Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323152366
label
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 3/7/89 [OA 6343] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323152366
contentType
document
title
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 3/7/89 [OA 6343] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13659-008
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323152366
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c1cd9e6148460d65
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13659
Folder ID Number:
13659-008
Folder Title:
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 3/7/89 [OA 6343] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
6
7
The University of Michigan
News and Information Services
412 Maynard
Ann Arbor, Michigan
48109-1399
February 24, 1989 (19)
Contact: Terry Gallagher
Phone: (313) 747-1847
Teen drug use continues decline,
according to U-M survey.
Cocaine down for second straight year;
crack begins decline in 1988.
FOR RELEASE 10:00 A.M. EST, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1989
EDITORS: Results of the 1988 National High School Senior Survey will be
presented at 10 a.m. Tuesday (Feb. 28) in the auditorium of the Hubert
Humphrey Bldg., headquarters of the Department of Health and Human
Services in Washington, D.C. U-M Research Scientist Dr. Lloyd Johnston
will be joined by Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, Administrator of the Alcohol,
Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, and Dr. Charles R. Schuster,
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. For further information
about the study findings, contact Johnston, Program Director at the U-M's
Institute for Social Research, (313) 763-5043.
ANN ARBOR-Drug use among American young people in high school and
college continued to decline in 1988, according to the most recent
national survey by The University of Michigan's Institute for Social
Research. Of particular importance, the downturn in cocaine use, which
began in 1987, continued in 1988. And among high school seniors at least,
crack use-which leveled in 1987-also began to decline in 1988.
These are among the central findings of the 14th national survey in
the series titled "Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of the
Lifestyles and Values of Youth." (It is also sometimes referred to as the
National High School Senior Survey.)
"Nearly all of the changes revealed by the 1988 survey about illicit
drug use are good news, particularly those relating to cocaine and crack.
There is also some encouraging indication of a decline in alcohol
consumption, but unfortunately not much improvement in the smoking rates,"
said U-M social psychologists Lloyd Johnston, Jerald Bachman, and Patrick
O'Malley, who direct the study.
(more)
(19) Drug Study
Page 2
Each year since 1975, some 16,000 to 17,000 seniors in 135 high
schools nationwide have been surveyed in the study, which has been funded
through a series of research grants from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. Self-completed confidential questionnaires are administered to
seniors in their classrooms by U-M research personnel.
Also, each year since 1977, some participants from all previously
graduated classes have been followed through the use of mailed,
self-administered questionnaires. These follow-up surveys have yielded a
representative sample of about 1,200 American college students (one to
four years past high school) each year since 1980, and presently yield a
national sample of about 11,000 young adults one to eleven years beyond
high school.
Among the findings reported from the 1988 survey are the following:
Marijuana: Marijuana use continued its long-term, gradual decline
among high school seniors in 1988. In the peak year of use, 1979, half of
all seniors reported some use in the year prior to the survey (that is,
annual prevalence was 51 percent), but by 1988 that statistic has fallen
to one-third. Current daily marijuana use has fallen even more in
proportional terms--from 10.7 percent in 1978 to 2.7 percent in 1988.
"We think this important decline in marijuana use has been occurring,
and continues to occur, largely because of changes in the risks which
young people associate with the use of this drug," stated Johnston. "In
1978, the peak year for daily use, only 35 percent of seniors thought
there was a 'great risk' associated with regular marijuana use. Today
that number stands at 77 percent and is still rising.
Cocaine: "We predicted such a decline in cocaine use would occur
once young people began to see its use particularly experimental and
occasional use--as more risky; and that's what now seems to be
happening, Johnston said. The proportion of seniors reporting any
cocaine use in the prior 12 months dropped between 1986 and 1988 from 13
percent to 8 percent, following a six-year period in which use remained
fairly level. Over those same two years (1986 to 1988) the proportion of
seniors who said there was great risk associated with even experimenting
with cocaine rose from 34 percent to 51 percent, and the proportion who
saw great risk associated with occasional cocaine use rose from 54 percent
to 69 percent.
Similar changes in cocaine use are occurring among American college
students, where the annual prevalence rate for cocaine fell from 17
percent to 10 percent between 1986 and 1988. Cocaine use also fell among
all young adults aged 19 to 28 who are high school graduates from 20
percent annual prevalence in 1986 to 14 percent in 1988. These older age
groups are also coming to see cocaine use as more dangerous than in the
past.
Disapproval of cocaine use has also been rising among these age
groups during the same interval. Fully 89 percent of the 1988 seniors
said they personally disapprove of even experimenting with cocaine, up
from 80 percent in 1986.
(more)
(19) Drug Study
Page 3
Crack: "One of the most important findings from the 1988 survey,"
Johnston added, "is that the use of crack cocaine declined among high
school seniors for the first time, and for much the same reason. That is,
an increasing number of young people have come to believe that even
experimentation with crack is dangerous." Lifetime prevalence of crack
use fell from 5.6 percent to 4.8 percent of all seniors between 1987 and
1988, while annual prevalence fell from 4.0 percent to 3.1 percent, after
having leveled off between 1986 and 1987.
Between 1987 and 1988 the proportion of seniors who said they believe
that experimentation with crack involves great risk rose from 57 percent
to 62 percent, while the percent saying it was readily available rose
slightly. Among the young adults, there also was a significant increase
in the perceived dangers of crack use, and at the same time a substantial
increase in perceived availability.
"We really can't say with much certainty whether a similar decline in
crack use is occurring among the high school dropout segment of the
population, which constitutes about 15 percent of the age group," stated
Johnston. "Without question the crack problem is particularly
concentrated in this population, especially in the inner cities. However,
among the majority still in high school we do not find any evidence that
the improvement is concentrated in the upper socioeconomic groups, or
among the most academically able, or among those with the best attendance
records. This suggests that the incidence of new use may be down even
among the dropouts.
"The annual prevalence of crack use showed a decline in 1988 among
college students, as well, though not a statistically significant one
(from 2.0 percent to 1.4 percent), but there was little change among the
19-29 year olds (from 3.0 percent to 3.1 percent)."
National Strategy: "These important changes in young people's
beliefs and attitudes about these drugs, and the declines in use which
have accompanied them, tell us a great deal which is relevant to our
national strategy in the overall war on drugs," Johnston commented. "The
declines in use have occurred in spite of a continuing increase in the
availability of cocaine and crack, as reported by seniors, and a fairly
constant level of availability for marijuana. In other words, these
important successes have been achieved not through supply reduction: they
are due almost entirely to a reduction in demand. These results say to me
that demand reduction can work, has worked, and has the potential to
accomplish a great deal more."
Johnston cautioned, however, "I do not think that use among the
already addicted population is likely to be affected nearly as much by an.
increased recognition of the dangers of crack. Changing use in that
segment of the population is going to take longer and will depend heavily
on our ability to provide adequate treatment capacity, attract people into
treatment, and offer effective treatment. The addicted are going to
require the pound of cure, not the ounce of prevention, and that's one
reason why it's so very important to prevent use in the first place."
(more)
(19) Drug Study
Page 4
Other Illicit Drugs: In addition to marijuana, cocaine, and crack,
there also was some decline observed in the use of nearly all other
illicit drugs in 1988. The use of hallucinogens, stimulants,
tranquilizers, opiates other than heroin, and the nitrite inhalants all
fell by statistically significant amounts among the nation's high school
seniors. Methaqualone and barbiturate sedatives also continued their
longer term declines, though their changes in 1988 did not reach
statistical significance. The lifetime prevalence for heroin remained at
0.5 percent, where it has hovered for the past nine years, following an
earlier period of decline.
Among American college students the story is much the same.
Overall, the proportion of seniors using any illicit drug during the
prior year fell from 42 percent in 1987 to 39 percent in 1988. (This
compares with 54 percent in 1979, the peak year.) The proportion using
any illicit drug other than mari juana in the prior year fell from 24
percent to 21 percent between 1987 and 1988 (which compares with a high
point of about 30 percent in 1982.)
Johnston noted, "There's no question this is good news for the
country, but what we cannot lose sight of is that there still remains a
troublesome amount of illicit drug use among our young people, especially
among the segments of the population not well covered by the surveys. Of
particular concern is the number who still are willing to experiment with
drugs as dangerous as cocaine or crack. And, of course, the one thing
that's certain is that there are new drugs yet to come along, which will
test the resolve we have inculcated in our young people. That means that
prevention must be an ongoing and long-term process.'
Alcohol: The 1988 survey also yielded some important results
concerning alcohol use among high school students. For the first time in
several years, the proportion of seniors who can be categorized as
"current drinkers" (had one or more drinks in the past 30 days) declined
significantly (from 66 percent to 64 percent). More important, the
proportion reporting having five or more drinks in a row during the prior
two weeks also declined significantly (from 38 percent to 35 percent, down
from a high point of 41 percent in 1983).
Johnston said, "Just as we found no evidence during the onset of the
drug epidemic for any displacement of alcohol by the illicit drugs, during
this decline phase we have seen no evidence of a displacement from illicit
drugs back to alcohol use. In general, these behaviors have tended to
move more in parallel, but with alcohol use showing much less overall
change, no doubt reflecting its enculturated status in American society.
"This modest decline in alcohol consumption does not seem to be
explained by young people seeing such drinking as more dangerous. But we
are seeing some change in their own normative attitudes, with an
increasing number of seniors saying they personally disapprove of heavy
weekend drinking." Among college students, however, and young adults
generally, there has been only a slight change in the drinking rates.
(more)
(19) Drug Study
Page 5
Cigarette Smoking: "Clearly the most disappointing results this year
relate to cigarette smoking," according to Johnston, "though that comes as
little surprise, since they have been disappointing for the last four
years. Neither the number of current smokers, nor the number of current
daily smokers, is down significantly from where it was in the class of
1984. "That means that the initiation rate for smoking in this society
has pretty well stabilized, and stabilized at a level that is still going
to cut short the lives of a lot of our young people. I'm afraid this
stabilization has tended to get overshadowed by the overall improvement in
adult smoking rates, which results from more people quitting."
The proportion of seniors who are current smokers stands at 29
percent in 1988, with 18 percent of all seniors smoking daily. Johnston
pointed out that a number of the current light smokers will graduate to
heavy smoking in the years after high school, based on the patterns
observed in all previous graduating classes. Cigarette smoking rates
among American college students (who are far less likely to smoke than
other young adults) are also unchanged since about 1984.
"Clearly the importance of these initiation rates has been
underemphasized, in part because of the long delay between the onset of
the addiction and the extraordinary amount of death and disease which
eventually will result from it," Johnston said. "If the number of young
people who eventually will die from this addiction did so in just a year
or two after starting, the public outcry for action would be deafening.
But the 30- or 40-year delay means that the tragic consequences of
adolescent smoking are less recognized. I think it's about time we took
the issue of our youngsters smoking a lot more seriously."
EDITORS: The detailed findings from the 1988 survey will be published
later this year by the National Institute on Drug Abuse as a research
monograph, authored by Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, and tentatively
titled "Drug Use, Drinking, and Smoking: National Survey Results from
High School, College, and Young Adult Populations, 1975-1988."
(ISR; Johnston; Bachman; 'Malley) (R1-3; Ed1-3; Xla, 2a, 9; RTspA, [3628]
TABLE 1
Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent ever used
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
47.3
52.8
56.4
59.2
60.4
60.3
59.5
58.7
57.0
54.9
54.2
50.9
50.2
47.2
-3.0ss
Inhalants⁸
NA
10.3
11.1
12.0
12.7
11.9
12.3
12.8
13.6
14.4
15.4
15.9
17.0
16.7
-0.3
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.2
17.3
17.2
17.7
18.2
18.0
18.1
20.1
18.6
17.5
1.1
Amyl & Butyl Nitritesᶜ,h
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.1
11.1
10.1
9.8
8.4
8.1
7.9
8.6
4.7
3.2
- 1.5s
Hallucinogens
16.3
15.1
13.9
14.3
14.1
13.3
13.3
12.5
11.9
10.7
10.3
9.7
10.3
8.9
1.4s
Hallucinogens Adjustedᵈ
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.7
15.6
15.3
14.3
13.6
12.3
12.1
11.9
10.6
9.2
1.4s
LSD
11.3
11.0
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.8
9.6
8.9
8.0
7.5
7.2
8.4
7.7
-0.7
PCPᶜ,h
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.8
9.6
7.8
6.0
5.6
5.0
4.9
4.8
3.0
2.9
-0.1
Cocaine
9.0
9.7
10.8
12.9
15.4
15.7
16.5
16.0
16.2
16.1
17.3
16.9
15.2
12.1
3.1sss
"Crack"g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6
4.8
-0.8
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.0
12.1
1.9
Heroin
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
-0.1
Other opiatesᵉ
9.0
9.6
10.3
9.9
10.1
9.8
10.1
9.6
9.4
9.7
10.2
9.0
9.2
8.6
-0.6
Stimulants
22.3
22.6
23.0
22.9
24.2
26.4
32.2
35.6
35.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.9
26.9
27.9
26.2
23.4
21.6
19.8
1.8s
Sedativesᵉ
18.2
17.7
17.4
16.0
14.6
14.9
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.3
11.8
10.4
8.7
7.8
-0.9
Barbiturates
16.9
16.2
15.6
13.7
11.8
11.0
11.3
10.3
9.9
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.4
6.7
-0.7
Methaqualone
8.1
7.8
8.5
7.9
8.3
9.5
10.6
10.7
10.1
8.3
6.7
5.2
4.0
3.3
-0.7
Tranquilizers
17.0
16.8
18.0
17.0
16.3
15.2
14.7
14.0
13.3
12.4
11.9
10.9
10.9
9.4
1.5s
Alcohol
90.4
91.9
92.5
93.1
93.0
93.2
92.6
92.8
92.6
92.6
92.2
91.3
92.2
92.0
-0.2
Cigarettes
73.6
75.4
75.7
75.3
74.0
71.0
71.0
70.1
70.6
69.7
68.8
67.6
67.2
66.4
-0.8
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 8 = .05, ss = .01, SSS =.001. NA indicates data not available.
a
b
Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
C
d Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
g
Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 2
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used in last twelve months
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87-'88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
40.0
44.5
47.6
50.2
50.8
48.8
46.1
44.3
42.3
40.0
40.6
38.8
36.3
33.1
-3.2ss
Inhalants⁸
NA
3.0
3.7
4.1
5.4
4.6
4.1
4.5
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.1
6.9
6.5
-0.4
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
7.9
6.1
6.6
6.2
7.2
7.5
8.9
8.1
7.1
1.0
Amyl & Butyl Nitritesᶜ,h
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.5
5.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
4.7
2.6
1.7
-0.9s
Hallucinogens
11.2
9.4
8.8
9.6
9.9
9.3
9.0
8.1
7.3
6.5
6.3
6.0
6.4
5.5
-0.9s
Hallucinogens Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.8
10.4
10.1
9.0
8.3
7.3
7.6
7.6
6.7
5.8
-0.9
LSD
7.2
6.4
5.5
6.3
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.1
5.4
4.7
4.4
4.5
5.2
4.8
-0.4
PCPᶜ,h
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
4.4
3.2
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.4
1.3
1.2
-0.1
Cocaine
5.6
6.0
7.2
9.0
12.0
12.3
12.4
11.5
11.4
11.6
13.1
12.7
10.3
7.9
-2.4sss
"Crack"g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
4.0
3.1
-0.9s
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.8
7.4
-2.4ss
Heroin
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
5.7
5.7
6.4
6.0
6.2
6.3
5.9
5.3
5.1
5.2
5.9
5.2
5.3
4.6
-0.7s
Stimulants⁶
16.2
15.8
16.3
17.1
18.3
20.8
26.0
26.1
24.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.3
17.9
17.7
15.8
13.4
12.2
10.9
-1.3s
Sedatives
11.7
10.7
10.8
9.9
9.9
10.3
10.5
9.1
7.9
6.6
5.8
5.2
4.1
3.7
-0.4
Barbituratesᵉ
10.7
9.6
9.3
8.1
7.5
6.8
6.6
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.6
3.2
-0.4
Methaqualone
5.1
4.7
5.2
4.9
5.9
7.2
7.6
6.8
5.4
3.8
2.8
2.1
1.5
1.3
-0.2
Tranquilizers
10.6
10.3
10.8
9.9
9.6
8.7
8.0
7.0
6.9
6.1
6.1
5.8
5.5
4.8
-0.7
Alcohol
84.8
85.7
87.0
87.7
88.1
87.9
87.0
86.8
87.3
86.0
85.6
84.5
85.7
85.3
-0.4
Cigarettes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S =.05, SS = .01, SSS =.001. NA indicates data not available.
a
Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
b
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
c Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
di
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
e f Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
g h Data based on a single questionnaire form in 1986 (N is one-fifth of N indicated), and on two questionnaire forms in 1987 (N is two-fifths of N indicated).
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 3
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used in last thirty days
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
27.1
32.2
35.4
37.1
36.5
33.7
31.6
28.5
27.0
25.2
25.7
23.4
21.0
18.0
-3.0ss
Inhalants
NA
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.6
-0.2
Inhalants Adjusted⁶
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.0
-0.5
Amyl & Butyl Nitrites
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.3
0.6
-0.7s
Hallucinogens
4.7
3.4
4.1
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.4
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
-0.3
Hallucinogens Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.3
4.4
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.5
2.8
2.3
-0.5
LSD
2.3
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.7
PCPᶜ,h
1.8
1.8
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.3
-0.3
Cocaine
1.9
2.0
2.9
3.9
5.7
5.2
5.8
5.0
4.9
5.8
6.7
6.2
4.3
3.4
-0.9ss
"Crack"g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.6
+0.1
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
3.2
-0.9
Heroin
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.6
-0.2
Stimulants
8.5
7.7
8.8
8.7
9.9
12.1
15.8
13.7
12.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjustedᵉ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.7
8.9
8.3
6.8
5.5
5.2
4.6
-0.6
Sedatives
5.4
4.5
5.1
4.2
4.4
4.8
4.6
3.4
3.0
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.7
1.4
-0.3
Barbiturates⁶
4.7
3.9
4.3
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.0
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.2
-0.2
Methaqualone
2.1
1.6
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.3
3.1
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
-0.1
Tranquilizers
4.1
4.0
4.6
3.4
3.7
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
-0.5s
Alcohol
68.2
68.3
71.2
72.1
71.8
72.0
70.7
69.7
69.4
67.2
65.9
65.3
66.4
63.9
-2.5s
Cigarettes
36.7
38.8
38.4
36.7
34.4
30.5
29.4
30.0
30.3
29.3
30.1
29.6
29.4
28.7
-0.7
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 8 =.05, SS = .01, SSS = .001. NA indicates data not available.
b a Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
c
d
Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
e f Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
BAR Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 4
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Daily Use of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used daily in last thirty days
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87-'88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
6.0
8.2
9.1
10.7
10.3
9.1
7.0
6.3
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.0
3.3
2.7
-0.6s
Inhalants⁸
NA
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
+0.1
Inhalants Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
-0.1
Amyl & Butyl Nitrites
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.2
Hallucinogens
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
Hallucinogens Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
-0.2s
LSD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0g
PCPC,1
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
-0.2
Cocaine
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
-0.1
"Crack"h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.0
Heroin
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Stimulants
e
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
Sedatives
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Barbiturates
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0ᵍ
Methaqualone
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0g
Tranquilizers
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
g
Alcohol
Daily
5.7
5.6
6.1
5.7
6.9
6.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.2
-0.6
5+ drinks in a row/
last 2 weeks
36.8
37.1
39.4
40.3
41.2
41.2
41.4
40.5
40.8
38.7
36.7
36.8
37.5
34.7
-2.8s
Cigarettes
Daily
26.9
28.8
28.8
27.5
25.4
21.3
20.3
21.1
21.2
18.7
19.5
18.7
18.7
18.1
-0.6
Half-pack or more per day
17.9
19.2
19.4
18.8
16.5
14.3
13.5
14.2
13.8
12.3
12.5
11.4
11.4
10.6
-0.8
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S =.05, SS = .01, SSS =.001. NA indicates data not available.
b a Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
c d Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
f
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
g h Any apparent inconsistency between the change estimate and the prevalence estimates for the two most recent classes is due to rounding error.
Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
i
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 5
Trends in Lifetime, Annual, and Thirty-Day Prevalence in an Index of Illicit Drug Use
(Based on Original and Adjusted Amphetamine Questions)8
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Percent reporting use in lifetime
Marijuana Only
19.0
22.9
25.8
27.6
27.7
26.7
22.8
20.8
19.7
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.3
22.5
21.3
20.9
19.9
20.8
21.4
+0.6
Any Illicit Drug Other D
Than Marijuana
36.2
35.4
35.8
36.5
37.4
38.7
42.8
45.0
44.4
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41.1
40.4
40.3
39.7
37.7
35.8
32.5
-3.3sss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
55.2
58.3
61.6
64.1
65.1
65.4
65.6
65.8
64.1
-
I
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
64.4
62.9
61.6
60.6
57.6
56.6
53.9
-2.7ss
Percent reporting use in last twelve months
Marijuana Only
18.8
22.7
25.1
26.7
26.0
22.7
18.1
17.0
16.6
-
1
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.3
19.0
17.8
18.9
18.4
17.6
17.4
-0.2
Any Illicit Drug Other b
Than Marijuana
26.2
25.4
26.0
27.1
28.2
30.4
34.0
33.8
32.5
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
28.4
28.0
27.4
25.9
24.1
21.1
-3.0sss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
45.0
48.1
51.1
53.8
54.2
53.1
52.1
50.8
49.1
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
49.4
47.4
45.8
46.3
44.3
41.7
38.5
-3.2sss
Percent reporting use in last thirty days
Marijuana Only
15.3
20.3
22.4
23.8
22.2
18.8
15.2
14.3
14.0
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.5
15.1
14.1
14.8
13.9
13.1
11.3
- -1.8s
Any Illicit Drug Other b
Than Marijuana
15.4
13.9
15.2
15.1
16.8
18.4
21.7
19.2
18.4
-
-
-
I
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.0
15.4
15.1
14.9
13.2
11.6
10.0
- 1.6ss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
30.7
34.2
37.6
38.9
38.9
37.2
36.9
33.5
32.4
-
-
I
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32.5
30.5
29.2
29.7
27.1
24.7
21.3
-3.4sss
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S =.05, 68 =.01, 8SS =.001.
a Adjusted questions about stimulant use were introduced in 1982 to exclude more completely the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
b Use of "other illicit drugs" includes any use of hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin, or any use of other opiates, stimulants, sedatives, or tranquilizers not under a doctor's
orders.
TABLE 6
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among College Students 1-4 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last twelve months
'87-'88
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(1040)
(1130)
(1150)
(1170)
(1110)
(1080)
(1190)
(1220)
(1310)
Marijuana
51.2
51.3
44.7
45.2
40.7
41.7
40.9
37.0
34.6
-2.4
b
Inhalants
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.4
3.1
3.9
3.7
4.1
+0.4
LSD
6.0
4.6
6.3
4.3
3.7
2.2
3.9
4.0
3.6
-0.4
Cocaine
16.8
16.0
17.2
17.3
16.3
17.3
17.1
13.7
10.0
-3.788
"Crack"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
2.0
1.4
-0.6
Heroin
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
Other Opiatesᵃ
5.1
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.4
4.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
Stimulants
a
22.4
22.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants, Adjusted a,d
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.1
17.3
15.7
11.9
10.3
7.2
6.2
-1.0
Sedatives
a
8.3
8.0
8.0
4.5
3.5
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.5
-0.2
Barbiturates
2.9
2.8
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.3
2.0
a
1.2
1.1
-0.1
Methaqualone
7.2
6.5
6.6
3.1
2.5
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.5
-0.3
a
Tranquilizers
6.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
3.5
3.6
4.4
3.8
3.1
-0.7
Alcohol
90.5
92.5
92.2
91.6
90.0
92.0
91.5
90.9
89.6
-1.3
Cigarettes
36.2
37.6
34.3
36.1
33.2
35.0
35.3
38.0
36.6
-1.4
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
S = .05, 88 = .01, 888 = .001.
NA indicates data not available.
a Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
ᵇThis drug was asked about in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
ᶜThis drug was asked about in one of the five questionnaire forms in 1986 (N is one-fifth of N indicated), and in
two of the five questionnaire forms thereafter (N is two-fifths of N indicated).
d
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-
prescription stimulants.
TABLE 7
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among Follow-Up Respondents 1-11 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last twelve months
'87-'88
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(7450)
(7320)
Marijuana
34.3
31.3
-3.0sss
b
Inhalants
2.0
1.7
-0.3
LSD
2.8
2.8
0.0
Cocaine
15.6
13.8
-1.8ss
"Crack"
3.0
3.1
+0.1
Heroin
0.3
0.2
-0.1
Other Opiates a
3.0
2.6
-0.4
Stimulants, Adjusted a,d
8.5
7.1
-1.488
Sedatives
a
2.5
2.1
-0.4
Barbiturates
a
2.0
1.9
Methaqualone
a
-0.1
0.9
0.5
-0.4ss
a
Tranquilizers
5.1
4.3
-0.8s
Alcohol
89.1
88.5
-0.6
Cigarettes
39.9
37.5
-2.4ss
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
8 = .05, 88 = .01, 888 = .001.
NA indicates data not available.
a Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
b This drug was asked about in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
ᶜThis drug was asked about in two of the five questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
d Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate
reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
FIGURE 1
Trends in Marijuana Availability,
Perceived Risk of Regular Use, and Use in Past 30 Days
High School Seniors
Use
Risk/Availability
50%
100 %
Availability
90
40
80
70
Risk
30
60
50
20
Use
40
30
10
20
10
0
0
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Use:
% using once or more
Risk:
% saying great risk of harm
Availability:
% saying fairly easy
in past 30 days
in regular use
or very easy to get
FIGURE 2
Trends in Cocaine Availability,
Perceived Risk of Trying, and Use in Past Year
High School Seniors
Use
Risk/Availability
50 %
100 %
90
40
80
70
30
Availability
60
50
20
Risk
40
30
Use
10
20
10
0
0
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Use:
% using once or more
Risk:
% saying great risk of harm
Availability:
% saying fairly easy
in past 12 months
in using once or twice
or very easy to get
HHS NEWS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AT 10 A.M. EST
Tuesday, February 28, 1989
CONTACT: Mona Whittaker
(301) 443-6245
Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, administrator of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Administration, today released results of the national survey of
drug abuse among the high school senior class of 1988, which show drug use in
this population at its lowest level since the survey began in 1975, including
significant decreases in cocaine use for the second year in a row.
From 1987 to 1988, the proportion of seniors who have used cocaine at
least once in their lifetime dropped by one-fifth, from 15 percent in 1987 to
12 percent in 1988. "Current use" of cocaine (at least once in the last 30
days) also declined from 4.3 percent in 1987 to 3.4 percent in 1988.
"This news about the decrease in cocaine use is encouraging," Dr. Goodwin
said, "but the survey found that 40 percent of seniors who tried cocaine also
have used crack, a smokeable and highly addictive form of cocaine.
Fortunately, crack use may also be moving in the right direction. Those
reporting using it at least once decreased from 6 percent in 1987 to 5 percent
in 1988. II
Dr. Charles R. Schuster, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
a component of ADAMHA and sponsor of the survey, said, "We can safely say that
these decreases suggest that high school seniors, a very important population
to the future of our country, are hearing the messages about cocaine's dangers
and are avoiding drug use in general. While crack cocaine is very available,
seniors appear to be concerned about its addictive qualities and are less
likely to try or continue use.' II
(more)
-2-
This is the 14th in a series of national surveys conducted annually since
1975 by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research under grants
from NIDA.
In addition to cocaine, the 1988 survey found a decrease in the proportion
of seniors who said they had "ever used" each of the other 18 drugs included
in the survey. Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in those
reporting current use of any illicit drug, from 25 percent in 1987 to 21
percent in 1988. Dr. Schuster noted, however, that 54 percent of seniors had
tried an illicit drug by the time they graduated from high school. And large
percentages of young people are still experimenting and using many illicit
drugs, including marijuana, stimulants and inhalants, he said.
Marijuana use decreased significantly between 1987 and 1988, yet the rate
"remains unacceptably high, especially in light of recent data on its harmful
effects on brain functioning," Dr. Schuster said. In the class of 1988, 47
percent of seniors reported use at least once, 33 percent reported use in the
past year and 18 percent reported use in the past 30 days. The 1988 survey
also reports 20 percent of seniors used stimulants and 18 percent used
inhalants at least once.
Despite a steady decline in drug use among high school seniors, there are
still large subgroups in the general population whose drug use patterns are
becoming more compulsive and more damaging. Dr. Schuster said, "We're very
concerned about these subgroups, especially adolescents who are dropping out
of school and becoming involved with drugs. We have heard of major
metropolitan areas reporting dropout rates as high as 40 to 50 percent. These
young people are more likely to become involved with the criminal justice
system and experience problems with drugs."
(more)
-3-
Data from NIDA's Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which collects
information on negative health consequences and deaths due to drug abuse, show
over 46,000 emergency room cases involving cocaine in 1987, up from 25,000 in
1986. Cocaine-related emergency room cases involving smoking crack or other
forms of cocaine increased from 21 percent in 1986 to 30 percent in 1987.
The high school senior survey found increases in seniors concerned about
the negative effects of marijuana, PCP and cocaine. Almost 32 percent of
seniors saw "great risk" from even occasionally smoking marijuana and 77
percent felt that smoking marijuana regularly is harmful. The study also
showed increases in the percent of seniors who disapproved of people over 18
smoking marijuana and a significant increase in seniors saying their close
friends would disapprove if they were to use drugs even once or twice. Survey
director Dr. Lloyd Johnston pointed to newly emerging concerns among seniors
about drugs and their effects as important factors accounting for decreases in
experimentation and use.
The survey found overall rates for alcohol use decreased, yet still remain
high -- 92 percent of seniors tried alcohol at least once and 35 percent
reported having five or more drinks in a row in the last two weeks. Cigarette
smoking by seniors also remains a problem, with 66 percent having tried
smoking at least once and 18 percent smoking daily.
###
STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. SCHUSTER, PH.D
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Press Conference
National High School Senior Survey 1988
February 28, 1989
Thank you Dr. Goodwin. As most of you know, the National High School Senior
Survey has been one of the major contributors to our knowledge of student drug
abuse for 14 years. It warned us of the tremendous increase in illicit drug
use in the late 1970's and the peak in cocaine use by seniors in 1985. This
kind of research is critical to target our resource allocations wisely and
develop new relevant prevention and treatment programs.
Today, we are encouraged by the downward trend in the use of all illicit
drugs, including the use of cocaine which has declined for the second year in
a row. We can safely say that this decrease suggests that high school
seniors, a very important population to the future of our country, are hearing
the messages about cocaine's dangers and are avoiding drug use in general.
While crack cocaine is readily available, seniors appear to be concerned about
its addictive qualities and are less likely to try or continue use.
Although these downward trends in illicit drug use are encouraging, drug abuse
in our youth still remains a major public health problem. We can see that one
of every eight high school seniors, or 12 percent, have tried cocaine before
they graduate high school. We cannot be sure how many of them will continue
to use the drug. Further, others will initiate cocaine use after they leave
high school. Dr. Johnston's findings show that among those who have
graduated high school, 14 percent have used cocaine in the past year, as
compared to only 8 percent as high school seniors.
Tragically, some of those exposed to cocaine will become addicted and will
experience some of the severe medical consequences of use, for example,
paranoia, convulsions, and cardiovascular toxicity and death. We can see from
one of our other research projects, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN),
that over 46,000 people sought help in emergency rooms for cocaine or
cocaine-related medical problems in 1987, up from 25,000 in 1986. Cases
involving smoking crack or other forms of cocaine increased from 21 percent in
1986 to 30 percent in 1987.
The High School Senior Survey also found a significant reduction in those
reporting current use of any illicit drug, from 25 percent in 1987 to 21
percent in 1988. A similar decline was seen in lifetime prevalence of illicit
drugs where the trend went from 57 to 54 percent in the past year. But we
must be cautious in interpreting these encouraging trends. These figures
indicate that one out of every two students have tried an illicit drug before
they graduated high school. And those are the graduates. What does this mean
for those who do not make it through high school. Certain large metropolitan
areas are reporting high school dropout rates of up to 40 to 50 percent.
These young people are more likely to become involved with the criminal
justice system and experience problems with drugs.
NIDA research based on the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse of 1985
found that the rate of illicit drug use among 19-21 year old high school
dropouts was 67% higher than for high school graduates of the same age. A
second study funded by NIDA of men ages 19-27 conducted at Columbia University
in New York found that dropcuts used 50% more cocaine and 80% more marijuana
than those high school graduates.
We also must be concerned because large percentages of young people are still
experimenting with and using many illicit drugs, including marijuana,
stimulants and inhalants. This CHART illustrates what I'm saying. As I said
previously, over half of those who graduate high school have tried marijuana
or another illicit drug. Twenty percent have tried stimulants like
methamphetamine and other amphetamine derivatives; almost as many (18 percent)
have tried inhalants, which other NIDA research has shown to be a particular
problem among young ethnic minority children, especially Hispanics and Native
Americans. And, of course, any experimentation with cocaine is dangerous, and
can presage serious consequences for a teenager.
All measures of marijuana use decreased significantly between 1987 and 1988,
yet the rate "remains unacceptably high." In the class of 1988, 47 percent of
seniors reported use at least once, 33 percent reported use in the past year,
and 18 percent used in the past thirty days. Each of these measures dropped
by three percentage points from 1987 to 1988.
It is important to note that these declines in drug use accompany an increase
in the number of seniors whc report in the survey that drugs are "easy to
get." If young people want a drug, they know they can get it. These results
emphasize the importance of demand reduction, which encompasses drug abuse
prevention, research and treatment activities, and demonstrate that reductions
in use can be achieved in spite of continued availability of drugs.
Increased concern about the harmful effects of drugs, coupled with increased
disapproval of drug use are making it "uncool, unacceptable, and unwise" to
use drugs. As you can see in this CHART, as the perceptions of harmfulness of
marijuana and cocaine have increased over time, the use of marijuana and
cocaine have declined. We are seeing similar trends in many of the other
illicit drugs. Dr. Johnston will discuss the relationships of these two
measured in greater detail in his statement.
Changing attitudes and norms is difficult. It requires research to provide
sound, credible information on the psychological and physical consequences of
illicit drug use. Further, it requires a continuing commitment and
contribution from all segments of society, including government, business,
community groups, schools, and certainly the media, to get this information
across. The results of this survey are showing that these efforts are paying
off. More and more young people are heeding the messages; they're making good
decisions about their lives; and they're staying away from drugs.
Now I would like to introduce Dr. Lloyd Johnston, the principal investigator
of "Monitoring the Future," from the University of Michigan Institute for
Social Research.
=##
National Institute on Drug Abuse
High School Senior Survey
Correlation Between Marijuana Use and
Correlation Between Cocaine Use and
Perceived Harmfulness of Marijuana
Perceived Harmfulness of Cocaine
100
Saw great harm to try once or twice
100
Saw great harm to try once or twice
70
Use in lifetime
Use in lifetime
51
50
48
60
60
60
59
57
55
54
51
50
40
50
36
47
33
34 34
Percentage
32
33
Percentage
31
40
30
30
20
16
17
16
16
16
17
17
15
20
18
19
13
13
15
15
15
12
12
10
10
10
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
National Institute on Drug Abuse
High School Senior Survey
Seniors' Experience with Illicit Drugs 1988
100
60
54
50
47
40
Percentage
30
20
20
18
12
10
Illicit Drugs
Marijuana
Stimulants
Inhalants
Cocaine
Use in Lifetime
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK K. GOODWIN, M.D.
ADMINISTRATOR
ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE, AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
Press Conference
National High School Senior Survey 1988
February 28, 1989
I am pleased to present to you this morning findings from one of the most
well-known research projects sponsored by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, "Monitoring the Future," also known as the National High School Senior
Survey. NIDA, as one of three Institutes of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
Mental Health Administration, is devoted to research in the biomedical and
behavioral aspects of drug abuse and addiction. This survey is conducted by
Dr. Lloyd Johnston and his associates at the University of Michigan Institute
for Social Research. As the name implies, this survey has monitored the
patterns of drug use among young people and provided guidance to our national
drug abuse demand reduction efforts since 1975.
Drug abuse has consistently and appropriately been at the top of the concerns
of the American public over the past several years. During the recent
election, most political polls found that drug abuse was the number one social
problem of greatest concern to Americans. The most recent Gallup Youth
Survey, released in 1988, found that 55% of teenagers named drug abuse as the
biggest problem facing their generation, more than double the 27 percent
found in 1977, when the survey was first conducted. But at one time--and not
too long ago-- many adults considered drug experimentation as a "rite of
passage" for young people. They often had a very benign view of the effects
of drug use -- it was only a stage in a teenagers' life. Today, we know far
too well that the consequences of even first time drug use, especially among
youngsters, are cause for serious concern.
In light of this concern, I am especially pleased to report that this 1988
survey shows drug use among high school seniors at its lowest level since the
survey began in 1975, including significant decreases in cocaine use by the
seniors for the second year in a row.
From 1987-1988, the proportion of seniors who have used cocaine at least once
dropped by one-fifth, from 15 percent in 1987 to 12 percent in 1988. "Current
use"-that is, use within the last 30 days--of cocaine also declined, from 4.3
percent in 1987 to 3.4 percent in 1988, a drop of nearly one-fourth. This
news about the decrease in cocaine use is encouraging, but the survey also
found that 42% of seniors who tried cocaine also have used crack, a smokeable
and highly addictive form of cocaine. Fortunately, crack use may also be
moving in the right direction among this group: it decreased from 6 percent
who used at least once in their life in 1987 to 5 percent in 1988.
In addition to the drop in cocaine use, the 1988 survey found decreases in the
proportions of seniors who said they had "ever used" each of the other 17
drugs included in the survey. Furthermore, there was a significant reduction
in those reporting current use of any illicit drug, from 25 percent in 1987 to
21 percent in 1988, a 16 percent decline.
In general, these trends reflect results from a wide range of local and
national efforts to stem the drug abuse tide. For example, our Office for
Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP) is sponsoring over 130 grants to community
organizations all over the country. These youth projects provide the basis
for intervening with young people who are most vulnerable to the effects of
drugs--particularly, children of substance abusers; those with psychiatric
disorders, such as depression; school dropouts; and abused or neglected
children.
I have directed that ADAMHA research also give increased attention to
"co-morbidity"--that is, substance abusers with co-existing mental disorders.
Young people with "co-morbidity" are 2 1/2 times more likely to start with a
treatable psychiatric disorder and go on to substance abuse than the other way
around. Thus, the early recognition and effective treatment of psychiatric
disorders should be able to prevent a sizable portion of the drug problem
among the young. It is especially important that we recognize this in the
case of pre-existing depression, for once it is properly diagnosed, it can be
effectively treated.
From our basic animal and clinical research, we have learned that there are
biological "time bombs" ticking in those who have inherited a predisposition
or vulnerability to alcohol or drug abuse. For such kids, even a first use of
alcohol or an illicit drug may be an irrevocable step, leading to serious
substance abuse problems. We are vigorously pursuing a program of research to
expand out knowledge about such vulnerabilities. One of the highest
priorities of ADAMHA research is the development of new pharmacologic agents
to treat cocaine craving, an area where we already have some exciting leads
from animal studies.
The high school survey provides trend data on use of many drugs, as I have
indicated. Drs. Schuster, Johnston and Adams will discuss these findings with
you But I would like to address changes in alcohol use among seniors. For
the first time in several years, we are seeing a small decline in alcohol
use. The proportion of seniors who can be categorized as "current drinkers"
(had one or more drinks in the last 30 days) declined from 66 percent in 1987
to 64 in 1988--a small but statistically significant decrease. Binge drinking
(seniors having 5 or more drinks in a row) during the prior two weeks also
showed a modest but significant drop, from 38 to 35 percent.
While this news about alcohol use is encouraging, we must remember that for
most of the country, the legal drinking age has been raised. Alcohol use in
this age group, i.e., 17-19 year olds, is now illegal in most states. With 66
percent of high school seniors still drinking regularly, we cannot afford to
be complacent. Not only can alcohol be a serious problem in its own right,
but its regular use increases the likelihood of going on to use of cocaine and
other illicit drugs
Now I would like to introduce Dr. Charles Schuster, Director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, who will discuss some of the more specific findings
of the survey.
###
THE HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR SURVEY
(MONITORING THE FUTURE STUDY)
The 1988 survey on drug use and related attitudes of America's high school
seniors is the fourteenth in an annual series begun in 1975. These surveys
are conducted through an ongoing national research and reporting program
entitled Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of the Lifestyles and
Values of Youth. The program is conducted by the University of Michigan's
Institute for Social Research and is funded by NIDA. The study is sometimes
referred to as the High School Senior Survey, since each year a representative
sample of seniors in public and private high schools in the coterminous United
States is surveyed. However, the study also includes representative samples
of young adults from previous graduating classes. NIDA's annual support for
the Monitoring the Future program is approximately $1.5 million.
Procedures and Content
Data from high school seniors are collected during the spring of each year.
Data collection takes place in approximately 130 public and private high
schools selected to provide an accurate cross section of high school seniors
throughout the United States, except in Alaska and Hawaii. Approximately
16,000 seniors have been surveyed each year since 1975. Although most
questions, such as those concerning drug use, are asked of all participants,
some questions dealing with attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions are asked of
only about one-fifth of the respondents. A representative sample of 2,400
individuals is chosen from each class for ongoing followup via a mailed
questionnaire once every two years (half the group receives a questionnaire
each year).
Two major topics in the reports of these surveys are the current prevalence of
drug use among American high school seniors and trends in use since 1975.
Sixteen classes and subclasses of drugs are covered, including alcohol and
cigarettes (illicit for minors) and nonprescription stimulants as well as
illicit drugs. Also included are data on grade of first use, trends in use at
earlier grade levels, intensity of drug use, attitudes and beliefs among
seniors concerning various types of drug use, and their perceptions of certain
relevant aspects of the social environment.
CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CITATION WITHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
1988 Survey Results
from
Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study
of the Lifestyles and Values of Youth
January, 1989
TABLE 8
Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent ever used
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
47.3
52.8
56.4
59.2
60.4
60.3
59.5
58.7
57.0
54.9
54.2
50.9
50.2
47.2
-3.0ss
Inhalants
NA
10.3
11.1
12.0
12.7
11.9
12.3
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
12.8
13.6
14.4
15.4
15.9
17.0
16.7
-0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.2
17.3
17.2
17.7
18.2
18.0
18.1
20.1
18.6
17.5
1.1
Amyl & Butyl Nitritesᶜ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.1
11.1
10.1
9.8
8.4
8.1
7.9
8.6
4.7
3.2
1.5s
Hallucinogens
16.3
15.1
13.9
14.3
Hallucinogens Adjusted d
14.1
13.3
13.3
12.5
11.9
10.7
10.3
9.7
10.3
8.9
-1.4s
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.7
15.6
15.3
14.3
13.6
12.3
12.1
11.9
10.6
9.2
1.4s
LSD
11.3
11.0
PCPᶜ,h
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.8
9.6
8.9
8.0
7.5
7.2
8.4
7.7
-0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.8
9.6
7.8
6.0
5.6
5.0
4.9
4.8
3.0
2.9
-0.1
Cocaine
9.0
9.7
10.8
12.9
15.4
15.7
16.5
16.0
16.2
16.1
17.3
16.9
15.2
12.1
-3.1sss
"Crack"g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
5.6
4.8
-0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.0
12.1
1.9
Heroin
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
-0.1
Other opiatesᵉ
9.0
9.6
10.3
9.9
10.1
9.8
10.1
9.6
9.4
9.7
10.2
9.0
9.2
8.6
-0.6
Stimulants
22.3
22.6
23.0
22.9
24.2
26.4
Stimulants Adjusted
32.2
35.6
35.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.9
26.9
27.9
26.2
23.4
21.6
19.8
-1.8s
Sedatives
18.2
17.7
17.4
16.0
14.6
14.9
16.0
15.2
14.4
13.3
11.8
10.4
8.7
7.8
-0.9
Barbiturates⁶
16.9
16.2
15.6
13.7
11.8
11.0
11.3
10.3
9.9
9.9
9.2
Methaqualone
8.4
7.4
6.7
-0.7
8.1
7.8
8.5
7.9
8.3
9.5
10.6
10.7
10.1
8.3
6.7
5.2
4.0
3.3
-0.7
Tranquilizers
17.0
16.8
18.0
17.0
16.3
15.2
14.7
14.0
13.3
12.4
11.9
10.9
10.9
9.4
-1.5s
Alcohol
90.4
91.9
92.5
93.1
93.0
93.2
92.6
92.8
92.6
92.6
92.2
91.3
92.2
92.0
-0.2
Cigarettes
73.6
75.4
75.7
75.3
74.0
71.0
71.0
70.1
70.6
69.7
68.8
67.6
67.2
66.4
-0.8
a NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S =.05, SS =.01, = SSS = =.001. NA indicates data not available.
b Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-Afths of N indicated.
C
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
d Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
f Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
BOLE
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 9
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used in last twelve months
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
40.0
44.5
47.6
50.2
50.8
48.8
46.1
44.3
42.3
40.0
40.6
38.8
36.3
33.1
-3.2ss
Inhalantsᵃ
NA
3.0
3.7
4.1
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
5.4
4.6
4.1
4.5
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.1
6.9
6.5
-0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
7.9
6.1
6.6
6.2
7.2
7.5
8.9
8.1
7.1
1.0
Amyl & Butyl Nitrites
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.5
5.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
4.7
2.6
1.7
-0.9s
Hallucinogens
11.2
9.4
8.8
9.6
9.9
9.3
9.0
8.1
7.3
6.5
6.3
6.0
6.4
5.5
Hallucinogens Adjusted
-0.9s
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.8
10.4
10.1
9.0
8.3
7.3
7.6
7.6
6.7
5.8
-0.9
LSD
7.2
PCPᶜ,h
6.4
5.5
6.3
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.1
5.4
4.7
4.4
4.5
5.2
4.8
-0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
4.4
3.2
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.4
1.3
1.2
-0.1
Cocaine
5.6
6.0
7.2
9.0
12.0
12.3
12.4
11.5
11.4
11.6
13.1
12.7
10.3
7.9
-2.4sss
"Crack"6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other cocaineᶜ
4.1
4.0
3.1
-0.9g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.8
7.4
-2.4ss
Heroin
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
5.7
5.7
6.4
6.0
6.2
6.3
5.9
5.3
5.1
5.2
5.9
5.2
5.3
4.6
-0.7s
Stimulants
16.2
15.8
16.3
17.1
18.3
20.8
26.0
26.1
24.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.3
17.9
17.7
15.8
13.4
12.2
10.9
1.3s
Sedatives
11.7
10.7
10.8
9.9
9.9
10.3
10.5
9.1
7.9
6.6
5.8
5.2
4.1
3.7
-0.4
Barbiturates
10.7
9.6
9.3
8.1
7.5
6.8
6.6
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.6
Methaqualone
3.2
-0.4
5.1
4.7
5.2
4.9
5.9
7.2
7.6
6.8
5.4
3.8
2.8
2.1
1.5
1.3
-0.2
Tranquilizers
10.6
10.3
10.8
9.9
9.6
8.7
8.0
7.0
6.9
6.1
6.1
5.8
5.5
4.8
-0.7
Alcohol
84.8
85.7
87.0
87.7
88.1
87.9
87.0
86.8
87.3
86.0
85.6
84.5
85.7
85.3
-0.4
Cigarettes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8 NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 6 =.05, SS =.01, SSS =.001. NA indicates data not available.
b
Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
C
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
d
Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
e
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
f Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
g h Data based on a single questionnaire form in 1986 (N is one-fifth of N indicated), and on two questionnaire forms in 1987 (N is two-fifths of N indicated).
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 10
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used in last. thirty days
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87-'88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
27.1
32.2
35.4
37.1
36.5
33.7
31.6
28.5
27.0
25.2
25.7
23.4
21.0
18.0
-3.0ss
Inhalants
NA
0.9
1.3
1.5
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.6
-0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.0
-0.5
Amyl & Butyl Nitritesᶜ,h
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.3
0.6
-0.7s
Hallucinogens
4.7
3.4
4.1
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.7
Hallucinogens Adjusted
3.4
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
NA
-0.3
NA
NA
NA
5.3
4.4
4.5
4.1
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.5
2.8
2.3
-0.5
LSD
2.3
PCPᶜ,h
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.0
0.3
-0.3
Cocaine
1.9
2.0
2.9
3.9
5.7
5.2
5.8
5.0
4.9
5.8
6.7
6.2
4.3
3.4
-0.9ss
"Crack"g
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.6
+0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
3.2
-0.9
Heroin
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.6
-0.2
Stimulants⁶
8.5
7.7
8.8
8.7
9.9
12.1
15.8
13.7
Stimulants Adjustedᶜ,
12.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.7
8.9
8.3
6.8
5.5
5.2
4.6
-0.6
Sedatives
5.4
4.5
5.1
4.2
4.4
4.8
4.6
3.4
3.0
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.7
1.4
-0.3
Barbiturates
4.7
3.9
4.3
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.0
2.1
1.7
Methaqualone
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.2
-0.2
2.1
1.6
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.3
3.1
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
-0.1
Tranquilizers
4.1
4.0
4.6
3.4
3.7
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
-0.5s
Alcohol
68.2
68.3
71.2
72.1
71.8
72.0
70.7
69.7
69.4
67.2
65.9
65.3
66.4
63.9
-2.5s
Cigarettes
36.7
38.8
38.4
36.7
34.4
30.5
29.4
30.0
30.3
29.3
30.1
29.6
29.4
28.7
-0.7
a NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S = =.05, S8 =.01, 888 =.001. NA indicates data not available.
b Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
c Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
e
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
f Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
h g Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 11
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Daily Use of Eighteen Types of Drugs
Percent who used daily in last thirty days
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
g
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Marijuana/Hashish
6.0
8.2
9.1
10.7
10.3
9.1
7.0
6.3
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.0
3.3
2.7
-0.6s
Inhalants²
NA
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1.
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
+0.1
Inhalants Adjustedᵇ
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
-0.1
Amyl & Butyl Nitrites
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.2
Hallucinogens
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
Hallucinogens Adjusted
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
-0.2s
LSD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0g
PCPᶜ,1
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
-0.2g
Cocaine
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
-0.1
"Crack"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Other cocaineᶜ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.0
Heroin
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other opiatesᵉ
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Stimulants
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants Adjustede"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
Sedatives
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Barbiturates⁶
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0g
Methaqualone
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0g
Tranquilizers
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0g
Alcohol
Daily
5.7
5.6
6.1
5.7
6.9
6.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.2
-0.6
5+ drinks in a row/
last 2 weeks
36.8
37.1
39.4
40.3
41.2
41.2
41.4
40.5
40.8
38.7
36.7
36.8
37.5
34.7
-2.8s
Cigarettes
Daily
26.9
28.8
28.8
27.5
25.4
21.3
20.3
21.1
21.2
18.7
19.5
18.7
18.7
18.1
-0.6
Half-pack or more per day
17.9
19.2
19.4
18.8
16.5
14.3
13.5
14.2
13.8
12.3
12.5
11.4
11.4
10.6
-0.8
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 8 =.05, SS =.01, = 686 =.001. NA indicates data not available.
b Data based on four questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
c
Adjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites. See text for details.
d Data based on a single questionnaire form. N is one-fifth of N indicated.
Adjusted for underreporting of PCP. See text for details.
f e Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
g h Any apparent inconsistency between the change estimate and the prevalence estimales for the two most recent classes is due to rounding error.
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
Data based on two questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
Question text changed slightly in 1987.
TABLE 12
Trends in Lifetime, Annual, and Thirty-Day Prevalence in an Index of Illicit Drug Use
(Based on Original and Adjusted Amphetamine Questions)
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. N =
(9400)
(15400)
(17100)
(17800)
(15500)
(15900)
(17500)
(17700)
(16300)
(15900)
(16000)
(15200)
(16300)
(16300)
Percent reporting use in lifetime
Marijuana Only
19.0
22.9
25.8
27.6
27.7
26.7
22.8
20.8
19.7
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.3
22.5
21.3
20.9
19.9
20.8
21.4
+0.6
Any Illicit Drug Other b
Than Marijuana
36.2
35.4
35.8
36.5
37.4
38.7
42.8
45.0
44.4
-
-
I
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41.1
40.4
40.3
39.7
37.7
35.8
32.5
-3.3sss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
55.2
58.3
61.6
64.1
65.1
65.4
65.6
65.8
64.1
-
-
-
I
I
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
64.4
62.9
61.6
60.6
57.6
56.6
53.9
-2.7ss
Percent reporting use in last twelve months
Marijuana Only
18.8
22.7
25.1
26.7
26.0
22.7
18.1
17.0
16.6
-
-
-
I
I
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.3
19.0
17.8
18.9
18.4
17.6
17.4
-0.2
Any Illicit Drug Other b
Than Marijuana
26.2
25.4
26.0
27.1
28.2
30.4
34.0
33.8
32.5
-
I
I
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
28.4
28.0
27.4
25.9
24.1
21.1
-3.0sss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
45.0
48.1
51.1
53.8
54.2
53.1
52.1
50.8
49.1
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
49.4
47.4
45.8
46.3
44.3
41.7
38.5
-3.2sss
Percent reporting use in last thirty days.
Marijuana Only
15.3
20.3
22.4
23.8
22.2
18.8
15.2
14.3
14.0
-
I
-
I
I
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
15.5
15.1
14.1
14.8
13.9
13.1
11.3
- 1.8s
Any Illicit Drug Other
Than Marijuana
0
15.4
13.9
15.2
15.1
16.8
18.4
21.7
19.2
18.4
-
-
-
-
I
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.0
15.4
15.1
14.9
13.2
11.6
10.0
- 1.6ss
Total: Any Illicit
Drug Use
30.7
34.2
37.6
38.9
38.9
37.2
36.9
33.5
32.4
-
-
-
I
-
Adjusted Version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32.5
30.5
29.2
29.7
27.1
24.7
21.3
-
3.4sss
a NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S =.05, SS =.01, SSS = .001.
b Adjusted questions about stimulant use were introduced in 1982 to exclude more completely the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
orders. Use of "other illicit drugs" includes any use of hallucinogens, cocaine, and heroin, or any use of other opiates. stimulants, sedatives, or tranquilizers not under a doctor's
TABLE 4
Lifetime Prevalence of Use of Eighteen Types of Drugs
by Subgroups, Class of 1988
(Entries are percentages)
MJ
INHᵃ
NIT
HAL"
LSD
PCP
COKEᵇ
CRCKᵇ
olcoᵇ
HER
OP
STMᶜ
SED
BARB
QUA
TRN
ALC
CIG
All Seniors
47.2
16.7
3.2
8.9
7.7
2.9
12.1
4.8
12.1
1.1
8.6
19.8
7.8
6.7
3.3
9.4
92.0
66.4
Sex:
Male
49.8
19.5
3.9
10.8
9.6
3.4
13.6
6.0
13.7
1.4
9.2
18.4
8.0
6.8
3.9
9.0
92.1
65.4
Female
44.5
14.0
2.6
6.8
5.6
2.6
10.4
3.4
10.1
0.9
7.9
20.9
7.5
6.6
3.6
9.6
92.0
67.1
College Plans:
None or under 4 yrs
53.6
19.4
3.1
10.9
9.9
3.8
15.8
6.5
12.3
1.7
10.1
25.9
10.5
9.1
4.8
11.0
92.2
73.7
Complete 4 yrs
44.0
15.7
3.3
7.5
6.4
2.6
10.0
3.7
10.7
0.8
7.9
17.2
6.4
5.5
2.4
8.6
92.2
62.7
Region:
Northeast
49.6
15.3
2.1
9.3
7.0
3.5
13.2
3.8
11.8
1.0
7.2
16.5
7.7
6.1
3.7
9.5
93.9
66.6
North Central
48.0
16.8
2.7
8.2
7.4
1.5
9.4
3.4
9.4
0.8
8.5
22.1
6.6
5.9
2.5
7.4
93.8
69.4
South
42.4
17.0
4.4
8.0
7.3
3.1
9.7
4.2
10.2
1.1
8.4
19.4
9.1
8.0
3.6
10.8
89.3
64.6
West
52.0
17.5
2.6
10.9
9.4
4.1
19.0
8.6
19.7
1.7
10.7
20.8
7.3
6.4
3.3
9.3
92.5
65.2
Population Density:
Large SMSA
47.8
16.8
3.5
10.2
8.2
5.3
14.3
5.8
13.7
1.0
8.1
16.7
7.9
6.3
3.6
9.4
92.2
63.3
Other SMSA
49.7
16.1
3.2
9.8
8.8
2.6
12.8
5.1
13.1
1.2
9.3
21.3
8.0
7.0
3.3
9.4
92.3
66.9
Non-SMSA
41.9
17.8
2.9
5.8
5.2
1.2
8.6
3.2
9.0
1.2
7.9
20.3
7.5
6.6
2.9
9.3
91.3
68.7
a Unadjusted for known underreporting of certain drugs. See text for details.
b
Cocaine data based on five questionnaire forms, "crack" data based on two questionnaire forms, and other cocaine data based on one questionnaire form.
ᶜBased on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
TABLE 5
Annual Prevalence of Use of Eighteen Types of Drugs
by Subgroups, Class of 1988
(Entries are percentages)
MJ
INHᵃ
NIT
HALᵃ
LSD
PCP
COKEᵇ
CRKᵇ
OtCoᵇ
HER
OP
STMᶜ
SED
BARB
QUA
TRN
ALC
CIGᵈ
All Seniors
33.1
6.5
1.7
5.5
4.8
1.2
7.9
3.1
7.4
0.5
4.6
10.9
3.7
3.2
1.3
4.8
85.3
-
Sex:
Male
35.8
8.2
2.0
7.2
6.5
1.7
9.1
4.0
8.0
0.7
5.1
10.8
3.9
3.4
1.5
4.7
85.7
I
Female
30.3
4.9
1.5
3.7
3.0
0.6
6.5
2.0
6.2
0.3
4.1
10.9
3.4
3.0
1.0
4.8
85.0
I
College Plans:
None or under 4 yrs
36.2
8.1
1.3
6.4
5.7
1.8
9.7
4.2
6.0
0.8
4.8
13.9
4.7
4.1
1.7
5.1
85.5
I
Complete 4 yrs
31.3
6.0
1.9
4.7
4.1
0.9
6.7
2.3
6.7
0.3
4.6
9.5
3.1
2.7
1.0
4.6
85.7
-
Region:
Northeast
36.7
6.0
0.4
5.8
4.7
1.4
9.1
2.3
7.0
0.5
3.7
8.4
3.3
2.5
1.6
4.5
88.0
I
North Central
34.3
7.2
1.8
5.3
4.7
0.7
6.1
2.4
5.6
0.3
4.4
12.2
2.9
2.5
1.1
3.7
88.1
I
South
28.7
6.8
2.6
5.2
4.7
1.5
6.2
2.7
5.8
0.5
4.7
10.8
4.6
4.1
1.4
6.0
80.9
-
West
35.6
5.6
1.3
6.0
5.2
1.0
12.1
5.6
13.4
0.7
5.7
11.8
3.4
3.2
1.2
4.4
86.5
-
Population Density:
Large SMSA
34.3
6.5
1.9
6.5
5.2
2.8
9.3
3.9
9.8
0.4
4.0
8.8
3.6
2.8
1.5
4.7
86.1
I
Other SMSA
34.7
6.0
1.4
6.0
5.6
0.6
8.5
3.3
7.8
0.5
5.2
11.9
3.8
3.4
1.2
5.0
85.7
-
Non-SMSA
29.0
7.5
2.1
3.5
3.1
0.5
5.3
2.0
4.5
0.5
4.4
11.3
3.5
3.2
1.2
4.5
83.9
I
a Unadjusted for known underreporting of certain drugs. See text for details.
b Cocaine data based on five questionnaire forms, "crack" data based on two questionnaire forms, and other cocaine data based on one questionnaire form.
c Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
d Annual prevalence is not available.
1
TABLE 6
Thirty-Day Prevalence of Use of Eighteen Types of Drugs
by Subgroups, Class of 1988
(Entries are percentages)
MJ
INHᵃ
NIT
HAL⁸
LSD
PCP
COKE
CRCKᵇ
OtCo
HER
OP
STMᶜ
SED
BARB
QUA
TRN
ALC
CIG
All Seniors
18.0
2.6
0.6
2.2
1.8
0.3
3.4
1.6
3.2
0.2
1.6
4.6
1.4
1.2
0.5
1.5
63.9
28.7
Sex:
Male
20.7
3.2
0.9
3.2
2.7
0.4
4.2
2.1
3.4
0.3
1.8
4.5
Female
1.6
1.3
0.6
15.2
1.4
2.0
68.0
0.4
1.2
28.0
0.9
0.2
2.6
0.9
2.9
0.1
1.4
4.6
1.2
1.1
0.3
1.5
59.9
28.9
College Plans:
None or under 4 yrs
20.4
3.2
0.6
2.5
2.0
0.5
4.6
2.4
3.1
0.4
1.8
6.3
2.0
1.7
Complete 4 yrs
0.8
1.6
16.4
2.2
65.0
37.5
0.6
1.9
1.6
0.2
2.8
1.1
2.7
0.1
1.5
3.7
1.1
1.0
0.3
1.4
63.6
24.4
Region:
Northeast
20.2
2.5
0.0
2.1
1.7
0.3
3.8
1.2
3.4
0.3
1.1
3.2
1.2
1.1
North Central
0.4
1.3
18.6
66.7
3.2
31.2
1.0
2.1
1.9
0.1
2.5
1.1
2.6
0.1
1.3
5.1
1.1
South
1.0
0.3
1.2
67.9
15.8
2.3
31.1
0.9
2.2
1.7
0.4
3.0
1.5
3.1
0.2
1.8
4.3
1.9
West
1.5
0.7
2.0
18.9
58.6
2.1
28.0
0.2
2.5
1.9
0.5
5.2
2.8
4.3
0.3
2.1
5.7
1.3
1.2
0.5
1.3
65.0
23.9
Population Density:
Large SMSA
19.4
2.0
0.7
2.2
1.6
0.5
4.2
1.9
3.7
0.1
1.2
3.5
1.0
Other SMSA
0.9
0.2
1.3
63.8
19.3
2.4
26.9
0.5
2.6
2.3
0.3
3.8
1.7
3.5
0.2
1.8
5.1
1.6
Non-SMSA
1.4
0.5
1.7
14.3
64.1
3.4
28.3
0.9
1.4
1.2
0.1
2.1
1.1
2.2
0.2
1.6
4.8
1.5
1.3
0.7
1.4
63.8
31.4
a Unadjusted for known underreporting of certain drugs. See text for details.
b
Cocaine data based on five questionnaire forms, "crack" data based on two questionnaire forms, and other cocaine data based on one questionnaire form.
c Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
TABLE 16
Trends in Harmfulness of Drugs as Perceived by Seniors
Percentage saying "great risk'
Q. How much do you think people
risk harming themselves
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
(physically or in other
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
ways). if they
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Try marijuana once or twice
15.1
11.4
9.5
8.1
9.4
10.0
13.0
11.5
12.7
14.7
14.8
15.1
18.4
19.0
+0.6
Smoke marijuana occasionally
18.1
15.0
13.4
12.4
13.5
14.7
19.1
18.3
20.6
22.6
24.5
25.0
30.4
31.7
+1.3
Smoke marijuana regularly
43.3
38.6
36.4
34.9
42.0
50.4
57.6
60.4
62.8
66.9
70.4
71.3
73.5
77.0
+3.5ss
Try LSD once or twice
49.4
45.7
43.2
42.7
41.6
43.9
45.5
44.9
14.7
45.4
43.5
12.0
44.9
45.7
+0.8
Take LSD regularly
81.4
80.8
79.1
81.1
82.4
83.0
83.5
83.5
83.2
83.8
82.9
82.6
83.8
84.2
+0.4
Try PCP once or twice
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.6
58.8
+3.2s
Try cocaine once or twice
42.6
39.1
35.6
33.2
31.5
31.3
32.1
32.8
33.0
35.7
34.0
33.5
47.9
51.2
+3.3s
Take cocaine occasionally
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.2
66.8
69.2
+2.4
Take cocaine regularly
73.1
72.3
68.2
68.2
69.5
69.2
71.2
73.0
74.3
78.8
79.0
82.2
88.5
89.2
+0.7
Try heroin once or twice
60.1
58.9
55.8
52.9
50.4
52.1
52.9
51.1
50.8
49.8
47.3
45.8
53.6
54.0
+0.4
Take heroin occasionally
75.6
75.6
71.9
71.4
70.9
70.9
72.2
69.8
71.8
70.7
69.8
68.2
74.6
73.8
-0.8
Take heroin regularly
87.2
88.6
86.1
86.6
87.5
86.2
87.5
86.0
86.1
87.2
86.0
87.1
88.7
88.8
+0.1
Try amphetamines once or twice
35.4
33.4
30.8
29.9
29.7
29.7
26.4
25.3
24.7
25.4
25.2
25.1
29.1
29.6
+0.5
Take ainphetamines regularly
69.0
67.3
66.6
67.1
69.9
69.1
66.1
64.7
64.8
67.1
67.2
67.3
69.4
69.8
+0.4
Try barbiturates once or twice
34.8
32.5
31.2
31.3
30.7
30.9
28.4
27.5
27.0
27.4
26.1
25.4
30.9
20.7
1.2
Take barbiturates regularly
69.1
67.7
68.6
68.4
71.6
72.2
69.9
67.6
67.7
68.5
68.3
67.2
69.4
69.6
+0.2
Try one or two drinks of an
alcoholic beverage (beer,
wine, liquor)
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
-0.2
Take one or two drinks nearly
every day
21.5
21.2
18.5
19.6
22.6
20.3
21.6
21.6
21.6
23.0
24.4
25.1
26.2
27.3
+1.1
Take four or five drinks nearly
every day
63.5
61.0
62.9
63.1
66.2
65.7
64.5
65.5
66.8
68.4
69.8
66.5
69.7
68.5
1.2
Have five or more drinks once
or twice each weekend
37.8
37.0
34.7
34.5
34.9
35.9
36.3
36.0
38.6
41.7
43.0
39.1
41.9
42.6
+0.7
Smoke one or more packs of
cigarettes per day
51.3
56.4
58.4
59.0
63.0
63.7
63.3
60.5
61.2
63.8
66.5
66.0
68.6
68.0
-0.6
Approx. N =
(2804)
(2918)
(3052)
(3770)
(3250)
(3234)
(3604)
(3557)
(3305)
(3262)
(3250)
(3020)
(3315)
(3276)
NOTE: a Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 6 = .05, SS = .01, 886 = .001. NA indicates data not available.
Answer alternatives were: (1) No risk, (2) Slight risk; (3) Moderate risk, (4) Great risk, and (5) Can't say, drug unfamiliar.
TABLE 17
Trends in Proportions of Seniors Disapproving of Drug Use
Percentage "disapproving"a
Q. Do you disapprove of people
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
(who are 18 or older) doing
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87-'88
each of the following?⁶
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Try marijuana once or twice
47.0
38.4
33.4
33.4
34.2
39.0
40.0
45.5
46.3
49.3
51.4
54.6
56.6
60.8
+4.2ss
Smoke marijuana occasionally
54.8
47.8
44.3
43.5
45.3
49.7
52.6
59.1
60.7
63.5
65.8
69.0
71.6
74.0
+2.4
Smoke marijuana regularly
71.9
69.5
65.5
67.5
69.2
74.6
77.4
80.6
82.5
84.7
85.5
86.6
89.2
89.3
+0.1
Try LSD once or twice
82.8
84.6
83.9
85.4
86.6
87.3
86.4
88.8
89.1
88.9
89.5
89.2
91.6
89.8
- 1.8s
Take LSD regularly
94.1
95.3
95.8
96.4
96.9
96.7
96.8
96.7
97.0
96.8
97.0
96.6
97.8
96.4
- 1.4ss
Try cocaine once or twice
81.3
82.4
79.1
77.0
74.7
76.3
74.6
76.6
77.0
79.7
79.3
80.2
87.3
89.1
+ 1.8
Take cocaine regularly
93.3
93.9
92.1
91.9
90.8
91.1
90.7
91.5
93.2
94.5
93.8
94.3
96.7
96.2
-0.5
Try heroin once or twice
91.5
92.6
92.5
92.0
93.4
93.5
93.5
94.6
94.3
94.0
94.0
93.3
96.2
95.0
- 1.2
Take heroin occasionally
94.8
96.0
96.0
96.4
96.8
96.7
97.2
96.9
96.9
97.1
96.8
96.6
97.9
96.9
- 1.0s
Take heroin regularly
96.7
97.5
97.2
97.8
97.9
97.6
97.8
97.5
97.7
98.0
97.6
97.6
98.1
97.2
-0.9s
Try amphetamines once or twice
74.8
75.1
74.2
74.8
75.1
75.4
71.1
72.6
72.3
72.8
74.9
76.5
80.7
82.5
+ 1.8
Take amphetamines regularly
92.1
92.8
92.5
93.5
94.4
93.0
91.7
92.0
92.6
93.6
93.3
93.5
95.4
94.2
- 1.2
Try barbiturates once or twice
77.7
81.3
81.1
82.4
84.0
83.9
82.4
84.4
83.1
84.1
84.9
86.8
89.6
89.4
-0.2
Take barbiturates regularly
93.3
93.6
93.0
94.3
95.2
95.4
94.2
94.4
95.1
95.1
95.5
94.9
96.4
95.3
- 1.1
Try one or two drinks of an
alcoholic beverage (beer,
wine, liquor)
21.6
18.2
15.6
15.6
15.8
16.0
17.2
18.2
18.4
17.4
20.3
20.9
21.4
22.6
+1.2
Take one or two drinks nearly
every day
67.6
68.9
66.8
67.7
68.3
69.0
69.1
69.9
68.9
72.9
70.9
72.8
74.2
75.0
+0.8
Take four or five drinks nearly
every day
88.7
90.7
88.4
90.2
91.7
90.8
91.8
90.9
90.0
91.0
92.0
91.4
92.2
92.8
+0.6
Have five or more drinks once
or twice each weekend
60.3
58.6
57.4
56.2
56.7
55.6
55.5
58.8
56.6
50.6
60.4
62.4
62.0
65.3
+3.3s
Smoke one or more packs of
cigarettes per day
67.5
65.9
66.4
67.0
70.3
70.8
69.9
69.4
70.8
73.0
72.3
75.4
74.3
73.1
- 1.2
Approx. N =
(2677)
(2957)
(3085)
(3686)
(3221)
(3261)
(3610)
(3651)
(3341)
(3254)
(3265)
(3113)
(3302)
(3311)
NOTE: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S = .05, 88 = .01, S6S = .001.
ᵃAnswer alternatives were: (1) Don't disapprove, (2) Disapprove, and (3) Strongly disapprove. Percentages are shown for categories (2) and (3) combined.
ᵇThe 1975 question asked about people who are "20 or older."
TABLE 20
Trends in Proportion of Friends Disapproving of Drug Use
All Seniors
Percentage saying friends disapprove a
Q. How do you think your
Adjust-
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
close friends feel (or
ment
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
b
of
b
of
of
of
of
of
'87 '88
would feel) about you
Factor
1975
1976
1977b
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Trying marijuana once or twice
(-0.5)
44.3
NA
41.8
NA
40.9
42.6
46.4
50.3
52.0
54.1
54.7
56.7
58.0
62.9
+1.9ss
Smoking marijuana occasionally
(+0.8)
54.8
NA
49.0
NA
48.2
50.6
55.9
57.4
59.9
62.9
64.2
64.4
67.0
72.1
+5.1ss
Smoking marijuana regularly
(+4.6)
75.0
NA
69.1
NA
70.2
72.0
75.0
74.7
77.6
79.2
81.0
82.3
82.9
85.5
+2.Gs
Trying LSD once or twice
(+2.0)
85.6
NA
86.6
NA
87.6
87.4
86.5
87.8
87.8
87.6
88.6
89.0
87.9
89.5
+1.6
Trying cocaine once or twice
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
79.6
83.9
88.1
+4.2sss
Taking cocaine occasionally
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
87.3
89.7
92.1
+2.4s
Trying an amphetamine once
or twice
(+2.2)
78.8
NA
80.3
NA
81.0
78.9
74.4
75.7
76.8
77.0
77.0
79.4
80.0
82.3
+2.3
Taking one or two drinks nearly
every day
(+7.8)
67.2
NA
71.0
NA
71.0
70.5
69.5
71.9
71.7
73.6
75.4
75.9
71.8
74.9
+3.1s
Taking four or five drinks
every day
(+9.3)
89.2
NA
88.1
NA
88.5
87.9
86.4
86.6
86.0
86.1
88.2
87.4
85.6
87.1
+1.5
Having five or more drinks once
or twice every weekend
(+4.7)
55.0
NA
53.4
NA
51.3
50.6
50.3
51.2
50.6
51.3
55.9
54.9
52.4
54.0
+1.6
Smoking one or more packs of
cigarettes per day
(+8.3)
63.6
NA
68.3
NA
73.4
74.4
73.8
70.3
72.2
73.9
73.7
76.2
74.2
76.4
+2.2
Approx. N =
(2488)
(NA)
(2615)
(NA)
(2716)
(2766)
(3120)
(3024)
(2722)
(2721)
(2688)
(2639)
(2815)
(2778)
NOTE: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: 8 = .05, SS = .01, 88S = .001. NA indicates data not available.
a Answer alternatives were: (1) Don't disapprove, (2) Disapprove, and (3) Strongly disapprove. Percentages are shown for categories (2) and (3) combined.
b
These flgures have been adjusted by the factors reported in the first column to correct for a lack of comparability of question-context among administrations. (See text for
discussion.)
TABLE 23
Trends in Perceived Availability of Drugs, All Seniors
Percentage saying drug would be "Fairly
easy" or "Very easy" for them to getᵃ
Q. How difficult do you think
it would be for you to
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
get each of the following
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
'87 - '88
types of drugs, if you
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
wanted some?
Marijuana
87.8
87.4
87.9
87.8
90.1
89.0
89.2
88.5
86.2
84.6
85.5
85.2
84.8
85.0
+0.2
Amyl & Butyl Nitrites
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.9
25.9
+2.0
LSD
46.2
37.4
34.5
32.2
34.2
35.3
35.0
34.2
30.9
30.6
30.5
28.5
31.4
33.3
+1.9
PCP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.8
24.9
+2.1
Some other psychedelic
47.8
35.7
33.8
33.8
34.6
35.0
32.7
30.6
26.6
26.6
26.1
24.9
25.0
26.2
+ 1.2
Cocaine
37.0
34.0
33.0
37.8
45.5
47.9
47.5
47.4
43.1
45.0
48.9
51.5
54.2
55.0
+0.8
"Crack"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.1
42.1
+ 1.0
Cocaine powder
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
52.9
50.3
2.6
Heroin
24.2
18.4
17.9
16.4
18.9
21.2
19.2
20.8
19.3
19.9
21.0
22.0
23.7
28.0
+ 4.3ss
Some other narcotic
(including methadone)
34.5
26.9
27.8
26.1
28.7
29.4
29.6
30.4
30.0
32.1
33.1
32.2
33.0
35.8
+2.8
Amphetamines
67.8
61.8
58.1
58.5
59.9
61.3
69.5
70.8
68.5
68.2
66.4
64.3
64.5
63.9
-0.6
Barbiturates
60.0
54.4
52.4
50.6
49.8
49.1
54.9
55.2
52.5
51.9
51.3
48.3
48.2
47.8
-0.4
Tranquilizers
71.8
65.5
64.9
64.3
61.4
59.1
60.8
58.9
55.3
54.5
54.7
51.2
48.6
49.1
+0.5
Approx. N =
(2627)
(2865)
(3065)
(3598)
(3172)
(3240)
(3578)
(3602)
(3385)
(3269)
(3274)
(3077)
(3271)
(3231)
NOTE: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent classes: S = .05, SS = .01, SSS = .001. NA indicates data not available.
a Answer alternatives were: (1) Probably impossible, (2) Very difficult, (3) Fairly difficult, (4) Fairly easy, and (5) Very easy.
TABLE 28
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among Follow-Up Respondents 1-11 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last twelve months
'87 '88
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(7450)
(7320)
Marijuana
34.3
31.3
-3.0sss
b
Inhalants
2.0
1.7
-0.3
LSD
2.8
2.8
0.0
Cocaine
15.6
13.8
- -1.8ss
"Crack"c
3.0
3.1
+0.1
Heroin
0.3
0.2
-0.1
Other Opiatesᵃ
3.0
2.6
-0.4
Stimulants, Adjusted a.d
8.5
7.1
- 1.4ss
Sedativesᵃ
2.5
2.1
-0.4
Barbiturates⁸
2.0
1.9
-0.1
Methaqualone
0.9
0.5
-0.4ss
Tranquilizers
5.1
4.3
-0.8s
Alcohol
89.1
88.5
-0.6
Cigarettes
39.9
37.5
-2.4ss
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
S = .05, SS = .01, SSS = .001.
NA indicates data not available.
ᵃOnly drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
b This drug was asked about in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N
indicated.
ᶜThis drug was asked about in two of the five questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N
indicated.
d Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate
reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
TABLE 29
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among Follow-Up Respondents 1-11 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last thirty days
'87- '88
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(7450)
(7320)
Marijuana
20.7
17.7
-3.0sss
Inhalants
b
0.6
0.6
0.0
LSD
0.8
0.8
0.0
Cocaine
6.0
5.7
-0.3
"Crack"C
0.9
1.3
+0.4
Heroin
0.1
0.1
0.0
Other Opiatesᵃ
0.9
0.6
-0.3s
Stimulants, Adjusted a,d
3.3
2.7
-0.6s
Sedativesᵃ
0.8
0.7
-0.1
Barbiturates⁸
0.7
0.7
0.0
Methaqualone
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Tranquilizers
1.6
1.4
-0.2
Alcohol
75.0
74.0
- 1.0
Cigarettes
30.8
28.9
- 1.9s
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
S = .05, ss = .01, 866 = .001.
ᵃOnly drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
ᵇThis drug was asked about in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths
of N indicated.
ᶜThis drug was asked about in two of the five questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths
of N indicated.
d Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the
inappropriate reporting of non-prescription stimulants.
TABLE 43
Trends in Annual Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among College Students 1-4 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last twelve months
'87-'88
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(1040)
(1130)
(1150)
(1170)
(1110)
(1080)
(1190)
(1220)
(1310)
Marijuana
51.2
51.3
44.7
45.2
40.7
41.7
40.9
37.0
34.6
-2.4
Inhalants
b
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.4
3.1
3.9
3.7
4.1
+0.4
LSD
6.0
4.6
6.3
4.3
3.7
2.2
3.9
4.0
3.6
-0.4
Cocaine
16.8
16.0
17.2
17.3
16.3
17.3
17.1
13.7
10.0
-3.7ss
"Crack"c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
2.0
1.4
-0.6
Heroin
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
Other Opiatesᵃ
5.1
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.4
4.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
Stimulantsᵃ
22.4
22:2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants, Adjusted
NA
NA
21.1
17.3
15.7
11.9
10.3
7.2
6.2
1.0
Sedativesᵃ
8.3
8.0
8.0
4.5
3.5
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.5
-0.2
Barbiturates
2.9
2.8
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.3
2.0
1.2
1.1
-0.1
Methaqualone
7.2
6.5
6.6
3.1
2.5
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.5
-0.3
Tranquilizers
6.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
3.5
3.6
4.4
3.8
3.1
-0.7
Alcohol
90.5
92.5
92.2
91.6
90.0
92.0
91.5
90.9
89.6
1.3
Cigarettes
36.2
37.6
34.3
36.1
33.2
35.0
35.3
38.0
36.6
1.4
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
S = .05, 86 = .01, SSS = .001.
NA indicates data not available.
a Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
b This drug was asked about in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
ᶜThis drug was asked about in one of the five questionnaire forms in 1986 (N is one-fifth of N indicated), and in
two of the five questionnaire forms thereafter (N is two-fifths of N indicated).
d Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-
prescription stimulants.
TABLE 44
Trends in Thirty-Day Prevalence of Fourteen Types of Drugs
Among College Students 1-4 Years Beyond High School
Percent who used in last thirty days
'87-'88
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
change
Approx. Wtd. N =
(1040)
(1130)
(1150)
(1170)
(1110)
(1080)
(1190)
(1220)
(1310)
Marijuana
34.0
33.2
26.8
26.2
23.0
23.6
22.3
20.3
16.8
-3.5s
b
Inhalants
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.3
+0.4
LSD
1.4
1.4
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.4
1.4
1.1
-0.3
Cocaine
6.9
7.3
7.9
6.5
7.6
6.9
7.0
4.6
4.2
-0.4
"Crack"c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.5
+0.1
Heroin
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
Other Opiates
1.8
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.0
Stimulants
13.4
12.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stimulants, Adjusted a,d
NA
NA
9.9
7.0
5.5
4.2
3.7
2.3
1.8
-0.5
Sedativesᵃ
3.8
3.4
2.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
Barbiturates
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.0
Methaqualone
3.1
3.0
1.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Tranquilizers
a
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.9
1.0
1.1
+0.1
Alcohol
81.8
81.9
82.8
80.3
79.1
80.3
79.7
78.4
77.0
-1.4
Cigarettes
25.8
25.9
24.4
24.7
21.5
22.4
22.4
24.0
22.6
-1.4
NOTES: Level of significance of difference between the two most recent years:
S = .05. ss = .01, 886 = .001.
NA indicates data not available.
a Only drug use which was not under a doctor's orders is included here.
b This question was asked in four of the five questionnaire forms. N is four-fifths of N indicated.
C This question was asked in two of the five questionnaire forms. N is two-fifths of N indicated.
d
Based on the data from the revised question, which attempts to exclude the inappropriate reporting of non-
prescription stimulants.
SPEAKERS
Press Conference
on
1988 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR DRUG ABUSE SURVEY
February 28, 1989
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D., Administrator of the Alcohol, Drug
Abuse and Mental Health Administration, DHHS
Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D., Director of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse, ADAMHA
Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, Principal Investigator
Susan B. Lachter, Director of the Office for Research
Communications, NIDA, Moderator
RESOURCE CONTACTS
1988 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR DRUG ABUSE SURVEY
Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Jerald G. Bachman, Ph.D., and
Patrick M. O'Malley, Ph.D., Principal Investigators
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI (313) 763-5043
Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA), (301) 443-6245
Edgar H. Adams, Sc.D., Director, Division of Epidemiology and
Statistical Analysis (DESA), NIDA, (301) 443-6504
Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D., Chief, Epidemiology Research Branch,
DESA, NIDA, and Project Officer, National High School Senior
Drug Abuse Survey, (301) 443-2974
Susan B. Lachter, Director, Office for Research Communications,
NIDA, (301) 443-1124
Mona Whittaker, Press Officer, NIDA, (301) 443-6245
IDA Capsules
issued by the Press Office of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville. Maryland 20857
(301) 443-6245
ABOUT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Functions
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the lead Federal agency for
drug abuse research. The Institute provides a national focus for the
Federal effort to increase knowledge and promote effective strategies to
deal with health problems and issues associated with drug abuse. In
carrying out these responsibilities, the Institute sponsors and conducts
research into incidence and prevalence of drug abuse, its causes and
consequences, and improved approaches to prevention and treatment.
NIDA was established on May 14, 1974, as one of the three Institutes which
comprise the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
(ADAMHA) of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Staffing and Budget
The Institute has 278 full-time equivalent employees and an annual budget
of $199,009,000 in fiscal year 1988. Approximately $131 million of this
total amount is spent on research; $51.5 million on AIDS demonstrations;
$2.3 million on research training; and the remaining $14.4 million is
spent in the category of Direct Operations, which includes operating
expenses, AIDS technical assistance, and NIDA's drug-free workplace
initiative.
The President's Initiative
NIDA's role in The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is to develop more
effective ways of preventing and treating drug abuse. To meet this role,
over the next two years, NIDA will place added emphasis on research in
those areas which offer the promise of providing practical results in the
near future. Those areas singled out for special attention include
research in the the following areas:
1) The efficacy of drug abuse treatment programs.
2) The development of new, more effective drug abuse treatment approaches
including development of new therapeutic drugs, such as buprenorphine.
3) The development of new, more effective prevention programs.
4) The ability to identify those individuals most at risk for drug abuse.
5) The development of more effective and reliable techniques for
screening for drug use.
(more)
C-83-4
Revised June 1988
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
-2-
NIDA's Drug-Free Workplace Initiative
In February 1987, NIDA established the Office of Workplace Initiatives
(OWI). The OWI develops policies and provides leadership for the
implementation and administration of a national program to eliminate the
use of illegal drugs in the workplace. Its programs include research,
treatment, training and prevention activities as well as projects related
to the development of a comprehensive Drug-Free Workplace program which
includes policy development, supervisory training, employee education,
employee assistance and drug testing components.
OWI has developed Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Programs which include Scientific and Technical Requirements and Certi-
fication Standards for Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for
Federal Agencies. In addition, OWI is conducting research to determine
the extent of drug abuse in the workplace, performing cost-benefit
analyses of comprehensive drug-free workplace programs, and analyzing and
recommending EAP policy models for employers. OWI is also supporting the
development of guidelines for a comprehensive federal EAP program, the
publication of a drug abuse curriculum for EAP practitioners, the filming
and distribution of a four-part videotape series on drugs at work, and the
publication of a directory of educational resources in the employee
assistance area.
NIDA's AIDS Program
The emergence of AIDS as a major national health problem has introduced an
entirely new element in the threat posed by drug abuse. Intravenous (IV)
drug abuse is the second leading risk factor for AIDS, with about 25
percent of all AIDS cases involving IV drug use.
NIDA has begun a major program to find ways to curb the spread of AIDS
among IV drug users and from IV drug users to their sexual partners and
children. This includes supporting research in the following areas:
1) Research to clearly determine the prevalence of IV drug use,
identification of risk factors associated with IV drug use,
ethnographic studies of IV drug-using subcultures, identification of
high risk drug use patterns among IV drug users, the influence of
social and cultural factors on IV drug use, and comparisons of IV and
non-IV drug users on personality and behavioral characteristics.
2) Research to determine whether drug use itself is a factor in the
development of AIDS.
3) Research to develop effective strategies for preventing the onset of
IV drug use and needle sharing among IV drug users.
In addition, NIDA supports a number of activities designed to educate the
public about the role of drug use in the transmission of AIDS and provides
technical assistance to State, local, and private treatment professionals
concerning the treatment of IV drug users.
###
Capsules
Issued by the Press Office of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857
(301) 443-6245
HIGHLIGHTS OF NATIONAL ADOLESCENT SCHOOL HEALTH SURVEY
DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE
The National Adolescent School Health Survey was conducted in the Fall of 1987
and included approximately 11,000 eight and tenth grade students from public
and private schools. The survey included questions on illicit drug use,
cigarette and alcohol use, suicide and depression, violence, AIDS, sexually
transmitted diseases and nutrition. The following highlights pertain to
findings on illicit drug use, and cigarette and alcohol use.
CIGARETTE USE
O 51% of 8th grade students and 63% of 10th grade students report having
tried cigarettes, and 16% of 8th grade students and 26% of 10th grade
students report having smoked a cigarette during the past month.
Nearly equal numbers of boys and girls report ever trying cigarettes
(girls 58% boys 57%) as well as smoking during the past month (girls 23%
boys 20%).
12% of boys and 1% of girls reported having chewed tobacco or used snuff
during the past month.
Of those students who have tried cigarettes, 72% of the 8th grade
students and 41% of the 10th grade students report first use by grade 6
or before.
ALCOHOL USE
O
77% of 8th grade students have tried alcohol and of these, 55% report
first trying it by grade 6. 89% of 10th grade students report having
tried an alcoholic beverage; of these, 69% report first use by grade 8.
34% of 8th grade students and 53% of 10th grade students report having
had an alcoholic beverage during the past month.
26% of 8th grade students and 38% of 10th grade students report having
weeks. had five or more drinks on at least one occasion during the past two
13% of 8th grade students and 18% of 10th grade students report using a
month. combination of alcohol and drugs on one or more occasions during the past
C-88-04
August 1988
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
-2-
MARIJUANA USE
15% of 8th grade students report having tried marijuana and of these, 44%
report first use by grade 6. 35% of 10th grade students report having
tried marijuana with 56% of them reporting first use by grade 8.
6% of 8th grade students and 15% of 10th grade students report having
used marijuana during the past month.
Past month marijuana use was reported by 10% of the girls and 12% of the
boys.
4% of the students report having used marijuana 6 or more times during
the past month.
COCAINE USE
5% of 8th grade students and 9% of 10th grade students report having
tried cocaine. 2% of 8th grade students and 3% of 10th grade students
report having used cocaine during the past month.
Of those who have tried cocaine, approximately one-third have tried
crack. 2% of 8th grade students and 3% of 10th graders report having
tried the crack form of cocaine.
Of those students who have tried cocaine, 62% of the 8th grade students
report first trying it in grades 7 or 8, and 76% of the 10th grade
students report first trying it in grades 9 or 10.
INHALANT USE
21% of both 8th and 10th grade students report having tried inhalants
(glues, gases, sprays). Of those students who have tried inhalants, 61%
of the 8th grade students report first use by grade 6 and 78% of the 10th
grade students report first use by grade 8.
7% of the 8th grade students and 5% of the 10th grade students report
inhalant use during the past month.
PERCEPTION OF RISK
O 86% of the students perceive a moderate or great risk from smoking
cigarettes on a daily basis.
80% of the students perceive a moderate or great risk from the regular
use of alcohol.
81% of the students perceive a moderate or great risk from occasional use
of marijuana; 88% from cocaine powder; and 77% perceive a moderate or
great risk from occasional use of inhalants.
-3-
PEER DISAPPROVAL OF DRUG USE
O 76% of the students report that their close friends would disapprove if
they smoked a pack of cigarettes each day.
74% of the students report that their close friends would disapprove if
they drank alcohol regularly; however, slightly less than half (43%)
think that their close friends would disapprove if they drank alcohol
occasionally.
81% of the students report that their close friends would disapprove if
they smoked marijuana occasionally and 93% would disapprove if they used
cocaine occasionally.
OTHER FINDINGS
86% of the students report that it would be fairly or very easy for them
to get cigarettes, 84% for alcohol; 57% for marijuana; and 27% report
that it would be easy for them to get cocaine.
79% of the 8th grade students and 88% of the 10th grade students report
having received instruction in school on the effects of drugs and
alcohol.
Lifetime Prevalence for Selected Drugs Among
8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students*
1987
Percent Who Ever Used
8th graders 10th graders 12th graders
Alcohol
77
89
92
Cigarette
51
63
67
Marijuana
15
35
50
Cocaine
5
9
15
Crack**
2
3
6
Inhalants
21
21
17
*
Data on 8th and 10th grade students is from the National Adolescent
Student Health Survey. Data on 12th graders is from the High School
Senior Survey.
**
Reflects a subset of any use of cocaine.
Capsules
Issued by the Press Office of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857
(301) 443-6245
FACTS ABOUT TEENAGERS AND DRUG ABUSE
Data from three National Institute on Drug Abuse surveys, the 1985 National
Household Survey, the 1987 National High School Senior Survey, and the Drug
Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), indicate a significant decline in the use of
many illicit drugs among teenagers from the peak levels attained during the
1970's, but serious problems remain. These surveys found that:
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (1985)
-
Nearly 6.4 million (29.6%) young people aged 12-17 have tried an illicit
drug at least some time during their lives; 5.1 million (23.6%) have used
month. it within the past year; and 3.3 million (15.1%) have used within the past
-
Approximately 3.5 million (31.3%) males 12-17 years old and 2.9 million
(27.7%) females in this age group have used an illicit drug at least once
during their life.
-
Approximately 5.1 million (23.7%) young people have tried marijuana; 4.3
million (19.9%) have used it within the past year; and 2.7 million (12.2%)
have used marijuana in the past month.
-
Among 12-17 year olds, past month marijuana use (12.2% overall) ranged by
region from 8.8% in the South to 11.6% in the North Central to 13.3% in
the Northeast to 17.1% in the West.
-
By race/ethicity, past month marijuana use was 8.2% for Black youth, 9.9%
for Hispanics and 13.2% for Whites.
- Over 1.1 million (5.2%) young people have tried cocaine; 960,000 (4.2%)
have used cocaine within the past year; and 390,000 (1.7%) have used
cocaine within the past month.
(more)
C-83-07a
Revised April, 1988
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
National High School Senior Survey (Monitoring the Future, 1987)
- Cocaine use decreased in 1987 reflecting the first substantial decline
among American High School Seniors. The use of other illicit drugs also
declined, however, 42% of high school seniors still reported using some
illicit drug during the past year.
-
Past month marijuana use declined to 21.0% in 1987, down from 23.4% in
1986 and substantially below the peak of 37.1% observed for the class of
1978. Daily marijuana use which peaked at 10.7% in 1978 had declined to
3.3% in 1987.
- Well over half of young people (57%) have tried an illicit drug at least
once before they graduate from high school.
- Three percent of high school seniors have used PCP at least once; 1.3%
have used in the past year; and 0.6% have used in the past month.
- Nearly all high school seniors (92%) have had experience with alcohol and
two-thirds (66%) have used in the past month. Nearly 38% have had five or
more drinks in a row on at least one occasion in the past two weeks.
- Nearly one-fifth (18.7%) of high school seniors are daily cigarette
smokers by the time they leave high school.
- Among high school seniors, 87% disapproved of even trying cocaine and 97%
disapprove of regular cocaine use. Forty-eight percent of high school
seniors saw "great risk" of harm associated with trying cocaine once or
twice.
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) (1986)
DAWN Emergency Rooms (ER)
- In 1986, ER's reported 119,263 drug abuse episodes; 13,343 (11.2%) of the
episodes involved patients 10-17 years old.
- Approximately 6 out of 10 of the youth ER visits were related to a suicide
attempt or gesture. The drugs mentioned most frequently by young ER
patients were aspirin, acetaminophen, alcohol-in-combination, marijuana
and cocaine.
DAWN Medical Examiners (ME)
- ME's reported a total of 4,138 drug abuse deaths; 55 involved decedents
10-17 years old.
- Approximately 46% of the ME cases for children under 18 were classified as
suicides. Alcohol-in-combination and cocaine were the drugs mentioned
most frequently in the ME cases.
###
Capsules
Issued by the Press Office of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857
(301) 443-6245
DRUG ABUSE WARNING NETWORK
Emergency Room Cocaine Mentions
The following table lists the frequency of cocaine-related emergency room
admissions and the percentage that involved smoking as the route of
administering cocaine in 1988 compared with 1985. This data is collected by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), through the Drug Abuse Warning
Network (DAWN), a voluntary data collection system through which hospital
emergency room (ER) and medical examiner (ME) facilities report information
on medical crises and deaths related to improper use of drugs. Cocaine-
related ER admissions listed below were reported from hospitals in 21
metropolitan areas throughout the country.
1988
1985
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Cocaine
Involving
Cocaine
Involving
Mentions
Smoked
Mentions
Smoked
Cocaine
Cocaine
Atlanta
596
23
172
6
Baltimore
1018
7
248
1
Boston
1173
18
323
4
Buffalo
419
24
43
0
Chicago
4019
23
757
10
Dallas
1152
23
158
1
Denver
641
16
243
2
Detroit
3309
54
1088
16
Los Angeles
2956
29
1640
35
Miami
519
31
1038
16
Minneapolis
378
28
136
4
Newark
1339
30
346
6
New Orleans
2827
41
512
2
New York City
7457
40
3347
4
Philadelphia
5831
31
717
6
Phoenix
981
8
123
5
San Diego
219
17
172
6
San Francisco
719
33
411
7
Seattle
952
19
244
9
St. Louis
534
25
78
6
Washington, D.C.
4467
39
894
4
C-89-01
February 1989
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
na
DRUGS
a1324na--w
r W bc-druguse: 1d 2-28 0658
(complete writethru - updating, adding reaction)
By TAMARA HENRY
WASHINGTON (UPI) Use of crack cocaine has declined among high
school seniors for the first time because of changing attitudes and
increased knowledge about the drug's harmful effects, a survey said
Tuesday.
The 1988 National High School Senior Survey, conducted by The
University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, found use of all
drugs generally declined among American students in high school and
college.
Overall, the proportion of seniors using any illicit drug during
the prior year fell from 42 percent in 1987 to 39 percent in 1988. This
compares with 54 percent in 1979, the peak year.
But the study's director, Lloyd Johnston, said the drop the use
of crack a highly addictive smokeable derivative of cocaine is !'one
of the most important findings'' of the survey of some 16,000 to 17,000
seniors in 135 high schools nationwide. The survey also uses
representative sample of college students and young adults one to 11
years beyond hi. n school.
"This is great news, that our high school seniors are listening,
that more are heeding the perils of drug use,' said Education Secretary
Lauro Cavazos. 'However, too many of our youth, especially those that
never become seniors - the dropouts - still risk their health and their
future by using drugs.
The survey, the 14th in a series of national surveys funded by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, an arm of the Department of Health and
Human Services, showed that 4.8 percent of all seniors between 1987 and
1988 reported ever using crack, compared with 5.6 percent in the
previous year. Annual use of crack fell from 4 percent to 3.1 percent,
after having leveled off between 1986 and 1987.
Johnston, who warned in last year's report of an increase in crack
use from 4 percent to 5.6 percent in 1987, said crack use showed a
decline in 1988 among college students, as well, though not a
statistically significant one - from 2 percent to 1.4 percent - but
there was little change among the 19- to 29-year-olds, from 3 percent to
3. 1 percent.
"WE can safely say that this decrease suggests that high school
seniors, a very important population to the future of our country, are
hearing the messages about cocaine's dangers and are avoiding drug use
in general, said Charles Schuster, director of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
"While crack cocaine is readily available, seniors appear to be
concerned about its addictive qualities and are less likely to try or
continue use.
Other key findings of the survey include:
Marijuana use continued its long-term, gradual decline. About
one-third of all high school seniors reported some marijuana use,
compared with the peak year, of 1979 when half of all seniors reported
some use. Current daily marijuana use dropped from 10.7 percent in 1978
to 2.7 percent in 1988.
Cocaine use dropped between 1986 and 1988 from 13 percent to B
percent. Among college students, only 10 percent reported using the
drug in 1988, compared with 17 percent in 1986. Cocaine use also fell
among all high school graduates aged 19 to 28 from 20 percent annual
prevalence in 1986 to 14 percent in 1988.
Heroin use remained at 0.5 percent, the same percentage the past
nine years.
Alcohol use dropped for the first time in several years. Current
drinkers'' - seniors who had one or more drinks in the past to days -
declined from 66 percent to 64 percent.
_Cigarette smoking stands at 29 percent in 1988, with 18 percent of
all seniors smoking daily.
upi 02-28-89 11:51 aes
na--w
a1324na-
r W bc-druguse:1150aes 1d 2-28 0658
(complete writethru . - updating, adding reaction)
By TAMARA HENRY
WASHINGTON (UPI) - Use of crack cocaine has declined among high
school seniors for the first time because of changing attitudes and
increased knowledge about the drug's harmful effects, a survey said
Tuesday.
The 1988 National High School Senior Survey, conducted by The
University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, found use of all
drugs generally declined among American students in high school and
college.
Overall, the proportion of seniors using any illicit drug during
the prior year fell from 42 percent in 1987 to 39 percent in 1988. This
compares with 54 percent in 1979, the peak year.
But the study's director, Lloyd Johnston, said the drop in the use
of crack a highly addictive smokeable derivative of cocaine is ''one
of the most important findings'' of the survey of some 16,000 to 17,000
seniors in 135 high schools nationwide. The survey also uses a
representative sample of college students and young adults one to 11
years beyond hi. n school.
"This is great news, that our high school seniors are listening,
that more are heeding the perils of drug use,'' said Education Secretary
Lauro Cavazos. "However, too many of our youth, especially those that
never become seniors - the dropouts - still risk their health and their
future by using drugs.'
The survey, the 14th in a series of national surveys funded by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, an arm of the Department of Health and
Human Services, showed that 4.8 percent of all seniors between 1987 and
1988 reported ever using crack, compared with 5.6 percent in the
previous year. Annual use of crack fell from 4 percent to 3.1 percent,
after having leveled off between 1986 and 1987.
Johnston, who warned in last year's report of an increase in crack
use from 4 percent to 5.6 percent in 1987, said crack use showed a
decline in 1988 among college students, as well, though not a
statistically significant one _ - from 2 percent to 1.4 percent but
-
there was little change among the 19- to 29-year-olds, from 3 percent to
3.1 percent.
"We can safely say that this decrease suggests that high school
seniors, a very important population to the future of our country, are
hearing the messages about cocaine's dangers and are avoiding drug use
in general, said Charles Schuster, director of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
"While crack cocaine is readily available, seniors appear to be
concerned about its addictive qualities and are less likely to try or
continue use.
Other key findings of the survey include:
Marijuana use continued its long-term, gradual decline. About
one-third of all high school seniors reported some marijuana use,
compared with the peak year of 1979 when half of all seniors reported
some use. Current daily marijuana use dropped from 10.7 percent in 1978
to 2.7 percent in 1988.
Cocaine use dropped between 1986 and 1988 from 13 percent to B
percent. Among college students, only 10 percent reported using the
drug in 1988, compared with 17 percent in 1986. Cocaine use also fell
among all high school graduates aged 19 to 28 from 20 percent annual
prevalence in 1986 to 14 percent in 1988.
Heroin use remained at 0.5 percent, the same percentage the past
nine years.
Alcohol use dropped for the first time in several years. Current
drinkers" - seniors who had one or more drinks in the past 30 days
-
declined from 66 percent to 64 percent.
Cigarette smoking stands at 29 percent in 1988, with 18 percent of
all seniors smoking daily.
upi 02-28-89 11:51 aes
THE WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989
You KNOW, EVER SINCE I ANNOUNCED THAT I INTENDED TO
BECOME THE EDUCATION PRESIDENT, I'VE HAD MORE THAN A
FEW THINGS TO SAY ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY IN EDUCATION.
WELL, WOODROW WILSON ONCE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.
- 2 -
AND LEGEND HAS IT THAT ONE DAY A WORRIED MOTHER
APPROACHED HIM, AND QUESTIONED HIM CLOSELY ABOUT WHAT
PRINCETON COULD DO FOR HER SON.
HE IS SAID TO HAVE ANSWERED -- THOUGH HISTORIANS
DISPUTE THIS -- QUOTE, "MADAM, WE GUARANTEE
SATISFACTION -- OR YOU WILL GET YOUR SON BACK."
I'M VERY GLAD TO BE BACK AMONG WILSON SCHOLARS.
IT'S AN HONOR TO BE WITH YOU, TO CELEBRATE THE
ANNIVERSARY OF THIS GREAT INSTITUTION.
- 3 -
THE LAW ESTABLISHING THIS NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO
WOODROW WILSON CALLED FOR A "LIVING INSTITUTION" TO
EXPRESS HIS IDEALS AND CONCERNS. THIS ONE TRULY DOES.
IN THIS ALLIANCE OF SCHOLARS -- NOW WORLD-RENOWNED
FOR EXPLORING SOME OF THE MOST VITAL ISSUES CONFRONTING
MANKIND -- WOODROW WILSON'S IDEALS FIND THEIR HIGHEST
AND MOST EFFECTIVE EXPRESSION.
- 4 -
THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
WILSON CENTER IS COMMITTED To, WILL BE ALL THE MORE
CRUCIAL IN THE COMING YEARS. WE WILL DEPEND MORE THAN
EVER ON THE COUNSEL OF LEARNED MEN AND WOMEN, IN A
WORLD THAT IS CHANGING RAPIDLY -- A WORLD INTER-
CONNECTED AS NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY.
NEW IDEAS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES -- AND THE
DIPLOMATIC AND TRADING RELATIONS THEY SPAWN -- ARE
DEVELOPING AT AN ASTOUNDING PACE.
- 5 -
WE WEAVE A TAPESTRY OF SHARED CONCERNS AND RELATIONS,
WORLDWIDE. ITS THREADS ARE MANY -- SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOPOLITICAL -- AND IT GROWS BROADER
DAILY.
MUCH OF WHAT IS OCCURING IN THE WORLD PRESENTS US
WITH REMARKABLE OPPORTUNITIES. CHINA CONTINUES TO
EXPERIMENT IN FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM. WE ARE
CAREFULLY, BUT OPTIMISTICALLY, WATCHING INTERNAL
CHANGES IN THE SOVIET UNION.
- 6 -
ALL OVER THE WORLD, OPPORTUNITIES ARE ARISING FOR
NEW DIRECTIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY AND TRADING
ARRANGEMENTS -- AND NEW CHALLENGES ARE BEING ISSUED TO
OUR COMPETITIVE STATUS IN WORLD MARKETS.
DURING MY RECENT TRIP TO THE FAR EAST, I HAD MANY
OPPORTUNITIES TO OBSERVE AND THINK ABOUT
COMPETITIVENESS. THERE ARE MANY THEORIES ABOUT THE
REASONS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL SUCCESS SOME OF OUR ASIAN
FRIENDS ARE TODAY ENJOYING.
- 7 -
BUT NO ONE QUESTIONS THE IMPORTANCE OF ONE FACTOR --
THE HIGHLY-SKILLED, MOTIVATED, AND EDUCATED WORKFORCE
IN THOSE COUNTRIES.
OUT OF THE DEVASTATION OF WAR, THEY HAD THE COURAGE
TO RECOGNIZE HOW THEIR FUTURE WAS TIED TO THE QUALITY
OF EDUCATION THEIR NATIONS PROVIDED. As THIS COUNTRY
PREPARES TO ENTER THE NEXT CENTURY, WE TOO MUST
RECOGNIZE HOW ESSENTIAL THE EDUCATION OF THE NEXT
GENERATIONS HAS BECOME TO OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE.
- 8 -
PERHAPS THE HIGHEST PRAISE COMING GENERATIONS MIGHT
BESTOW UPON US, IS THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE CHANGES
OCCURRING IN THE WORLD -- AND WE PREPARED THEM FOR THE
CHALLENGES WE KNEW THEY WOULD FACE.
You WHO COMPRISE THE WILSON CENTER ARE DEVOTED TO
THE LIFE OF THE MIND. AND I IMAGINE YOU'LL AGREE WITH
ME, IF I SAY THAT YOUNG MINDS WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE
FUTURE OF THIS AND EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.
- 9 -
I HAVE TWO CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE YOUNG MINDS THAT
I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING: THE YOUNG
PEOPLE OF AMERICA WILL HAVE TO BE BETTER EDUCATED THAN
ANY PREVIOUS GENERATION. AND TO BE so, THEY MUST BE
FREE OF THE SCOURGE OF DRUG ABUSE.
- 10 -
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS. THEY AFFECT US
ALL. THEIR SOLUTION IS NOT A QUESTION OF "WHETHER" --
IT IS A QUESTION OF "WHEN."
So I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK OF TONIGHT AS A
CELEBRATION, YES -- BUT ALSO AS A CHALLENGE: CONSIDER
WHAT WE MUST DO, TOGETHER, TO START TO SOLVE THOSE
PROBLEMS, NOW.
WHERE THE STATE OF THE SCHOOLS IS CONCERNED, YOU'VE
ALL HEARD THE SURVEYS.
- 11 -
LAST MONTH'S REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PUT AMERICAN
SEVENTH-GRADERS AT THE BOTTOM OF AN INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISON OF MATH AND SCIENCE SKILLS.
"WHO'S TO BLAME" IS NOT THE ISSUE. WE ALL MUST BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN AMERICA.
- 12 -
To ASSURE THE COMPETITIVE FUTURE OF THIS NATION --
AND THE OVERALL STANDARD OF LIVING ENJOYED BY ITS
PEOPLE -- WILL DEMAND THE BEST KIND OF COLLECTIVE
EFFORT. ALL OF US MUST GET INVOLVED.
I INTEND TO LAUNCH A CRUSADE FOR EXCELLENCE IN
AMERICAN EDUCATION. A CRUSADE DRIVEN BY LOCAL ENERGY
AND INITIATIVE. DRAWING ON PEOPLE FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTORS. AND DETERMINED TO ESTABLISH A
CULTURE OF HIGH EXPECTATIONS IN OUR SCHOOLS.
- 13 -
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, I HAVE PROPOSED A PROGRAM
THAT WILL BE BASED ON FOUR GOALS:
FIRST, I WANT TO REWARD EXCELLENCE AND SUCCESS, BY
REWARDING SUPERIOR TEACHERS, AND RECOGNIZING
PRESIDENTIAL MERIT SCHOOLS THAT MAKE REAL PROGRESS. WE
WILL ESTABLISH BENCHMARKS FOR ACHIEVEMENT -- AND BOTH
COMMEND AND REWARD THE TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS THAT
SUCCEED. WE WILL ESTABLISH A NATIONAL SCIENCE SCHOLARS
PROGRAM, TO ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO SUCCEED IN SCIENCE.
- 14 -
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO RESTORE THE HONOR -- THE
NOBILITY -- OF GOOD TEACHING IN THIS COUNTRY. IT WON'T
ESCAPE THE EYES OF THE YOUNG, IF WE CAN SHOW THEM HOW
MUCH WE VALUE LEARNING, IN THE WAY WE VALUE TEACHERS.
SECOND, I WANT TO PUT RESOURCES WHERE THEY COUNT.
WE WILL TARGET FEDERAL DOLLARS TO HELP THOSE MOST IN
NEED -- TO PLACES WHERE SUPPORT CAN MAKE A REAL
DIFFERENCE.
- 15 -
WE WILL ALSO USE FUNDS IN WAYS THAT BUILD THE RIGHT
LINKS BETWEEN UNIVERSITY, GOVERNMENT, AND INDUSTRY
RESEARCH LABS, TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION AND
BASIC RESEARCH. I INTEND TO HOLD FIRM IN OUR EFFORT TO
DOUBLE THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S BUDGET BY
1993.
- 16 -
THIRD, I WANT TO PROMOTE CHOICE AND FLEXIBILITY, BY
DEVOTING $100 MILLION IN NEW FUNDING FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS
-- SCHOOLS THAT INCREASE CHOICE, EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR CHILDREN, AND GENERATE HEALTHY COMPETITION AMONG
SCHOOLS.
- 17 -
AND FINALLY, I WILL PUSH FOR GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY
AT ALL LEVELS -- AMONG STUDENTS, TEACHERS,
ADMINISTRATORS, AND PRINCIPALS -- TO ASSURE THAT
STUDENTS ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVING THE HIGHEST QUALITY
EDUCATION.
FOR THIS IS WHAT EXCELLENCE DEMANDS. IT MEANS
SETTING HIGH STANDARDS -- STANDARDS THAT THE REST OF
THE WORLD WILL LOOK TO.
- 18 -
IT MEANS CONSTANTLY MEASURING YOURSELF AGAINST THOSE
STANDARDS. AND NOT RESTING UNTIL YOU MEET THOSE
STANDARDS.
IT MEANS DISCIPLINE: THE DISCIPLINE THAT SAYS, "IF
WE DON'T GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, WE'LL TRY AGAIN.
AND AGAIN. UNTIL WE DO GET IT RIGHT."
- 19 -
BUT EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION WILL NOT BE FULLY
REALIZED UNTIL WE FREE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE FROM THE GRIP
OF DRUGS -- DRUGS THAT KILL HOPES, KILL AMBITIONS, AND
KILL KIDS.
To RID OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR STREETS OF THIS SCOURGE,
I'VE PROPOSED NEARLY $1 BILLION IN NEW OUTLAYS FOR
ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS.
- 20 -
WITH THE HELP OF BILL BENNETT, MY CHOICE AS AMERICA'S
FIRST DRUG CZAR, I WILL BE IMPLEMENTING A COMPREHENSIVE
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
OUR STRATEGY WILL DEAL WITH BOTH SUPPLY AND DEMAND,
BY EDUCATING AND INSPIRING IN OUR YOUNG AN ATTITUDE OF
"ZERO TOLERANCE"; RECLAIMING LIVES, THROUGH MORE
EFFECTIVE TREATMENT; STOPPING DRUGS AT THEIR SOURCE;
AND ENFORCING TOUGHER PENALTIES.
"um 21 -
LAST WEEK WE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS ON THE DRUG FRONT.
IN 1988, USE OF COCAINE DECLINED AMONG HIGH SCHOOL
SENIORS. IN FACT, STUDENT USAGE OF ALMOST EVERY
ILLEGAL DRUG -- AS WELL AS ALCOHOL -- APPEARS TO BE ON
THE DECLINE.
So IN OUR SCHOOLS, THE MESSAGE IS GETTING OUT. BUT
WE HAVE NO REASON TO BE COMPLACENT: THE DRUG PROBLEM
IS MUCH WORSE AMONG HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS.
- 22 -
AND INTERNATIONAL CULTIVATION OF OPIUM POPPY AND COCA
LEAF INCREASED SHARPLY LAST YEAR.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT A WAR ON DRUGS, I MEAN MORE THAN
A RHETORICAL WAR. I SEEK ENGAGEMENT ON ALL FRONTS.
THE WILSON CENTER IS KNOWN AS A VITAL POINT OF CONTACT
BETWEEN THE THINKERS AND THE DOERS OF THIS COUNTRY, AND
A NUMBER OF SCHOLARS HAVE SHED NEW LIGHT ON THE DRUG
PROBLEM.
- 23 -
I'VE HEARD GREAT THINGS ABOUT THE CONFERENCE YOU
HELD ON DRUG TRAFFICKING IN THE AMERICAS LAST FALL.
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THAT CONFERENCE PROVOKED A GREAT
DEAL OF THOUGHT -- AND FOR MY PART, THE THOUGHTS ARE
HAUNTING.
SADLY, THE CORES OF MANY SOCIETIES HAVE BEEN
PERMEATED BY DRUG GANGS, CARTELS, AND ORGANIZED CRIME.
CONSIDER IT ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, OR CULTURAL -- BUT
CONSIDER IT AN INTERNATIONAL PERIL.
- 24 -
IF WE ARE TO STOP IT, WE MUST STOP IT TOGETHER. I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE SEARCHING FOR LONG-TERM
SOLUTIONS.
IN A CITY PREOCCUPIED BY SHORT-TERM POLICY ISSUES,
THE WILSON CENTER ENCOURAGES THE LONGER VIEW.
IN A CITY PREOCCUPIED BY POLITICS, YOU DRAW SUPPORT
FROM ALL PARTIES AND ALL QUARTERS, WITH FUNDING FROM
BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS.
- 25 -
IN THIS NATION'S EFFORTS TO EDUCATE ITS YOUNG --
AND SEE THEM CLEAR OF THE THREAT OF DRUGS -- YOU ARE IN
A POSITION TO HELP US MAKE OUR BATTLES WINNING ONES.
WE NEED OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO SUCCEED. OUR ABILITY
TO EMPOWER THEM WILL REFLECT OUR CHARACTER, AND OUR
IDEALS AS A NATION.
- 26 -
WOODROW WILSON PUT IT THIS WAY. "THE BEAUTY OF A
DEMOCRACY," HE SAID, "IS THAT YOU NEVER CAN TELL, WHEN
A YOUNGSTER IS BORN, WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO ...
AND
THAT, NO MATTER HOW HUMBLY HE IS BORN
...
HE HAS GOT A
CHANCE TO MASTER THE MINDS AND LEAD THE IMAGINATIONS OF
THE WHOLE COUNTRY."
- 27 -
OUR CHALLENGE WILL BE TO GIVE ALL YOUNG PEOPLE THE
CHANCE TO FULFILL THEIR HIGHEST AMBITIONS, AND THEIR
GOD-GIVEN POTENTIAL.
IT FALLS TO US, TO PROVE WOODROW WILSON RIGHT.
THANK YOU, AND GOD BLESS YOU.
###
(Lange)
March 6, 1989
12:00 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
THE WOODROW WILSON
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989
You know, ever since I announced that I intended to become
the Education President, I've had more than a few things to say
about accountability in education. Well, Woodrow Wilson once
served as President of Princeton University.
And legend has it that one day a worried mother approached
him, and questioned him closely about what Princeton could do for
her son.
He is said to have answered -- though historians dispute
this -- quote, "Madam, we guarantee satisfaction -- or you will
get your son back."
I'm very glad to be back among Wilson Scholars. It's an
honor to be with you, to celebrate the anniversary of this great
institution.
The law establishing this national memorial to Woodrow
Wilson called for a "living institution" to express his ideals
and concerns. This one truly does.
In this alliance of scholars -- now world-renowned for
exploring some of the most vital issues confronting mankind --
Woodrow Wilson's ideals find their highest and most effective
expression.
2
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding that the Wilson
Center is committed to, will be all the more crucial in the
coming years. We will depend more than ever on the counsel of
learned men and women, in a world that is changing rapidly -- a
world inter-connected as never before in history.
New ideas and new technologies -- and the diplomatic and
trading relations they spawn --- are developing at an astounding
pace. We weave a tapestry of shared concerns and relations,
worldwide. Its threads are many -- social, economic,
environmental, geopolitical -- and it grows broader daily.
[[ Much of what is occuring in the world presents us with
remarkable opportunities. China continues to experiment in
free-market capitalism. We are carefully, but optimistically,
watching internal changes in the Soviet Union.
Just as our Free Trade Agreement with Canada establishes the
largest open market in the world, the 1992 agreement to unify
markets in the EC confirms our principles of free and open trade.
All over the world, opportunities are arising for new
directions in foreign policy and trading arrangements -- and new
challenges are being issued to our competitive status in world
markets.
During my recent trip to the Far East, I had many
opportunities to observe and think about competitiveness. And
trade quotas, barriers, and sanctions won't get to the core of
the issue. No, much of what is behind the success story of each
3
of those Asian nations has happened through the efforts of a
highly skilled, motivated, educated workforce.
]]
The highest praise the next generation might bestow upon us
is that we understood the changes occurring in the world -- and
we prepared them for the challenges we knew they would face.
You who comprise the Wilson Center are devoted to the life
of the mind. And I imagine you'll agree with me, if I say that
young minds will make or break the future of this and every other
country.
I have two concerns about those young minds, that I'd like
you to consider this evening: The young people of America will
have to be better educated than any previous generation. And to
be so, they must be free of the scourge of drug abuse.
These are fundamental concerns. They affect us all. Their
solution is not a question of "whether" -- it is a question of
"when."
So I would like you to think of tonight as a celebration,
yes -- but also as a challenge: Consider what we must do,
together, to start to solve those problems, now.
Where the state of the schools is concerned, you've all
heard the surveys. Last month's report from the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education put American
seventh-graders at the bottom of an international comparison of
math and science skills.
"Who's to blame" is not the issue. We all must be
accountable for the quality of education in America.
4
To assure the competitive future of this nation -- and the
overall standard of living enjoyed by its people -- will demand
the best kind of collective effort. All of us must get involved.
I intend to launch a crusade for excellence in American
education. A crusade driven by local energy and initiative.
Drawing on people from both the public and private sectors. And
determined to establish a culture of high expectations in our
schools.
At the Federal level, I have proposed a program that will be
based on four goals:
First, I want to reward excellence and success, by rewarding
superior teachers, and recognizing Presidential Merit Schools
that make real progress. We will establish benchmarks for
achievement -- and both commend and reward the teachers and
schools that succeed. We will establish a National Science
Scholars program, to encourage students to succeed in science.
It is incumbent upon us to restore the honor -- the nobility
-- of good teaching in this country. It won't escape the eyes of
the young, if we can show them how much we value learning, in the
way we value teachers.
Second, I want to put resources where they count. We will
target Federal dollars to help those most in need -- to places
where support can make a real difference.
We will also use funds in ways that build the right links
between university, government, and industry research labs, to
promote scientific education and basic research. I intend to
5
hold firm in our effort to double the National Science
Foundation's budget by 1993.
Third, I want to promote choice and flexibility, by devoting
$100 million in new funding for magnet schools -- schools that
increase choice, expand opportunities for children, and generate
healthy competition among schools.
And finally, I will push for greater accountability at all
levels -- among students, teachers, administrators, and
principals -- to assure that students are actually receiving the
highest quality education.
For this is what excellence demands. It means setting
high standards -- standards that the rest of the world will look
to. It means constantly measuring yourself against those
standards. And not resting until you meet those standards.
It means discipline: the discipline that says, "If we don't
get it right the first time, we'll try again. And again. Until
we do get it right."
But excellence in education will not be fully realized until
we free our young people from the grip of drugs -- drugs that
kill hopes, kill ambitions, and kill kids.
To rid our schools and our streets of this scourge, I've
proposed nearly $1 billion in new outlays for anti-drug programs.
With the help of Bill Bennett, my choice as America's first Drug
Czar, I will be implementing a comprehensive national drug
control strategy.
6
Our strategy will deal with both supply and demand, by
educating and inspiring in our young an attitude of "zero
tolerance"; reclaiming lives, through more effective treatment;
stopping drugs at their source; and enforcing tougher penalties.
Last week we got some good news on the drug front. In 1988,
use of cocaine declined among high school seniors. In fact,
student usage of almost every illegal drug -- as well as alcohol
-- appears to be on the decline.
So in our schools, the message is getting out. But we have
no reason to be complacent: The drug problem is much worse among
high school dropouts. And international cultivation of opium
poppy and coca leaf increased sharply last year.
When I talk about a war on drugs, I mean more than a
rhetorical war. I seek engagement on all fronts. The Wilson
Center is known as a vital point of contact between the thinkers
and the doers of this country, and a number of scholars have shed
new light on the drug problem.
I've heard great things about the conference you held on
drug trafficking in the Americas last fall. The proceedings of
that conference provoked a great deal of thought -- and for my
part, the thoughts are haunting.
Sadly, the cores of many societies have been permeated by
drug gangs, cartels, and organized crime. Consider it economic,
social, or cultural -- but consider it an international peril.
If we are to stop it, we must stop it together. I encourage you
to continue searching for long-term solutions.
7
In a city preoccupied by short-term policy issues, the
Wilson Center encourages the longer view.
In a city preoccupied by politics, you draw support from all
parties and all quarters, with funding from both the public and
private sectors.
In this nation's efforts to educate its young -- and see
them clear of the threat of drugs -- you are in a position to
help us make our battles winning ones.
We need our young people to succeed. Our ability to empower
them will reflect our character, and our ideals as a nation.
Woodrow Wilson put it this way. "The beauty of a
Democracy," he said, "is that you never can tell, when a
youngster is born, what he is going to do
and that, no matter
how humbly he is born
he has got a chance to master the minds
and lead the imaginations of the whole country."
Our challenge will be to give all young people the chance to
fulfill their highest ambitions, and their God-given potential.
It falls to us, to prove Woodrow Wilson right.
Thank you, and God bless you.
(Lange)
March 2, 1989
6:45 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER FOR
INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989
You know, ever since I announced that I intended to become
the Education President, I've had more than a few things to say
about accountability in education. But I recently learned that
the namesake of this great organization had his own ideas about
that.
When Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University, a
worried mother approached him, and questioned him closely about
what Princeton could do for her son.
Wilson answered, "Madam, we guarantee satisfaction -- or you
X
will get your son back. 11.
Well, I'm very glad to be back among Wilson Scholars again.
11/5/85
It's an honor to be with you, to celebrate the anniversary of
this great institution.
PL90-637
The law establishing this national memorial to Woodrow
2
sec.
Wilson called for a "living institution" to express his ideals
and concerns. This one truly does.
2
In this alliance of scholars -- now world-renowned for
exploring some of the most vital issues confronting mankind --
Woodrow Wilson's ideals find their highest and most effective
expression.
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding that the Wilson
Center is committed to will be all the more crucial in the coming
years. We will depend more than ever on the counsel of learned
men and women, in a world that is changing rapidly -- a world
connected like never before in history.
New ideas and new technologies -- and the diplomatic and
trading relations they spawn -- are developing at an astounding
pace. We weave a tapestry of shared concerns and relations,
worldwide. Its threads are many -- social, economic,
environmental, geopolitical -- and it grows broader daily.
One issue that exemplifies the intricacy of this new world
tapestry is the argument over international standards for high-
definition television.
Ambussador
Sonya-5727
Landav
Those hotly-contested industry standards are being debated
by technicians from Europe, Japan, and North America. Clearly, a
great deal is at stake. And you might wonder, in whose ballpark
will the game be played out?
3
X
Well last month a neutral site was offered for testing
competing standards, to determine -- without fear of prejudice
or favoritism -- which system to adopt worldwide. And that
neutral site was the Soviet Union.
Ten years ago, no one would have seen that coming.
Ten years from now, the highest praise they might bestow
upon us is that we understood the changes in our midst -- and we
worked effectively, to make change positive.
I would hope they'd say that we used power -- whether the
power of the individual mind, or the power of collective will --
to turn change to advantage.
You who comprise the Wilson Center are devoted to the life
of the mind. And I imagine you'll agree with me, if I say that
the young minds of America will make or break this country's
future.
I have two concerns about those young minds, that I'd like
you to consider this evening: I believe our young people will
have to be better educated than any previous generation. And I
insist that to be so, they will have to be free of the scourge of
drug abuse.
4
These are fundamental, bipartisan concerns. They affect
us all. Their solution is not a question of "whether" -- it is
a question of "when.' "
So I would like you to think of tonight as a celebration,
yes -- but also as a challenge: Consider what we must do,
together, to start to solve those problems, now.
Where the state of the schools is concerned, you've all
Dr.
heard the surveys. Last month's report from the National Science
wayne
Department of Education seventh- gaders
Welch
Foundation put U.S. students at the bottom of an international
357-7425 NSF
8th graders
comparison of math and science skills. South Korean students
stet
stet
performed in demonstrated higher mathematics at four times the rate of U.S.
number
students.
showed an understanding of geometry
Who's to blame is not the issue. We all must be accountable
for the quality of education in America.
To assure a competitive future -- whether in specific
technologies like high-definition television, or in the overall
standard of living enjoyed by the citizens of this nation -- all
of us must get involved.
5
We are going to launch a crusade for excellence in American
public education. A crusade driven by local energy and
initiative. Drawing on people from both the public and private
sectors. And determined to build a culture of high expectations
in our schools.
At the Federal level, we are building a program that will be
Building
driven by four principles:
Better
First, we will reward excellence and success, by rewarding
P. Omerica 49-51
superior teachers, and recognizing Presidential Merit Schools
that make substantial progress. We will establish benchmarks for
BBA
achievement -- and both commend and compensate the teachers and
P-52-53
schools that succeed.
It is incumbent upon us to restore the honor -- the nobility
-- of teaching in this country. It won't escape the eyes of the
young, if we can show them how much we value learning, in the way
we value teachers.
Second, our program will put resources where they count.
BBA
We will target Federal dollars to help those most in need -- to
p.49
places where support can make a real difference.
6
Third, we will promote choice and flexibility. We intend
BBA
to devote $100 million in new funding for magnet schools that
5h &
increase choice, expand opportunities for children, and generate
healthy competition among schools.
BBA
And finally, we will be pushing for greater accountability
49
at all levels -- among students, teachers, administrators, and
principals -- to assure that students are actually receiving the
highest quality education.
For this is what excellence demands. It means setting
high standards. Constantly measuring yourself against those
standards. And not resting until you meet those standards.
But that work will not be fully realized until we free our
young people from the grip of drugs -- drugs that kill time, kill
hopes and ambitions, and kill kids.
BBA
To rid our schools and our streets of this scourge, I've
66-67
proposed nearly $1 billion in new outlays for anti-drug programs.
P.
With the help of the new Drug Czar, Bill Bennett, I will be
8.66-671
implementing a coherent national drug control strategy a
strategy that deals with both supply and demand, in four areas:
7
BBA
educating and inspiring in our young an attitude of "zero
tolerance"; reclaiming lives, through more effective treatment;
P.
stopping drugs at their source; and enforcing tougher penalties.
66-7 High School
V. Nat'l of Survey for
Last week we got some good news on the drug front. In 1988,
the first time, use of crack cocaine declined among high
school seniors. In fact, student usage of almost every illegal
UPI
be
drug -- as well as alcohol -- appears to be on the decline. The
message is getting out. We have reason to be encouraged, but by
no means complacent. International cultivation of opium and
Ray burn
cocaine increased sharply last year.
647-8692 Hessept. + wash. Post. 3-2-89 (see state Dept report in file
Rm. 7331
When I talk about a war on drugs, I mean more than a
rhetorical war. I seek engagement on all fronts. The Wilson
Center is known as a vital point of contact between the thinkers
and the doers of this country, and a number of scholars have shed
new light on the drug problem.
see Wilson
Center I've heard great things about the conference you held on
drug trafficking in the Americas last fall. The proceedings of
reportile
in
that conference provoked a great deal of thought -- and for my
part, the thoughts are haunting.
The core of many of our neighboring societies has been
permeated by drug mafias. Their trouble is our trouble.
8
Consider it economic, social, or cultural -- but consider it
an international peril of unprecedented proportions. Know that
if we are to stop it, we must stop it together. I encourage you
to continue searching for long-term solutions.
In a city preoccupied by short-term policy issues, the
Wilson Center encourages the longer view.
Wilson Center
Report
In a city preoccupied by politics, you draw support from all
annual
1986-87
parties and all quarters, with funding from both the public and
private sectors.
vi
P.
In this nation's efforts to educate its young -- and see
them clear of the threat of drugs -- you are in a position to
help us make our battles winning ones.
We need our young people to succeed. Our ability to empower
them will reflect our character, and our ideals as a nation.
Toustmasteis
Woodrow Wilson put it this way. "The beauty of a
chest
he said, "is that you never can tell, when a
p.379
youngster is born, what he is going to do
and that, no matter
#4056 how humbly he is born he has got a chance to master the minds
and lead the imaginations of the whole country."
also by William OK Wilson McCleany scholur at Princeton
9
Our challenge will be to give all young people the chance to
fulfill their highest ambitions, and their God-given potential.
It falls to us, to prove Woodrow Wilson right.
Thank you, and God bless you.
KATE FIRST Car.
MOUCHTS?
Mad
(Lange)
March 1, 1989
7:00 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER FOR
INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
fa the HD-Tvexample
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989
PP 2-3.)
You know, ever since I announced that I intended to become
the Education President, I've had more than a few things to say
about accountability in education. But I recently learned that
the namesake of this great organization had his own ideas about
that.
When Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University, a
worried mother approached him, and questioned him closely about
what Princeton could do for her son.
Wilson answered, "Madam, we guarantee satisfaction -- or you
will get your son back."
Blatza
addressing
again.
Well, I'm very glad to be back at the Wilson Center.
It's
an honor to be with you, to celebrate the anniversary of this
great institution.
The law establishing this national memorial to Woodrow
Wilson called for a "living institution" to express his ideals
and concerns. This one truly does.
1
In this alliance of scholars -- now world-renowned for
exploring some of the most vital issues confronting mankind -- I
believe that Woodrow Wilson's ideals find their highest and most
effective expression.
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding that the Wilson
Center is committed to will, I believe, be all the more crucial
in the coming years. We depend more than ever on the counsel of
learned men and women, in a world that is changing rapidly -- a
world connected like never before in history.
New ideas and new technologies -- and the diplomatic and
trading relations they spawn -- are developing at an astounding
pace. We weave a tapestry of shared concerns and relations,
worldwide. Its threads are many -- social, economic,
environmental, geopolitical -- and it grows broader daily.
One issue that suggests the intricacy of this new world
tapestry is the argument over international standards for high-
definition television. Those hotly-contested industry standards
are being debated by technicians from Europe, Japan, and North
America. Clearly, a great deal is at stake. And you might
wonder, who is acting as referee?
2
the Soriet Union offered to be a
Well, last month it was agreed that the most neutral site
the
standards
for testing competing equipment, to determine standards without
fear of prejudice or favoritism, would be in the Soviet Union.
the 3tandards
which system to adout world-wide,
Ten years ago, no one would have seen that coming.
Ten years from now, the highest praise they might bestow
upon us is that we understood the changes in our midst -- and we
worked effectivelv to make them positive changes.
I would hope thev'd say that we used power -- whether the
power of the individual mind, or the power of collective will --
to turn change to advantage.
You who comprise the Wilson Center are devoted to the life
of the mind. And I believe you will agree with me, when I sav
that the young minds of America will make or break this country's
future.
I have two concerns about those young minds, that I'd like
you to consider this evening: I believe our young people will
have to be better educated than any previous generation. And I
insist that to be so, they will have to be free of the scourge of
drug abuse.
These are fundamental, bipartisan concerns. They affect
3
us all. Their solution is not a question of "whether" -- it is
a question of "when."
So I would like you to think of tonight as a celebration,
yes -- but also as a challenge: Consider what we must do,
together, to start to solve those problems, now.
Where the state of the schools is concerned, you've all
heard the surveys. Last month's report from the National Science
Foundation put U.S. students at the bottom of an international
comparison of math and science skills. South Korean students
performed in higher mathematics at four times the rate of U.S.
students.
Who's to blame is not the issue. We all must be accountable
for the quality of education in America.
To assure a competitive future -- whether in specific
technologies like high-definition television, or in the overall
standard of living enjoyed by the citizens of this nation -- all
of us must get involved.
We are going to launch a crusade for excellence in American
public education. A crusade driven bv local energy and
initiative. Drawing on people from both the public and private
4
sectors. And determined to build a culture of high expectations
in our schools.
Building
a
At the Federal level, we are building a program that will be
Better
driven by four principles. First, we will reward excellence and
america
success, bv rewarding superior teachers, and recognizing
49-51
P
Presidential Merit Schools that make substantial progress.
We
will establish benchmarks for achievement -- and both commend and
compensate those who succeed.
BBA
p.49
Second, we will target Federal dollars to help those most in
need to places where support can make a real difference.
Third, we will promote choice and flexibility. We intend
BBA
to devote $100 million in new funding for magnet schools that
P.55-56
increase choice, expand opportunities for children, and generate
07
healthy competition among schools.
And finally, we will be pushing for greater accountability
BBA
X
at all levels -- among students, teachers, administrators, and
49
principals -- to assure that students are actually receiving the
highest quality education.
But that work will not be fully realized until we free our
young people from the grip of drugs -- drugs that kill time, kill
hopes and ambitions, and kill kids:
5
To rid our schools and our streets of this scourge, I've
BBA
66-67
proposed nearly $1 billion in new outlays for anti-drug programs.
With the help of the new Drug Czar, Bill Bennett, I will be
implementing a coherent national drug control strategy
--
a
strategy that deals with both supply and demand, in four areas:
BBA
educating and inspiring in our young an attitude of "zero
p.66-67
tolerance"; reclaiming lives, through more effective treatment;
stopping drugs at their source; and enforcing tougher penalties.
school Nat' Highier
Last week we got some good news on the drug front. In 1988,
for the first time, use of crack cocaine declined among high
school seniors. In fact, student usage of almost every illegal
UPI
drug -- as well as alcohol -- appears to be on the decline. The
message is getting out. We have reason to be encouraged, but by
no means complacent. International cultivation of opium and
cocaine increased sharply last year.
When I talk about a war on drugs, I mean more than a
rhetorical war. I seek engagement on all fronts. The Wilson
Center is known as a vital point of contact between the thinkers
and the doers of this country, and a number of scholars have shed
new light on the drug problem.
6
I've heard great things about the conference you held on
drug trafficking in the Americas last fall -- and I encourage you
to continue searching for long-term solutions.
In a city preoccupied by short-term policy issues, the
Wilson Center encourages the longer view.
In a city preoccupied by politics, you draw support from all
parties and all quarters, with funding from both the public and
private sectors.
In this nation's efforts to educate its young -- and see
them clear of the threat of drugs -- you are in a position to
help us make our battles winning ones.
We need our young people to succeed. Our abilitv to empower
them will, I believe, reflect our character and our ideals as a
nation.
Woodrow Wilson put it this way. "The beautv of a
Democracy, " he said, "is that you never can tell, when a
youngster is born, what he is going to do
and that, no matter
how humbly he is born
he has got a chance to master the minds
and lead the imaginations of the whole country."
7
Our challenge will be to give all young people the chance to
fulfill their highest ambitions, and their God-given potential.
It falls to us, to prove democracy right.
Thank you, and God bless you.
8