|
by Roberto A. Trevino , Alan J. Richard INTRODUCTION Drug abuse continues to be a significant health and social problem in the United States. A recent survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that an estimated 13.6 million Americans were current users of illicit drugs in 1998, meaning they used an illicit drug at least once during the 30 days prior to the interview. This represents 6.2% of the population 12 years old and older. An estimated 1.8 million (0.8%) Americans aged 12 and older were current users of cocaine in 1998 and an estimated 4.1 million people met diagnostic criteria for dependence on illicit drugs in 1998, including 1.1 million youths aged 12-17. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, used by 81% of current illicit drug users. Approximately 60% of current illicit drug users used only marijuana, 21% used marijuana and another illicit drug, and the remaining 19% used an illicit drug but not marijuana in the past month. Therefore, about 40% of current illicit drug users in 1998 (an estimated 5.4 million Americans) were current users of illicit drugs other than marijuana and hashish (1). A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimates that the economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse was $246 billion in 1992, the most recent year for which sufficient data were available (2). This estimate represents $965 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States in 1992. This study reports that alcohol abuse and alcoholism generated about 60% of the estimated costs ($148 billion), while drug abuse and dependence accounted for the remaining 40% ($98 billion). The NIDA study found that the distribution of alcohol and drug costs differed significantly. Two-thirds of the costs of alcohol abuse related to lost productivity, due to either alcohol-related illness (45.7%) or premature death (21.2%). Most of the remaining costs of alcohol abuse were in the form of health care expenditures to treat alcohol use disorders and the medical consequences of alcohol consumption (12.7%), property and administrative costs of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes (9.2%), and various additional costs of alcohol-related crime (8.6%). For drug abuse, more than one-half of the estimated costs were associated with drug-related crime. These costs included lost productivity of victims and incarcerated perpetrators of drug-related crimes (20.4%); lost legitimate production due to drug-related crime careers (19.7%); and other costs of drug-related crime, including Federal drug traffic control, property damage, and police, legal, and corrections services (18.4%). Most of the remaining costs of drug abuse resulted from premature deaths (14.9%), lost productivity due to drug-related illness (14.5%), and health care expenditures (10.2%). The impact of drug abuse, particularly on crime, has led a number of researchers and policy-makers to support the legalization of drugs. The legalization of drugs is a highly complex subject about which not much is known with certainty. A public official may get into trouble just by giving the appearance that he/she is soft on drugs or suggest that that the implications of legalization of drugs be studied, as it was the case for former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders in 1993. In general, strong arguments both for and against the legalization for drugs can be presented from economic, legal, cultural, and medical points of view. Economists for the most part support the legalization of drugs as long as it is Pareto optimal. That is, if legalization of drugs makes at least one more individual better off without making any other individual worse off, then legalization is optimal. They argue that the legalization of drugs will lower drug prices and drive the economic rents enjoyed by drug deals to zero. Addicts do not commit crimes because they are using drugs, but in order to meet the high cost of drugs. Since legalization will likely make illegal drugs more affordable, they argue that this should reduce drug-related crime. Economists argue that drugs are very inexpensive to produce, but are sold at high prices due to the fact that they are illegal. They further argue that supply reductions contribute to higher prices and increase drug-related crime (3,4). Economists do warn that lowering drug prices by legalization could potentially lead to an increase in the quantity demanded for drugs, but they argue that drugs are a necessity to many addicts rather than a luxury. Thus, the elasticity of drugs is likely to be small.
Many proponents of drug legalization argue that drugs should be legalized based on the libertarian legal code. They argue that this legal philosophy is fully consistent with drug legalization. According to this thinking, man is the owner of his own body since he/she in effect "homesteaded" it (3). Given that he/she legally owns this property he/she can do with it whatever he/she wishes, provided that he/she respects the human and property rights of other members of society. From the medical and/or public health perspective, drug legalization is generally opposed (5,6). The American Medical Association and others have consistently opposed the legalization of all illegal drugs, including so-called light drugs like marijuana (7). They argue that the majority of the medical research shows that drugs, in particular cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines, are harmful to an individual's health. They have found that drugs, especially cocaine and heroin, cause severe brain damage and serious damage to the heart, liver and brain (8,9). Public health scientists also argue that drugs are a significant factor in the spread of STDs such as HIV (10-13). They argue that drug users are more likely to engage in risky behaviors and criminal activity. Proponents of drug legalization argue that there are many other substances that are also harmful, such as fat and alcohol, yet the government does not make those substances illegal (14-17). Public opinions polls show that support for drug legalization varies significantly among different sociodemographic and political groups (4). A content analysis revealed that found that 55% of the people surveyed opposed the legalization of marijuana, but 90% opposed the legalization of cocaine and heroin (18). However, little is known about what drug users themselves think about the legalization of drugs. Most of the research examining the issue of drug legalization has drawn on non-drug user samples. It is not clear, a priori, that drug users would support drug legalization. First, drug users are a demographically heterogeneous group. For example, African-Americans are more likely to be users of crack and cocaine whereas whites are more likely to be power cocaine users (1). In addition, marijuana users have been found to be younger and more educated, while crack and cocaine users have been found to be older and less educated. Heavy drug users may be more likely to support legalization of drugs since legalization would enable them to meet their addiction without being exposed to the criminal sanctions. On the other hand, heavy drug users may not be willing to support the legalization of drugs. For instance, they may perceive legal sanctions as a means of facilitating their efforts to control their use, or as a means of preventing others from succumbing to addiction. The purpose of this paper is to examine the attitudes towards drug legalization among a sample of drug users. METHODS Sample Data were collected as part of a follow-up study of sexual and drug injection behaviors in a sample of drug-using and non-drug-using social networks. The sample was collected in 1997 and 1998 in low-income, high-drug-use sections of Houston. Both drug users and non-users were interviewed. The study targeted a hidden population (out-of-treatment drug users and non-users sociodemographically similar to them), so special procedures were necessary to achieve a representative sample from this population. Because different methods of sampling have different biases and different costs, three procedures were used in recruitment. The sampling strategy is described in detail in Bell and Trevino (13). Figure 1 shows the three sample recruiting methods used. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] The first method of recruitment was a "two-step random walk" (19,20). The random walk procedure began with a street-recruited contact person, who provided a list of persons known or suspected to be chronic drug users (illicit drug use at least three times per week). One of these identified persons was randomly selected and recruited. This "random walk" informant was then interviewed and provided a list of persons known or suspected to be chronic drug users. One person from the list was randomly selected and recruited. If the person met eligibility criteria (including a positive urine drug screen), the person was interviewed as an "index participant". The contact person and random walk informants are not included in the research sample (that is, they were used to locate drug use respondents but were not used as respondents themselves). Each index participant named drug use and sexual partners in the previous 30 days. Up to six partners with whom the index participant injected drugs or had sex in the previous 30 days were recruited into the study as network members. The second method of recruitment was "peer-driven" recruitment (21). In this method, contacts were trained in the recruitment goals of the study and were given three coupons with which to recruit eligible drug users. The contacts were reimbursed for successful recruitment. If the person recruited met the eligibility requirements, he or she was interviewed as an "index participant". Network members were recruited as in the random walk procedure. In the peer-driven recruitment procedure, the index participant was additionally trained in recruitment and given three coupons. Each person successfully recruited by an index participant was a new contact person, and the recruitment process continued from there. A third procedure was used for recruiting non-drug-using index participants. For each drug-using index participant for whom a majority of their risk partners had been recruited into the study, a non-drug-using person was recruited who was of the same gender, race, similar age, and resided within approximately 3 blocks of the drug-using index participant. Matched non-users were referred by neighborhood informants or by geographically targeted recruitment posters. Focals were interviewed again during 1999-2000, a year after the baseline interview. Interviews were conducted by trained research assistants in a private room in a storefront (field center) located in inner Houston, so that it would be close to where the participants were recruited. To participate in the study participants had to be a drug user or non-user, be 18 years of age or older, have a verifiable address (to conduct a follow-up interview 12 months later) and be able to understand English or Spanish. Respondent signed informed consent and were paid $30 for the 1.5-hour interview Independent Variables (a) Drug Use. At follow-up respondents were asked about their drug use in the past 30 days. In particular, respondents were asked how often they had used marijuana, crack, cocaine (by itself), heroin, speedball (cocaine and heroin mixed together) and/or methamphetamines (ice, speed, crystal) in the last 30days. Frequency of use in the last 30 days was answered by respondents using a seven-range scale (0 = not used, 1 = about 1-2 times, 2 = about 3-4 times, 4 = about 5-6 times per week, 5 = about 1 time per day, 6 = about 2-3 times per day, or 7 = about 4 or more times per day. Frequency of drug use was obtained from the respondents through self-report and was verified by a urine drug screen, which detects cocaine and opiate metabolites. Frequency of alcohol (including beer, wine and/or hard liquor) use in the last 30 days was also asked from respondents and evaluated on the above scale. Previous research has shown that the strongest validity and reliability of self-report data on drug use if based on last 30 days use among out-of-treatment drug users (22). (b) Sociodemographics. In addition to alcohol and drug use, sociodemographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, age, income, education, sexual orientation, and political party affiliation) were self-reported. In addition, respondents were blood tested for HIV. Blood specimens were tested using an ELISA methodology, and Western Blot confirmed positive results. (c) Political and Religious Views. Respondents were also asked about their views on the role of the government in the economy and their beliefs about the bible. Three questions from the General Social Survey were asked from all respondents regarding their views on the appropriate role of government in the society. In particular, respondents were asked the following three questions. 1. Some people think the government should provide fewer services in order to reduce spending and taxes. Others feel that it is important that the government provide more services even if it means an increase in spending and taxes. Where would you place yourself in the scale below (1 = government should provide a lot more services; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 = government should provide a lot fewer services). 2. Some people feel that the government should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living. Others feel that the government should let each person get ahead on their own. Where would you place yourself in the scale below (1 = government should see that everyone has a job and a good standard of living; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 = government should let each person get ahead on his/her own). 3. Some people think the government should do everything possible to improve the social and economic position of minority groups. Others feel that it is important that the government should not make any special effort to help minorities because they should be expected to help themselves. Where would you place yourself in the scale below (l = government should help minorities a lot; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 = government should not help minorities at all). To measure respondents' religious views we asked them their opinion of the Bible. Respondents were asked to select the statement about the Bible that was closest to their view of the Bible. The four Bible statements were: 1. The Bible was written so long ago that it is worth very little today. 2. The Bible is a good book written by wise men, but God had nothing to do with it. 3. The Bible was written by men inspired by God, but it contains some human errors. 4. The Bible is God's word and every word is true. Dependent Variables Respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree that drugs should be legalized. In particular, they were asked whether they believe marijuana, heroin and cocaine should be legalized. The Model Support for legalization of marijuana, heroin, or cocaine was estimated to be a function of respondents drug use, HIV status, political affiliation, and sociodemographic variables. Two models were estimated. Model 1 examines the effect of type of drug use on support for legalization. Three types of drugs are analyzed: non-drug users, marijuana users only, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines, but not crack users. Model 2 measures the effect of type and frequency of drug use on support for legalization of drugs. Drug use frequency is measured as no use, marijuana use (so-called "light" drug), and crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball and/or methamphetamines. Since the dependent variable is dichotomous, the model was estimated using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Sixty-six respondents were recruited using the random walk method, 150 respondents were recruited using the peer-driven recruitment method, and 51 respondents were recruited using a matched sample at baseline. A total of 169 focals were recruited at baseline and 144 of those locals were interviewed at follow-up. The sociodemographic characteristics and political affiliations and views of the sample are presented in Table 1. Most of the respondents were male (63.3%), African-American (51.6%), between 25 and 44 years of age (59.6%), with income below $1000 a month (76.6%). Only 37.2% had a full time or part time job in the last six months. Only 5% were HIV seropositive, most of them believed in some or all aspects of the bible, most of them considered themselves to belong to the Democratic Party, about the same percentage were registered voters, only 4% of the sample had a high degree of libertarian views. Table 2 presents the frequency of drug use in the sample. In general, 64.9% of the respondents reported use of an illegal drug in the previous 30 days, with crack being the most frequent drug used by the respondents in the previous 30 days. In particular, about 19% of the sample reported using marijuana once or several times a day in the previous 30 days. About 33% of the sample reported using crack once a day or several times a day during the previous 30 days. About 9% of the sample reported using heroin once or more times a day, and about 7% of the sample reported using speedball or methamphetamines once or more times a day. Finally, about 46% of the sample reported using alcohol once or more times a day during the previous 30 days. Table 3 presents the support for the legalization of drugs among drug users and non-drug users. Drug users are defined as respondents who used any illegal drug in the previous 30 days. Sixty-eight percent of drug users supported the legalization of marijuana, while only 33% of non-users support it. About 13% of drug users support the legalization of cocaine; whereas only 7.6% of non-drug users support it, and finally 12.3% of drug users support the legalization of heroin while 92.4% of non-users support it. Table 4 shows the zero-order correlations among the independent variables. Table 5 presents the results of Model 1. In this model drug use is measured as: (1) non-users, (2) marijuana users only, (3) cocaine, heroin, speedball and/or methamphetamines, but no crack, (4) any illegal drug including crack. The results show that marijuana users, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methampethamines users, and crack users were all more likely to support the legalization of marijuana than non-drug users. On the other hand, none of the three groups were more or less likely to support the legalization of cocaine or heroin. Other factors influenced the respondents' views on legalization of drugs. Younger respondents were less likely than older respondents to support the legalization of marijuana. African-Americans were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin, while Hispanics were less likely to support the legalization of marijuana. Single and employed respondents were more likely to support the legalization of cocaine. Finally, individuals who believed in the bible were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin, but were no less likely to support legalization of other drugs. Table 6 presents the results of Model 2. Under this model, the frequency of drug use rather than the type of drug measures drug use. The results show that measuring drug users in this model reveals more differences in support for legalization of drugs. The results show that respondents who had a higher consumption of marijuana were more likely to support the legalization of marijuana, but less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Individuals who consumed more crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines were more likely to support the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Other factors were also significant in determining support for the legalization of drugs. For example, individuals who consumed more alcohol were more likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Women were less likely to support the legalization of marijuana. African-Americans and Hispanics were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Single individuals were more likely to support the legalization of heroin. More educated and employed individuals supported the legalization of cocaine. Individuals who believed in some or all aspects of the bible were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. And finally, individuals who were registered to vote were less likely to support the legalization of heroin. Libertarian views were not predictors of legalization of drugs in either Model 1 or Model 2. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The problems caused by consumption of illegal drugs continue to be major concerns for public health officials. Drug abuse has been found to be a significant predictor of health risk behaviors. In addition, demand for illegal drugs is blamed for an increase in crime and other social problems. Legalization of drugs has been proposed as method that would eliminate the crime problems caused by substance abuse. The proponents of drug legalization argue that although drugs cause health and social problems, these are not sufficient reasons for making them illegal. They argue that there are many legal substances, such as alcohol and cigarettes, which also cause harm. Public opinion researchers have found that support for the legalization of drugs varies significantly among several sociodemographic and political groups. Yet despite the tremendous implications in legalizing drugs among drug users, there is little research examining the extent to which drug users would support the legalization of drugs. This paper is a step in filling that void in the literature. The results found in this paper suggest that the support for drug legalization can be found among drug users depending on who or how drug users and/or drug use are defined and what is meant by drugs. The paper examined two models. Model 1 examined the effect of type of drug on drug legalization. Model 2 examined the effect of frequency of drug use on support for drug legalization. The results showed that support for legalization of marijuana is found to be robust among the two models, but support for legalization of cocaine and heroin appears different. These results suggest that previous research on drug legalization may be biased if the respondent is himself/herself a drug user. Thus, further studies examining the support for drug legalization should carefully examine whether the respondent is a drug user and if he/she is, attention must be paid to how the drug use is measured. This study, like any other, has a number of limitations. First, the sample for this study consisted of small networks of drug users and matched non-drug users. Because drug users are a hidden population, random sampling is not possible. In this study, two different sampling strategies were implemented to more closely approximate randomness of sampling. Two-step random walks generated a sample that was distanced from the street sample usually recruited in studies of community drug users; this strategy is very expensive in terms of time and recruitment effort. A second strategy, peer-driven recruitment, is much less expensive in terms of recruitment, but at the expense of lower levels of commitment from those sampled. The network recruitment strategy raises issues of interdependence among responses. It is possible that persons recruited from one network will systematically respond more similarly to one another than to members of different networks. We included a dummy variable in the regression models to account for this possibility, but the coefficient failed to achieve statistical significance. Although this study offers a good insight into the support for drug legalization among drug users, further research should consider why respondents support or not the legalization of drugs. For example, respondents may support drug legalization based on their conservative views, regardless of the harm caused by that drug. In the present study, we do not know whether they agree that drugs should be legalized because they believe that drugs are not harmful, or whether their support for drug legalization is motivated simply by self-interest. However, our results do indicate that drug users may "support" or "oppose" legalization depending on which drugs are targeted and which drugs, and frequency of them, they themselves use. | |
Table 1. Sample Characteristics
Independent Variables N = 188 %
Gender
Female 69 36.7
Male 119 63.3
Race/ethnicity
African Americans 97 51.6
Hispanics 47 25.0
Whites 44 23.4
Age
18-24 10 5.3
25-44 112 59.6
45-64 61 32.4
65 and over 5 2.7
Monthly income
Less than $500 87 46.3
$501-$1000 57 30.3
$1001 and over 44 23.4
Had a job in last six months
Yes, full-time/part time 70 37.2
Yes, odd jobs 31 16.4
No 87 46.2
Education
Less than high school 106 56.4
High school graduate 40 21.3
More than high school 42 22.3
HIV status
Positive 11 5.8
Negative 177 94.2
Bible views
Believes in some or all
aspects of the Bible 178 94.6
Believes in few or no
aspects of the Bible 10 5.4
Political party affiliation
Democrat 108 57.4
Republican 14 7.4
None/other or independent 66 35.2
Registered to vote
Yes 93 49.5
No 95 50.5
Libertarian view
High (18-21) 8 4.3
Medium (9-15) 101 53.7
Low (3-6) 79 42.0
Table 2. Frequency of Drug Use in the Sample
Type and Frequency of Drug
Used in the Previous 30 Days Frequency %
Any illegal drug
Yes 122 64.9
No 66 25.1
Marijuana
None 108 57.45
1-2 42 22.34
3-5 24 12.77
6-7 14 7.45
Crack
None 98 52.13
1-2 29 15.43
3-5 32 17.02
6-7 29 15.43
Cocaine by itself
None 153 81.38
1-2 17 9.04
3-5 15 8.98
6-7 3 1.60
Heroin by itself
None 157 83.51
1-2 9 4.79
3-5 16 8.51
6-7 6 3.19
Speedball (cocaine and
heroin mixed together)
None 175 93.09
1-2 4 2.13
3-5 8 4.26
6-7 1 0.53
Methamphetamines
(ice, speed, crystal)
None 177 94.15
1-2 8 4.26
3-5 2 1.06
6-7 1 0.53
Alcohol
None 63 33.51
1-2 37 19.68
3-5 49 26.06
6-7 39 20.74
Table 3. Support for Drug Legalization
Non-drug
Drug Users Users Total
Support Drug
Legalization N % N % N %
Should marijuana
be legalized?
Yes 83 68.0 22 33.3 105 55.9
No 39 32.0 44 66.7 83 44.1
Should cocaine be
legalized?
Yes 17 13.9 5 7.6 22 11.7
No 105 86.1 61 92.4 166 88.3
Should heroin be
legalized?
Yes 15 12.3 5 92.4 20 10.6
No 107 87.7 61 92.4 168 89.4
Table 4. Zero Order Correlations
1 2 3 4
1 Marijuana use 1.00
2 Crack use 0.33 ** 1.00
3 Cocaine use 0.26 ** 0.37 ** 1.00
4 Heroin use -0.04 -0.08 0.32 ** 1.00
5 Speedball use 0.01 0.03 0.49 ** 0.61 **
6 Methamphetamine
use 0.32 ** 0.20 ** 0.39 ** 0.02
7 Alcohol use 0.37 ** 0.47 ** 0.14 * -0.07
8 Female = 1 0.03 -0.03 0.18 * -0.07
9 Age -0.26 ** -0.11 -0.15 * 0.19 **
10 African
American = 1 0.46 0.24 ** -0.18 * -0.36 **
11 Hispanic = 1 -0.17 * -0.17 * 0.11 0.32 **
12 Single = 1 0.09 0.03 -0.06 -0.12
13 Education 0.00 0.09 -0.02 -0.22 **
14 Income 0.10 0.09 0.32 ** 0.09
15 HIV+ = 1 0.07 0.18 * 0.11 -0.09
16 Employed = 1 0.14 * -0.03 0.08 0.07
17 Believes in
Bible = 1 -0.03 0.00 -0.17 * -0.13
18 Republican = 1 -0.02 0.08 0.13 -0.03
19 Registered to
vote = 1 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -.13
20 Libertarian
view -0.00 0.04 -0.02 0.02
5 6 7 8
1 Marijuana use
2 Crack use
3 Cocaine use
4 Heroin use
5 Speedball use 1.00
6 Methamphetamine
use -0.01 1.00
7 Alcohol use -0.07 0.12 1.00
8 Female = 1 -0.07 0.10 -0.14 * 1.00
9 Age -0.04 -0.15 * 0.07 -0.13
10 African
American = 1 -0.22 ** -0.02 0.12 0.00
11 Hispanic = 1 0.15 * -0.08 -0.06 -0.05
12 Single = 1 -0.08 0.00 0.02 -0.04
13 Education -0.01 -0.13 -0.05 -0.15 *
14 Income 0.31 ** 0.00 0.11 -0.05
15 HIV+ = 1 0.01 0.02 0.04 -0.09
16 Employed = 1 0.15 * -0.03 0.08 0.09
17 Believes in
Bible = 1 -0.28 ** 0.04 -0.03 -0.03
18 Republican = 1 0.12 0.04 -0.02 .07
19 Registered to
vote = 1 -0.00 -0.03 -0.08 0.08
20 Libertarian
view 0.01 -0.00 0.13 0.01
9 10 11 12
1 Marijuana use
2 Crack use
3 Cocaine use
4 Heroin use
5 Speedball use
6 Methamphetamine
use
7 Alcohol use
8 Female = 1
9 Age 1.00
10 African
American = 1 -0.06 1.00
11 Hispanic = 1 0.25 ** -0.59 ** 1.00
12 Single = 1 -0.28 ** 0.12 -0.05 1.00
13 Education -0.12 0.22 ** -0.42 ** 0.13
14 Income -0.10 -0.13 -0.01 -0.05
15 HIV+ = 1 -0.11 0.06 -0.09 0.10
16 Employed = 1 -0.04 -0.11 -0.03 0.04
17 Believes in
Bible = 1 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.11
18 Republican = 1 0.08 -0.17 * 0.02 -0.16 *
19 Registered to
vote = 1 -0.00 0.02 -0.08 -0.07
20 Libertarian
view 0.14 -0.06 0.02 0.06
13 14 15 16
1 Marijuana use
2 Crack use
3 Cocaine use
4 Heroin use
5 Speedball use
6 Methamphetamine
use
7 Alcohol use
8 Female = 1
9 Age
10 African
American = 1
11 Hispanic = 1
12 Single = 1
13 Education 1.00
14 Income 0.24 ** 1.00
15 HIV+ = 1 0.04 0.13 1.00
16 Employed = 1 0.21 ** 0.25 ** -0.05 1.00
17 Believes in
Bible = 1 -0.06 -0.29 ** -0.05 -0.08
18 Republican = 1 -0.00 0.24 ** 0.01 0.11
19 Registered to
vote = 1 0.17 * 0.03 0.07 0.03
20 Libertarian
view -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 0.00
17 18 19 20
1 Marijuana use
2 Crack use
3 Cocaine use
4 Heroin use
5 Speedball use
6 Methamphetamine
use
7 Alcohol use
8 Female = 1
9 Age
10 African
American = 1
11 Hispanic = 1
12 Single = 1
13 Education
14 Income
15 HIV+ = 1
16 Employed = 1
17 Believes in
Bible = 1 1.00
18 Republican = 1 -0.03 1.00
19 Registered to
vote = 1 0.02 0.16 * 1.00
20 Libertarian
view 0.04 -0.01 -0.03 1.00
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Effects of Type of Drug User on the Legalization of Drugs
Support Legalization of
Independent Variables Marijuana Cocaine Heroin
Marijuana use only 5.83 *** 0.00 0.19
Cocaine/heroin, speedball,
and/or methamphetamines,
but no crack user 4.15 * 0.00 1.33
Crack user and any other
illegal drug user 5.35 *** 1.57 1.71
Alcohol use 1.00 1.30 1.24
Female 0.29 ** 0.46 0.80
Age 1.00 1.02 1.09
African American 0.49 0.17 * 0.03 *
Hispanic 0.35 * 0.33 0.42
Single 1.26 1.69 * 4.93
Education 0.95 1.32 1.35
Income 1.00 1.00 1.00
Employed 1.74 5.29 *** 2.38
HIV+ 0.56 1.80 1.20
Believes in the Bible 0.30 0.07 * 0.04 *
Republican 0.33 0.86 0.62
Registered voter 0.91 1.59 0.21
Libertarian view 1.01 1.08 0.95
- 2 Log-likelihood 210.00 83.77 78.00
Cox and Snell/Nagelkerke
R-squared 0.22/0.30 0.24/0.46 0.23/0.47
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Effect of Frequency of Drug Use on the Support of
Legalization of Drugs
Support Legalization of
Independent Variables Marijuana Cocaine Heroin
Marijuana user 1.63 *** 0.53 * 0.38 *
Crack/cocaine/heroin/
speedball/and/or
methamphetamine use 1.11 * 1.35 ** 1.30 **
Alcohol use 0.99 1.39 * 1.41 *
Female 0.31 *** 0.87 1.13
Age 1.01 1.04 1.09 *
African American 0.52 0.19 * 0.02 **
Hispanic 0.46 0.09 * 0.12 *
Single 1.03 3.56 8.31 *
Education 1.01 1.33 * 1.30
Income 1.00 1.00 1.00
Employed 1.65 5.73 * 1.58
HIV+ 0.63 3.52 2.69
Believes in the Bible 0.30 0.02 ** 0.02 **
Republican 0.33 0.58 0.36
Registered voter 0.90 3.12 0.24 *
Libertarian view 1.01 1.04 0.93
-2 Log-likelihood 202.76 75.87 64.54
Cox and Snell/Nagelkerke
R-squared 0.25/0.34 0.27/0.53 0.28/0.57
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
| | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Support for this research was provided by grant #R01-DA08989 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. The authors would like to thank Charissa Higginbotham for help in the preparation of this manuscript. REFERENCES (1.) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Series: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Main Findings 1998. Office of Applied Studies, April 1999. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999. (2.) National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Economic Cost of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States--1992; National Institutes of Health Publication Number 98-4327, 1998. (3.) Block, W. Drug Prohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 1993, 12, 689-698. (4.) Inciardi, J. The Drug Legalization Debate; 2nd Ed. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, 1999. (5.) Berridge, V. Drug Policy: Should the Law Take a Back Seat? Lancet 1996, 347, 301-311. (6.) DuPont, R.L.; Voth, E.A. Drug Legalization, Harm Reduction and Drug Policy. Ann. Intern. Med. 1995, 123, 461-465. (7.) Voelker, R. AMA Policy Says No to Drug Legalization. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994, 271, 1648. (8.) Joseph, H.; Stimmel, B. The Neurobiology of Cocaine Addiction; The Haworth Medical Press: New York, 1996. (9.) Brick, J.; Erickson, C. The Brain, and Behavior. In The Pharmacology of Abuse and Dependence; The Haworth Medical Press: New York, 1998. (10.) Klovdahl, A.S.; Potterat, J.J.; Woodhouse, D.E.; et al. Social Networks and Infectious Disease: The Colorado Spring Study. Soc. Sci. Med. 1994, 38, 79-88. (11.) Rothenberg, R.B.; Potterat, J.J.; Woodhouse, D.E.; et al. Social Network Dynamics and HIV Transmission. AIDS 1998, 12, 1529-1536. (12.) Neaigus, A.; Friedman, S.R.; Goldstein, M.; et al. Using Dyadic Data for a Network Analysis of HIV Infection and Risk Behaviors Among Injecting Drug Users. In Social Networks, Drug Abuse, and HIV Transmission; Needle, R.H., Coyle, S.L., Genser, S.G., Trotter, R.T., Eds.; National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, MD, 1995; 20-37. (13.) Bell, D.C.; Trevino, R.A. Modeling HIV Risk. J. AIDS 1999, 22, 280-287. (14.) Miller, L.R. The Case for Legalizing Drugs; Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT, 1991. (15.) Defeis, M. The Case for Legalization of Drugs. J. Community Health 1995, 20, 101-109. (16.) Goode, E. Strange Bedfellows: Ideology, Politics, and Drug Legalization. Society 1998, 35, 18-27. (17.) Littrell, J.; Sadhna, D. The Belief Predicting Support for Heroin Legalization. J. Drug Issues 1995, 25, 649-669. (18.) MacCoun, J.; Kahanm, R.J.; Gillespie, J.; et al. A Content Analysis of the Drug Legalization Debate. J. Drug Issues 1993, 23, 615-628. (19.) Klovdahl, A.S. Urban Social Networks: Some Methodological Problems and Possibilities. In The Small World; Kochen, M., Ed.; Ablex: Norwood, NJ, 1989; 176-210. (20.) Liebow, E.; McGrady, G.; Branch, K.; et al. Eliciting Social Network Data and Ecological Model-Building: Focus on Choice of Name Generators and Administration of Random-Walk Study Procedures. Soc. Net. 1995, 17, 257-272. (21.) Broadhead, R.S.; Heckathorn, D.D.; Grund Synn Stern, J.C.; et al. Drug Users vs. Outreach Workers in Combating AIDS: Preliminary Results of a Peer-Driven Intervention. J. Drug Issues 1995, 25, 531-564. (22.) Harrell, V.A. The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Data: The Accuracy of Responses on Confidential Self-Administered Answer Sheets. In The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates; Harrison, L., Hughes, A.A. Eds.; NIDA Research Monograph 167, NIH Pub. No. 96-4147, Supt. of Docs., US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1997. Roberto A. Trevino * and Alan J. Richard Affiliated Systems Corporation, 3104 Edloe, Suite 330, Houston, TX 77027 * Corresponding author. Fax: (713) 439-1924; E-mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
