

.132

.233

.8

26.9

27.8

26.1

28.7

29.4

29.6

30.4

30.0

32.1

33.1

32.2

33.

035

.838

.338

.134

.637

.137

.538

.039

.840

.038

.9

61.8

58.1

58.5

59.9

61.3

69.5

70.8

68.5

68.2

66.4

64.3

64.

563

.964

.359

.757

.358

.861

.562

.062

.859

.459

.8

--

--

--

--

--

- -

--

24.1

24.3

26.0

26.6

25.6

27.0

26.9

27.6

54.4

52.4

50.6

49.8

49.1

54.9

55.2

52.5

51.9

51.3

48.3

48.

247

.848

.445

.942

.444

.044

.543

.342

.341

.440

.0

65.5

64.9

64.3

61.4

59.1

60.8

58.9

55.3

54.5

54.7

51.2

48.

649

.145

.344

.740

.840

.941

.139

.237

.836

.035

.4-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

46.7

46.8

44.8

42.9

45.5

40.3

41.7

2865

3065

3598

3172

3240

3578

3602

3385

3269

3274

3077

327

132

3128

0625

4924

7625

8626

7025

2625

5223

4025

17

som

e?19

75

Mar

ijuan

a87

.8

Am

yl/b

utyl

-L

SD46

.2

Som

e ot

her

psyc

hede

lic47

.8

PCP

MD

MA

(E

csta

sy)

-C

ocai

ne37

.0

Cra

ck

Coc

aine

pow

der

Her

oin

24.2

Som

e ot

her

nar-

cotic

(in

clud

ing

met

hado

ne)

34.5

Am

phet

amin

es67

.8

Cry

stal

met

h. (

ice)

-B

arbi

tura

tes

60.0

Tra

nqui

lizer

s71

.8

Alc

ohol

Ster

oids A

ppro

x. N

= 2

627

1998

199

9 20

00 c

hlT

ge

90.4

88.

9 88

.5 -

0.4

25.1

21.

4 23

.3 +

1.9

48.8

7 46

.9 +

2.2

35.1

29.

5 34

.5 +

5.0s

s30

.7 2

6.7

28.8

+2.

138

.2 4

0.1

51.4

+11

.3ss

s51

.3 4

7.6

47.6

+0.

343

.8 4

1.1

42.6

+1.

545

.7 4

3.7

6 +

0.9

35.6

32.

1 33

.5 +

1.4

42.8

40.

8 43

.9 +

3.1

60.8

58.

1 57

.1 -

1.0

29.8

27.

6 27

.0 +

0.1

40.7

37.

9 37

.4 -

0.5

36.2

32.

7 33

.8 +

1.1

- 95

.0 9

4.8

-0.2

44.5

44.

6 44

.8 +

0.2

2520

221

5 20

95

NO

TE

S:L

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

of

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

two

mos

t rec

ent c

lass

es: s

= .0

5, s

s =

.01,

sss

= .0

01.

indi

cate

s da

ta n

ot a

vaila

ble.

Any

app

aren

t inc

onsi

sten

cy b

etw

een

the

chan

ge e

stim

ate

and

the

prev

alen

ce o

f us

e es

timat

es f

or th

e tw

o m

ost r

ecen

t cla

sses

is d

ue to

rou

ndin

g er

ror.

SOU

RC

E: T

he M

onito

ring

the

Futu

re S

tudy

, the

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

ichi

gan.

°Ans

wer

alte

rnat

ives

wer

e: (

1) P

roba

bly

impo

ssib

le, (

2) V

ery

diff

icul

t, (3

) Fa

irly

dif

ficu

lt, (

4) F

airl

y ea

sy, a

nd (

5) V

ery

easy

.

7374

For more information about the Monitoring the Future studyvisit our web site at http://www.MonitoringTheFuture.org.

75

NI ANATIONAL INSTITUTE

ON DRUG ABUSE

N1H Publication No. 01-4923Printed April 2001

LI

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)