reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be ...patrick m. o'malley, ph.d. jerald g....
TRANSCRIPT
ED 457 480
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATENOTE
CONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
CG 031 261
Johnston, Lloyd D.; O'Malley, Patrick M.; Bachman, Jerald G.Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent DrugUse: Overview of Key Findings, 2000.Michigan Univ., Ann Arbor. Inst. for Social Research.National Inst. on Drug Abuse (DHHS/PHS), Bethesda, MD.NIH-01-49232001-00-0076p.; Written by the Monitoring the Future project. For the1999 report, see ED 443 066.3-R01-DA-01411U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent ofDocuments, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Tel:202-512-1800.Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports Research
(143)
MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.Cocaine; Crack; Drinking; Drug Use; Grade 10; Grade 12;Grade 8; Heroin; *Illegal Drug Use; *Longitudinal Studies;Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Marijuana; Peer Influence;Secondary Education; Secondary School Students; Sedatives;Sex Differences; Smoking; Sociocultural Patterns; *SubstanceAbuse; Trend AnalysisAmphetamines; Inhalants; *Monitoring the Future; Risk TakingBehavior; Smokeless Tobacco; Steroids
This publication presents an overview of the 2000 survey of8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, with a particular emphasis on recenttrends in the use of various licit and illicit drugs. It also shows trends inthe levels of perceived risk and personal disapproval associated with eachdrug, which this study has shown to be particularly important in explainingtrends in use. The first section presents trends in the overall proportionsof students at each grade level reporting illicit drug use. A separatesection is then presented for each class of drugs. These sections containgraphs showing trends in past-year use. They also show trends in perceivedrisk, disapproval, and perceived availability of marijuana, inhalants, LSD,cocaine, crack cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, tranquilizers, barbiturates,club drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and steroids. Keyfindings show that the overall illicit drug use among teens remained steadyin 2000 in all three grades as well as for specific drugs such as marijuana,amphetamines, hallucinogens other than LSD, tranquilizers, barbiturates, andalcohol. (Contains 9 tables.) (JDM)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it
O Minor changes have been made'toimprove reproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Ai
CN
C:)
.A.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
! Min
I I I
MONITORING THE FUTURE
NATIONAL RESULTS ON ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
Overview of Key Findings, 2000
by
Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D.Patrick M. O'Malley, Ph.D.Jerald G. Bachman, Ph.D.
The University of MichiganInstitute for Social Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse6001 Executive BoulevardBethesda, Maryland 20892
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESPublic Health Service
National Institutes of Health
2001
3
This publication was written by the principalinvestigators and staff of The Monitoring theFuture project, at the Institute for SocialResearch, the University of Michigan, underResearch Grant No. 3 RO1 DA 01411 from theNational Institute on Drug Abuse.
Public Domain Notice
All material appearing in this volume is in thepublic domain and may be reproduced or copiedwithout permission from the National Institute onDrug Abuse or the authors. Citation of thesource is appreciated.
Recommended Citation
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J.G. (2001). Monitoring the Future national resultson adolescent drug use: Overview of keyfindings, 2000. (NIH Publication No. 01-4923).Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug AbuseNIH Publication No. 01-4923
Printed 2001
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC 20402
4
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Study Design and Methods 2
Overview of Key Findings 3
Specific Results by Drug
Any Illicit Drug Use 6
Marijuana 8Inhalants 10
LSD 12
Cocaine 14
Crack Cocaine. 16Amphetamines 18Methamphetamine and Ice 20Heroin 22Tranquilizers 24Barbiturates 26Club DrugsRohypnol and Ecstasy 28Alcohol 30Cigarettes 32Smokeless Tobacco 34Steroids 36
Subgroup Differences 38
Tables Covering All Drugs
1. Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Use 40Footnotes for Tables 1-3 43
2. Trends in Annual and 30-Day Prevalence of Use 443. Trends in 30-Day Prevalence of Daily Use 474. Trends in Perceived Harmfulness among
8th and 10th Graders 485. Trends in Perceived Harmfulness among
12th Graders 496. Trends in Disapproval among
8th and 10th Graders 507. Trends in Disapproval among
12th Graders 51
8. Trends in Perceived Availability among8th and 10th Graders 52
9. Trends in Perceived Availability among12th Graders 53
Introduction
Monitoring the Future is a long-term study ofAmerican adolescents, college students, andadults through age 40. It is conducted by theUniversity of Michigan's Institute for SocialResearch and is supported under a series of in-vestigator-initiated, competing research grantsfrom the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
This volume presents an overview of the keyfindings from the 2000 survey of 8th, 10th, and12th grade students, with a particular emphasison recent trends in the use of the various licitand illicit drugs covered by the study. It alsoshows trends in the levels of perceived risk andpersonal disapproval associated with each drug,which this study has shown to be particularlyimportant in explaining trends in use.
The first section of findings presents trends inthe overall proportions of students at eachgrade level reporting illicit drug use of anykind.
A separate section is then presented for eachclass of drugs. These sections contain graphsshowing trends in past-year use and (whenavailable) trends in perceived risk, disapproval,and perceived availability of the drug. The sta-tistics underlying the trend lines contained inthese graphs are given in the tables at the endof this report, covering the period 1991-2000.1
I Statistics for the earlier period, 1975-1990, may be found on the proj-ect's Web site or in its annual volumes, both of which are referenced inthis section.
1
6
These tables also contain the data on lifetimeprevalence, 30-day prevalence, and (for se-lected drugs) daily prevalence.2 Furthermore,the tables indicate for each prevalence periodwhich 1999-2000 one-year changes are statisti-cally significant.
A more extensive analysis of the study's- find-ings on secondary school students may befound in a volume to be published later thisyear.3 The volumes in this series also contain amore complete description of the study's meth-odology as well as an appendix on how to testthe significance of differences between groupsor for the same group over time.
The study's findings on American college stu-dents and young adults are not covered in thisearly highlights report because the 2000 dataare not available at the time of this writing.They are covered in a second series of volumesthat will be updated later this year.4 Volumesin these two annual series are available fromthe National Clearinghouse for Alcohol andDrug Information at (800) 729-6686 or bye-mail at [email protected].
Further information on the study, including itslatest press releases and a listing of all publica-tions, may be found on the Web atwww.MonitoringTheFuture.org.
2 Prevalence refers to the proportion or percentage of the sample re-porting use of the given substance on one or more occasions in a giventime intervale.g., lifetime, past 12 months, or past 30 days. Theprevalence of daily use usually refers to use on 20 or more occasions inthe past 30 days.
3 The forthcoming publication in this series is: Johnston, L. D.,O'Malley, P. M., and Bachman, J. G. (2001). Monitoring the Futurenational survey results on drug use, 1975-2000: Volume 1, Secondaryschool students. (NIH Publication No. 01-4924). Bethesda, MD: Na-tional Institute on Drug Abuse.
4 The most recent in this series is: Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M.,and Bachman, J. G. (2000). Monitoring the Future national surveyresults on drug use, 1975-1999: Volume 11, College students andadults ages 19-40. (NIH Publication No. 00-4803). Bethesda, MD:National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Study Design and Methods
At the core of Monitoring the Future is a seriesof large, annual surveys of nationally repre-sentative samples of students in public and pri-vate secondary schools throughout the cotermi-nous United States. Every year since 1975 anational sample of 12th graders has been sur-veyed. Beginning in 1991, the study was ex-panded to include comparable national samplesof 8th graders and 10th graders each year.
Sample SizesThe 2000 sample sizes were 17,300, 14,600,and 13,300 in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, re-spectively. In all, about 45,000 students in 435schools participated. Because multiple ques-tionnaire forms are administered at each gradelevel, and because not all questions are con-tained in all forms, the numbers of cases uponwhich a particular statistic are based can be lessthan the total sample. The tables at the end ofthis volume contain the sample sizes associatedwith each statistic.
Field ProceduresUniversity of Michigan staff members admin-ister the questionnaires to students, usually intheir classrooms during a regular class period.Participation is voluntary. Questionnaires areself-completed and formatted for optical scan-ning. In 8th and 10th grades the questionnairesare completely anonymous, and in 12th gradethey are confidential (to permit the longitudinalfollow-up of a subsample of participants forsome years after high school in a panel study).
Measures
A standard set of three questions is used to de-termine usage levels for the various drugs (ex-cept for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). Forexample, we ask, "On how many occasions (ifany) have you used LSD ("acid")...(a)...inyour lifetime?, (b)...during the past 12months?, (c)...during the last 30 days?" Eachof the three questions is answered on the sameanswer scale: 0 occasions, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-19,
2
20-39, and 40 or more occasions. For the psy-chotherapeutic drugs (amphetamines, barbitu-rates, tranquilizers, and opiates other than her-oin), respondents are instructed to include onlyuse "...on your ownthat is, without a doctortelling you to take them."
For cigarettes, respondents are asked two ques-tions about use: "Have you ever smoked ciga-rettes?" (the answer categories are "never,""once or twice," and so on); and "How fre-quently have you smoked cigarettes during thepast 30 days?" (the answer categories are "notat all," "less than one cigarette per day," "oneto five cigarettes per day," "about one-halfpack per day," etc.) Parallel questions areasked about smokeless tobacco.
Alcohol use is measured using the three ques-tions illustrated above for LSD. A parallel-setof three questions asks about the frequency ofbeing drunk. Another question asks, for theprior two-week period, "How many times haveyou had five or more drinks in a row?" Per-ceived risk is measured by a question asking,"How much do you think people risk harmingthemselves (physically or in other ways), ifthey..." "...try marijuana once or twice," forexample. The answer categories are "no risk,""slight risk," "moderate risk," "great risk," and"can't say, drug unfamiliar." Disapproval ismeasured by the question, "Do YOU disap-prove of people doing each of the following?"followed by "trying marijuana once or twice,"for example. Answer categories are: "don'tdisapprove," "disapprove," "strongly disap-prove," and (in 8th and 10th grades only) "can'tsay, drug unfamiliar." Perceived availability ismeasured by the question, "How difficult doyou think it would be for you to get each of thefollowing types of drugs, if you wanted some?"Answer categories are: "probably impossible,""very difficult," "fairly difficult," "fairly easy,"and "very easy."
7
Overview of Key Findings
The surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade stu-dents in the United States conducted in 2000generated mixed results, as did the 1999 sur-veys.
Drugs Holding SteadyAfter one or two years of decline, overall illicitdrug use among teens remained steady in 2000in all three grades, as did the use of a numberof important specific drugsmarijuana, am-phetamines, hallucinogens other than LSD,tranquilizers, barbiturates, and alcohol.(Sections specific to each of these drugs maybe found later in this volume.)
Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug.The annual prevalence rates in grades 8, 10,and 12, respectively, are 16%, 32%, and 37%.Current daily prevalence rates (defined as theproportion using it on 20 or more occasions inthe prior thirty days) are 1.3%, 3.8%, and 6.0%.Annual prevalence peaked in 1996 for 8thgraders and a year later in the upper grades.There has been a steady, but gradual decline in8th grade since 1996, but not much change ingrades 10 and 12.
While the use of a number of drugs held steadyin 2000, the use of certain other drugs in-creased, while the use of still others decreased.
Drugs Increasing in UseThe most important increase was observed forMDMA ("ecstasy"), although the increase insteroid use also continued among 10th gradersthis year and heroin use increased among 12thgraders.
Ecstasya so-called "club drug" because of itspopularity at nightclubs and "raves"hadshown a sharp rise in use in 1999 among olderteens, following several years of gradual de-cline. In 2000 ecstasy use increased at all threegrade levels. While the 1999 increase was con-centrated mainly in the Northeast, the increase
3
in 2000 showed up primarily in the other threeregions of the country, suggesting a diffusionof the drug out from the Northeast, as well asdown the age spectrum. Ecstasy use is nowmore prevalent among American teens thancocaine use, with one in thirty 8th graders(3.1%) using it in the prior 12 months, as wellas one in every twelve 12th graders (8.2%).Reported availability of the drug continues toincrease sharOy.
Steroid use among younger male teens had in-creased sharply in 1999. In 2000 this increasecontinued among 10th grade boys, but use heldsteady in the other two grades. (Rates of use aremuch lower among girls and their use haschanged little since 1998.) Concurrent withthis sharp increase in use has been a sharp dropbetween 1998 and 2000 in the amount of risk12th graders saw as associated with steroid use(8th and 10th graders are not asked this ques-tion). It seems likely that students at all gradelevels would have shown such a decline, werethe data available.
Heroin use (without using a needle) showed asignificant increase in 12th grade in 2000, ris-ing from 1.0% in 1999 to 1.6%. At the sametime, heroin use in 8th grade showed the firstdecline in some years, after having doubledbetween 1993 and 1999.
Drugs Decreasing in UseUse rates for a number of drugs are down byfair proportions at all grades from their peaklevels in the mid-'90s, including inhalants,LSD, crystal methamphetamine, and Rohypnol.However, the only statistically significant de-clines in any of these particular drugs this yearoccurred for LSD use among 12th graders. The12th graders, who have tended to be the last todecline and have shown the least decline, alsoshowed significant declines in their use ofcrack cocaine and powder cocaine this year.
It is noteworthy that the downturns in the '90sstarted first, and have been the most sustained,among the 8th graders for a number of drugs.These include marijuana, crack cocaine, pow-der cocaine, tranquilizers, Rohypnol, cigarettes,and smokeless tobacco.
Inhalant use, which had shown a gradual on-going decline at all three grade levels over theprevious four years, only showed a continua-tion of that decline in 2000 at 8th grade (notstatically significant). Inhalants, the only classof drugs that tends to be more popular amongyounger teens than older ones, include a widerange of common household products thatyoungsters inhale or "huff' in order to get high,such as glues, solvents, butane, gasoline, andaerosols. The annual prevalence rates for 8th,10th, and 12th graders in 2000 were 9%, 7%,and 6%, respectively.
In sum, while the use of a number of illicitdrugs remained stable, and three (ecstasy, her-oin, and steroids) showed some increase, use ofseveral important classes of drugs have exhib-ited important declines, particularly across thelast several years.
Reasons for the Diverging TrendsThe wide divergence in the trajectories of thedifferent drugs in this single year helps to il-lustrate the point that, to a considerable degree,the determinants of use are often specific to thedrugs. These determinants include both theperceived benefits and the perceived risks thatyoung people come to associate with each drug.
Unfortunately, word of the supposed benefits ofusing a drug usually spreads much faster thaninformation about the adverse consequences.The former takes only rumor and a few testi-monials, the spread of which has been hastenedgreatly by the electronic media and the Internet.The latterthe perceived risksusually takemuch longer for the evidence (e.g., of death,disease, overdose reactions, addictive potential)to cumulate and then to be disseminated. Thus,
4
when a new drug comes onto the scene, it has aconsiderable "grace period" during which itsbenefits are alleged and its consequences arenot yet known.
Implications for PreventionTo some considerable degree, prevention mustoccur drug by drug, because knowledge of theadverse consequences of one drug will not nec-essarily generalize to the use of other drugs.Many of young people's beliefs and attitudesare specific to the drug. A review of the chartsin this voluine on perceived risk and disap-proval for the various drugsattitudes and be-liefs which we have shown to be important inexplaining many drug trends over the yearswill amply illustrate this contention. These atti-tudes and beliefs are at quite different levels forthe various drugs and, more importantly, oftentrend differently over time.
New Drugs Help to Keep the EpidemicGoing
Another point well illustrated by this year's re-sults is the continuous flow of new drugs intro-duced onto the scene or of older ones being"rediscovered" by young people. Many drugshave made a comeback years after they first fellfrom popularity, often because young people'sknowledge of their adverse consequences fadedas generational replacement took place. Wecall this process "generational forgetting." Ex-amples of this include LSD and methamphet-amine, two drugs used widely in the beginningof the broad epidemic of illicit drug use, whichoriginated in the '60s. Heroin, cocaine, PCP,and crack are some others that made a come-back after their initial popularity faded.
As for newer drugs coming onto the scene forthe first time, examples include the nitrite in-halants and PCP in the '70s, crack and crystalmethamphetamine in the '80s, and Rohypnoland then GHB in the '90s. The perpetual intro-duction of new drugs (or of new forms of tak-ing older ones, as illustrated by crack andcrystal methamphetamine) helps to keep the
9
country's "drug problem" alive. Because of thelag times described previously, during whichevidence of adverse consequences must cumu-late and be disseminated, the forces of con-tainment are always playing "catch up" withthe forces of encouragement and exploitation.
Where Are We Now?As the country begins the 21st century, clearlythe problems of substance abuse remain wide-spread among American young people. Todayover half (54%) have tried an illicit drug by thetime they finish high school. Indeed, if inhalantuse is included in the definition of an illicitdrug, more than a third (35%), have done so asearly as 8th gradewhen most students areonly 13 or 14 years old. Between a quarter anda third (29%) have tried some illicit drug otherthan marijuana by the end of 12th grade, and20% of 12th graders used some illicit drugother than marijuana in just the 12 months priorto the survey.
Cigarettes and AlcoholThe statistics for use of the licit drugs, ciga-rettes and alcohol, are also alarming. Nearlytwo-thirds (63%) have tried cigarettes by 12thgrade, and almost a third (31%) of 12th gradersare current smokers. Even as early as 8thgrade, four in every ten students (41%) havetried cigarettes, and 15% already are currentsmokers. Fortunately, we have seen some im-provement in smoking statistics in just the lastseveral years, after a dramatic increase in theserates earlier in the '90s.
Cigarette use reached its recent peak in 1996at grades 8 and 10, capping a rapid climb of
some 50% from the 1991 levels (when datafirst were gathered on these grades). Since1996, smoking in these grades has fallen offconsiderably (by 30% and 21%, respectively),including the further decline in 2000. In 12thgrade, peak use occurred a year later, in 1997,from which there has been a more modest de-cline of 14%. In 2000, specifically, there weresignificant declines in smoking in all threegrades. Increases in perceived risk and disap-proval of smoking may be contributing to thisdownturn. (See the section on cigarettes formore detail.)
Smokeless tobacco use has also been in de-cline in recent years. Concentrated amongmales, like steroid use, it has shown fair pro-portional declines.
Alcohol use remains extremely widespreadamong today's teenagers. Four out of everyfive students (80%) have consumed alcohol(more than just a few sips) by the end of highschool; and about half (52%) have done so by8th grade. In fact, 62% of the 12th graders and25% of the 8th graders in 2000 report havingbeen drunk at least once in their life. To a con-siderable degree, alcohol trends have tended toparallel the trends in illicit drug use. Thesetrends include some modest increase in bingedrinking (defined as having five or more drinksin a row at least once in the past-two weeks) inthe early part of the '90s, but a proportionallysmaller increase than was seen for most of theillicit drugs. Fortunately, binge drinking ratesleveled off two or three years ago, just aboutwhen the illicit drugs began a turnaround.
5fj
Any DRicit Drug Use
In the remainder of this report, separate sec-tions are provided for each of the many classesof illicit drugs, but we will first consider theproportions of American adolescents who useany drug, regardless of type. Monitoring theFuture routinely reports three different indexesof illicit drug usean index of "any illicit druguse," an index of the use of "any illicit drugother than marijuana," and an index of the useof "any illicit drug including inhalants."5 Inthis section we discuss the first two, but thestatistics for the third may be found in Table 1.
In order to make comparisons over time, wehave kept the definitions of these indexes con-stant, even though some new substances appearas time passes. The index levels would be littleaffected by the inclusion of these new sub-stances, however, primarily because almost allusers of them are also using the more prevalentdrugs included in the indexes. The major ex-ception has been inhalants, the use of which isquite prevalent in the lower grades. Thus, afterthe lower grades were added to the study, aspecial index was added that includes inhalants.
Trends in UseIn the last third of the twentieth century, youngAmericans achieved extraordinary levels of il-licit drug use, either by historical comparisonsin this country or by international comparisonswith other countries. The trends in lifetime useof any illicit drug are given in the first panelon the facing page.6 By 1975, when the studybegan, the majority of young people (55%) hadused an illicit drug by the time they left highschool. This figure rose to two-thirds (66%) by1981, before a long and gradual decline to 41%by 1992the low point. Today, the proportionis back to 54%, after a period of considerable
' Footnote I to Tables 1 through 3 provides the exact definition of "anyillicit drug."
6 This is the only set of figures in this volume presenting lifetime usestatistics. For other drugs, lifetime statistics may be found in the tablesat the end of the volume.
6
rise in the '90s. The comparable trends for an-nual, as opposed to lifetime, prevalence appearin the second (upper right) panel. They show agradual and continuing falloff after 1996among 8th graders. Peak rates were reached in1997 in the two upper grades, but there hasbeen no further decline since 1998.
Because marijuana is so much more prevalentthan any other illicit drug, trends in its use tendto drive the index of "any illicit drug use." Forthis reason we have an index excluding mari-juana use, showing the proportion of thesepopulations willing to use the other, so-called"harder," illicit drugs. The proportions usingany illicit drug other than marijuana are inthe third panel (lower left). In 1975 over one-third (36%) of 12th graders had tried some il-licit drug other than marijuana. This figurerose to 43% by 1981, followed by a long periodof decline to a low of 25% in 1992. Some in-crease followed in the '90s, as the use of anumber of drugs rose steadily, and it reached30% by 1997. (In 2000 it was 29%.) Thefourth panel presents the annual prevalencedata for the same index, which shows a patternof change over the past few years similar to theindex of any illicit drug use.
Overall, these data reveal that, while use of in-dividual drugs (other than marijuana) mayfluctuate widely, the proportion using any ofthem is much less labile. In other words, theproportion of students prone to using suchdrugs and willing to cross the normative barri-ers to such use changes more gradually. Theindividual drugs, on the other hand, react tomany, more rapidly changing determinantsspecific to them: how widely their psychoactivepotential is recognized, how favorable the re-ports of their supposed benefits are, how riskyit is seen to use them, how acceptable they arein the peer group, how accessible they are, andso on.
11
100
80
60
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
Trends in Illicit Drug UseEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used any illicit drug in lifetime
-0-Twelfth Grade
-0-Tenth Grade
-0- Eighth Grade
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% who used any illicit drug other thanmarijuana in lifetime
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
100
80
60
40
20
% who used any illicit drug in past year
100
80
60
40
20
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% who used any illicit drug other thanmarijuana in past year
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Marijuana
Marijuana has been the most widely used illicitdrug for the 25 years of this study. Marijuanacan be taken orally, mixed with food, andsmoked in a concentrated form as hashishtheuse of which is much more common in Europe.However, nearly all the consumption in thiscountry involves smoking it in rolled cigarettes("joints"), in pipes or, more recently, in hol-lowed-out cigars ("blunts").
Trends in UseAnnual marijuana use peaked at 51% among12th graders in 1979, following a rise that be-gan during the '60s. Then, use declined fairlysteadily for thirteen years, bottoming at 22% in1992a decline of more than half. The '90s,however, saw a resurgence in use. After a con-siderable increase in the '90s (one that actuallybegan among 8th graders a year earlier thanamong 10th and 12th graders), annual preva-lence rates peaked in 1996 at 8th grade and in1997 at 10th and 12th grades. There has beensome very modest decline since those peak lev-els, though no one-year change was significantin 2000.
Perceived RiskThe amount of risk associated with usingmarijuana fell during the earlier period of in-creased use and again during the more recentresurgence of use in the '90s. Indeed, at 10thand 12th grades, perceived risk began to de-cline a year before use began to rise in the up-turn of the '90s, making perceived risk a lead-ing indicator of change in use. (The same mayhave happened at 8th grade, as well, but we donot have data starting early enough to checkthat possibility.) The decline in perceived riskhalted by 1996 in 8th and 10th grade, and usebegan to decline a year or two later. Again,
perceived risk was a leading indicator ofchange in use.
DisapprovalPersonal disapproval of marijuana use slippedconsiderably among 8th graders between 1991and 1996, and among 10th and 12th gradersbetween 1992 and 1997. For example, the pro-portions of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, respec-tively, who said they disapproved of tryingmarijuana once or twice fell by 17, 21, and 19percentage points over those intervals of de-cline. There has since been some increase indisapproval among 8th graders (including in2000) but not yet much among 10th and 12thgraders.
AvailabilitySince the study began in 1975, between 83%and 90% of every senior class has said that theycould get marijuana fairly easily or very easilyif they wanted some; therefore, it seems clearthat this has remained a highly accessible drug.Since 1991, when data were also available for8th and 10th graders, we have seen that mari-juana is less accessible to younger adolescents.Still, in 2000 nearly half of all 8th graders(47%) and more than three-quarters of all 10thgraders (78%) reported it as being accessible.This compares to 89% for seniors.
As marijuana use rose sharply in the early andmid-'90s, reported availability increased aswell, perhaps reflecting the fact that moreyoung people had friends who were users.Availability peaked for 8th and 10th graders in1996 and has shown some falloff since, par-ticularly at 8th grade. Availability peaked a bitlater for 12th graders.
1 3
100
80
60
40
20
Marijuana: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
- o- Twelfth Grade-a- Tenth Grade
Eighth Grade
100
80
60
40
20
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using regularly
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
14
100
80
60
40
20
% seeing "great risk" in using regularly
76 '78 VO 82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
80
60
40
20
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Inh nts
Inhalants are any gases or fumes that can beinhaled for the purpose of getting high. Theseinclude many household products, the sale andpossession of which is perfectly legal, includ-ing such things as airplane glue, nail polishremover, gasoline, solvents, butane, and pro-pellants used in certain commercial products,such as whipped cream dispensers. Unlikenearly all other classes of drugs, their use ismost common among younger adolescents andtends to decline as youngsters grow older. Theearly use of inhalants may reflect the fact thatmany inhalants are cheap, readily available,and legal. The decline in use with age no doubtreflects their coming to be seen as "kids'drugs." Also, a number of other drugs becomeavailable to older adolescents, who are moreable to afford to buy them.
Trends in UseAccording to the long-term data from 12thgraders, inhalant use (excluding the use of ni-trite inhalants) rose gradually for some years,from 1976-1987. This rise in use was some-what unusual in that most other forms of illicitdrug use were in decline during the 1980s. Userose among 8th and 10th graders from the timedata were first gathered on them, 1991, through1995, and also rose among 12th graders from
10
1992-1995. All grades exhibited a steadydecline in use through 1999, though it halted at8th and 10th grades in 2000. The Partnershipfor a Drug-Free America launched an anti-inhalant advertising initiative in 1995, whichmay help to explain the turnaround in use afterthat point.
Perceived RiskOnly 8th and 10th graders have been askedquestions about the degree of risk they associ-ate with inhalant use. Relatively low propor-tions of them think that there is a "great risk" inusing an inhalant once or twice, although therewas an upward shift in this belief between 1995and 1996, specifically.
DisapprovalQuite high proportions say they would disap-prove of even trying an inhalant. There was aslight upward drift in this attitude from 1995through 1999, but both 8th and 10th gradesshowed a leveling in 2000.
AvailabilityRespondents have not been asked about theavailability of inhalants. We have assumed thatthese substances are universally available toyoung people in these age ranges.
30
24
18
12
6
100
Inhalants: Trends in nnual Use, Risk, and DisapprovalEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice % saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
'342;i1
76 78 '80 '82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 BO
Year
100
80
60
40
20
0
(no data)
'76 '78 BO '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 BO
Year
LSD
LSD is the most widely used drug within thelarger class of drugs known as hallucinogens.Statistics on overall hallucinogen use, and onthe use of hallucinogens other than LSD, maybe found in the tables at the end of this report.
Trends in UseThe annual prevalence of LSD use has re-mained below 10% for the last 25 years. Usehad declined some in the first 10 years of thestudy, likely continuing a decline that had be-gun before 1975. Use had been fairly level inthe latter half of the '80s but, as was true for anumber of other drugs, use rose in all threegrades between 1991 and 1996. Annual preva-lence at all three grades is now below the peaklevel reached in 1996 by between a quarter anda third. Use continued to drop in the upper twogrades in 2000.
Perceived RiskWe think it likely that perceived risk for LSDuse had grown in the early '70s, before thisstudy began, as concerns about possible neu-rological and genetic effects spread (most werenever scientifically confirmed), and also asconcern about "bad trips" grew. However,there was some decline in perceived risk in thelate '70s. The degree of risk associated withLSD experimentation then remained fairly levelamong 12th graders through most of the '80s
12
but began a substantial decline after 1991,dropping 12 percentage points by 1997, beforeleveling. From the time that perceived risk wasfirst measured among 8th and 10th graders, in1993, through 1998, perceived risk fell in bothof these grades, as well.
DisapprovalDisapproval of LSD use was quite high among12th graders through most of the '80s but be-gan to decline after 1991 along with perceivedrisk. All three grades exhibited a decline indisapproval through 1996, with disapproval ofexperimentation dropping a total of 11 percent-age points between 1991 and 1996 among 12thgraders. After 1996 there emerged a slight in-crease in disapproval among 12th graders, ac-companied by a leveling among 10th gradersand some further decline among 8th graders.
AvailabilityReported availability of LSD by 12th gradershas varied quite a bit over the years. It fellconsiderably from 1975-1983, remained levelfor a few years, and then began a substantialrise after 1986, reaching a peak in 1995. LSDavailability also rose among 8th and 10th grad-ers in the early '90s, reaching a peak in 1995 or1996. There has been some falloff in availabil-ity in all three grades since those peak years.
17
30
24
18
12
6
100
80
60
40
20
0
LSD: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in past year
-c- Twelfth Grade
-4F- Tenth Grade
-4,- Eighth Grade
76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
76 78 '80 82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 VO '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
80
60
40
20
0
is
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Cocaine
For some years cocaine was used almost exclu-sively in powder form, though "freebasing"emerged for a while. Then in the early '80scame the advent of crack cocaine. Our originalquestions did not distinguish among differentforms of cocaine or different modes of admini-stration, but simply asked about using cocaine.The findings contained in this section report onthe results of those more inclusive questionsasked of 12th graders over the years.
In 1987 we also began to ask separate questionsabout the use of crack cocaine and "cocaineother than crack," which was comprised almostentirely of powder cocaine use. Data on thesetwo components of overall cocaine use arecontained in the tables in this report, and crackis discussed in the next section.
Trends in UseThere have been some important changes in thelevels of overall cocaine use (which includescrack) over the life of the study. Use among12th graders originally burgeoned in the late'70s, then remained fairly stable through thefirst half of the '80s, before starting a precipi-tous decline after 1986. Annual prevalenceamong 12th graders dropped by about three-quarters between 1986, when it was 12.7%, and1992, when it was 3.1%. Between 1992 and1999, use reversed course again and doubled to6.2%, before making its first significant declineto 5.0% in 2000. Use also rose in 8th and 10thgrades after 1992, before leveling in 8th gradeafter 1996 and in 10th after 1997.
Perceived RiskGeneral questions about the dangers of cocaineand disapproval of cocaine have been askedonly of 12th graders. The results tell a fasci-nating story. They show that perceived risk forexperimental use fell in the late '70s (when usewas rising), stayed level in the first half of the'80s (when use was level), and then jumpedvery sharply in a single year (by. 14 percentagepoints between 1986 and 1987), just when the
14
substantial decline in use began. The year 1986was marked by a crescendo of a national mediafrenzy over crack cocaine but, but also by thewidely publicized cocaine-related death of LenBias, a National Basketball Association first-round draft pick. Bias' death was originally re-ported as resulting from his first experiencewith cocaine. Though that later turned out notto be the case, the message had already"taken." We believe this event helped to per-suade many young people that use of cocaine atany level, no matter how healthy the individual,was dangerous. Perceived risk continued to risethrough 1990, and the fall in use continued.Perceived risk began to decline after 1991, anduse began a long rise a year later.
DisapprovalDisapproval of cocaine use by 12th gradersfollowed a cross-time pattern similar to that forperceived risk, although its 7 percentage pointjump in 1987 was not quite so pronounced.There was some decline from 1991 to 1997, butfair stability since then.
AvailabilityThe proportion of 12th graders saying that itwould be "fairly easy" or "very easy" for themto get cocaine if they wanted some was 33% in1977, rose to 48% by 1980, held fairly levelthrough 1985, increased further to 59% by1989 (in a period of rapidly declining use), andthen fell back to about 48% by 1993. Sincethen, perceived availability has remained fairlysteady. Note that the pattern of change doesnot map all that well onto the patterns ofchange in actual use, suggesting that changes inoverall availability may not have been a majordeterminant of useparticularly of the sharpdecline in use in the late '80s. The advent ofcrack cocaine in the early '80s, however, pro-vided a lower cost form of cocaine, thus re-ducing the prior social class differences in use.
19
30
24
18
12
6
100
80
60
Cocaine (including Crack): Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, andAvailability
Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0- Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade
Eighth Grade
40
20
0
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Crack Cocaine
Several indirect indicators in the study sug-gested that crack use grew rapidly in the period1983-1986, starting before we had direct meas-ures of crack use. In 1986 we asked a singleusage question in one of the five questionnaireforms given to 12th graders: those who indi-cated any cocaine use in the prior 12 monthswere asked if they had used crack. The resultsfrom that question represent the first data pointin the first panel on the facing page. After that,our usual set of three questions about use wasasked about crack and was inserted into severalquestionnaire forms.
Trends in UseAfter 1986 there was a precipitous drop incrack use among 12th graders, one which con-tinued through 1991. After 1991, all threegrades showed a slow and steady increase incrack use through 1998. Indeed, crack was oneof the few drugs still increasing in use in 1998.In 1999, crack use finally started to drop in 8thgrade and in 10th. The recent peak in 12thgrade was reached in 1999 (2.7%), but therewas a significant drop to 2.2% in 2000.
Perceived RiskBy the time we added questions about the per-ceived risk of using crack in 1987, it was al-ready seen as one of the most dangerous of allthe illicit drugs by 12th graders: 57% saw agreat risk in even trying it. This compared to54% for heroin, for example. (See the previoussection on cocaine for a discussion of changesin perceived risk in 1986.) Perceived risk forcrack rose still higher through 1990, reaching64% of 12th graders who said they thoughtthere was a great risk in taking crack once ortwice. (Use was dropping during that interval.)After 1990 some falloff in perceived risk be-gan, well before crack use began to increase in1994. Thus it was a leading indicator. Be-tween 1991 and about 1998 there was a consid-erable falloff in this belief in grades 8 and 10,
16
as use rose quite steadily. Risk leveled in 2000in grades 8 and 12. We think that the declinesin perceived risk for crack and cocaine duringthe '90s may well reflect an example of "gen-erational forgetting," wherein the class cohortsthat were in adolescence when the adverse con-sequences were most obvious are replaced bynewer cohorts who know less about the dangersof the drug.
DisapprovalDisapproval of crack use was not included inthe study until 1990, by which time it was at avery high level, with 92% of 12th graders say-ing that they disapproved of even trying it.Disapproval of crack use eased steadily in allthree grades from 1991 through about 1997,before stabilizing in 1999.
AvailabilityCrack availability remained relatively stableacross the interval for which data are available,as the fourth panel on the facing page illus-trates. In 1987 some 41% of 12th graders saidit would be fairly easy for them to get crack ifthey wanted some, and there has been littlechange since. Eighth and tenth graders, how-ever, did report some modest increase in avail-ability in the early '90s.
NOTE: The distinction between crack cocaine andother forms of cocaine (mostly powder) was notmade until the middle of the life of the study. Thecharts on the .facing page begin their trend lineswhen these distinctions were introduced for the dif-ferent types of measures. Charts are not presentedhere for the "other forms of cocaine" measures,simply because the trend curves look extremelysimilar to those for crack. (All the statistics arecontained in the tables presented later.) The abso-lute levels of use, risk, etc., are somewhat different,but the trends are very similar. Usage levels tendto be higher for cocaine powder compared to crack,the levels of perceived risk a bit lower, while dis-approval and availability are quite close for the twodifferent forms of cocaine.
21
10
8
6
4
2
100
80
60
40
20
Crack: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0- Twelfth Grade-e-Tenth Grade-0- Eighth Grade
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice % saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
"1"Ittelt*e
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
100
80
60
40
20
glhARTFaral".4111
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Amphetamines
Amphetamines, a class of psychotherapeuticstimulants, have had a relatively high preva-lence of use in the youth population for manyyears. The behavior reported here is supposedto exclude any use under medical supervision.Amphetamines are controlled substancestheyare not supposed to be bought or sold without adoctor's prescriptionbut some are divertedfrom legitimate channels, and some are manu-factured and/or imported illegally.
Trends in UseThe use of amphetamines rose in the last half ofthe '70s, reaching a peak in 1981two yearsafter marijuana use peaked. We believe thatthe usage rate reached in 1981 (annual preva-lence of 26%) may have been an exaggerationf true amphetamine use, because "look-alikes"were in common use at that time. After 1981 along and steady decline in use by 12th gradersbegan, and did not end until 1992.
As with many other illicit drugs, amphetaminesmade a comeback in the '90s, with `annualprevalence starting to rise by 1992 among 8thgraders and by 1993 among the 10th and 12thgraders. Use peaked in the lower two gradesby 1996 and in 12th grade by 1997. Sincethose peak years, use has declined by about aquarter in 8th grade, by less in 10th, and not atall in 12th.
Perceived RiskOnly 12th graders are asked questions about theamount of risk they associate with ampheta-mine use or about their disapproval of that be-havior. Overall, perceived risk has been lessstrongly correlated with usage levels (at the ag-gregate level) for this drug than for a number of
18
others, although the expected inverse associa-tion pertained during much of the period 1975-2000. There was decrease in risk during theperiod 1975-1981 (when use was rising), someincrease in risk in 1986-1991 (when use wasfalling), and some decline in perceived riskfrom 1991-1995 (in advance of use risingagain). But in the interval 1981-1986, risk wasquite stable even though use fell considerably.Of course, since those are the years of peak co-caine use, it is quite possible that some of thedecline in amphetamine use in the '80s was notdue to a change in attitudes specific to thatdrug, but rather due to some displacement byanother stimulantcocaine.
DisapprovalRelatively high proportions of 12th gradershave disapproved of even trying amphetaminesthroughout the life of the study (between 70%and 87%). Disapproval did not change in thelate '70s, despite the increase in use, thoughthere seemed to be a one-year drop in 1981.From 1981-1992 disapproval rose graduallyfrom 71% to 87% as use steadily declined. Dis-approval then fell back about 6 or 7 percentagepoints in the next couple of years (as use rose),before stabilizing.
AvailabilityWhen the study started in 1975, amphetamineshad a high level of reported availability. Thelevel fell by about 10 percentage points by1977, drifted up a bit through 1980, jumpedsharply in 1981, and then began a long, gradualdecline through 1991. There was a modest in-crease in availability at all three grade levels inthe early '90s, followed by some decline laterin the '90s.
23
60
48
36
24
12
100
80
60
40
20
0
Amphetamines: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
- o-Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade
Eighth Grade
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
1 oo
80
60
40
20
0
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
hfiethampheta Dne and Dc
One subclass of amphetamines is called meth-amphetamine. This subclass (at one time called"speed") has been around for a long time andgave rise to the phrase "speed kills" in the '70s.Probably because of the reputation it got at thattime as a particularly dangerous drug, it wasnot very popular for a long time. As a result,we did not even include a full set of questionsabout its use in the study's questionnaires. Oneform of methamphetamine, crystal metham-phetamine or "ice," made a comeback in the'80s. It comes in crystallized form, as the nameimplies, and the chunks can be heated and thefumes inhaled, much like crack cocaine.
Trends in UseFor most of the life of the study the only ques-tion about methamphetamine use has beencontained in a single 12th grade questionnaireform. Respondents who indicated using anytype of amphetamines in the prior 12 monthswere asked in a sequel question to check on apre-specified list which types they had usedduring that period. "Methamphetamine" wasone type on the list, and data exist on its usesince 1976. In 1976, annual prevalence was1.9%; it then rose to 3.7% by 1981 (the peakyear), before declining for a long period of timeto 0.4% by 1992. It then rose again in the '90s,reaching 1.3% by 1998, before declining to0.9% in 1999. In other words, it followed across-time trajectory very similar to that foramphetamines as a whole.
That questionnaire form also had "crystalmeth" added in 1989 as another answer cate-gory that could be checked. It showed a levelrate of use from 1989 to 1993 (at around 1.1%)followed by a period of increase to 2.5% by1998 and then a decline to 1.9% in 2000.
In 1990, in the 12th grade questionnaires only,we introduced our usual set of three questions,
-20
and 1.3% of 12th graders indicated any crystalmethamphetamine ("ice") use in the prior year,a figure which climbed to 3.0% by 1998, fol-lowed by a decline to 2.2% by 2000. (Note thatthese prevalence rates are quite close to thosederived from the other question procedures, justdescribed.)
Responding to the growing concern aboutmethamphetamine use in generalnot justcrystal methamphetamine usewe added a fullset of three questions about the use of anymethamphetamine to the 1999 questionnairesfor all three grade levels. These questions yielda somewhat higher annual prevalence for 12thgraders: 4.3% in 2000, compared to the sum ofthe crystal meth and methamphetamine answersin the other question format, which totals 2.8%.It would appear, then, that the long-termmethod we had been using for tracking meth-amphetamine use probably yielded an under-statement of the absolute prevalence level, per-haps because some proportion of methamphet-amine users did not correctly categorize them-selves initially as amphetamine users. Wethink it unlikely that the shape of the trendcurve was distorted, however.
The newer questions show fairly high levels ofmethamphetamine use: annual prevalence ratesin 2000 of 2.5%, 4.0%, and 4.3% for 8th, 10th,and 12th grades, respectively. These levels aredown some from 1999 in all three grade levels(not statistically significant).
Other MeasuresNo questions have yet been added to the studyon perceived risk, disapproval, or availabilitywith regard to overall methamphetamine use.Data on two of these variables for crystalmethamphetamine, specifically, may be foundon the facing page.
25
1 0
8
6
4
2
1 00
80
60
40
20
Ice: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0-Twelfth Grade-0-Tenth Grade'el' Eighth Grade
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
(no data)
76 78 SO 82 84 '86 88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
so
ao
20
'76 '78 SO 82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
1 00
80
60
40
20
26
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 96 98 '00
Year
Heroin
Heroin is a derivative of opium. For many dec-ades it has been taken primarily by means ofinjection into a vein. However, in the 1990sthe purity of available heroin reached very highlevels, making other modes of administration(like snorting and smoking) practical alterna-tives to injection. Therefore, in 1995, we intro-duced questions that asked separately aboutusing heroin with and without a needle, so thatwe might see to what extent use without injec-tion helped to explain the upsurge in use thenoccurring. The usage statistics presented in thefacing page are based on heroin use by anymethod.
Trends in UseThe annual prevalence of heroin use among12th graders fell by half between 1975 and1979, from 1.0% to 0.5%. The rate then heldamazingly steady for about 14 years. Afterabout 1993, though, heroin use began to rise,and it rose substantially until 1996 (among 8thgraders) or 1997 (among 10th and 12th grad-ers). The prevalence rates roughly doubled ateach grade level. Use then stabilized through1999. In 2000 it declined significantly at 8thgrade while rising significantly at 12th.
The questions about use with and without aneedle were not introduced until the 1995 sur-vey, so they did not encompass much of theperiod of increasing use. Responses to thesequestions showed that by then about equal pro-portions of all users at 8th grade were usingeach of the two methods of ingestion, andsomenearly a third of the userswere usingboth ways. At 10th grade a somewhat higherproportion of all users took heroin by injection,and at 12th grade a higher proportion still.Much of the remaining increase in overall her-oin use beyond 1995 occurred in the propor-tions using it without injecting, which westrongly suspect was true in the immediately
22
preceding period of increase as well. All of theincrease among 12th graders in 2000 was dueto increasing use without injecting.
Perceived RiskStudents have long seen heroin to be one of themost dangerous drugs, which no doubt helps toaccount both for the consistently high level ofpersonal disapproval of use (see below) and thequite low prevalence of use. There have beensome changes in perceived risk levels over theyears, nevertheless. Between 1975 and 1986,perceived risk gradually declined, even thoughuse dropped and then stabilized in that interval.There was then an upward shift in 1987 (thesame year that perceived risk for cocainejumped dramatically) to a new level, where itheld for four years. In 1992 risk dropped to alower plateau again, a year or two before usestarted to rise. Perceived risk then rose again inthe latter half of the '90s as use leveled off.Based on the short interval for which we havesuch data from 8th and 10th graders, it may beseen that perceived risk rose among them be-tween 1995 and 1997, foretelling an end to theincrease in use.
DisapprovalThere has been very little fluctuation in thevery high disapproval levels for heroin use overthe years, though what change there was in thelast half of the '90s was consistent with theconcurrent changes in perceived risk and use.
AvailabilityThe proportion of 12th grade students sayingthey could get heroin fairly easily, if theywanted some, remained around 20% throughthe mid-'80s; it then increased considerablyfrom 1986 to 1992, before stabilizing at about35%. At the lower grade levels, reported avail-ability has been less, and has declined somesince the mid-'90s.
27
5
4
3
2
Heroin: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
Twelfth Grade-a-Tenth Grade-6- Eighth Grade
100
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice*
76 78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 SO
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice*
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 78 '80 82 84 86 88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
*Prior to 1995, the question asked about heroin use in general. Since 1995, the question has asked about heroin use without eneedle.
TranquDiizers
Tranquilizers constitute another class of psy-chotherapeutic drugs that are legally sold onlyby prescription, like amphetamines. They arecentral nervous depressants and for the mostpart are comprised of benzodiazepines (minortranquilizers, such as Valium). Respondentsare told to exclude any medically prescribeduse from their answers.
Trends in UseDuring the late '70s and all of the '80s, tran-quilizers fell steadily from popularity, with usedeclining by three-quarters among 12th gradersbetween 1977 and 1992. Their use made a bitof a comeback during the '90s, along withmany other drugs. Annual prevalence morethan doubled among 12th graders by 2000 to5.7%. (This rate compares to 10.8% in thepeak year of 1977.) Use peaked among 8thgraders in 1996 and has dropped a bit sincethen.
24
Perceived RiskData have not been collected on this variabledue to questionnaire space limitations.
DisapprovalData have not been collected on this variable,either.
AvailabilityAs the number of 12th graders reporting non-medically prescribed tranquilizer use fell dra-matically during the '70s and '80s, so did theproportion saying that tranquilizers would befairly easy to get. Whether declining usecaused the decline in availability, or vice versa,is unclear. Perceived availability fell from 72%in 1975 to 34% in 2000. Most of that declineoccurred before the '90s, though there wassome further drop in the '90s at all three gradelevels, despite the fact that use rose some.
4 9
30
24
18
12
6
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tranquzers: Trends in Annual Use and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0- Twelfth Grade-3-Tenth Grade
Eighth Grade
76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
(no data)
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0
(no data)
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Barbiturates
Like tranquilizers, barbiturate sedatives areprescription-controlled psychotherapeutic drugsthat are central nervous system depressants.They are used to assist sleep and relieve anxi-ety. Respondents are instructed to excludefrom their answers any use that occurred undermedical supervision. Usage data are reportedonly for 12th graders, because we believe thatstudents in the lower grades tend to over-repOrtuse, perhaps including their use of nonpre-scription sleep aids or other over-the-counterdrugs.
Trends in UseLike tranquilizers, the use of barbiturates by12th graders fell in popularity rather steadilyfrom the mid-'70s through the early '90s.From 1975 to 1992, use fell by three-fourths,from 10.7% annual prevalence to 2.8%. Bar-biturates showed some resurgence through2000, though, reaching 6.2%.
Another class of sedatives, methaqualone, hasbeen included in the study from the beginning.In 1975 methaqualone use was about half thelevel of barbiturate use. Its use also declinedsteadily from 1981, when annual prevalencewas 7.6%, through 1993, when annual preva-lence reached the negligible level of 0.2%. Useincreased some for a couple of years, reaching1.1% in 1996, where it remained through 1999.Use then dropped significantly to 0.3% in 2000.
26
Perceived RiskTrying barbiturates was never seen by moststudents as being very dangerous, and it is clearfrom the second facing panel that perceivedrisk cannot do much to explain the trends in usewhich occurred through 1986, at least. Per-ceived risk actually declined a bit between1975 and 1986an interval in which use alsowas declining. But then perceived risk shiftedup some through 1991, consistent with the factthat use was still falling. It then dropped back'some through 1995, as use was increasing.
DisapprovalLike many of the illicit drugs other than mari-juana, barbiturates have received the disap-proval of the great majority of all high schoolgraduating classes over the past 25 years,though there have been some changes in level.Those changes have been consistent with thechanges in actual use observed. Disapproval ofusing a barbiturate once or twice rose from78% in 1975 to a high of 91% in 1990, where itheld for two years. Then disapproval eroded abit to 86% by 2000 during a period of increas-ing use.
AvailabilityAs the fourth facing panel shows, the availabil-ity of barbiturates has generally been decliningduring most of the life of the study, except forone shift up which occurred in 1981.
31
30
24
18
12
6
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Barbiturates: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0-Twelfth Grade-II-Tenth Grade
-a- Eighth Grade
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 94 96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
'76 78 SO '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 96 98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
76 78 80.82 4 6 88 SO 92 94 S6 S8 DO
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
32
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 SO '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
"Club Drugs" Rohypnol and Ecstasy
There are a number of so-called "club drugs,"so labeled because they are popular at nightclubs and all-night dance parties called "raves."This informal category includes LSD, MDMA("ecstasy"), Rohypnol, methamphetamine, ke-tamine ("special K"), and GHB. We will dealhere primarily with ecstasy and Rohypnol.LSD and methamphetamine already have beendiscussed, and ketamine and GHB were justadded to the questionnaire in 2000.
The annual prevalence of GHB use in 2000was 1.2%, 1.1%, and 1.9% in grades 8, 10, and12. The annual prevalence of ketamine usewas 1.6%, 2.1%, and 2.5%.
Rohypnol and GHB have been labeled "daterape drugs" because both can induce amnesiaof events that occurred while under the influ-ence of the drug and have been used in connec-tion with rapes or seductions. Use is likely un-derreported since the user may be unaware ofhaving used the drugs.
Trends in Rohypnot UseQuestions about the use of Rohypnol wereadded to the survey in 1996. They revealedlow levels of use that the respondent was ableto reportaround 1% in all three grade levels.At '8th grade, use began falling immediatelyafter 1996 and by 1999 had fallen by half. Inthe upper two grades, use first rose for a year ortwo before beginning to fall back to its originallevel by 1999. All three grades showed somefurther decline in 2000, though no one of thosedeclines reached statistical significance.
28
Limitations on questionnaire space precludedasking about perceived risk, disapproval, oravailability.
Trends in MDIVIA (Ecstasy) Use
Ecstasy is actually a form of methamphetaminebut is used more for its mildly hallucinogenicproperties. Questions about the use of MDMA,or ecstasy, were added to the surveys of secon-dary school students in 1996. (We have hadquestions on this drug since 1991 in the ques-tionnaires answered by college students andyoung adults. Their results showed ecstasy usebeginning to rise above trace levels in 1995,and continuing to rise at least through 1999.)Annual prevalence in 10th and 12th grades in1996 was 4.6%actually considerably higherthan among college students and young adultsat that pointbut fell in both grades over thenext two years. In 1999, and again in 2000,use rose sharply in both grades, bringing annualprevalence up to 5.4% among 10th graders and8.2% among 12th graders. In 2000 use alsorose among 8th graders, to 3.1%.
The charts on the facing page show littlechange in perceived risk or disapproval of ec-stasy since 1997, but they do show a dramaticrise in perceived availability since 1991par-ticularly in the year 2000. The increase in ec-stasy use in 1999 occurred primarily in theNortheast and in large cities, whereas in 2000the increase diffused into all of the other re-gions, showing no further increase in theNortheast.
33
10
8
6
4
2
0
100
MDM (Ecstasy): Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
-0-Twelfth Grade-D-Tenth Grade
-6- Eighth Grade
80
60
40
20
0
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
100
80
60
40
20
0-04A
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice % saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
100
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
80
60
40
20
34
76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Alcohol
Alcoholic beverageswhich include beer,wine, wine coolers, and hard liquorhave beenamong the most widely used substances byAmerican young people for a very long time.In 2000 the proportions of 8th, 10th, and 12thgraders who admitted drinking an alcoholicbeverage in the 30-day period prior to the sur-vey were 22%, 41%, and 50%, respectively.There are quite a number of usage measures ofrelevance for alcohol, all of which are con-tained in the tables at the end of this report.Here we will focus on the pattern of alcoholconsumption which probably is of the greatestpublic health concernepisodic heavy drink-ing, or what we call "binge drinking" for short.It is measured in this study by the reportednumber of occasions on which the respondenthad five or more drinks in a row during theprior two-week interval. We present theprevalence of such binge drinking behavior inthe first panel.
Trends in UseJudging by the data from 12th graders, bingedrinking reached its peak at about the time thatoverall illicit drug use did, in 1979. It heldsteady for a couple of years and then declinedsubstantially from 41% in 1983 to a low of28% in 1992 (also the low point of any illicitdrug use). This was an important improve-menta drop of almost one-third in bingedrinking. Although illicit drug use rose consid-erably in the '90s in proportional terms, bingedrinking rose only by a small fractionaboutfour percentage points among the 12th grad-ersbetween 1992 and 1998. At 8th gradethere was some upward drift between 1991(12.9%) and 1996 (15.6%), as was true at 10thgrade between 1992 (21.1%) and 1997(25.1%). Use has been level over the past threeyears in all three grades.
One point to note in these findings is that thereis no evidence of any "displacement effect" in
30.
the aggregate between alcohol and marijuanaa hypothesis frequently heard. The two drugshave moved much more in parallel over theyears than in opposite directions.
Perceived RiskWhile for most of the study the majority of12th graders have not viewed binge drinking onweekends as carrying a great risk (see paneltwo), there was in fact a fair-sized increase inthis measure between 1982, when it was 36%,and 1992, when it reached 49%. There thenfollowed a modest decline to 43% by 1997, be-fore it stabilized. These changes track fairlywell the changes in actual binge drinking. Webelieve that the public service advertising cam-paigns in the '80s against drunk driving, ingeneral, as well as those that urged use of des-ignated drivers when drinking, may have con-tributed to the increase in perceived risk ofbinge drinking. As we have published else-where, drunk driving by 12th graders declinedduring that period by an even larger proportionthan did binge drinking.
DisapprovalDisapproval of weekend binge drinking movedpretty much in parallel with perceived risk,suggesting that increasingly such drinking (andvery likely the drunk-driving behavior oftenassociated with it) became unacceptable in thepeer group. Note that the rates of disapprovaland perceived risk for binge drinking are higherin the lower grades than in 12th grade. Bothvariables showed some erosion at all grade lev-els in the early '90s.
AvailabilityPerceived availability of alcohol, which until1999 was asked only of 8th and 10th graders,has been very high and fairly steady in the '90s,although there may have been some decline in8th grade since 1997.
35
100
80
60
40
20
0
Alcohol: Trends in Binge Drinking, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who had 5+ drinks in a rowin previous two weeks
-0-Twelfth Grade-n- Tenth Grade
-0- Eighth Grade
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of having 5+ drinks in a rowonce or twice each weekend
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 VO 82 '84 '86 88 '90 92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in having 5+ drinks in a rowonce or twice each weekend
100
36
80
60
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
0
'76 '78 VO 82 '84 86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy"to get alcohol
0-0
76 78 '80 '82 84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Cigarettes
Cigarette .smoking has been called the greatestpreventable cause of disease and mortality inthe United States. At current rates of smoking,this statement surely remains true for thesenewer cohorts of young people.
Trends in UseWe know that differences in smoking ratesbetween different birth cohorts (or, in this case,high school class cohorts) tend to stay withthose cohorts throughout the life cycle. Thismeans that it is critical to prevent smoking veryearly. It also means that the trends observed atone grade level may not correspond to thetrends observed in another in a given historicalperiod. Among 12th graders, 30-day preva-lence of smoking reached a peak in 1976, at39%. (The peak likely occurred considerablyearlier for lower grade levels, as these sameclass cohorts passed through them in previousyears.) There was about a one-quarter drop in30-day prevalence between 1976 and 1981,when the rate reached 29%, a level at which itremained for more than a decade, until 1992(28%).
In the '90s, smoking began to rise sharply,starting in 1992 (and quite possibly earlier)among 8th and 10th graders, and in 1993among 12th graders. Over the next four to fiveyears smoking rates increased by about one-half in the lower two grades and by almost one-third in grade 12very substantial increases.Smoking peaked in 1996 for 8th and 10th grad-ers arid in 1997 for 12th graders, before begin-ning a decline in all three grades, which contin-ued into 2000. Since the peak levels in themid- #90s, the thirty-day prevalence of smokinghas declined by 30% in 8th grade, 21% in 10th,and 16% in 12th. (In 2000 a single questionwas, introduced to measure the annual preva-lence of "bidis," a type of flavored cigaretteimported from India, and the annual rates for
32
8th, 10th, and 12th graders were 3.9%, 6.4%,and 9.2%.)
Perceived RiskAmong 12th graders, the proportion seeinggreat risk in pack-a-day smoking rose beforeand during some of the time that use first de-clined. It leveled in 1980 (before use leveled),declined a bit in 1982, but then started to riseagain gradually for five years. (It is possiblethat cigarette advertising effectively offset theeffects of rising perceptions of risk during thatfive-year period.) Perceived risk fell some inthe early '90s at all three grade levels as useincreased; but after 1995 perceived risk beganto climb in all three grades (coincident with usestarting to decline in grades 8 and 10, but a yearbefore it started to decline in 12th grade). Notethe considerable disparity of the levels of per-ceived risk among grade levels. For someyears, only around 50% of 8th graders sawgreat risk in pack-a-day smoking.
DisapprovalDisapproval rates for smoking have been fairlyhigh throughout the study and, unlike perceivedrisk, are higher in the lower grade levels.Among 12th graders there was a gradual in-crease in disapproval of smoking from 1976-1986, a slight erosion over the following fiveyears, then a steeper erosion from the early '90sthrough 1997. In the two lower grades a de-cline in disapproval occurred between 1991 and1996, the period of sharply increasing use.Since those low points, there has been a steadyincrease in disapproval.
AvailabilityAvailability of cigarettes is reported as veryhigh by 8th and 10th graders. (We do not askthe question of 12th graders, for whom we as-sume accessibility is nearly universal.) Since1996 availability has been declining, particu-larly among the 8th graders.
37
100
80
60
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
Cigarettes: Trends in 30-Day Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in past 30 days
-0-Twelfth Grade-13- Tenth Grade
--a- Eighth Grade
76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of smoking a packor more per day
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
100
80
60
40
20
0
% seeing "great risk" in smoking a packor more per day
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to gei
100
80
60
40
20
3 8,
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Smokeless Tobacco
Smokeless tobacco comes in two forms:"snuff' and "chew." Snuff is finely ground to-bacco usually sold in tins, either loose or inpackets. It is held in the mouth between the lipor cheek and gums. Chew is a leafy form oftobacco, usually sold in pouches. It too is heldin the mouth and may, as the name suggests, bechewed. In both cases, nicotine is absorbed bythe mucous membranes of ,the mouth. Becausesmokeless tobacco stimulates saliva production,it is sometimes referred to as "spit" tobacco.
Trends in UseThe use of smokeless tobacco by teens hasbeen decreasing gradually from recent peaklevels in the mid-'90s, and the overall declineshave been substantial. Among 8th gradersthirty-day prevalence is down from a 1994 peakof 7.7% to 4.2% in 2000; 10th graders' use isdown from a 1994 peak of 10.5% to 6.1% in2000; and 12th graders' use is down from a1995 peak of 12.2% to 7.6% in 2000. Thesereflect relative declines from peak levels of45%, 42%, and 38%, respectively. One couldsay, more generally, that teen use of smokelesstobacco is down by about 40% from the peaklevels reached in the mid-'90s.
Thirty-day prevalence of daily use of smoke-less tobacco also has fallen gradually, but ap-preciably, in recent years. The daily usagerates in 2000 are 0.9%, 1.9%, and 3.2% ingrades 8, 10 arid 12. These are down by be-tween a quarter and a half from the peak levelsrecorded in the early '90s, with the greatestproportional decline in 8th grade and the leastin 12th.
It should be noted that smokeless tobacco useamong American young people is almost ex-clusively a male behavior. For example,among males the thirty-day prevalence rates in2000 are 6.7%, 11.4% and 14.4% in grades 8,
34.
10, and 12, respectively, versus 1.8%, 1.3%,and 1.3% among females. The current dailyuse rates for males are 1.5%, 3.9%, and 6.5%compared to 0.3%, 0.2%, and 0.4% for females.There are some other important demographicdifferences as well. Use tends to be muchhigher in the South and North Central regionsof the country than in the Northeast and West.It also tends to be more concentrated in non-metropolitan areas than metropolitan ones andto be negatively correlated with the educationlevel of the parents. Use is also much higheramong Whites than it is among African Ameri-cans or Hispanics.
Perceived RiskThe recent low point in the level of perceivedrisk for smokeless tobacco was 1995 in allthree grades. Since then there has been a grad-ual but substantial increase in proportion sayingthere is a great risk in using it regularlyamong 8th graders, from 34% to 39% in 2000;among 10th graders, from 38% to 47%; andamong 12th graders, from 33% to 42%. Theseincreases continued in 2000. It thus appearsthat one important reason for the appreciabledeclines in smokeless tobacco use during thelatter half of the '90s was the fact that an in-creasing proportion of young people were per-suaded of the dangers of using it.
DisapprovalOnly 8th and 10th graders are asked about theirpersonal disapproval of using smokeless to-bacco regularly. The recent low points for dis-approval in both grades were 1995 and 1996.Since 1996, disapproval has risen from 74% to79% among 8th graders and from 71% to 76%among 10th graders.
AvailabilityThere are no questions in the study concerningthe perceived availability of smokeless tobacco.
39
30
24
18
12
6
100
80
60
40
20
0
Smokeless Tobacco: Trends in 30-Day Use, Risk, Disapproval,and Availability
Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in past 30 days
-0-Twelfth Grade
-a-Tenth Grade
Eighth Grade
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using regularly
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
4 0
% seeing "great risk" in using regularly
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
(no data)
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Steroids
Unlike all of the other drugs discussed in thisvolume, anabolic steroids are not usually takenfor their psychoactive effects, but rather fortheir physical effects on the body, in particularfor their effects on muscle and strength devel-opment. They are similar to the other drugsstudied here, though, in that they are controlledsubstances for which there is an illicit marketand which can have adverse consequences forthe user. Questions about their use were addedto the study beginning in 1989. Respondentsare asked: "Steroids, or anabolic steroids, are-sometimes prescribed by doctors to promotehealing from certain types of injuries. Someathletes, and others, have used them to try toincrease muscle development. On how manyoccasions (if any) have you taken steroids onyour ownthat is, without a doctor telling youto take them...?"
Trends in UseSteroids are used predominately by males;therefore, data based on all respondents canmask the higher rates and larger fluctuationsthat occur among males. For example, in 2000the annual prevalence rates were two to fivetimes as high among males as among females.Boys' annual prevalence rates were 2.2%,3.6%, and 2.5% in grades 8, 10, and 12, com-pared with 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.9% for girls.Between 1991 and 1997 the overall annualprevalence rate was quite stable in 8th grade,ranging between 0.9% and 1.2%; and in 10thgrade it was similarly stable, ranging between1.0% and 1.2%. (See the first panel on thefacing page.) In 1999, however, use jumpedfrom 1.2% to 1.7% in 8th and 10th grades.Almost all of that increase occurred amongboys (increasing from 1.6% to 2.5% in 8thgrade and from 1.9% to 2.8% in 10th). In otherwords, the rates among boys increased by about
36
50% in a single year. In 12th grade there was adifferent trend story. With data going back to1989, we can see that steroid use first fell from1.9% overall in 1989 to 1.1% in 1992the lowpoint. From 1992-1999 there was a more grad-ual increase in use, reaching 1.7% in 2000. In2000 use continued to rise only among 10thgraders.
Perceived RiskPerceived risk and disapproval were asked onlyof 8th and 10th graders for a few years, beforethe space was allocated to other questions. Allgrades seemed to have a peak in perceived riskaround 1993. The longer-term data from 12thgraders, however, show a distinct drop since1998. This 10 percentage point drop is quiteunusual and highly significant, suggesting thatsome particular event (or events) in 1998changed beliefs about the dangers of steroids.(It seems likely that there was at least as large adrop in the lower grades, as well, where thesharp upturn in use occurred that year.)
DisapprovalDisapproval of steroid use has been quite highfor some years. (Along with the high levels ofperceived risk, disapproval rates no doubt helpto explain the low absolute prevalence rates.)There has been only slight falloff in disap-proval so far, "despite the decline in perceivedrisk.
AvailabilityPerceived availability is quite high for steroidsand considerably higher at the upper gradesthan in the lower ones. However, it should benoted that some over-the-counter substances,like androstenedione, are legally available to allage groups and are sold in-health food stores,drugstores, and even supermarkets.
41
Steroids: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and AvailabilityEighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders
% who used in last twelve months
1 00
80
60
40
20
0
76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 96 '98 '00
Year
% disapproving of using once or twice
76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
% seeing "great risk" in using once or twice
1 00
80
60
40
20
0
'76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 DO
Year
% saying "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
1 00
80
60
40
20
42
'76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00
Year
Subgroup Differences
Space does not permit a full discussion or thedocumentation of the many subgroup differ-ences on the host of drugs covered in this re-port. However, the much longer versions ofVolume I in this same seriesboth the onepublished in 2000 and the one forthcoming in2001contain an extensive appendix with ta-bles giving the subgroup prevalence levels andtrends for nearly all of the classes of drugs dis-cussed here. Chapters 4 and 5 in those volumesalso present a more in-depth discussion and in-terpretation of those differences. Comparisonsare made by gender, college plans, region ofthe country, community size, socioeconomiclevel (as measured by the educational level ofthe parents), and race/ethnicity.
Gender. Generally, we have found males tohave somewhat higher rates of illicit drug usethan females (particularly higher rates of fre-quent use), much higher rates of smokeless to-bacco and steroid use, higher rates of heavydrinking, and roughly equivalent rates of ciga-rette smoking (though among 12th graders thetwo genders have reversed order twice duringthe life of the study). These differences appearto emerge as students grow older, since formany drugs these gender differences aresmaller or non-existent at the lower grade lev-els. Use of the various substances tends tomove pretty much in parallel across time forboth genders, although the absolute differencestend to be largest in the higher prevalence peri-ods.
College Plans. Those students who are notcollege-bound (a decreasing proportion of thetotal youth population) are considerably morelikely to be at risk for using illicit drugs, fordrinking heavily, and particularly for cigarettesmoking than are the college-bound. Again,these differences are largest in periods of high-est prevalence. In the lower grades, the collegebound showed a greater increase in cigarette
38
smoking in the early to mid-'90s than did theirnon-college-bound peers.
Region of the Country. The differences asso-ciated with region of the country are suffi-ciently varied and complex that we cannot dojustice to them here. In general, though, theNortheast and the West have tended to have thehighest proportions of students using any illicitdrug, and the South the lowest (though theserankings do not apply to many of the specificdrugs). In particular, the cocaine epidemic ofthe early '80s was much more pronounced inthe West and the Northeast than in the othertwo regions, though the differences decreasedas the overall epidemic subsided. While theSouth and the West once had lower rates ofdrinking among students than the other two re-gions had, those differences have narrowedsome in recent years. Cigarette smoking rateshave consistently been lowest in the West. Theupsurge of ecstasy use in 1999 occurred pri-marily in the Northeast, but that drug's new-found popularity spread to the three other re-gions of the country in 2000, while stabilizingin the Northeast.
Population Density. There have not been verylarge or consistent differences in overall illicitdrug use associated with population densityover the life of the study, which helps to dem-onstrate just how ubiquitous the illicit drugphenomenon has been in this country. In thelast few years, the use of a number of drugs hasdeclined more in the urban areas than in thenon-urban ones, leaving the non-urban areaswith higher rates of use. The upsurge in ec-stasy use in 1999 was largely concentrated inurban areas, but in 2000 use increased in com-munities of all sizes. Crack and heroin use arenot concentrated in urban areas, as is com-monly thought, meaning that no parents shouldassume their youngsters are immune to thesethreats simply because they do not live in acity.
4 3
Socioeconomic Level. For many drugs the dif-ferences in use by socioeconomic class are verysmall, and the trends have been highly parallel.One very interesting difference occurred forcocaine, which was positively associated withsocioeconomic level in the early '80s. That as-sociation had nearly disappeared by 1986,however, with the advent of crack, which of-fered cocaine at a lower price. Cigarettesmoking showed a similar narrowing of classdifferences, but this time it was a large negativeassociation with socioeconomic level that di-minished considerably, between roughly 1985and 1993. In more recent years that negativeassociation is re-emerging in the lower grades,as use declines faster among students frommore educated families. Rates of binge drink-ing are roughly equivalent across the classesand have been for some time among 12th grad-ers.
Race/Ethnicity. Among the most dramatic andinteresting subgroup differences are thosefound among the three largest racial/ethnicgroupsWhites, African Americans, and His-panics. Contrary to popular assumption, at allthree grade levels African American youngstershave substantially lower rates of use of most
licit and illicit drugs than do Whites. Theseinclude any illicit drug use, most of the specificillicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. In fact,African Americans' use of cigarettes is dra-matically lower than for Whites, and this is adifference that emerged largely during the lifeof the study (i.e., since 1975).
Hispanics have rates of use that tend to fallbetween the other two groups in 12th gradeusually closer to the rates for Whites than forBlacks. (Hispanics do have the highest re-ported rates of use for some drugs in 12thgradecrack and ecstasyand their level ofheroin use is equivalent to that of Whites.) Butin 8th grade they tend to come out highest ofthe three racial/ethnic groups on nearly allclasses of drugs, including alcohol (ampheta-mines being the major exception). One possi-ble explanation for this change in ranking be-tween 8th and 12th grade may lie in the factthat Hispanic youngsters have considerablyhigher school dropout rates. Thus, more of the"drug-prone" segment of that ethnic group mayleave school before 12th grade than in the othertwo racial/ethnic groups. Another explanationcould be that Hispanics are more precocious intheir initiation of these sorts of behaviors.
4439
45
TA
BL
E 1
Tre
nds
in L
ifet
ime
Prev
alen
ce o
f U
se o
f V
ario
us D
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
(Ent
ries
are
per
cent
ages
)
Lif
etim
e'9
9-'0
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
geA
ny I
llici
t Dru
g°8t
h G
rade
18.7
20.6
22.5
25.7
28.5
31.2
29.4
29.0
28.3
26.
8-1
.510
th G
rade
30.6
29.8
32.8
37.4
40.9
45.4
47.3
44.9
46.2
45.6
-0.6
12th
Gra
de44
.140
.742
.945
.648
.450
.854
.354
.154
.754
.0-0
.7
Any
Illi
cit D
rug
Oth
er T
han
Mar
ijuan
a°8t
h G
rade
14.3
15.6
16.8
17.5
18.8
19.2
17.7
16.9
16.3
15.8
-0.6
10th
Gra
de19
.119
.220
.921
.724
.325
.525
.023
.624
.023
.1-0
.912
th G
rade
26.9
25.1
26.7
27.6
28.1
28.5
30.0
29.4
29.4
29.0
-0.3
Any
Illi
cit D
rug
Incl
udin
g In
hala
nteb
8th
Gra
de28
.529
.632
.335
.138
.139
.438
.137
.837
.235
.1-2
.010
th G
rade
36.1
36.2
38.7
42.7
45.9
49.8
50.9
49.3
49.9
49.3
-0.6
12th
Gra
de47
.644
.446
.649
.151
.553
.556
.356
.156
.357
.0+
0.8
Mar
ijuan
a/H
ashi
sh8t
h G
rade
10.2
11.2
12.6
16.7
19.9
23.1
22.6
22.2
22.0
20.3
-1.8
10th
Gra
de23
.421
.424
.430
.434
.139
.842
.339
.640
.940
.3-0
.712
th G
rade
36.7
32.6
35.3
38.2
41.7
44.9
49.6
49.1
49.7
48.8
-0.9
Inha
lant
sb.`
8th
Gra
de17
.617
.419
.419
.921
.621
.221
.020
.519
.717
.9-1
.8s
10th
Gra
de15
.716
.617
.518
.019
.019
.318
.318
.317
.016
.6-0
.412
th G
rade
17.6
16.6
17.4
17.7
17.4
16.6
16.1
15.2
15.4
14.2
-1.2
Nitr
itesd
8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
12th
Gra
de1.
61.
51.
41.
71.
51.
82.
02.
71.
70.
8-0
.8
Hal
luci
noge
ns'
8th
Gra
de3.
23.
83.
94.
35.
25.
95.
44.
94.
84.
6-0
.110
th G
rade
6.1
6.4
6.8
8.1
9.3
10.5
10.5
9.8
9.7
8.9
-0.8
12th
Gra
de9.
69.
210
.911
.412
.714
.015
.114
.113
.713
.0-0
.7L
SD 8th
Gra
de2.
73.
23.
53.
74.
45.
14.
74.
14.
13.
9-0
.210
th G
rade
5.6
5.8
6.2
7.2
8.4
9.4
9.5
8.5
8.5
7.6
-1.0
12th
Gra
de8.
88.
610
.310
.511
.712
.613
.612
.612
.211
.1-1
.1
Hal
luci
noge
nsO
ther
Tha
n L
SD8t
h G
rade
1.4
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
L0.
110
th G
rade
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.8
3.9
4.7
4.8
5.0
4.7
4.8
+0.
112
th G
rade
3.7
3.3
3.9
4.9
5.4
6.8
7.5
7.1
6.7
6.9
+0.
2PC
Pd8t
h G
rade
10th
Gra
de12
th G
rade
2.9
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.7
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.4
3.4
-0.1
(Tab
le c
ontin
ued
on n
ext p
age)
46
TA
BL
E 1
(co
nt.)
Tre
nds
in L
ifet
ime
Prev
alen
ce o
f U
se o
f V
ario
us D
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Lif
etim
e'9
9-'0
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
geM
DM
A (
Ecs
tasy
) .
8th
Gra
de-
--
-3.
43.
22.
72.
74.
3 +
1.6s
s10
th G
rade
--
-5.
65.
75.
16.
07.
3+
1.3
12th
Gra
de-
--
-6.
16.
95.
88.
011
.0+
3.0s
Coc
aine
8th
Gra
de2.
32.
92.
93.
64.
24.
54.
44.
64.
74.
5-0
.210
th G
rade
4.1
3.3
3.6
4.3
5.0
6.5
7.1
7.2
7.7
6.9
-0.9
12th
Gra
de7.
86.
16.
15.
96.
07.
18.
79.
39.
88.
6-1
.2C
rack 8th
Gra
de1.
31.
61.
72.
42.
72.
92.
73.
23.
13.
10.
0,
10th
Gra
de1.
71.
51.
82.
12.
83.
33.
63.
94.
03.
7-0
.312
th G
rade
3.1
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.9
4.4
4.6
3.9
-0.7
sO
ther
Coc
aine
'8t
h G
rade
2.0
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.4
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.5
-0.3
10th
Gra
de3.
83.
03.
33.
84.
45.
56.
16.
46.
86.
0-0
.812
th G
rade
7.0
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.1
6.4
8.2
8.4
8.8
7.7
-1.1
Her
oing
8th
Gra
de1.
21.
41.
42.
02.
32.
42.
12.
32.
31.
9-0
.410
th G
rade
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.2
-0.1
12th
Gra
de0.
91.
21.
11.
21.
61.
82.
12.
02.
02.
4+
0.4
With
a n
eedl
eb8t
h G
rade
--
--
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.1
-0.5
ss10
th G
rade
--
-1.
01.
11.
11.
21.
31.
0-0
.212
th G
rade
--
-0.
70.
80.
90.
80.
90.
8-0
.1W
ithou
t a n
eedl
e'8t
h G
rade
--
-1.
51.
61.
41.
51.
41.
3-0
.110
th G
rade
--
1.1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
0.0
12th
Gra
de-
-1.
41.
72.
11.
61.
82.
4+
0.6
Oth
er N
arco
tics'
8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
12th
Gra
de6.
66.
16.
46.
67.
28.
29.
79.
810
.210
.6+
0.4
Am
phet
amin
es'
8th
Gra
de10
.510
.811
.812
.313
.113
.512
.311
.310
.79.
9-0
.810
th G
rade
13.2
13.1
14.9
15.1
17.4
17.7
17.0
16.0
15.7
15.7
+0.
112
th G
rade
15.4
13.9
15.1
15.7
15.3
15.3
16.5
16.4
16.3
15.6
-0.7
Met
ham
phet
amin
e''k
8th
Gra
de-
--
--
4.5
4.2
-0.3
10th
Gra
de-
--
--
-7.
36.
9-0
.512
th G
rade
--
--
--
8.2
7.9
-0.3
(Tab
le c
ontin
ued
on n
ext p
age)
4748
TA
BL
E 1
(co
nt.)
Tre
nds
in L
ifet
ime
Prev
alen
ce o
f U
se o
f V
ario
us I
:Dru
gs f
or E
ight
h, T
enth
, and
Tw
elft
h G
rade
rsL
ifet
ime
'99-
'00
kek
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
200
0 ch
ange
8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
12th
Gra
de3.
32.
93.
13.
43.
94.
44.
45.
34.
84.
0-0
.8
Bar
bitu
rate
s'8t
h G
rade
10th
Gra
de12
th G
rade
6.2
5.5
6.3
7.0
7.4
7.6
8.1
8.7
8.9
9.2
+0.
2
Tra
nqui
lizer
s'8t
h G
rade
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.5
5.3
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.4
0.0
10th
Gra
de5.
85.
95.
75.
46.
07.
17.
37.
87.
98.
0+
0.1
12th
Gra
de7.
26.
06.
46.
67.
17.
27.
88.
59.
38.
9-0
.5
Roh
ypno
ld'I
8th
Gra
de1.
51.
11.
41.
31.
0-0
.310
th G
rade
--
-1.
51.
72.
01.
81.
3-0
.512
th G
rade
1.2
1.8
3.0
2.0
1.5
-0.6
Alc
ohol
mA
ny u
se8t
h G
rade
70.1
69.3
67.1
--
--
--
--
55.7
55.8
54.5
55.3
53.8
52.5
52.1
51.7
-0.4
10th
Gra
de83
.882
.380
.8-
-71
.671
.170
.571
.872
.069
.870
.671
.4+
0.9
12th
Gra
de88
.087
.587
.0-
--
--
-80
.080
.480
.779
.281
.781
.480
.080
.3+
0.2
Bee
n D
runk
'8t
h G
rade
26.7
26.8
26.4
25.9
25.3
26.8
25.2
24.8
24.8
25.1
+0.
310
th G
rade
50.0
47.7
47.9
47.2
46.9
48.5
49.4
46.7
48.9
49.3
+0.
412
th G
rade
65.4
63.4
62.5
62.9
63.2
61.8
64.2
62.4
62.3
62.3
0.0
Cig
aret
tes
Any
use
8th
Gra
de44
.045
.245
.346
.146
.449
.247
.345
.744
.140
.5-3
.6ss
s10
th G
rade
55.1
53.5
56.3
56.9
57.6
61.2
60.2
57.7
57.6
55.1
-2.5
s12
th G
rade
63.1
61.8
61.9
62.0
64.2
63.5
65.4
65.3
64.6
62.5
-2.1
Smok
eles
s T
obac
cee
8th
Gra
de22
.220
.718
.719
.920
.020
.416
.815
.014
.412
.8-1
.610
th G
rade
28.2
26.6
28.1
29.2
27.6
27.4
26.3
22.7
20.4
19.1
-1.3
12th
Gra
de32
.431
.030
.730
.929
.825
.326
.223
.423
.1-0
.4
Ster
oids
k8t
h G
rade
1.9
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.7
3.0
+0.
310
th G
rade
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.7
3.5
+0.
8ss
12th
Gra
de2.
12.
12.
02.
42.
31.
92.
42.
72.
92.
5-0
.4
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es:
s =
.05,
ss
= .0
1, s
ss =
.001
.in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
to r
ound
ing
erro
r.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.
TA
BL
E 2
Tre
nds
in A
nnua
l and
30-
Day
Pre
vale
nce
of U
se o
f V
ario
usD
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Ann
ual
'99-
'00
30-D
ay'9
9-'0
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
ge19
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
geA
ny I
llici
t Dru
gs8t
h G
rade
11.3
12.9
15.1
18.5
21.4
23.6
22.1
21.0
20.5
19.5
-1.1
5.7
6.8
8.4
10.9
12.4
14.6
12.9
12.1
12.2
11.9
-0.4
10th
Gra
de21
.420
.424
.730
.033
.337
.538
.535
.035
.9 3
6.4
+0.
511
.611
.014
.018
.520
.223
.223
.021
.522
.122
.5+
0.4
12th
Gra
de29
.427
.131
.035
.839
.040
.242
.441
.442
.140
.9-1
.216
.414
.418
.321
.923
.824
.626
.225
.625
.9 2
4.9
-1.0
Any
Illi
cit D
rug
Oth
er T
han
Mar
ijuan
a°8t
h G
rade
8.4
9.3
10.4
11.3
12.6
13.1
11.8
11.0
10.5
10.2
-0.4
3.8
4.7
5.3
5.6
6.5
6.9
6.0
5.5
5.5
5.6
+0.
110
th G
rade
12.2
12.3
13.9
15.2
17.5
18.4
18.2
16.6
16.7
16.7
0.0
5.5
5.7
6.5
7.1
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.5
-0.1
12th
Gra
de16
.214
.917
.118
.019
.419
.820
.720
.220
.720
.4-0
.37.
16.
37.
98.
810
.09.
510
.710
.710
.410
.40.
0A
ny I
llici
t Dru
gIn
clud
ing
Inha
lant
s*.b
8th
Gra
de16
.718
.221
.124
.227
.128
.727
.226
.225
.324
.0-1
.48.
810
.012
.014
.316
.117
.516
.014
.915
.114
.4-0
.710
th G
rade
23.9
23.5
27.4
32.5
35.6
39.6
40.3
37.1
37.7
38.0
+0.
313
.112
.615
.520
.021
.624
.524
.122
.523
.123
.6+
0.5
12th
Gra
de31
.228
.832
.537
.640
.241
.943
.342
.442
.842
.5-0
.317
.815
.519
.323
.024
.825
.626
.926
.626
.426
.40.
0M
ariju
ana/
Has
hish
8th
Gra
de6.
27.
29.
213
.015
.818
.317
.716
.916
.515
.6-0
.93.
23.
75.
17.
89.
111
.310
.29.
79.
79.
1-0
.610
th G
rade
16.5
15.2
19.2
25.2
28.7
33.6
34.8
31.1
32.1
32.2
+0.
28.
78.
110
.915
.817
.220
.420
.518
.719
.419
.7+
0.3
12th
Gra
de23
.921
.926
.030
.734
.735
.838
.537
.537
.836
.5-1
.313
.811
.915
.519
.021
.221
.923
.722
.823
.121
.6-1
.6In
hala
nte.
`8t
h G
rade
9.0
9.5
11.0
11.7
12.8
12.2
11.8
11.1
10.3
9.4
-0.9
4.4
4.7
5.4
5.6
6.1
5.8
5.6
4.8
5.0
4.5
-0.5
10th
Gra
de7.
17.
58.
49.
19.
69.
58.
78.
07.
27.
3+
0.1
2.7
2.7
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.6
0.0
12th
Gra
de6.
66.
27.
07.
78.
07.
66.
76.
25.
65.
9+
0.3
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.2
+0.
2N
itrite
sd. 8
th G
rade
10th
Gra
de-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
- -
-12
th G
rade
0.9
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.4
0.9
0.6
-0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.3
-0.1
Hal
luci
noge
ns'
8th
Gra
de1.
92.
52.
62.
73.
64.
13.
73.
42.
92.
80.
00.
81.
11.
21.
31.
71.
91.
81.
41.
31.
2-0
.110
th G
rade
4.0
4.3
4.7
5.8
7.2
7.8
7.6
6.9
6.9
6.1
-0.9
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.4
3.3
2.8
3.3
3.2
2.9
2.3
-0.6
s12
th G
rade
5.8
5.9
7.4
7.6
9.3
10.1
9.8
9.0
9.4
8.1
-1.3
s2.
22.
12.
73.
14.
43.
53.
93.
83.
52.
6-0
.9ss
LSD 8t
h G
rade
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.4
3.2
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.4
+0.
10.
60.
91.
01.
11.
41.
51.
51.
11.
11.
0-0
.110
th G
rade
3.7
4.0
4.2
5.2
6.5
6.9
6.7
5.9
6.0
5.1
-0.9
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.0
3.0
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.3
1.6
-0.7
ss12
th G
rade
5.2
5.6
6.8
6.9
8.4
8.8
8.4
7.6
8.1
6.6
-1.5
s1.
92.
02.
42.
64.
02.
53.
13.
22.
71.
6-1
.2ss
sH
allu
cino
gens
Oth
er T
han
LSD
8th
Gra
de0.
71.
11.
01.
31.
72.
01.
81.
61.
51.
4-0
.10.
30.
40.
50.
70.
80.
90.
70.
70.
60.
6+
0.1
10th
Gra
de1.
31.
41.
92.
42.
83.
33.
33.
43.
23.
1-0
.10.
40.
50.
71.
01.
01.
01.
21.
41.
21.
20.
012
th G
rade
2.0
1.7
2.2
3.1
3.8
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.3
4.4
+0.
10.
70.
50.
81.
21.
31.
61.
71.
61.
61.
7+
0.1
(Tab
le c
ontin
ued
on n
est p
age)
5152
53
TA
BL
E 2
(co
nt.)
Tre
nds
in A
nnua
l and
30-
Day
Pre
vale
nce
of U
se o
f V
ario
us D
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Ann
ual
'99-
'00
30-D
ay'9
9-'0
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
ge19
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
99 2
000
chan
gePC
PI8t
h G
rade
10th
Gra
de12
th G
rade
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.6
2.3
2.1
1.8
2.3
+0.
50.
50.
61.
00.
70.
61.
30.
71.
00.
80.
9 +
0.1
MD
MA
(E
csta
sy)d
''8t
h G
rade
--
--
2.3
2.3
1.8
1.7
3.1
+1.
4sss
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.4
+0.
7ss
10th
Gra
de-
4.6
3.9
3.3
4.4
5.4
+1.
0-
--
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.8
2.6
+0.
8s12
th G
rade
-4.
64.
03.
65.
68.
2 +
2.6s
s-
--
-2.
01.
61.
52.
53.
6 +
1.1
Coc
aine
8th
Gra
de1.1
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.6
3.0
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.6
-0.1
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.2
-0.1
10th
Gra
de2.2
1.9
2.1
2.8
3.5
4.2
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.4
-0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.8
-0.1
12th
Gra
de3.5
3.1
3.3
3.6
4!0
4.9
5.5
5.7
6.2
5.0
-1.3s
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.1
-0.5
Cra
ck 8th
Gra
de0.
70.
91.
01.
31.
61.
81.
72.
11.
81.
80.
00.
30.
50.
40.
70.
70.
80.
70.
90.
80.
8-0
.110
th G
rade
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
-0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.9
+0.
112
th G
rade
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.2
-0.5
s0.
70.
60.
70.
81.
01.
00.
91.
01.
11.
0-0
.1
Oth
er C
ocai
ne`
8th
Gra
de1.0
1.2
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.3
1.9
-0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
-0.2
10th
Gra
de2.1
1.7
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.5
4.1
4.0
4.4
3.8
-0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
0.0
12th
Gra
de3.2
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.4
4.2
5.0
4.9
5.8
4.5
-1.4s
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.7
-0.7s
Her
oing
8th
Gra
de0.
70.
70.
71.
21.
41.
61.
31.
31.
41.
1-0
.3s
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
-0.2
10th
Gra
de0.
50.
60.
70.
91.
11.
21.
41.
41.
41.
40.
00.
20.
20.
30.
40.
60.
50.
60.
70.
70.
5-0
.212
th G
rade
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.5
+0.
4s0.
20.
30.
20.
30.
60.
50.
50.
50.
50.
7 +
0.2
With
a n
eedl
eh8t
h G
rade
--
--
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
-0.3
ss-
-0.
40.
50.
40.
50.
40.
3-0
.110
th G
rade
--
--
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
-0.1
--
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
-0.1
12th
Gra
de-
--
-0.
50.
50.
50.
40.
40.
40.
00.
30.
40.
30.
20.
20.
20.
0W
ithou
t a n
eedl
eh8t
h G
rade
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
-0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
-0.1
10th
Gra
de0.
80.
91.
11.
01.
11.
10.
00.
30.
30.
40.
50.
50.
4-0
.212
th G
rade
--
-1.
01.
01.
20.
81.
01.
6 +
0.6s
s-
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.7
+0.
3O
ther
Nar
cotic
s'8t
h G
rade
10th
Gra
de12
th G
rade
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.7
5.4
6.2
6.3
6.7
7.0
+0.
31.
11.
21.
31.
51.
82.
02.
32.
42.
62.
9 +
0.3
Am
phet
amin
es'
8th
Gra
de6.
26.
57.
27.
98.
79.
18.
17.
26.
96.
5-0
.42.
63.
33.
63.
64.
24.
63.
83.
33.
43.
4 +
0.1
10th
Gra
de8.
28.
29.
610
.211
.912
.412
.110
.710
.411
.1 +
0.7
3.3
3.6
4.3
4.5
5.3
5.5
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.4
+0.
512
th G
rade
8.2
7.1
8.4
9.4
9.3
9.5
10.2
10.1
10.2
10.5
+0.
33.
22.
83.
74.
04.
04.
14.
84.
64.
55.
0 +
0.5
(Table continued on next page)
TA
BL
E 2
(co
nt.)
Tre
nds
in A
nnua
l and
30-
Day
Pre
vale
nce
of U
se o
f V
ario
usD
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Aimgd
'99-
'00
30-D
ay'9
9-20
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
981222
2000
cha
nge
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
192a
1999
200
0 ch
ange
Met
ham
phet
amin
ehk
8th
Gra
de3.
22.
5-0
.71.
10.
8-0
.310
th G
rade
4.6
4.0
-0.6
1.8
2.0
+0.
212
th G
rade
4.7
4.3
-0.3
1.7
1.9
+0.
2Ic
e' 8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
--
--
--
--
- -
--
--
--
--
--
--
12th
Gra
de1.
41.
31.
71.
82.
42.
82.
33.
01.
92.
2+
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.8
1.0
+0.
2B
arbi
tura
tes"
8th
Gra
de-
--
--
--
--
--
10th
Gra
de-
--
--
--
--
--
12th
Gra
de3.
42.
83.
44.
14.
74.
95.
15.
55.
86.
2+
0.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.7
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.6
3.0
+0.
4T
ranq
uiliz
ers"
8th
Gra
de1.
82.
02.
12.
42.
73.
32.
92.
62.
52.
6+
0.2
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.4
+0.
310
th G
rade
3.2
3.5
3.3
3.3
4.0
4.6
4.9
5.1
5.4
5.6
+0.
21.
21.
51.
11.
51.
71.
72.
22.
22.
22.
5+
0.4
12th
Gra
de3.
62.
83.
53.
74.
44.
64.
75.
55.
85.
7-0
.11.
41.
01.
21.
41.
82.
01.
82.
42.
52.
6+
0.1
Roh
ypno
ld'k
8th
Gra
de1.
00.
80.
80.
50.
5+
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
10th
Gra
de1.
11.
31.
21.
00.
8-0
.30.
50.
50.
40.
50.
4-0
.212
th G
rade
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.0
0.8
-0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
+0.
1G
HW
A 8th
Gra
de1.
2-
10th
Gra
de1.
1-
12th
Gra
de1.
9-
Ket
amin
e8t
h G
rade
1.6
-10
th G
rade
2.1
-12
th G
rade
2.5
-A
lcoh
ol'
Any
use
8th
Gra
de54
.053
.751
.6-
--
--
- -
-25
.126
.126
.2-
--
--
--
-45
.446
.845
.346
.545
.543
.743
.543
.1-0
.424
.325
.524
.626
.224
.523
.024
.022
.4-1
.710
th G
rade
72.3
70.2
69.3
--
--
--
--
42.8
39.9
41.5
--
--
--
--
63.4
63.9
63.5
65.0
65.2
62.7
63.7
65.3
+1.
638
.239
.238
.840
.440
.138
.840
.041
.0+
0.9
12th
Gra
de77
.776
.876
.0-
--
--
- -
-54
.051
.351
.0-
--
--
--
-72
.773
.073
.772
.574
.874
.373
.873
.2-0
.648
.650
.151
.350
.852
.752
.051
.050
.0-1
.0B
een
Dru
nki
8th
Gra
de17
.518
.318
.218
.218
.419
.818
.417
.918
.518
.50.
07.
67.
57.
88.
78.
39.
68.
28.
49.
48.
3-1
.110
th G
rade
40.1
37.0
37.8
38.0
38.5
40.1
40.7
38.3
40.9
41.6
+0.
720
.518
.119
.820
.320
.821
.322
.421
.122
.523
.5+
1.0
12th
Gra
de52
.750
.349
.651
.752
.551
.953
.252
.053
.251
.8-1
.431
.629
.928
.930
.833
.231
.334
.232
.932
.932
.3-0
.6
(Tab
le c
ontin
ued
on n
ext p
age)
5556
Cig
aret
tes
Any
use
8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
12th
Gra
deB
idis
bk
TA
BL
E 2
(co
nt.)
Tre
nds
in A
nnua
l and
30-
Day
Pre
vale
nce
of U
se o
f V
ario
us D
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Ann
ual
30-D
ay'9
9-'0
0'9
9-'0
019
91 1
992
1993
199
4 19
95 1
996
1997
199
8 19
99 2
000
chan
ge19
91 1
992
1993
199
4 19
95 1
996
1997
199
8 19
99 2
000
chan
ge
14.3
15.5
16.7
18.6
19.1
21.0
19.4
19.1
17.5
14.6
-2.8
sss
20.8
21.5
24.7
25.4
27.9
30.4
29.8
27.6
25.7
23.9
-1.8
28.3
27.8
29.9
31.2
33.5
34.
0 36
.535
.134
.631
.4-3
.2ss
8th
Gra
de-
3.9
-10
th G
rade
-6.
4-
12th
Gra
de-
9.2
-Sm
okel
ess
Tob
acco
d8t
h G
rade
6.9
7.0
6.6
7.7
7.1
7.1
5.5
4.8
4.5
4.2
-0.3
10th
Gra
de10
.09.
610
.410
.59.
78.
68.
97.
56.
56.
1-0
.512
th G
rade
-11
.410
.711
.112
.29.
89.
78.
88.
47.
6-0
.7
Ster
oid&
8th
Gra
de1.
01.
10.
91.
21.
00.
91.
01.
21.
71.
70.
00.
40.
50.
50.
50.
60.
40.
50.
50.
70.
8 +
0.1
10th
Gra
de1.
11.
11.
01.
11.
21.
21.
21.
21.
72.
2+
0.5s
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.0
12th
Gra
de1.
41.
11.
21.
31.
51.
41.
41.
71.
81.
7-0
.10.
80.
60.
70.
90.
70.
71.
01.
10.
90.
8-0
.1
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es: s
= .0
5, s
s =
.01,
sss
=. 0
01.
'-' in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.Se
e T
able
1 f
or r
elev
ant f
ootn
otes
.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
to r
ound
ing
erro
r.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.
57
TA
BL
E 3
Tre
nds
in 3
0-D
ay P
reva
lenc
e of
Dai
ly U
se o
f V
ario
usD
rugs
for
Eig
hth,
Ten
th, a
nd T
wel
fth
Gra
ders
Mar
ijuan
a/H
ashi
sh, d
aily
"1.
391
1992
1993
1994
1995
Dai
ly
1997
1998
19.9
.9_
2.9_
2Q'9
9-'0
0ch
ange
1996
8th
Gra
de0.
20.
20.
40.
70.
81.
51.
11.
11.
41.
30.
010
th G
rade
0.8
0.8
1.0
2.2
2.8
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.8
0.0
12th
Gra
de2.
01.
92.
43.
64.
64.
95.
85.
66.
06.
00.
0A
lcoh
olm
."A
ny d
aily
use
8th
Gra
de0.
50.
60.
8-
--
--
--
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
-0.3
s10
th G
rade
1.3
1.2
1.6
--
--
--
-1.
81.
71.
71.
61.
71.
91.
91.
8-0
.112
th G
rade
3.6
3.4
2.5
--
--
--
3.4
2.9
3.5
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.9
-0.4
Bee
n D
runk
, dai
lyk
8th
Gra
de0.
10.
10.
20.
30.
20.
20.
20.
30.
40.
3-0
.110
th G
rade
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
-0.2
12th
Gra
de0.
90.
80.
91.
21.
31.
62.
01.
51.
91.
7-0
.25+
dri
nks
in a
row
in la
st 2
wee
ks8t
h G
rade
12.9
13.4
13.5
14.5
14.5
15.6
14.5
13.7
15.2
14.1
-1.1
10th
Gra
de22
.921
.123
.023
.624
.024
.825
.124
.325
.626
.2+
0.6
12th
Gra
de29
.827
.927
.528
.229
.830
.231
.331
.530
.830
.0-0
.8C
igar
ette
sA
ny d
aily
use
8th
Gra
de7.
27.
08.
38.
89.
310
.49.
08.
88.
17.
4-0
.710
th G
rade
12.6
12.3
14.2
14.6
16.3
18.3
18.0
15.8
15.9
14.0
-1.9
s12
th G
rade
18.5
17.2
19.0
19.4
21.6
22.2
24.6
22.4
23.1
20.6
-2.5
s1/
2 pa
ck+
/day
8th
Gra
de3.
12.
93.
53.
63.
44.
33.
53.
63.
32.
8-0
.510
th G
rade
6.5
6.0
7.0
7.6
8.3
9.4
8.6
7.9
7.6
6.2
-1.4
ss12
th G
rade
10.7
10.0
10.9
11.2
12.4
13.0
14.3
12.6
13.2
11.3
-1.9
ssSm
okel
ess
Tob
acco
,8t
h G
rade
-1.
61.
81.
51.
91.
21.
51.
01.
00.
90.
90.
010
th G
rade
3.3
3.0
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.9
+0.
312
th G
rade
-4.
33.
33.
93.
63.
34.
43.
22.
93.
2+
0.3
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es:
s =
.05
ss =
.01,
sss
=. 0
01. "
- in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.Se
e T
dble
1 f
or r
elev
ant f
ootn
otes
.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
to r
ound
ing
erro
r.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.
'6 0
Foot
note
s fo
r T
able
1 to
Tab
le 3
App
roxi
mat
e W
eigh
ted
Ns
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
8th
Gra
de17
,500
18,6
0018
,300
17,3
0017
,500
17,8
0018
,600
18,1
0016
,700
16,7
0010
th G
rade
14,8
0014
,800
15,3
0015
,800
17,0
0015
,600
15,5
0015
,000
13,6
0014
,300
12th
Gra
de15
,000
15,8
0016
,300
15,4
0015
,400
14,3
0015
,400
15,2
0013
,600
12,8
00
Tor
12t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: U
se o
f "a
ny il
licit
drug
" in
clud
es a
ny u
se o
f m
ariju
ana,
LSD
, oth
er h
allu
cino
gens
, cra
ck, o
ther
coc
aine
, or
hero
in, o
r an
y us
eof
oth
er n
arco
tics,
am
phet
amin
es, b
arbi
tura
tes,
or
tran
quili
zers
not
und
er a
doc
tor's
ord
ers.
For
8th
and
10t
h gr
ader
s: T
he u
se o
f ot
her
narc
otic
san
d ba
rbitu
rate
s ha
s be
en e
xclu
ded,
bec
ause
thes
e yo
unge
r re
spon
dent
s ap
pear
to o
verr
epor
t use
(pe
rhap
s be
caus
e th
ey in
clud
e th
e us
e of
nonp
resc
ript
ion
drug
s in
thei
r an
swer
s).
bFor
12t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
fiv
e of
six
for
ms
in 1
991-
98; N
is f
ive-
sixt
hs o
f N
indi
cate
d. B
egin
ning
in 1
999,
dat
a ba
sed
onth
ree
of s
ixfo
rms;
N is
thre
e-si
xths
of
N in
dica
ted.
`Inh
alan
ts a
re u
nadj
uste
d fo
r un
derr
epor
ting
of a
myl
and
but
yl n
itrite
s; h
allu
cino
gens
are
una
djus
ted
for
unde
rrep
ortin
g of
PC
P.dF
or 1
2th
grad
ers
only
: Dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne f
orm
; N is
one
-six
th o
f N
indi
cate
d.
eFor
8th
and
10t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: M
DM
A d
ata
base
d on
one
for
m in
199
6; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d. B
egin
ning
in 1
997,
dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne-t
hird
of
N in
dica
ted
due
to c
hang
es o
n th
e qu
estio
nnai
re f
orm
s. S
mok
eles
s to
bacc
o da
ta b
ased
on
one
of tw
o fo
rms
for
1991
-96
and
on tw
o of
fou
rfor
ms
begi
nnin
g in
199
7; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d.
Tor
12t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
fou
r of
six
for
ms;
N is
fou
r-si
xths
of
N in
dica
ted.
gIn
1995
, the
her
oin
ques
tion
was
cha
nged
in th
ree
of s
ix f
orm
s fo
r 12
th g
rade
rs a
nd in
one
of
two
form
s fo
r 8t
h an
d 10
thgr
ader
s. S
epar
ate
ques
tions
wer
e as
ked
for
use
with
inje
ctio
n an
d w
ithou
t inj
ectio
n. D
ata
pres
ente
d he
re r
epre
sent
the
com
bine
d da
ta f
rom
all
form
s. I
n 19
96, t
hehe
roin
que
stio
n w
as c
hang
ed in
all
rem
aini
ng 8
th a
nd 1
0th
grad
e fo
rms.
'For
8th
and
10t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
one
of
two
form
s in
199
5; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d. F
or 1
2th
grad
ers
only
:D
ata
base
d on
thre
eof
six
for
ms;
N is
thre
e-si
xths
of
N in
dica
ted.
'Onl
y dr
ug u
se w
hich
was
not
und
er a
doc
tor's
ord
ers
is in
clud
ed h
ere.
iFor
8th
and
10t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
one
of
four
for
ms;
N is
one
-thi
rd o
f N
indi
cate
d.
'For
12t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
two
of s
ix f
orm
s; N
is tw
o-si
xths
of
N in
dica
ted.
'For
8th
and
10t
h gr
ader
s on
ly: D
ata
base
d on
one
of
two
form
s in
199
6-97
; N is
one
-hal
f of
N in
dica
ted.
Dat
a ba
sed
on th
ree
of f
our
form
s in
199
8;N
is tw
o-th
irds
of
N in
dica
ted.
Beg
inni
ng in
199
9, d
ata
base
d on
two
of f
our
form
s; N
is o
ne-t
hird
of
N in
dica
ted.
"'Fo
r al
l gra
des:
In
1993
, the
que
stio
n te
xt w
as c
hang
ed s
light
ly in
hal
f of
the
form
s to
indi
cate
that
a "
drin
k" m
eant
"m
ore
than
afe
w s
ips.
" T
heda
ta in
the
uppe
r lin
e fo
r al
coho
l cam
e fr
om f
orm
s us
ing
the
orig
inal
wor
ding
, whi
le th
e da
ta in
the
low
er li
ne c
ame
from
for
ms
usin
gth
e re
vise
dw
ordi
ng. I
n 19
93, e
ach
line
of d
ata
was
bas
ed o
n on
e of
two
form
s fo
r th
e 8t
h an
d 10
th g
rade
rs a
nd o
n th
ree
of s
ixfo
rms
for
the
12th
gra
ders
. N is
one-
half
of
N in
dica
ted
for
all g
roup
s. B
egin
ning
in 1
994,
dat
a w
ere
base
d on
all
form
s fo
r al
l gra
des.
"Dai
ly u
se is
def
ined
as
use
on tw
enty
or
mor
e oc
casi
ons
in th
e pa
st th
irty
day
s ex
cept
for
cig
aret
tes
and
smok
eles
s to
bacc
o, f
or w
hich
act
ual d
aily
use
is m
easu
red,
and
for
5+
dri
nks,
for
whi
ch th
e pr
eval
ence
or
havi
ng f
ive
or m
ore
drin
ks in
a r
ow in
the
last
two
wee
ksis
mea
sure
d.
62
Tm
erad
o fu
m E
lgar
met
anha
em o
f Dam
p
How
muc
h do
you
thin
k pe
ople
risk
har
min
g th
emse
lves
(phy
sica
lly o
r in
oth
er w
ays)
, if
'99-
'00
they
..
.19
9119
9219
93 1
994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
cha
nge
Try
mar
ijuan
a on
ce o
r tw
ice
40.4
39.
1 36
.2 3
1.6
28.9
27.
9 25
.3 2
8.1
28.0
29.
0 +
0.9
Smok
e m
ariju
ana
occa
sion
ally
57.
9 56
.3 5
3.8
48.6
45.
9 44
.3 4
3.1
45.0
45.
7 47
.4 +
1.8
Smok
e m
ariju
ana
regu
larl
y83
.8 8
2.0
79.6
74.
3 73
.0 7
0.9
72.7
73.
0 73
.3 7
4.8
+1.
4T
ry in
hala
nts
once
or
twic
e°35
.9 3
7.0
36.5
37.
9 36
.4 4
0.8
40.1
38.
9 40
.8 4
1.2
+0.
3T
ry in
hala
nts
regu
lar!
?65
.6 6
4.4
64.6
65.
5 64
.8 6
8.2
68.7
67.
2 68
.8 6
9.9
+1.
1T
ake
LSD
onc
e or
twic
e'-
- 42
.1 3
8.3
36.7
36.
5 37
.0 3
4.9
34.1
34.
0 -0
.2T
ake
LSD
reg
ular
ly°
- -
68.3
65.
8 64
.4 6
3.6
64.1
59.
6 58
.8 5
7.5
-1.3
Try
cra
ck o
nce
or tw
ice°
62.8
61.
2 57
.2 5
4.4
50.8
51.
0 49
.9 4
9.3
48.7
48.
5 -0
.2T
ake
crac
k oc
casi
onal
!?82
.2 7
9.6
76.8
74.
4 72
.1 7
1.6
71.2
70.
6 70
.6 7
0.1
-0.5
Try
coc
aine
pow
der
once
or
twic
e°55
.5 5
4.1
50.7
48.
4 44
.9 4
5.2
45.0
44.
0 43
.3 4
3.3
0.0
Tak
e co
cain
e po
wde
roc
casi
onal
!?T
ry h
eroi
n on
ce o
r tw
ice
with
out u
sing
a n
eedl
e'T
ake
hero
in o
ccas
iona
llyw
ithou
t usi
ng a
nee
dle'
- 76
.8 7
6.6
79.2
79.
0 78
.9 7
8.6
-0.3
Try
one
or
two
drin
ks o
f an
alco
holic
bev
erag
e (b
eer,
win
e, li
quor
)11
.0 1
2.1
12.4
11.
6 11
.6 1
1.8
10.4
12.
1T
ake
one
or tw
o dr
inks
near
ly e
very
day
31.8
32.
4 32
.6 2
9.9
30.5
28.
6 29
.1 3
0.3
Hav
e fi
ve o
r m
ore
drin
kson
ce o
r tw
ice
each
wee
kend
59.1
58.
0 57
.7 5
4.7
54.1
51.
8 55
.6 5
6.0
Smok
e on
e or
mor
e pa
cks
ofci
gare
ttes
per
dayd
51.6
50.
8 52
.7 5
0.8
49.8
50.
4 52
.6 5
4.3
Use
sm
okel
ess
toba
cco
regu
larl
y35
.1 3
5.1
36.9
35.
5 33
.5 3
4.0
35.2
36.
5 37
.1 3
9.0
+1.
9T
ake
ster
oids
°64
.2 6
9.5
70.2
67.
6A
ppro
x. N
(in
thou
sand
s) =
17.
4 18
.7 1
8.4
17.4
17.
5 17
.9 1
8.8
18.1
16.
7 16
.7
TA
IET
TR
nam
eriv
ed b
y E
fight
lara
d T
ernt
llaG
T
Perc
enta
ge s
ayin
g "g
reat
ris
k"'
derr
o,, 1
190]
1-26
1D©
8th
Gra
de
77.0
74.
3 71
.8 6
9.1
66.4
65.
7 66
.8 6
5.2
65.4
65.
5 +
0.1
- -
- -
60.1
61.
3 63
.0 6
2.8
63.0
62.
0 -1
.0
10th
Gra
de'9
9-'0
019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96 1
9971
9981
9992
000
chan
ge30
.0 3
1.9
29.7
48.6
48.
9 46
.182
.1 8
1.1
78.5
37.8
38.
7 40
.969
.8 6
7.9
69.6
- -
48.7
- -
78.9
70.4
69.
6 66
.687
.4 8
6.4
84.4
24.4
21.
5 20
.038
.9 3
5.4
32.8
71.3
67.
9 65
.942
.7 4
1.6
47.2
71.5
71.
8 75
.846
.5 4
4.7
45.1
75.9
75.
5 75
.364
.7 6
0.9
60.9
83.1
81.
2 80
.3
59.1
59.
2 57
.5 5
6.4
53.5
53.
6
82.2
80.
1 79
.1 7
7.8
75.6
75.
0
- -
- -
70.7
72.
1-
85.1
85.
8
11.6
11.
9 +
0.3
9.0
10.1
10.
99.
49.
38.
9
29.7
30.
4 +
0.7
36.1
36.
8 35
.9 3
2.5
31.7
31.
2
55.3
55.
9 +
0.6
54.7
55.
9 54
.9 5
2.9
52.0
50.
9
54.8
58.
8 +
4.0s
s60
.3 5
9.3
60.7
59.
0 57
.0 5
7.9
40.3
39.
6 44
.2 4
2.2
38.2
41.
067
.1 7
2.7
73.4
72.
514
.7 1
4.8
15.3
15.
9 17
.0 1
5.7
18.8
19.6
19.2
18.5
-0.7
31.9
32.5
33.5
32.4
-1.1
65.9
65.8
65.9
64.7
-1.2
47.5
45.8
48.2
46.6
-1.6
74.5
73.3
76.3
75.0
-1.3
44.5
43.5
45.0
43.0
-2.1
73.8
72.3
73.9
72.0
-1.9
59.2
58.0
57.8
56.1
-1.7
78.7
77.5
79.1
76.9
-2.2
s
52.2
50.9
51.6
48.8
-2.
8ss
73.9
71.8
736
70.9
-2.
7ss
73.1
71.7
73.7
71.7
-1.9
86.5
84.9
86.5
85.2
-1.3
9.0
10.1
10.5
9.6
-1.0
31.8
31.9
32.9
32.3
-0.6
51.8
52.5
51.9
51.0
-0.9
59.9
61.9
62.7
65.9
+3.
3s
42.2
42.8
246
.7+
2.5s
15.6
15.0
13.6
14.3
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es: s
= .0
5, s
s =
.01,
sss
= .0
01.
indi
cate
s da
ta n
ot a
vaila
ble.
Any
app
aren
t inc
onsi
sten
cy b
etw
een
the
chan
ge e
stim
ate
and
the
prev
alen
ce o
f us
e es
timat
es f
or th
e tw
o m
ost r
ecen
t cla
sses
is d
ue to
roun
ding
err
or.
SOU
RC
E: T
he M
onito
ring
the
Futu
re S
tudy
, the
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
ichi
gan.
°Ans
wer
alte
rnat
ives
wer
e: (
1) N
o ri
sk, (
2) S
light
ris
k, (
3) M
oder
ate
risk
, (4)
Gre
at r
isk,
and
(5)
Can
'tsa
y, d
rug
unfa
mili
ar.
"Beg
inni
ng in
199
7, d
ata
base
d on
two-
thir
ds o
f N
indi
cate
d du
e to
cha
nges
in q
uest
ionn
aire
for
ms.
'Dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne o
f tw
o fo
rms
in 1
993-
96; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d. B
egin
ning
in 1
997,
dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne-t
hird
of
N in
dica
ted d
ue to
cha
nges
inqu
estio
nnai
re f
orm
s.°B
egin
ning
in 1
999,
dat
a ba
sed
on tw
o-th
irds
of
N in
dica
ted
due
to c
hang
es in
que
stio
nnai
re f
orm
s.'D
ata
base
d on
two
form
s in
199
1 an
d 19
92. D
ata
base
d on
one
of
two
form
s in
199
3 an
d 19
94; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d.
63
65
TA
IE11
,13:
5IL
eEng
-Ten
ma
TT
erra
ello
ium
ffila
tirm
ainb
inec
o of
Drr
ans3
eac
'Per
ceiv
ed b
y T
wel
fthG
rrau
derc
Perc
enta
ge s
ayin
g "g
reat
ris
e°Q
.H
ow m
uch
do y
ou th
ink
peop
letis
k ha
rmin
g th
emse
lves
(phy
sica
lly o
r in
oth
er w
ays)
,if
they
..
.
Try
mar
ijuan
a on
ce o
r tw
ice
Smok
e m
aitu
ana
occa
zion
ally
Smok
e m
ariju
ana
regu
larl
yT
ry L
SD o
nce
or tw
ice
Tak
e L
SD r
egul
arly
Try
PC
P on
ee o
r tw
ice
Try
MD
MA
onc
e or
twic
e
12th
Gra
deC
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ssC
lass
Cla
ssof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
of'9
9-'0
01975 1976 Au 1E8 1979 mg 193.1 1982 1283 1284 1933 1233 1282 1293 1293 1222 1991 1222 1993 1224 3,233 1223 1222 1228 12222000 gigung
15.1
11.
49.
58.
19.
4 10
.0 1
3.0
18.1
15.
0 13
.4 1
2.4
13.6
14.
7 19
.143
.3 3
8.6
33.4
34.
9 42
.0 5
0.4
57.6
49.4
45.
7 43
.2 4
2.7
41.6
43.
9 45
.581
.4 8
0.8
79.1
81.
1 82
.4 8
3.0
83.5
11.5
12.
7 14
.7 1
4.8
15.1
18.
418
.3 2
0.6
22.6
24.
5 25
.0 3
0.4
60.4
62.
8.9
70.
4 71
.3 7
3.5
44.9
44.
7 45
.4 4
3.5
42.0
44.
983
.5 8
3.2
83.8
82.
9 82
.6 8
3.8
55.6
19.0
23.
6 23
.1 2
7.1
24.5
21.
9 19
.531
.7 3
6.5
33.9
40.
6 39
.6 8
5.6
30.1
77.0
77.
5 77
.8 7
8.6
76.5
72.
5 65
.045
.7 4
6.0
44.7
46.
6 42
.3 3
9.6
38.8
84.2
84.
3 84
.5 8
4.3
81.8
79.
4 79
.158
.8 5
6.6
55.2
51.
7 54
.8 5
0.8
51.5
16.3
25.6
60.8
36.4
78.1
49.1
15.6
25.9
59.9
36.2
77.8
61.0
14.9
16.
724
.7 2
4.4
58.1
58.
534
.7 3
7.4
76.6
76.
548
.8 4
3.8
33.8
34.
5
15.7
23.9
57.4
34.9
76.1
44.8
35.0
13.7
23.4
58.3
34.3
75.9
45.0
37.9
-1.9
-0.4
+0.
9-0
.7-0
.2+
0.1
+2.
9
Try
coc
aine
mom
or
twic
e42
.6 3
9.1
35.6
33.
2 31
.5 3
1.3
32.1
32.
8 33
.0 3
5.7
34.0
33.
5 47
.9 5
1.2
54.9
59.
4 59
.4 5
6.8
57.6
57.
2 63
.7 6
4.2
58.6
54.
6 62
.151
.1-1
.0
Tak
e =
min
e om
ecio
nally
54.2
63.
8 69
.2 7
1.8
73.9
76.
5 75
.1 7
8.3
73.7
70.
8 72
.1 7
2.4
70.1
70.
1 69
.5-0
.6T
erse
coc
aine
1..,
,ula
rly73
.1 7
2.3
68.2
68.
2 39
.5 6
9.2
712
78.0
74.
8 78
.8 7
9.0
82.2
08.
5 e9
.2 9
0.2
911
88.4
90.
2 90
.1 8
9.3
87.9
08.
3 87
.1 8
3.3
05.8
83.2
+0.
4
Try
cra
ck o
nce
or tw
ice
57.0
62.
1 62
.9 6
4.3
60.6
62.
4 57
.6 5
8.4
54.6
56.
0 54
.0 5
2.2
48.2
48.
4+
0.2
Tak
e cr
ack
occa
sion
ally
70.4
73.
2 75
.3 8
0.4
76.5
76.
3 73
.9 7
3.8
72.8
71.
4 70
.3 6
8.7
67.3
65.
8-1
.5
Tak
e cr
ack
regu
larly
84.6
84.
8 85
.6 9
16 9
0.1
89.3
87.
5 89
.6 8
8.6
88.0
86.
2 85
.3 8
5.4
85.3
0.0
Try
=m
ins
pow
der
mac
e or
IxA
ca46
.8 5
1.7
&La
63.
9 53
.657
.153
.2 6
5.4
52.0
58.
2 51
.4 4
8.93
68.
1 47
.0 +
0.9
Milo
=ai
m p
owde
rcc
saci
irla
Ry
63.8
61.
9 65
.8 7
11 3
8.8
70.8
68.
6 70
.6 6
8.1
68.8
67.
7 65
.4 3
4.2
64.7
+0.
5T
ake
=ak
a po
wde
r re
gukI
rly
81.4
82.
9 83
.9 2
0.2
38.9
88.
4 87
.0 8
8.6
87.8
88.
8 83
.0 8
4.1
84.6
85.
6+
0.9
Try
her
oin
once
or
twic
e60
.1 5
8.9
55.8
62.
9 50
.4 5
2.1
52.9
51.
1 50
.8 4
9.8
47.3
45.
8 53
.6 5
4.0
53.8
66.
4 55
.2 5
0.9
50.7
52.
8 50
.9 5
2.5
56.7
57.
8 56
.054
.2-1
.7
Tak
e he
roin
occ
asio
nally
75.6
75.
6 71
.9 7
1.4
70.9
70.
9 72
.2 6
9.8
71.8
70.
7 69
.8 6
8.2
74.6
73.
8 75
.5 7
6.6
74.9
74.
2 72
.0 7
2.1
71.0
74.
8 76
.3 7
6.9
77.3
74.6
-2.8
Tak
e he
roin
reg
ular
ly87
.2 8
8.6
86.1
86.
6 87
.5 8
6.2
87.5
86.
0 83
.1 8
7.2
86.0
87.
1 88
.7 8
8.8
89.5
90.
2 89
.6 8
9.2
88.3
88.
0 87
.2 8
9.5
88.9
89.
1 89
.989
.2-0
.7T
ry h
eroi
n on
ce o
r tw
ice
with
out u
sing
a n
eedl
e55
.6 6
8.6
60.5
59.
6 58
.5 6
1.6
+3.
1T
ake
hero
in o
ccas
iona
llyw
ithou
t usi
ng &
need
le71
.2 7
1.0
74.3
73.
4 73
.6 7
4.7
+1.
1
Try
anz
phat
alni
neo
once
or
twic
e35
.4 8
3.4
80.8
29.
9 29
.7 2
9.7
28.4
25.
3 24
.7 3
6.4
25.2
26.
1 29
.1 2
9.6
82.8
32.
2 33
.9 3
2.6
31.3
31.
4 20
.8 3
0.8
31.0
86.
3 32
.232
.6+
0.4
Tith
e am
phot
amin
ao r
egul
arly
69.0
67.
363
.3 3
7.1
69.9
39.
1 63
.1 6
4.7
934.
8 37
.1 6
7.2
67.3
39.
4 39
.8 7
1.2
71.2
76.
1 72
.4 6
9.9
67.0
65.
9 66
.8 6
3.0
67.7
933
.4 6
3.3
-0.1
Try
cry
stal
met
h. (
ice)
once
or
twic
e61
.6 6
1.9
57.5
58.
3 54
.4 5
5.3
54.4
52.
7 51
2 51
3 +
0.1
Try
har
bitu
rate
z W
m o
r tw
ice
34.8
32.
5 31
.2 3
1.3
80.7
30.
9 28
A 2
7.5
27.0
27.
4 26
.1 2
3.4
30.9
29.
7 32
.2 3
2.4
35.1
32.
2 29
.2 2
9.9
23.3
29.
1 23
.9 2
9.0
23.1
25.0
-1.1
Tem
bar
bitu
rate
:I ts
gula
rly69
.1 6
7.7
68.6
&la
71.
6 72
.2 6
9.9
67.6
87.
7 68
.6 6
8.3
67.2
69.
4 69
.6 7
0.5
70.2
70.
5 70
.2 6
3.1
63.3
61.
6 60
.4 6
6.8
63.3
64.
1 52
.3-1
.7
Try
one
or
two
drin
ks o
f an
aloo
holic
bev
erag
e (b
eer,
win
e,liq
uor)
5.3
4.8
4.1
3.4
4.1
3.8
4.6
3.5
4.2
4.6
5.0
4.6
6.2
6.0
6.0
8.3
9.1
8.6
8.2
7.6
5.9
7.3
6.7
8.0
8.3
6.4
-1.9
s
Tak
eon
rrao
rtwo
drin
ks n
early
21.5
21.
2 18
.5 1
9.6
22.6
20.
3 21
.6 2
1.6
21.6
23.
0 24
.4 2
5.1
26.2
27.
3 28
.5 3
1.3
32.7
30.
6 28
.2 2
7.0
24.8
25.
1 24
.8 2
4.3
21.8
21.7
-0.1
Tak
erlo
ury
r fiv
e dr
inks
nea
rlyda
;63
.5 6
1.0
62.9
63.
1 66
.2 6
5.7
64.5
65.
5 66
.8 6
8.4
69.8
66.
5 69
.7 6
8.5
69.8
70.
9 69
.5 7
0.5
67.8
66.
2 62
.8 6
5.6
63.0
62.
161
.1 5
9.9
-1.2
Hav
e fiv
e or
mor
e dr
inks
onc
eor
twic
e ea
ch w
eeke
nd37
.8 3
7.0
34.7
34.
5 34
.9 3
5.9
36.3
36.
0 38
.6 4
1.7
43.0
39.
1 41
.9 4
2.6
44.0
47.
1 48
.6 4
9.0
48.3
46.
5 45
.2 4
9.5
43.0
42.
843
.1 4
2.7
-0.4
Sm
oke
one
or m
ore
park
o of
cigu
retb
eo p
er d
ay51
.3 5
3.4
684
68.0
63.
0 63
.7 6
8.3
60.6
01.
2 63
.8 a
z63
.0 6
8.6
68.0
67.
2 68
.2 6
9.4
69.2
69.
5 87
.6 6
5.6
68.2
38.
7 70
.8 7
0.8
78.1
+2.
3
Use
sm
okel
ess
toba
cco
regu
larl
y25
.8 3
0.0
33.2
32.
9 34
.2 3
7.4
35.5
38.
9 36
.6 3
3.2
37.4
38.
6 40
.9 4
1.1
42.2
+11
Tak
e ot
eroi
do63
.8 6
9.9
65.6
70.
7 68
.1 6
3.1
63.4
67.
6 67
.2 6
8.1
62.1
57.
9-4
.3o
App
rox.
N =
280
4 29
18 3
052
3770
325
0 32
34 3
604
3557
330
5 32
62 3
250
3020
331
5 32
76 2
796
2553
254
926
84 2
759
2591
260
3 24
49 2
579
2564
230
6 21
30
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es: a
= .0
5, s
s =
.01,
gas
= .0
01. '
-' in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
entc
lass
es is
due
to r
ound
ing
erro
r.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.°A
nsw
er a
ltern
ativ
es w
ere:
(1)
No
risk
, (2)
Slig
ht r
isk,
(3)
Mod
erat
e ri
sk, (
4) G
reat
ris
k, a
nd (
5) C
an't
say,
dru
g un
fam
iliar
.
66
Ifire
moi
o fa
a Ift
o11
111:
DIN
IV
MIE
LE 6
©r
Doi
ng M
e by
Eilg
ran
&E
nd li
renn
thde
m, L
asa-
-261
13
Perc
enta
ge w
ho "
disa
ppro
ve"
or "
stro
ngly
dis
appr
ove"
'8t
h G
rade
10th
Gra
deD
o yo
u di
sapp
rove
of
peop
le'9
9-'0
0'9
9-'0
0w
ho .
..
1991
1992
199
3 19
94 1
995
1996
199
7 19
98 1
999
,200
0 ch
ange
1991
1992
199
3199
4 19
95 1
996
1997
199
8 19
99 2
000
chan
geT
ry m
ariju
ana
onoe
or
twic
e84
.6 8
2.1
79.2
72.
9 70
.7 6
7.5
67.6
69.
0Sm
oke
mar
ijuan
a oc
casi
onal
ly 8
9.5
88.1
85.
7 80
.9 7
9.7
76.5
78.
1 78
.4Sm
oke
mar
ijuan
a re
gula
rly
92.1
90.
8 88
.9 8
5.3
85.1
82.
8 84
.6 8
4.5
Try
inha
lant
s on
ce o
r tw
ice"
84.9
84.
0 82
.5 8
1.6
81.8
82.
9 84
.1 8
3.0
Tak
e in
hala
nts
regu
larl
y"90
.6 9
0.0
88.9
88.
1 88
.8 8
9.3
90.3
89.
5T
ry L
SD o
nce
or tw
ice'
- -
77.1
76.
2 71
.6 7
0.9
72.1
69.
1T
ake
LSD
reg
ular
ly'
- -
79.8
78.
4 75
.6 7
5.3
76.3
72.
5T
ry c
rack
onc
e or
twic
e"91
.7 9
0.7
89.1
86.
9 85
.9 8
5.0
85.7
85.
4T
ake
crac
k oc
casi
onal
ly"
93.3
92.
5 91
.7 8
9.9
89.8
89.
3 90
.3 8
9.5
Try
coc
aine
pow
der
once
or
twic
e"91
.2 8
9.6
88.5
86.
1 85
.3 8
3.9
85.1
84.
5 85
.2 8
4.8
Tak
e co
cain
e .p
wde
roc
casi
onal
ly'
93.1
92.
4 91
.6 8
9.7
89.7
88.
7 90
.1 8
9.3
89.9
88.
8T
ry h
eroi
n on
ce o
r tw
ice
with
out u
sing
a n
eedl
e'T
ake
hero
in o
ccas
iona
llyw
ithou
t usi
ng a
nee
dle'
Try
one
or
two
drin
ks o
f an
alco
holic
bev
erag
e (b
eer,
win
e, li
quor
)61
.7 5
2.2
50.9
47.
8 48
.0 4
5.5
Tak
e on
e or
two
drin
ks n
earl
yev
ery
day
82.2
81.
0 79
.6 7
6.7
75.9
74.
1na
ve f
ive
or m
ore
drin
ks o
nce
or tw
ice
each
wee
kend
85.2
83.
9 83
.3 8
0.7
80.7
79.
1Sm
oke
one
or m
ore
pack
s of
ciga
rette
s pe
r da
y'U
se s
mok
eles
s to
bacc
ore
gula
rly
Tak
e st
eroi
ds°
App
rox.
N (
in th
ousa
nds)
= 1
7.4
18.5
18.
4 17
.4
70.7
79.3
84.5
85.2
90.3
69.4
72.5
86.0
89.9
72.5
80.6
85.3
85.4
90.2
66.7
69.3
85.4
88.8
+1.
8s74
.6 7
4.8
70.3
62.
4 59
.8 5
5.5
54.1
56.
0 66
.2 5
4.9
-1.3
+1.
383
.7 8
3.6
79.4
72.
3 70
.0 6
6.9
66.2
67.
3 68
.2 6
7.2
-1.0
+0.
890
.4 9
0.0
87.4
82.
2 81
.1 7
9.7
79.7
80.
1 79
.8 7
9.1
-0.8
+0.
285
.2 8
5.6
84.8
84.
9 84
.5 8
6.0
86.9
85.
6 88
.4 8
7.5
-0.9
-0.1
91.0
91.
5 90
.9 9
1.0
90.9
91.
7 91
.7 9
1.1
92.4
91.
8-0
.6-2
.8-
- 82
.1 7
9.3
77.9
76.
8 76
.6 7
6.7
77.8
77.
0-0
.8-3
.28
- -
86.8
85.
6 84
.8 8
4.5
83.4
82.
9 84
.3 8
2.1
-2.3
-0.6
92.5
92.
5 91
.4 8
9.9
88.7
88.
2 87
.4 8
7.1
87.8
87.
1-0
.7-1
.194
.3 9
4.4
93.6
92.
5 91
.7 9
1.9
91.0
90.
6 91
.5 9
0.9
-0.6
-0.4
90.8
91.
1 90
.0 8
8.1
86.8
86.
1 85
.1 8
4.9
86.0
84.
8-1
.2
-1.0
94.0
94.
0 93
.2 9
2.1
91.4
91.
1 90
.4 8
9.7
90.7
89.
9-0
.6
- -
- -
85.8
85.
0 87
.7 8
7.3
88.0
87.
2-0
.8
- -
- -
88.5
87.
7 90
.1 8
9.7
90.2
88.
9-1
.2
82.8
82.
3 80
.6 7
8.4
78.6
77.
3
45.7
47.
5 48
.3 4
8.7
+0.
437
.6
76.6
76.
9 77
.0 7
7.8
+0.
881
.7
81.8
81.
0 80
.3 8
1.2
+0.
976
.7
80.3
80.
0 81
.4 8
1.9
+0.
579
.4
- -
- 89
.7 8
9.5
89.1
88.
6 90
.1 9
0.1
+0.
1
- 91
.6 9
1.7
91.4
90.
5 91
.8 9
2.3
+0.
5
39.9
38.
5 36
.6 3
6.1
34.2
33.
7 34
.7
81.7
78.
6 75
.2 7
5.4
73.8
75.
4 74
.6
77.6
74.
7 72
.3 7
2.2
70.7
70.
2 70
.5
77.8
76.
5 73
.9 7
3.2
71.6
73.
8 75
.3
35./
33.4
-1.7
75.4
73.
8-1
.6
69.9
68.
24.
7
76.1
76.
7+
0.6
79.1
77.
2 77
.1 7
5.1
74.0
74.
1 76
.5 7
6.3
78.0
79.
2+
1.1
75.4
74.
6 73
.8 7
1.2
71.0
71.
0 72
.3 7
3.2
75.1
75.
8+
0.7
89.8
90.
3 89
.9 8
7.9
90.0
91.
0 91
.2 9
0.8
17.6
18.
0 18
.8 1
8.1
16.7
16.
714
.8 1
4.8
15.3
15.
9 17
.0 1
5.7
15.6
15.
0 13
.6 1
4.3
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es: s
= .0
5, 8
8.0
1, s
ss =
.001
.in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
toro
undi
ng e
rror
.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.°A
nsw
er a
ltern
ativ
es w
ere:
(1)
Don
't di
sapp
rove
, (2)
Dis
appr
ove,
and
(3)
Str
ongl
y di
sapp
rove
, and
(4)
Can
'tsa
y, d
rug
unfa
mili
ar.
"Beg
inni
ng in
199
7, d
ata
base
d on
two-
thir
ds o
f N
indi
cate
d du
e to
cha
nges
in q
uest
ionn
aire
for
ms.
'Dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne o
f tw
o fo
rms
in 1
993-
96; N
is o
ne-h
alf
of N
indi
cate
d. B
egin
ning
in 1
997,
dat
a ba
sed
on o
ne-t
hird
of
N in
dica
ted
due
to c
hang
es in
ques
tionn
aire
for
ms.
°Beg
inni
ng in
199
9, d
ata
base
d on
two-
thir
ds o
f N
indi
cate
d du
e to
cha
nges
in q
uest
ionn
aire
for
ms.
°Dat
a ba
sed
on tw
o fo
rms
in 1
991
and
1992
and
on
one
of tw
o fo
rms
in 1
993
and
1994
; N is
one
-hal
f of
N in
dica
ted.
6768
69
Q. Do
you
disa
ppro
ve o
f pe
ople
(who
are
18
or o
lder
) do
ing
each
of
the
follo
win
g?'
Try
mar
ijuan
a on
ce o
r tw
ice
Seno
e m
ariju
ana
oaca
nion
ally
Ehn
o._%
e m
ariju
ana
regu
larl
y'P
ry L
SD o
nce
or tw
ice
Tak
e L
SD r
egul
arly
Try
B/1
1)11
dA o
nce
Or
ftri
Ce
Try
coc
aine
onc
e or
twic
eT
ake
coca
ine
regu
larl
yT
ry a
rta
cam
or
twic
eT
ake
crac
k on
ceni
onal
lyT
atle
cra
cr.1
reg
ular
lyT
ry c
ocai
ne p
owde
r on
ce o
rtw
ice
Tak
e co
cain
e po
wde
roc
casi
onal
lyT
ake
coca
ine
pow
der
regu
larl
yT
ry h
eroi
n on
ce o
r U
nice
Tak
e bw
oin
oeca
thon
ally
Tal
Ke
hwai
n in
sula
rly
Try
her
oin
once
or
tuic
ew
ithou
t min
g a
n=lie
Tal
mo
hero
in o
ccat
iona
llyw
ithou
t min
g a
need
leT
ry a
mph
etam
ines
onc
e or
twic
eT
ake
amph
etam
ines
reg
ular
lyT
ry b
arbi
tura
ilea
once
or
twic
eT
alie
bar
l:dtu
rate
o re
gula
rly
Try
one
or
two
drin
ks o
f an
alco
holic
bev
erag
e (b
eer,
win
e,liq
uor)
Tak
e on
e or
two
drin
ks n
earl
yev
ery
day
Tak
e fo
ur o
r fi
ve d
rink
s ne
arly
ever
y da
yH
ave
five
or
mor
e dr
inks
onc
eor
twic
e ea
ch w
eeke
ndSm
oke
one
or m
ore
paca
o of
cign
rette
o pe
r da
yT
ake
ster
oids
MB
ILIE
Lon
nff-
Uer
eram
Tre
enai
e fi
rm la
imag
geov
Eal
l of
IfIr
onff
Use
by
Tw
ellf
th G
mal
lerr
oPe
rcen
tage
'`di
sapp
rovi
ne12
th G
rade
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ssC
lass
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
'99-
'00
1975
1225 1221 12711 1979 1282 1281 1984 1285 1284 1285 1285 au 1288 1282 1222 1221 1222 1259 1224 1259 1225 102 1228 1225 aNaghmgg
47.0
38.
4 33
.4 3
3.4
34.2
39.
0 40
.0 4
6.5
43.3
49.
3 61
.4 5
4.6
53.6
60.
8 64
.3 6
7.8
68.7
69.
9 63
.3 6
7.6
53.7
52.
6 61
.0 6
1.6
40.8
52.6
+3.
8154
.8 4
7,8
44.3
43.
5 46
.3 4
9.7
52.6
59.
1 60
.7 6
3.5
65.8
69.
0 71
.6 7
4.0
77.2
80.
5 79
.4 7
9.7
76.6
68.
9 63
.7 6
2.9
63.2
64.
4 62
.566
.8+
3.4
712
69.6
66.
5 67
.5 6
9.2
74.6
77.
4 01
6 81
6 01
7 85
.5 8
16 8
9.2
ms
-z0.8
91.0
892
811
07.
6tms OLO MO PIO
012
786
79.7
+1.
182
.8 8
4.6
83.9
85.
4 86
.6 8
7.3
86.4
88.
8 89
.1 8
8.9
89.5
89.
2 91
.6 8
9.8
89.7
89.
8 90
.1 8
8.1
85.9
82.
5 81
.1 7
9.6
80.5
82.
1 83
.082
.4-0
.694
.1 9
6.3
95.8
98.
4 96
.9 9
6.7
96.8
96.
7 97
.0 9
6.8
97.0
96.
6 97
.8 9
6.4
98.4
96.
3 96
.4 9
5.5
95.8
94.
3 92
.5 9
3.2
92.9
93.
5 94
.394
.2-0
.102
.2 0
2.5
02.1
81,
0-1
.2
81.3
82.
4 79
.1 7
7.0
74.7
76.
3 74
.6 7
6.6
77.0
79.
7 79
.3 8
0.2
87.3
89.
1 90
.5 9
1.5
93.6
93.
0 92
.7 9
1.6
90.3
90.
0 88
.0 8
9.6
89.1
88.2
-0.9
93.3
93.
9 92
.1 9
1.9
90.8
91.
1 90
.7 9
1.5
93.2
94.
6 93
.8 9
4.3
96.7
96.
2 96
.4 9
6.7
97.3
96.
9 97
.5 9
6.6
96.1
95.
6 96
.0 9
5.6
94.9
95.5
+05
92.3
92.
1 93
.1 0
9.9
89.5
91.
4 37
.4 0
7.0
83.7
07.
6 07
.6-0
.184
.3 9
4.2
95.0
92.
8 92
.8 9
4.0
91.2
91.
3 80
.9 9
2.9
91.9
-0.4
94.9
95.
0 95
.5 9
3.4
93.1
94.
1 93
.0 9
2.3
91.9
93.
2 92
.0-0
.4
91.5
94.0
83.7
92.6
93.0
97.6
92.6
96.0
97.2
92.0
83.4
97.8
93.4
93.8
97.9
93.6
83.7
97.6
93.5
97.2
97.8
94.6
96.9
97.5
96.3
94.
096
.0 9
7.1
97.7
88.
0
94.0
3.8
97.6
93.3
932
93.6
97.
997
.6 E
8.1
95.0
93.9
972
95.4
97.2
97.4
87.9
88.
0 89
.4 8
6.6
87.1
88.
3 83
.1 8
3.0
83.1
84.
3 84
.1-0
.2
92.1
9/0
9/4
91.
2 91
.0 9
/7 8
/7 8
/3 8
87 V
10 9
13 +
0.3
9/7
94.4
94.
3 9/
0 92
.5 9
/8 R
/9 9
L5
91.1
9/3
9/6
+0.
395
.1 V
IO 9
19 0
4.4
MAMO
R/1
92.
6 23
.7 9
3.5
9/0
-0.6
9/7
9/3
me
9/0
9/2
8/7
8/0
96.4
03.1
9/7
RIO
+0.
397
.5 9
7.8
97.2
9/5
07.1 63.4
932
VI4
83.3 M4 93.6
4.0.3
74.8
92.1
77.7
93.3
76.1
92.8
81.8
93.6
74.2
92.6
81.1
93.0
74.8
93.6
82.4
94.3
75.1
94.4
84.0
95.2
76.4
93.0
83.9
95.4
71.1
91.7
82.4
94.2
72.6
92.0
84.4
94.4
21.6
18.
216
.6 1
5.6
15.8
16.
0 17
.2 1
8.2
67.6
68.
9 66
.8 6
7.7
68.3
69.
0 69
.1 6
9.9
88.7
90.
7 88
.4 9
0.2
91.7
90.
8 91
.8 9
0.9
60.3
58.
6 57
.4 5
6.2
66.7
55.
6 56
.6 5
8.8
72.3
72.
892
.6 9
3.6
83.1
04.
195
.1 9
5.1
18.4
17.4
68.9
72.
9
90.0
91.
0
66.6
69.
6
74.9
93.3
84.9
95.6
20.3
70.9
92.0
60.4
76.6
80.
793
.6 9
5.4
63.8
24.9
23.
4
92.9
0.8
92.
3 93
.0 9
2.6
94.0
<4.
4
24.7
03.
204.4
V5.
8 93
.8 2
5.2
+1.
4
82.6
83.
3 85
.3 8
6.6
86.9
84.
2 81
.3 8
2.2
79.9
81.
3 82
.6 8
1.9
82.1
+0.
294
.2 9
4.2
95.5
96.
0 95
.6 9
6.0
94.1
94.
3 93
.6 9
4.3
94.0
93.
7 94
.1+
0.4
89.4
09.
3 90
.5 8
0.6
90.3
89.
7 87
.6 0
7.3
842
53.4
53.
0 23
.8 8
5.9
-0.7
95.3
96.
3 93
.4 9
7.1
83.5
97.
0 93
.1 0
5.2
94.8
852
9/6
et.7
E6.
2+
0.6
20.9
21.
4 22
.6 2
7.3
29.4
29.
8 33
.0 3
0.1
28.4
27.
3 26
.6 2
6.1
24.5
24.
6 26
.2+
0.6
72.8
74.
2 76
.0 7
6.5
77.9
76.
5 75
.9 7
7.8
73.1
73.
3 70
.8 7
0.0
69.4
67.
2 70
.0+
2.8
91.4
92.
2 92
.8 9
1.6
91.9
90.
6 90
.8 9
0.6
89.8
88.
8 89
.4 8
8.6
86.7
86.
9 88
.4+
1.5
62.4
62.
0 65
.368
.9 6
7.4
70.7
70.
1 65
.1 6
6.7
64.7
65.
0 63
.8 6
2.7
65.2
+2.
666
.5
67.6
65.
9 66
.4 6
7.0
70.3
70.
8 69
.9 6
9.4
70.8
73.
0 72
.9 7
6.4
74.3
73.
1 72
.4 7
2.8
71.4
73.
6 70
.6 6
9.8
90.8
90.
6 92
.1 9
2.1
91.9
App
rox.
N =
2677
295
7 30
85 3
686
3221
326
1 36
10 3
651
3341
325
4 32
65 3
113
3302
331
1 27
99 2
566
2547
264
5 27
23 2
588
69.2
37.2
67.
1 61
3.8
69.5
70.
1+
0.6
91.0
91.
7 91
.4 9
0.8
88.9
88.
8-0
.1
2603
239
9 26
01 2
545
2310
215
0N
OT
ES:
Lev
el o
f si
gnif
ican
ce o
f di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e tw
o m
ost r
ecen
t cla
sses
: s =
.05,
ss
= .0
1, a
ss =
.001
.in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
to r
ound
ing
erro
r.SO
UR
CE
:T
he M
onito
ring
the
Futu
re S
tudy
, the
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
ichi
gan.
'The
197
6 qu
estio
n as
ked
abou
t peo
ple
who
are
"20
or
olde
r."
"Ans
wer
alte
rnat
ives
wer
e: (
1) D
on't
disa
ppro
ve, (
2) D
isap
prov
e, a
nd (
3) S
tron
gly
disa
ppro
ve. P
erce
ntag
es a
re s
how
n fo
r ca
tego
ries
(2)
and
(3)
com
bine
d.
70
ITA
IBIL
E 0
Tre
rcad
e fin
n P
en-c
alve
d A
vadt
habl
ility
of D
rcun
go b
y In
ghth
mad
Mem
el G
r
How
dif
ficu
lt do
you
thin
k it
wou
ld b
e fo
ryo
u to
get
eac
h of
the
follo
win
g ty
pes
of d
rugs
,if
you
wan
ted
som
e?
Perc
ent s
ayin
g "f
airl
y ea
sy"
or "
very
eas
y" to
get
*
dem
, 119
92-2
060
8th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
'99-
'00
'99-
'00
1992
129
a _a
94 1
995
1996
199
7 19
98 1
999
2000
cha
nge
1992
.1.9
_91
1994
199
5 19
96 1
997
1998
A9_
2 20
00 c
hang
e
Mar
ijuan
a42
.343
.849
.952
.454
.854
.250
.648
.447
.0 -
1.5
65.2
68.4
75.0
78.1
81.1
80.5
77.9
78.2
77.7
-0.6
LSD
21.5
21.8
21.8
23.5
23.6
22.7
19.3
18.3
17.0
-1.
333
.635
.836
.139
.841
.038
.334
.034
.332
.9-1
.3PC
P°18
.018
.517
.719
.019
.619
.217
.517
.116
.0 -
1.2
23.7
23.4
23.8
24.7
26.8
24.8
23.9
24.5
25.0
+0.
5C
rack
25.6
25.9
26.9
28.7
27.9
27.5
26.5
25.9
24.9
-1.
033
.733
.034
.234
.636
.436
.036
.336
.534
.0-2
.4s
Coc
aine
pow
der
25.7
25.9
26.4
27.8
27.2
26.9
25.7
25.0
23.9
-1.
135
.034
.134
.535
.336
.937
.136
.836
.734
.5-2
.2s
Her
oin
19.7
19.8
19.4
21.1
20.6
19.8
18.0
17.5
16.5
-1.
024
.324
.324
.724
.624
.824
.423
.023
.722
.3-1
.5O
ther
nar
cotic
s°19
.819
.018
.320
.320
.020
.617
.116
.215
.6 -
0.6
26.9
24.9
26.9
27.8
29.4
29.0
26.1
26.6
27.2
+0.
6
Am
phet
amin
es32
.231
.431
.033
.432
.630
.627
.325
.925
.5 -
0.4
43.4
46.4
46.6
47.7
47.2
44.6
41.0
41.3
40.9
-0.5
Cry
stal
met
h. (
ice)
°16
.015
.114
.116
.016
.316
.716
.014
.714
.9 +
0.2
18.8
16.4
17.8
20.7
22.6
22.9
22.1
21.8
22.8
+0.
9B
arbi
tura
tes
27.4
26.1
25.3
26.5
25.6
24.4
21.1
20.8
19.7
-1.
038
.038
.838
.338
.838
.135
.632
.733
.232
.4-0
.8
Tra
nqui
lizer
s22
.921
.420
.421
.320
.419
.618
.117
.316
.2 -
1.1
31.6
30.5
29.8
30.6
30.3
28.7
26.5
26.8
27.6
+0.
8A
lcoh
ol76
.273
.974
.574
.975
.374
.973
.172
.370
.6 -
1.8s
88.6
88.9
89.8
89.7
90.4
89.0
88.0
88.2
87.7
-0.5
Cig
aret
tes
77.8
75.5
76.1
76.4
76.9
76.0
73.6
71.5
68.7
-2.
8sss
89.1
89.4
90.3
90.7
91.3
89.6
88.1
88.3
86.8
-1.5
sSt
eroi
ds24
.022
.723
.123
.824
.123
.622
.322
.622
.3 -
0.3
37.6
33.6
33.6
34.8
34.8
34.2
33.0
35.9
35.4
-0.5
App
rox.
N =
835
5 16
775
1611
9 15
496
1631
8 16
482
1620
8 15
397
1518
070
14 1
4652
151
92 1
6209
148
87 1
4856
144
23 1
3112
136
90N
OT
ES:
Lev
el o
f si
gnif
ican
ce o
f di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e tw
o m
ost r
ecen
t cla
sses
: s =
.05,
ss
= .0
1, s
ss =
.001
.in
dica
tes
data
not
ava
ilabl
e.A
ny a
ppar
ent i
ncon
sist
ency
bet
wee
n th
e ch
ange
est
imat
e an
d th
e pr
eval
ence
of
use
estim
ates
for
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es is
due
toro
undi
ng e
rror
.SO
UR
CE
: The
Mon
itori
ng th
e Fu
ture
Stu
dy, t
he U
nive
rsity
of
Mic
higa
n.
°Ans
wer
alte
rnat
ives
wer
e: (
1) P
roba
bly
impo
ssib
le, (
2) V
ery
diff
icul
t, (3
) Fa
irly
dif
ficu
lt, (
4) F
airl
yea
sy, (
5) V
ery
easy
, and
(6)
Can
't sa
y, d
rug
unfa
mili
ar.
°Beg
inni
ng in
199
3, d
ata
base
d on
hal
f of
for
ms;
N is
one
-hal
f of
N in
dica
ted.
72
°MIE
LE 9
Lona
ff-lre
ma
Ifram
aito
Per
ceilv
ed A
vaiiI
llabE
LV o
f II l
amp
by T
wel
lfth
a-v1
ers:
3
How
dif
ficu
lt do
Perc
ent s
ayin
g "f
airl
y ea
sy"
or "
very
eas
y" to
get
°yo
u th
ink
it w
ould
be f
or y
ou to
get
12th
Gra
deea
ch o
f th
e fo
llow
-in
g ty
pes
of d
rugs
, Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ssC
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
Cla
ss C
lass
if y
ou w
ante
dof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
ofof
of'9
9-'0
019
7619
7719
7819
7919
8019
8119
82 ja
U19
94 1
985
1986
198
719
8819
8919
9019
_91
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
87.4
87.9
87.8
90.1
89.0
89.2
88.5
86.
284
.6 8
5.5
85.2
885
.084
.384
.483
.382
.783
.085
.588
.588
.789
.6-
--
--
--
23.9
25.9
26.8
24.4
22.7
25.9
25.9
26.7
26.0
23.9
23.8
37.4
34.5
32.2
34.2
35.3
35.0
34.2
30.9
30.6
30.5
28.5
31.
433
.338
.340
.739
.5. 5
49.2
50.8
53.8
51.3
50.7
35.7
33.8
33.8
34.6
35.0
32.7
30.6
26.6
26.6
26.1
24.9
25.
026
.228
.228
.328
.029
.933
.533
.835
.833
.933
.9-
--
--
--
--
22.8
24.9
28.9
27.7
27.6
31.7
31.7
31.4
31.0
30.5
30.0
--
--
--
--
21.7
22.0
22.1
24.2
28.1
31.2
34.2
36.9
38.8
34.0
33.0
37.8
45.5
47.9
47.5
47.4
43.1
45.0
48.9
51.5
54.
255
.058
.754
.551
.052
.748
.546
.647
.748
.148
.5
- 41
.142
.147
.042
.439
.943
.543
.640
.541
.940
.740
.6
--
--
--
--
- -
- 52
.950
.353
.749
.04.
048
.045
.443
.743
.8.4
43.3
18.4
17.9
16.4
18.9
21.2
19.2
20.8
19.3
19.9
21.0
22.0
23.
728
.031
.431
.930
.634
.933
.734
.135
.132
.233
.8
26.9
27.8
26.1
28.7
29.4
29.6
30.4
30.0
32.1
33.1
32.2
33.
035
.838
.338
.134
.637
.137
.538
.039
.840
.038
.9
61.8
58.1
58.5
59.9
61.3
69.5
70.8
68.5
68.2
66.4
64.3
64.
563
.964
.359
.757
.358
.861
.562
.062
.859
.459
.8
--
--
--
--
--
- -
--
24.1
24.3
26.0
26.6
25.6
27.0
26.9
27.6
54.4
52.4
50.6
49.8
49.1
54.9
55.2
52.5
51.9
51.3
48.3
48.
247
.848
.445
.942
.444
.044
.543
.342
.341
.440
.0
65.5
64.9
64.3
61.4
59.1
60.8
58.9
55.3
54.5
54.7
51.2
48.
649
.145
.344
.740
.840
.941
.139
.237
.836
.035
.4-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
46.7
46.8
44.8
42.9
45.5
40.3
41.7
2865
3065
3598
3172
3240
3578
3602
3385
3269
3274
3077
327
132
3128
0625
4924
7625
8626
7025
2625
5223
4025
17
som
e?19
75
Mar
ijuan
a87
.8
Am
yl/b
utyl
-L
SD46
.2
Som
e ot
her
psyc
hede
lic47
.8
PCP
MD
MA
(E
csta
sy)
-C
ocai
ne37
.0
Cra
ck
Coc
aine
pow
der
Her
oin
24.2
Som
e ot
her
nar-
cotic
(in
clud
ing
met
hado
ne)
34.5
Am
phet
amin
es67
.8
Cry
stal
met
h. (
ice)
-B
arbi
tura
tes
60.0
Tra
nqui
lizer
s71
.8
Alc
ohol
Ster
oids A
ppro
x. N
= 2
627
1998
199
9 20
00 c
hlT
ge
90.4
88.
9 88
.5 -
0.4
25.1
21.
4 23
.3 +
1.9
48.8
7 46
.9 +
2.2
35.1
29.
5 34
.5 +
5.0s
s30
.7 2
6.7
28.8
+2.
138
.2 4
0.1
51.4
+11
.3ss
s51
.3 4
7.6
47.6
+0.
343
.8 4
1.1
42.6
+1.
545
.7 4
3.7
6 +
0.9
35.6
32.
1 33
.5 +
1.4
42.8
40.
8 43
.9 +
3.1
60.8
58.
1 57
.1 -
1.0
29.8
27.
6 27
.0 +
0.1
40.7
37.
9 37
.4 -
0.5
36.2
32.
7 33
.8 +
1.1
- 95
.0 9
4.8
-0.2
44.5
44.
6 44
.8 +
0.2
2520
221
5 20
95
NO
TE
S:L
evel
of
sign
ific
ance
of
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two
mos
t rec
ent c
lass
es: s
= .0
5, s
s =
.01,
sss
= .0
01.
indi
cate
s da
ta n
ot a
vaila
ble.
Any
app
aren
t inc
onsi
sten
cy b
etw
een
the
chan
ge e
stim
ate
and
the
prev
alen
ce o
f us
e es
timat
es f
or th
e tw
o m
ost r
ecen
t cla
sses
is d
ue to
rou
ndin
g er
ror.
SOU
RC
E: T
he M
onito
ring
the
Futu
re S
tudy
, the
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
ichi
gan.
°Ans
wer
alte
rnat
ives
wer
e: (
1) P
roba
bly
impo
ssib
le, (
2) V
ery
diff
icul
t, (3
) Fa
irly
dif
ficu
lt, (
4) F
airl
y ea
sy, a
nd (
5) V
ery
easy
.
7374
For more information about the Monitoring the Future studyvisit our web site at http://www.MonitoringTheFuture.org.
75
NI ANATIONAL INSTITUTE
ON DRUG ABUSE
N1H Publication No. 01-4923Printed April 2001
LI
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
Reproduction Basis
ERIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (3/2000)