Demographic Trends

and Drug Abuse,

1980-1995

Editor:

Louise G. Richards, Ph.D.

National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIDA Research Monograph 35

May 1981

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Division of Research

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20857

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402
The NIDA Research Monograph series is prepared by the Division of Research

of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Its primary objective is to provide

critical reviews of research problem areas and techniques, the content of

state-of-the-art conferences, integraive research reviews and significant

original research. Its dual publication emphasis is rapid and targeted

dissemination to the sclentific and professional community.

Editorial Advisory Board

Avram Goldstein, M.D.

Addiction Research Foundation

Polo Alto, California

Jerome Jaffe, M.D.

College of Physicians and Surgeons

Columbia University, New York

Reese T. Jones, M.D.

Langley Porter Neuropsychlatric Institute

Universlty of California

San Francisco, California

Jack Mendelson, M.D.

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Center

Howard MedIcal School

McLean Hospital

Belmont. Massachusetts

Helen Nowlis, Ph.D.

Office of Drug Education, DHHS

Washington, D.C.

Lee Robins, Ph.D.

WashIngton University School of Medicine

St LoUIS, Missouri

NIDA Research Monograph series

William Pollin, M.D.

DIRECTOR, NIDA

Marvin Snyder, Ph.D.

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RESEARCH, NIDA

Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Eleanor W. Waldrop

MANAGING EDITOR

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857
Demographic Trends

and Drug Abuse,

1980-1995
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CSR, Incorporated, Washington, D.C. 20005, conducted the

study reported in this volume and prepared the monograph

for publication under Contract No. 271-79-3605 with the

National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors are

Sherrie S. Aitken, M.P.A.; Laura P. Bonneville, Ph.D.;

Peter K. Francese, M.S.; and Reid T. Reynolds, Ph.D.

The sources of percentages in tables showing young adults'

drug use in 1974, 1976, and 1977 are unpublished detailed

tabulations appended to the NIDA National Survey reports

for those years.

COPYRIGHT STATUS

Chart VIII, on pages 92 and 93, and charts XI, XII, and

XIII, on pages 95-97, are copyrighted and are reproduced

herein with permission of American Demographics. Their

further reproduction without specific permission of the

copyright holder is prohibited. Chart XIV, on page 98,

may be reproduced with a credit line to the Population

Reference Bureau, Inc. All other material in this volume

is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced

without permission from NIDA or the authors. Citation

of the source is appreciated.

Library of Congress catalog card number 81-600065

DHHS publication number (ADM) 81-1069

Printed 1981

NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the Index Medicus.

They are selectively included in the coverage of BioSciences,

Information Service, Chemical Abstracts, Current Contents,

Psychological Abstracts, and Psychopharmacology Abstracts.

i v
Foreword

Changes in the composition of a nation’s population can have profound effects. The “baby boom” of the 1950’s and 1960’s in the

United States necessitated adjustments throughout our society.

In the eyes of some, it exacerbated a multitude of youth-related

problems, those of drug use and abuse among them.

In the 1980’s, a major change already discernible will be a

decrease in the size of the youth population. Because young

adults 18 to 25 years old are the group at greatest risk for drug

abuse, this decrease is likely to have a strong impact on future

drug abuse patterns, with important implications for the planning

of prevention and treatment programs. It is desirable, therefore,

to find out as much as possible about the extent and kinds of nonmedical drug use we can expect to see at various times in the

years ahead.

Methods of predicting the effects of population change vary from

simple projections of numbers in various age groups to elaborate

“modeling” of a problem, using multiple factors that may affect

it. The study conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse

presented in this monograph is a first step into this territory

and uses the simplest method, straight line projection. One chapter comments briefly on many aspects of demographic trends, among

them family status, education, income, geographic distribution?

and race and ethnic composition, as well as total population size

and age composition. Sources of data on drug abuse are then

reviewed and evaluated for their usefulness in projecting nonmedical drug use among young adults .

The greater part of the monograph, however, presents the projections themselves in text and tables on marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, and other opiates. Data are given

for total numbers and percentages of 18- to 25-year-olds who were

users of each group of drugs in the recent past and who may be

expected to use these drugs in 1985, 1990, and 1995. The trends

are also tabulated by sex, race, and residence in metropolitan

v
or nonmetropolitan areas. The monograph makes available information that will be interesting and useful to many whose work is

concerned with drug users now and in the future. Among these are

community officials, planners, and those who design or direct

drug abuse prevention programs.

We hope that further work will be done employing additional factors to delineate the future shape of nonmedical drug use with

greater precision. Rational predictions of this type will create

a better basis for our response to the continuing problem of drug

abuse.

Marvin Snyder

Director, Division of Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

v i
Contents

FOREWORD

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

CHAPTER 4

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Review of Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . 5

A Review of Drug Abuse Data Bases . . . . . . . . . 15

Age at Time of Admission to Federally Funded Drug

Treatment Programs, 1978 (Regional Drug Situation

Analysis)

Average Number of Drug-Related Deaths per Quarter

by Drug and Region, 1978 (Regional Drug Situation

Analysis)

1971 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific

Drugs

1972 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific

Drugs

1974 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific

Drugs

1976 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Drugs

Used for Nonmedical Purposes

1977 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific

Drugs

Projections of Drug Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Percent of Young Adults Who Had Used Marijuana:

1974, 1976, and 1977 Surveys, with Changes

Projections of Young Adult Populations for 1985, 1990,

and 1995

Number of Young Adults Who Had Used Marijuana

1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990 , and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Marijuana: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Marijuana, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults Using Marijuana Currently:

1974, 1976, and 1977 Surveys, with Change

Projections of Young Adults Using Marijuana Currently, for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Marijuana Currently: 1976 and 1977

Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 Using Maruijuana

Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990,

and 1995

vii
Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Percent of Young Adults Using Marijuana Regularly

or Occasionally: 1974, 1976, and 1977 Surveys, with

Change

Number of Young Adults Using Marijuana Regularly or

Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985,

1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Marijuana Regularly or Occasionally:

1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Marijuana Regularly or Occasionally,

1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Inhalants: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Inhalants, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 Using Inhalants

Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Inhalants Currently, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Inhalants Regularly or Occasionally:

1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Inhalants Regularly or Occasionally,

1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Hallucinogens 1976 and 1977

Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Hallucinogens, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Hallucinogens: 1976 and 1977

Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Hallucinogens Currenty, 1977 Survey,

and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Hallucinogens Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Hallucinogens Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990,

and 1995

viii
Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32

Table 33

Table 34

Table 35

Table 36

Table 37

Table 38

Table 39

Table 40

Table 41

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Cocaine: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Cocaine, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Cocaine Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Cocaine Currently, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Cocaine Regularly or Occasionally: 1976

and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Cocaine Regularly or Occasionally, 1977

Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Heroin: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Heroin, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin Currently, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin Regularly or Occasionally: 1976

and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin Regularly or Occasionally, 1977

Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Other Opiates: 1976 and 1977

Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used Other Opiates, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other Opiates Currently: 1976 and 1977

Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other Opiates Currently, 1977 Survey,

and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

i x
Table 42

Table 43

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other Opiates Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other Opiates Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990,

and 1995

CHAPTER 5 Overview of Drug Abuse Trends and Recommendations

for Additional Research . . . . . . . . . 67

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY of Selected Materials on Demographic

Trends and Forecasting Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 70

DRUG ABUSE DATA SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

APPENDIX A Population Projections for Young Adults for 1985,

1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

APPENDIX B Charts and Tables Depicting Various Demographic

Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

LIST OF NIDA RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 100

x
Chapter 1

Introduction

Overview of the Report

The study reported here was undertaken to project drug abuse1 for young

adults in future years by examining age trend data in conjunction with

data on the nonmedical use of drugs. Previous research has demonstrated

age to be strongly associated with the nonmedical use of drugs, with the

greatest incidence occurring in the 18-25 age group. Since the number of

18-25 year-olds, or young adults, will decline in the next 15 years, it can

be hypothesized that the number of young adults abusing drugs will also

decrease. This report presents the numbers of young adults expected to

be abusing drugs at several points in the future as indicated by a simple

technique using projected trends in population and drug abuse.

The report is organized into five chapters. This chapter outlines the

purposes of the study and reviews the methodology employed for making

projections of the number of young adult drug abusers. Chapter 2 reviews

the changing structure of the population. Several drug abuse data sets

are reviewed in chapter 3, which specifies the data to be used as the basis

for projecting future drug abuse. The fourth chapter presents projections

of the number of young adult drug abusers in 1985, 1990, and 1995. The

projected trends in nonmedical drug use by young adults are summarized

in the final chapter and recommendations are made for additional research.

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this study is to predict future nonmedical use of

drugs based on a comparison of two data sets: (1) estimates of drug abuse

at several points in time, and (2) the projected size of the young adult

population at several points in the future. Since nonmedical drug use is

currently most frequent among young adults (18-25 years), and there is

evidence that the size of this age group will be declining, it is quite

possible that the number of young adults abusing drugs may decrease.

1
This possibility has strong implications for treatment programs serving

drug abusers, education programs geared to high risk populations, and

deployment of forces to reduce availability of illicit drugs. Only when

armed with projections of future drug abuse can the National Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA) make rational plans for future treatment and

prevention programs targeted on young adults.

A review of literature on population changes and a review of drug abuse

data sets will be summarized in chapters 2 and 3, respectively, so that the

reader may have a clear understanding of what data were used to make

future projections of drug abuse.

Methodology for Making Projections of Population Size and Drug Abuse

The decision was made to project the number of young adult drug abusers

at three points: 1985, 1990, and 1995. Population projections for the

18-25 age group have been taken from the Census Bureau’s Series II

published projections of the total population (U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1977b).2 Several precautions should be taken in interpreting the Series II

projections used in this study and presented in appendix A:

Actual fertility levels might run slightly below the level

assumed for the Series II projections.

Mortality levels for people in the 18-25 year-old category are

increasing. The increases are not so large as to affect the

Series II projections markedly, but they do run counter to the

assumptions upon which the Census Bureau’s projections are

based.

Official estimates of the current number of young adults are

probably below the actual figure built into the Series II

projections.

Population projections for 18-25 year-olds and for several subgroups of

18-25 year-olds come directly from the Census Bureau Series II

estimates. However, the population projections for large metropolitan,

other metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan areas, presented in appendix A,

do not come from an official source. The Census Bureau does not prepare

such projections by age grouping. Therefore, a ratio method was used to

make simple projections for these groups. This methodology required two

simplifying assumptions:

That the metropolitan designations used by the NIDA surveys

are not substantially different from a current Census Bureau

trichotomy of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's

of one million and larger, SMSA’s under one million, and

nonmetropolitan areas.

That the proportion of the 18-25 year-old population (NIDA

survey categories) in the three areas will not differ markedly

from the proportions of 18-25 year-olds (Census Bureau

categories) in 1977.

2
Once population projections had been assembled, the next step was to

develop projections of the number of young adult nonmedical drug users

in 1985, 1990, and 1995. Several alternative approaches to projecting

future levels of drug abuse were reviewed:

Using a level straight-line approach, one could apply the most

current levels of reported drug abuse to population projections

in order to project the numbers of drug abusers at future points

in time.

Where trend data are available, one could study the direction

and magnitude of change in the level of drug abuse over time

and assume that this same pattern would repeat itself in the

future. This analysis enables one to modify the most recently

reported level of drug abuse, and multiply the modified

percentage by population projections, to project the number of

drug abusers in the future.

A third approach would be to identify a number of demographic

and socioeconomic factors which might affect future patterns

of drug abuse. Each factor (e.g., the changing structure of

families or changing labor market conditions) then could be

analyzed and a set of hypotheses developed expressing its

relationship to drug abuse. Statistical equations then could be

developed to express these relationships, and the resulting

equations could be used to generate another set of projections

of drug abuse.

The projections of young adult drug abusers presented herein are

developed using only the first approach. The second approach can be

used with confidence only when data are available for a series of points in

time. Currently, only data on marijuana use are available, and

comparable figures are available only for three different points.

Predictions based on the third approach will not be presented here;

however, the potential of this approach for drug use projections will be

discussed in chapter 5.

The straight-line projection technique is based on the assumption that

the most current rates of drug abuse reported will remain relatively

stable in the future. For this study, the most current data available was

the National Survey on Drug Abuse conducted in 1977 for the National

Institute on Drug Abuse. Using the straight-line projection technique and

1977 data will result in conservative estimates because the preliminary

results of the 1979 National Survey indicate growing rates of drug abuse

among young adults. However, these estimates will be useful in

supporting broad planning decisions.

The following chapter discusses the changing structure of the population

and some related considerations in projecting future drug abuse for young

adults.

3
FOOTNOTES

1

 For purposes of this study, the term "drug abuse" refers to nonmedical

use of drugs, as used by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in

conducting its national surveys on drug abuse.

2

 References in chapters 1 and 2 appear in the Annotated Bibliography of

Selected Materials on Demographic Trends and Forecasting Techniques,

which begins on page 70.

4
Chapter 2

A Review of Population Trends

INTRODUCTION

In the recent past the shape of the population in this country has

undergone several major changes. The postwar “baby boom” and more

recent ‘baby bust” are generally well known; however, the important

implications of these broad fertility swings are not widely appreciated.

Lower death rates, migration to the South and West, and declining growth

rates for major cities have all served to distinguish America in the 1970’s

from previous decades. The changing status of women and minorities has

influenced trends in educational attainment, economic status, and family

life.

Many of these changes caught observers by surprise, but improvements in

the availability of demographic data and the growing sophistication of

demographic research have enabled demographers to analyze these trends

and assess their impact on many aspects of social, political, and economic

life (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Population,

1978).

The overview of the population changes in the United States is presented

here to help policy analysts and program planners in the drug abuse field

to understand past and future demographic trends. First, it reviews the

strengths and weaknesses of demographic data and discusses demographic

forecasting techniques; second, it reviews past and anticipated trends for

several demographic variables. (Appendix B includes charts and tables

depicting some of the trends discussed in this chapter.)

Included in this chapter are comments on the effects that various

demographic trends may have on drug abuse patterns; however, the nature

of these relationships is not documented.

Quality of Demographic Data and Forecasts

A great deal is known about the size, growth, and composition of the U.S.

population because of rather thorough decennial censuses and virtually

complete registration of vital events--i.e., births, deaths, marriages, and

divorces. In comparison with other social and behavioral sciences, the

data of demography are known to be highly valid and reliable. Some

aspects of our statistical system are not as strong as others, however.

Specifically, a small but significant portion of the population is missed in

the decennial census, and our statistical system does not provide for the

close monitoring of migration:

The Census Bureau estimates that the 1970 Census missed 2.5

percent of the total population and that this undernumeration

was disturbingly high for some groups. For example, almost

5
20 percent of all black males aged 25 to 44 were missed by the

1970 Census (U.S. Census, 1975b).

Estimates of the number of illegal immigrants and the number

of citizens, resident aliens, and undocumented aliens who leave

the country permanently are deficient (Keely 1977; Siegal 1978).

A thorough assessment of the changing geographic distribution of the

population--the result of millions of individual moves--can only be made

with data from the decennial census which will be released at the State

and substate level in late 1980. Yet even as we near the end of an

intercensal period demographers are able to estimate the impact of

migration on population change at the State and local level. One data

source is a Census Bureau program which, in cooperation with State and

local governments, analyzes data on school enrollment, utility hookups,

housing starts, and findings from sample surveys to produce annual

population estimates for each county. Increasingly refined techniques

have been developed over the years to estimate future demographic

trends. Nevertheless, demographic forecasting, like any technique, is

prone to error. It is not the intent of this chapter to review all

forecasting techniques; however, a few conceptual distinctions will be

made to provide a background for further discussion of the limitations of

these techniques. Demographers shy away from speaking of predictions,

because past efforts to forecast the future have seldom proven to be

accurate. Therefore, they speak in terms of estimates, projections, and

forecasts (Shryock and Siegal 1975). An estimate is usually made of an

unknown number pertaining to the present or past. For example, drawing

on the 1970 Census and other data sources, the population of New York

State in 1979 can be estimated with considerable accuracy.

The technique of population projection, which refers to the future,

requires that assumptions be made about future demographic trends.

Mathematical formulae are used to apply these assumptions to a current

population count or estimate. This initial population is normally

disaggregated by age and sex. The projection method chosen (several

component methods are currently used) then diminishes the population

according to a given age-sex-specific mortality schedule and augments it

according to a given fertility schedule. Finally, adjustments are made

according to a net migration schedule (Shryock and Siegal 1975). For

example, the most frequently cited population projections for the U.S. are

those published periodically by the Census Bureau. The most recent set

consists of three different projection series to the year 2050 for the total

U.S. population disaggregated by sex and five-year age groups (U.S.

Bureau of the Census 1977b). All three projections assume the same

levels of net immigration and mortality, but each is based on a different

assumption about future fertility.

By publishing three different projection series, the Census Bureau avoids

making an official forecast about the future course of population growth.

In effect, the Census Bureau is saying: “These are the demographic

implications of three different plausible assumptions about the

components of population growth.” The reluctance of many demographers

to designate a particular projection series as their best guess is based on

the fact that demographic patterns are affected by many variables such

6
as economic growth which are not incorporated in demographic

projection models. By offering a range of projections the analyst might

avoid subsequent embarrassment, but the danger of this approach is that

the layperson reviewing a group of projections is often the one who

chooses a particular projection as “the best” forecast.1

Econometricians have attempted to bridge the gap between the rigorous

but restricted methodology of projection and looser forms of crystal ball

gazing which attempt to anticipate all social and cultural trends

affecting population change. The result is a new technique referred to as

demographic modeling (Reynolds 1979). Using this technique, if a

forecaster believes fertility is affected by family income, an equation

expressing this relationship can be estimated and incorporated into a

demographic model. Fertility would then be forecast as a function of

economic growth and age structure.

Demographic modeling may also be used to forecast the populations of

subnational areas which are strongly influenced by migration flows. Here

an area’s net migration is cast as a function of the growth of employment

opportunities in the local economy. Other processes such as labor force

participation and family formation can be incorporated into the model to

produce a forecast of the composition of the population, e.g., the number

of three-person households in a given income category. Forecasts for

specific subgroups such as this normally are not made using conventional

techniques of population projection.2

A demographic forecast produced by complicated techniques can

sometimes but not always produce accurate results. In the short run a

national forecast is unlikely to be seriously in error because there is so

much inertia in demographic trends. But when projections are made for

longer periods or for particular segments of the population, history can

outrun the assumptions on which the forecast is based (Pittenger 1979).

A good case in point is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ attempts to

forecast labor force participation rates. Each series of projections

produced in recent years has become obsolete shortly after publication

because women have been entering the labor force at a greater rate than

that anticipated by any of the projections (Flaim and Fullerton 1978).

Often it is useful to prepare a series of projections and consider the range

of alternatives produced. This approach demonstrates how a variable of

interest is affected by different assumptions underlying the projections.

Thus, population projections allow one to place reasonable bounds on the

magnitude of future trends. For example, if the assumption was made

that the total fertility rate would not go higher than 2.7 or lower than 1.7

(the levels used in the Census Bureau’s high and low projections) then one

could estimate that the total U.S. population should not be greater than

283 million nor less than 246 million in the year 2000, assuming the

mortality and immigration assumptions hold.

The next section reviews past and future demographic trends and, where

plausible, their implications for future drug abuse patterns.

7

349-353 O - 81 - 2
Demographic Trends: Past and Future

A comprehensive treatment of recent past and near future demographic

trends is beyond the scope of this report; rather this report will comment

on trends in the following areas total population size, fertility,

mortality, immigration, age composition, family status, education,

income, geographic distribution, and race and ethnic composition.

Total population size

The U.S. population has grown from 151 million in 1950 to an estimated

222 million in 1980--a 47 percent increase in three decades.3 Population

growth will be slower in the next decade, probably below one percent per

year, but the total population should be between 240 and 250 million in

1990. The principal components of population change--fertility,

mortality, and immigration--have each undergone changes themselves in

recent decades. These changes will have important effects on population

trends in the future.

Fertility

American fertility in the early post-war years was characterized as the

“baby boom,” with the crude birth rate soaring to 25 per 1,000 total

population in 1957. Since then the birth rate has declined, with only slight

interruptions, to approximately 15 births per 1,000 in 1979.

The level of fertility has a marked impact on population size and

composition, but based on the experience of past decades it is difficult to

anticipate changes in this volatile variable. The current consensus among

demographers is that low fertility is here to stay. Those who foresee

continued low fertility argue that the costs of childbearing (the

commitment of money and time on the part of parents), the availability

of effective birth control, and the changing role of women and the

family militate against the high levels of fertility seen in the postwar

baby boom (Westoff 1978).

But there are some analysts who disagree with this view. The most

prominent is Richard Easterlin. In his presidential address to the

Population Association of America, he argued that improved economic

opportunities for young families and the demographic echo of the baby

boom will result in a resurgence of fertility in the 1980's (Easterlin

1978).4 Those who foresee continued low fertility in the future

acknowledge the potential for a substantial echo effect, but feel that

other social and economic forces will dampen, if not nullify, its impact.

Easterlin believes that the economic-demographic cycle which produced

the baby boom of the 1950’s and the baby bust of the 1970’s will have a

wide range of ameliorative effects on American society in the 1980’s.

Improved economic opportunity for young adults will mean not only

higher marriage and fertility rates but lower rates of divorce,

unemployment, and crime. A clear implication of Easterlin’s theory is

that young adults will be too absorbed in occupational advancement and

family life to engage in drug abuse to the extent that their older brothers

and sisters did in the 1970’s.

8
If the labor market for young adults does not improve to the extent he

envisions, or if counteracting social and cultural trends prevail, his

expectations for the 1980’s could prove to be overly optimistic. Yet

regardless of his overall theory, drug abuse trends should be favorably

affected by the decline in the number of young adults which will occur in

the 1980’s.

One aspect of fertility which has drawn increased attention in recent

years, and which may have a significant relationship to drug abuse, is

teenage fertility. In 1976, births to teenage mothers constituted 18

percent of all live births. Relatively few of these mothers were married

at the time of conception. Despite the fact that teenage mothers

account for a growing proportion of all births and that the illegitimacy

rate for teenagers is increasing, the teenage birth rate (i.e., the number

of births per 1,000 women 15-19) has actually declined from 82 in 1950 to

68 in 1970 and 54 in 1976. The growth of sex education and the increased

availability of birth control may lead to a further decline in this rate in

the next decade.

The impact of various assumptions about fertility on the total population

can be appreciated when one examines the Census Bureau’s high, medium,

and low population projections. Using the high projection, there would be

5.1 million births in 1990; the medium projection, 4.0 million births; and

the low projection, 3.2 million births.

Unborn children will not reach the prime ages for drug abuse until the end

of this century. Nevertheless, the fertility rate bears watching because it

implies different lifestyles for adults. High fertility rates would suggest

that most young adults would be married and supporting families and,

thus, it is speculated that they would not be prime candidates for drug

abuse. Low fertility would suggest that larger proportions of young

adults will not be raising children and, thus, may be more prone to

risk-taking and experimentation.

Mortality

Death rates have been decreasing for all age groups5 so that the

expectation of life at birth reached an all time high of 73 years in 1977.

The leading causes of death among teenagers and young adults are

accidents, suicide, and homicide. Therefore, future mortality levels for

this age range will depend more on social and cultural variables than

advances in medical care. It is difficult to envision any changes in

mortality that will have a notable effect on the number of people

reaching the prime ages for drug abuse by the end of this century.

Recent declines in mortality rates are more likely to benefit the elderly

than young adults (Rice 1979).

Immigration

Net immigration contributed relatively less to population growth in the

recent past than it did in the early part of this century. Nevertheless, net

legal immigration has been averaging around 362,000 in recent years,

accounting for a fifth of total population growth. When illegal

9
immigration is taken into account, the total contribution of immigration

to population growth may be substantially higher.

Despite widespread interest in the number of illegal immigrants, no

generally accepted estimate of their number exists. Estimates of the

numbers of aliens living illegally in the U.S. range from four to twelve

million. Estimates of the flow of illegal entrants in a given year also

vary widely. The frequent border crossings of many illegal immigrants

from Mexico might create the impression of a larger number than

actually exists. On the other hand there appears to be a substantial

number of aliens who enter legally--as tourists and students--but who

overstay the term of their visa and become undocumented residents

(Keely 1977; Siegal 1978).

The contribution of immigration to future population size is difficult to

predict. If immigration were to increase and fertility to remain low, the

contribution of immigration to overall population growth would

increase. Whatever its rate, immigration will probably have a greater

impact on the growth of prime drug abuse groups than on the growth of

the total population, because immigrants are disproportionately young

and male.

Immigration has become a highly charged issue in recent years.6

Aside from its potential contribution to population growth, immigration

may be related to drug abuse in other ways. There is no concrete

evidence to document the relationship between immigration and drug

abuse; however, several factors should be investigated by future research

efforts, e.g.:

A substantial proportion of immigrants come from Latin

America, Asia, and the Carribean--important sources of illegal

drugs. This factor may or may not influence drug trafficking

and abuse patterns.

There are two competing stereotypes of immigrants which

relate to drug abuse. In one view, immigrants--and especially

illegal, Hispanic immigrants--are marginal members of society

with a greater than average propensity to illegal and antisocial

behavior. The competing view is based on the fact that

migration--legal and illegal--is selective and that migrants tend

to be especially achievement oriented. Furthermore, in an

effort to avoid detection, illegal immigrants are more likely

than others to abstain from illegal behavior such as drug

trafficking and abuse.

Age composition

Many forms of social behavior are age specific. The age structure of a

population reflects past trends in fertility, mortality, and immigration.

The bulges and troughs in the U.S. age structure (as shown in chart 1,

appendix B) can be attributed to the wide swings in fertility in previous

decades. The relatively small numbers of children born during the

Depression, the large number born in the 1950’s, and the fewer births of

recent years mean that a given age group, such as young adults, can

contract, expand, and then contract again in the course of a few decades.

1 0
At the depth of the Depression, there were only 2.3 million children born

(1933). At the peak of the baby boom this number reached 4.3 million

(1957). The most recent low was 3.1 million births (1975). The age

structure of the population in the future years can be forecast with

considerable accuracy, except for those in the youngest age groups, who

have not yet been born. Not only will the baby boom bulge continue to

pass through the age structure well into the twenty-first century, but

smaller cohorts born in the 1960% and early 1970’s will be experienced as

a deficit for years to come. Yesterday’s smaller numbers of school-aged

children are now confronting military recruiters and college admissions

officers. In the 1980’s, employers and home builders will be seeing these

smaller cohorts enter the labor force and establish families. Because

drug abuse is most prevalent among teenagers and young adults, the

shrinking of these age groups in the near future could result in a decrease

in drug abuse independent of other social changes or preventive actions on

the part of authorities. Thus, in monitoring future trends, it is important

to look beyond overall levels of drug abuse to age-specific rates, which

will give a truer picture of change.

Family status

A variety of demographic data shows that the living arrangements of

Americans are undergoing important changes and that family structure is

neither as uniform nor as constant as it once was. Three important

changes bear mention.

First, fewer people are marrying at the young ages common in the

1950%. As recently as 1960, 72 percent of all women 20-24 had entered

their first marriage. By 1977 this figure had dropped to 55 percent (Glick

1978).

Second, in spite of the high level of teenage fertility and out-of-wedlock

births, more young people are postponing or foregoing parenthood than did

so in the recent past. A higher proportion of couples are also limiting

their families to two children. In 1960 only half of all births were first or

second children; by 1976 this proportion had increased to 75 percent.

Third, divorce is more prevalent today. If the present level of divorce

persists, it has been estimated that 40 percent of recent marriages will

end in divorce (Glick 1978).7

Future trends for these variables are difficult to predict. Much depends

on whether the effects of the recent sex-role “revolution” have been

largely absorbed or whether we are in store for additional substantial

changes in what men and women expect from work, marriage, and

parenthood. A leading expert in family demography, Paul C. Glick, has

suggested that family demographic trends will change less radically in the

near future than they did in the recent past (Glick 1978).

Education and income

When broadly defined, demography goes beyond an analysis of variables

directly related to population change and encompasses compositional

factors such as education and income. Substantial improvements in

1 1
education and income levels during the 1950’s and 1960’s have slackened

in recent years. By 1970, 34 percent of all 18-21 year-olds were enrolled

in college, but this figure dropped to 32 percent by 1978. In the last 10

years the proportion of young males 20-21 enrolled in college has fallen

almost 10 percentage points--from 44 percent in 1967 to 35 percent in

1977--while the participation of females-increased from 25 percent to 29

percent.

The substantial gains in family income which characterized the 1950’s and

1960’s have moderated in recent years. When inflation is controlled

median family income increased 4.2 percent per annum from 1950 to 1970

but by only 0.6 percent per annum since then.

Two important demographic changes should be taken into account when

interpreting these figures. First, the number of earners per family has

increased in recent years. Had large numbers of wives not entered the

labor force family income would have advanced much less. Measures of

family or household income can be misleading, however (Slater 1980).

Per capita income levels have risen more rapidly than family income as

family size has declined--by 2.0 percent per annum since 1970.

Demographic trends seem to favor improved income levels in the 1980’s

as the labor force matures. Nevertheless, the rate of increase will be

strongly affected by political and economic factors outside of the

purview of demography.

Geographical distribution

The geographical distribution of the population has changed continuously

over the years as Americans have sought new opportunities. During the

20th century, the industrialization of the American economy has been

accompanied by a shift of population from rural areas (often communities

in the South) to the major metropolitan areas of the North and Midwest.

These migration patterns have now been superseded by new population

shifts which will have important implications for the distribution of the

population in coming years (Morrison 1978). The South and West are now

the most rapidly growing regions, and population is declining in many

older central cities and their immediately surrounding suburbs (Birch

1978; Guest 1979).

Because young adults migrate more frequently than other age groups, it

will be difficult to anticipate with great accuracy the future geographic

concentration of those prone to drug abuse. However, the continuing

redistribution of the American population in coming decades can be

monitored closely with the aid of demographic analysis.

Blacks and Hispanics

An analysis of drug abuse trends must consider distinctions of race,

ethnicity, and class. Good data exist for analyzing virtually all

demographic trends separately for blacks and whites, and more

information is becoming available for Hispanics.

In recent decades, the black population has grown more rapidly than the

white due to higher fertility, although fertility levels recently reached an

12
all time low for blacks. Using the Census Bureau’s medium population

projection, the black population should reach 30 million in 1990, or 12.2

percent of the total population. This would reflect only a slight increase

in the black proportion of the total population, estimated at 11.2 percent

in 1979.

The massive shift of the black population from the rural South to the

metropolitan North has slowed in recent years, and blacks have begun to

move to the suburbs. Nevertheless, blacks remain more concentrated in

central cities than whites--58 percent vs. 29 percent in 1970--and

pervasive residential segregation is not expected to disappear in the near

future.

Educational opportunities for blacks have improved markedly in recent

years. By 1977, college enrollment for persons 18-21 years old was 33

percent for whites and 26 percent for blacks. However, income statistics

show that major economic disparities remain. Median family income for

whites was $16,740 in 1977 vs. $10,142 for blacks. Unemployment rates

for young black males are notoriously high. For those 16-19, the rate was

37 percent in 1977, substantially higher than the 15 percent rate for

whites. For those 20-24, the rates were 22 percent and 9 percent,

respectively.

The Hispanic population, estimated at 12.0 million in 1978, has been

identified as the most rapidly growing minority in the United States. The

Census Bureau does not prepare separate projections for the Hispanic

population. Over half are of Mexican origin, and 15 percent are Puerto

Rican. Hispanics are disproportionately concentrated in the Southwest,

Florida, and the large metropolitan areas of the North. Twenty-nine

percent of the Hispanic population is in the young adult age group (18-34),

compared with 28 percent of the total population. Median family income

of Hispanics was $10,300 in 1977, roughly equivalent to that of blacks but

substantially below the level of all families ($16,009).

Conclusion

The above review highlights several important demographic trends. In

many cases future demographic trends can be anticipated with the aid of

population projections and other forecasting techniques. Some changes,

such as improved mortality levels for the elderly, will probably have little

effect on patterns of drug abuse. Others, most notably the declining

number of young adults, are likely to have a strong impact on future drug

abuse patterns. A thorough understanding of demographic trends and

demographic forecasting techniques, combined with information on

demographic correlates of drug abuse, should be very useful for those

concerned with future trends in this problem.

13
FOOTNOTES

1

 Currently fertility levels are slightly below the level assumed in the

Census Bureau’s most recent medium level projections (Series II).

Peter Morrison, a noted demographer at the Rand Corporation, recently

said that he expects fertility to remain slightly below that assumed in

the Series II projections in the 1980's (remarks at the Population

Resource Center, 10/16/79).

2

 The Census Bureau does publish four series of household projections

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1979) and income projections will be

published in 1981. Labor force projections are regularly published by

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Flaim and Fullerton 1978), and the

National Center for Education Statistics publishes school enrollment

projections biannually (National Center for Education Statistics 1978).

3

 Statistics cited in the remainder of this paper have been taken from

Census Bureau sources unless otherwise noted. Most statistics for

recent years are collected in the Statistical Abstract of the United

States (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1978) or are available in the P-20

series of Current Population Reports (U.S. Bureau of the Census

1979b). Data for earlier periods are found in Historical Statistics of

the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975a). Population

projections are generally from Projections of the Population of the

United States: 1977 to 2050 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1977b).

4

 This “echo effect” refers to the fact that the large number of

children born during the baby boom are now reaching the prime

childbearing years.

5

 There has been a slight upturn in mortality for teenagers and young

adults in the last few years.

6

 The recently established Select Commission on Immigration and

Refugee Policy is expected to recommend changes in immigration and

refugee policy. New policies could markedly affect the number of

immigrants in coming years.

7

 This includes both first marriages and remarriages, the latter of which

are more prone to divorce.

14
Chapter 3

A Review of Drug Abuse Data Bases

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will identify and describe briefly data sources which may be

used to project nonmedical drug use among young adults in future years. A

wide variety of sources have potential utility in this regard. They range

from individual studies conducted by local school districts or States to

major national surveys involving thousands of respondents.

Because of the proliferation of research on drug use in recent years, it was

necessary to place some limitations on the data to be presented here. First,

it was decided that since a complete review was conducted in 1974 (Glenn

and Richards),1 it was unnecessary to duplicate those efforts. (See

Broecker and Berg, 1972, for a review of earlier studies.) The studies

reviewed here are more recent and, with the exception of the earliest

National Surveys, were not covered in the 1974 review.

Second, this review is limited to those data bases which are national in

scope. State and local surveys have severe limitations for purposes of

making national projections of nonmedical drug use. For example:

1. The definitions used for nonmedical use often vary from one local

or State survey to another.

2. Various local and State surveys are conducted in different time

periods, so that it is often difficult to piece together a national

profile.

3. The use of different methodologies in developing estimates limits

the possibility of developing comparable results from one

geographic region to another.

For these reasons, it is virtually impossible to combine data from several

independent studies at disparate locations in the U.S. to form national

estimates of the number of nonmedical drug users.

Finally, wherever possible, this literature review focused on data sources

describing the youth and young adult populations, since these are the

groups most at risk for drug abuse.

There are three broad categories of data describing the prevalence of

nonmedical drug use:

1. Treatment-oriented data systems, which compile statistics based

on individuals who have sought care;

2. Surveys designed to determine the extent of various types of drug

use among specific populations;

15
3. Federally sponsored surveys of the general population which are

national in scope.

In order to support comparisons of different data sources, a standard format

was adopted for describing each data source, in terms of the following

parameters:

1. The purpose, date, and sponsor of the data source;

2. Respondents, sample size, and sample design;

3. Type of drug investigated;

4. Highlights of the results/findings; and

5. Limitations of the data base in terms of its potential usefulness

for projecting nonmedical drug use among young adults.

I. TREATMENT-ORIENTED DATA SYSTEMS

Six treatment-oriented data systems were studied:

1. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)

Purpose. Project DAWN is a Federal program jointly funded by the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug

Abuse (NIDA). DAWN has been in existence since 1972 and was established

to monitor the consequences of drug abuse using two indicators, emergency

room visits and deaths.

Respondents and Sampling. DAWN collects its information through episode

reports provided by selected hospital emergency rooms, crisis centers, and

medical examiners. In order to be eligible, emergency rooms must:

Be open 24 hours per day;

Be located in non-Federal short-term general hospitals (specialty

hospitals, hospital units of institutions, and pediatric hospitals are

excluded); and

Have at least 1,000 patient visits to the emergency room per year.

At the end of 1978, over 900 facilities were supplying data to the program.

Reporting facilities are concentrated in 24 Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (SMSA’S) which are not randomly selected but are chosen to account

for approximately 30 percent of the population of the U.S. in geographically

diverse locations.

Drugs Investigated. DAWN distinguishes between drug “episodes” and drug

“mentions.” An episode is a contact with a facility or a medical examiner

for a drug-related emergency. A “mention” represents a drug involved in an

episode; there may be one or more drugs mentioned for each episode.

16
DAWN has a vocabulary of approximately 3,000 substances which have been

mentioned in relation to incidents of drug abuse. These substances are

grouped into 99 therapeutic classes based on the National Drug and

Therapeutic Index.

Information Collected. DAWN focuses on the drug users and the drugs used

by having a reporter in each participating facility complete a report for

each drug abuse contact.

Data/Results. DAWN results are presented system-wide as well as by

SMSA. Highlights from the October-December 1978 quarterly report

include:

In the quarter October - December 1978, the frequency of

mentions by therapeutic class was tranquilizers (22 percent),

alcohol in combination (13 percent), nonnarcotic analgesics (10

percent), nonbarbiturate sedatives (8 percent), and narcotic

analgesics (8 percent). This order has remained the same since

the quarter January - March 1978.

The trend of marijuana mentions peaked in April 1978 and steadily

declined in the remainder of 1978 to reach the 1977 level.

Of the 745 deaths reported, 83 percent were drug-caused. The

five drugs most often associated with drug deaths were, in order,

alcohol in combination, d-propoxyphene, heroin/morphine,

diazepam, and secobarbital.

Together the hallucinogen PCP and PCP combinations eclipsed

LSD as the major hallucinogen of mention in the total DAWN

system, accounting for 73 percent of the mentions in its drug

class.

Between 1976 and 1978, death reports of abusers in the 20 to 29

age range fell by 5 percent, while reports of abuser deaths in the

50 and over range increased by 4 percent.

Limitations of Data Base. Some limitations of the DAWN data collection

methodology include:

SMSA’s are not randomly selected;

All facilities in participating SMSA’s are not able or willing to

participate;

Only people who seek treatment for drug-related problems (or

who die as a result of drug-related causes) are included in DAWN;

and

The DAWN reporting base (number of days per month, number of

reporting facilities, degree of saturation) changes constantly.

17
2. Drug Watch

Description. Drug Watch is a DAWN-related system for monitoring recent

trends in drug-related medical emergencies and deaths. Drug Watch utilizes

these incidents as indicators of the changing extent and nature of drug abuse.

Respondents and Sampling. Drug Watch focuses on reports by a select group

of approximately 600 emergency rooms and 100 medical examiners that

have participated in DAWN since January 1974 and have reported for at

least 90 percent of reportable days. The panel is not selected to be

geographically representative, but it does have reasonable geographic

coverage. Because Drug Watch uses a select panel, it is clear that changes

in the trends observed are not attributable to changes in the reporting base.

Drugs Investigated. Because interest is usually in charting trends in the

activity of major drug classifications, Drug Watch monitors a limited

number of broad drug categories, such as barbiturates or tranquilizers. If

there is an interest in a particular drug, more detailed information on that

drug will be prepared through Drug Watch.

Information Collected. The Drug Watch computer program reviews reports

for each drug group during a 26-month period. The reports are then

distributed by month, and monthly totals are converted to 3-month moving

averages. The results are then graphed by a high speed line printer. These

graphs comprise the bulk of Drug Watch reports.

Data/Results. As previously mentioned, most Drug Watch data are

presented graphically. However, some examples of results presented in

Drug Watch, July 1977, include the following:

Based on reports from emergency rooms from November 1974 to

October 1976, tranquilizers were the most frequently mentioned

drug, with 73,340 mentions or 24.3 percent of total mentions.

Inhalants were the least mentioned drug in emergency room

reports, with only 1,486 mentions, or 0.49 percent of total

mentions.

Medical examiner reports mentioned heroin/morphine most

frequently, with 4,093 mentions or 19.4 percent of the total.

Cannabis was least mentioned by medical examiners, with only 14

mentions, or 0.07 percent of total mentions.

Limitations of Drug Watch Data Base.

Only people who seek treatment for drug-related problems or who

die as a result of drug-related causes are included;

The use of a select panel limits the reporting base so that it may

not be sufficiently broad to accurately reflect trends in drug use;

and

18
The panel is not selected to ensure geographical

representativeness.

3. Client Oriented Data Acquisition Process (CODAP)

Description. CODAP is a required reporting process for all drug abuse units

receiving Federal funds for the provision of treatment and rehabilitation

services. CODAP is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and is

designed to collect data on clients admitted to and discharged from

treatment for drug abuse.

Respondents and Sampling. CODAP admission and discharge forms are

completed for each client admitted to and discharged from these clinics,

regardless of the source of funding support for any particular client.

CODAP Client Flow Summary forms are submitted each month by every

clinic that reports through CODAP.

Drugs Investigated/Information Collected. CODAP reports include:

General notes and an overview of trends in client drug problems;

Trends in client demographics and treatment data for all clients;

and

Data on clients reporting use of opiates, marijuana, barbiturates,

and amphetamines as the primary drug, presented in relation to

such client characteristics as geographic region, age at admission,

age at first use of primary drug, race/ethnicity, and sex.

Data/Results. Highlights from the Trend Report of January 1975 through

September 1978 include:

Marijuana abusers represented 16.8 percent of all clients in the

first quarter of 1975, declined to 7.9 percent in the third quarter

of 1976, and then rose gradually to 12.9 percent in 1978.

There were great differences in the relative proportion of opiate

abusers among the various regions. For example, in the third

quarter of 1978, opiate abusers represented 60.7 percent of all

clients in the Middle Atlantic region, while they represented only

19.4 percent of all clients in the East South Central region. It is

important to note, however, that regional differences may be due

to differences in the types of clients from region to region.

At least 50 percent of all admissions were between 21 and 30

years of age.

CODAP clients were predominantly male. The relative proportion

of males decreased slightly, from 74.3 percent of all admissions in

the first quarter of 1975 to 71.9 percent in the third quarter of

1978.

19
Limitations of Data Base. Limitations inherent in CODAP’s data collection

methodology include:

Only persons who seek treatment for drug-related problems at a

federally funded treatment facility are included.

Developing patterns shown in data are generally of small

magnitude.

Changes observed during a single quarter may be misleading and

may not be sustained by subsequent data.

Each admission reported does not necessarily represent a

different client; to minimize the problem of multiple counts,

reports representing the transfers of a client from one clinic to

another are not included in the data.

4. Drug Enforcement Statistical Report

Description. The Drug Enforcement Administration of the U. S. Department

of Justice publishes the Drug Enforcement Statistical Report. This

publication is designed to be a reporting vehicle; no attempt is made to

predict future trends. Data are presented by both calendar and fiscal year.

Calendar years 1975 through the third quarter of 1979 are included, as are

fiscal years 1976 through 1979.

Information Collected. This document is divided into three sections:

Enforcement Activity, Drug Abuse Indicators, and Organization and Training

Data. The first section, Enforcement Activity, presents data on such

subjects as domestic drug removals, port and border drug removals,

drug-related arrests and defendant dispositions, and arrests of aliens in the

U. S. for drug offenses. The Drug Abuse Indicators section includes data on,

for example, national illicit drug retail prices, drug-related deaths and

injuries, and federally funded drug treatment admissions. Much of the data

in this section is collected through the DAWN and CODAP systems. The

last section, Organization and Training Data, presents statistics on the

number of DEA personnel and field offices, the number of DEA agents and

investigators, and the number of DEA training facilities and activities.

Data/Results. The data highlighted in the Drug Enforcement Statistical

Report which covers the period from January 1975 through September 1979

includes the following:

Total DEA domestic drug removals for calendar years 1975

through the third quarter of 1979 were highest for stimulants.

However, for CY 1978, removals of hallucinogens (4,349,917

dosage units) exceeded stimulants removals.

Limitations of the Data Base. The data in this report have a limited use for

projecting nationwide drug use, first, because only cases of drug use

identified as the result of a drug-related legal or medical problem are

included. In addition, the majority of the data presented here are

categorized according to the type of drug involved, rather than according to

20
user characteristics. Finally, those data presented here which are taken

from DAWN or CODAP data are subject to the limitations already described

for those two systems.

5. Regional Drug Situation Analysis

Description. The Drug Enforcement Administration of the U. S. Department

of Justice compiles the Regional Drug Situation Analysis on the following

regions: the Northeast, North Central, Southeast, South Central, and

Western regions.

Drugs Investigated/Information Collected. Each regional analysis documentcontains a summary of nationwide data followed by data specific to the

SMSA’s in that particular region. Each document includes the following data:

Some significant nationwide and SMSA-specific data (e.g., number

of deaths, number of injuries, number of treatment admissions)

for the following drugs heroin, cocaine, hallucinogens, stimulants,

and depressants;

National and regional drug thefts, by number and volume;

Retail heroin price and purity index, both national and by region;

Drug-related injuries and deaths, nationally, by region, and by

drug;

Lab seizures by drug and by region; and

Drug mentions by drug type and SMSA.

Data/Results. Examples of data presented in the Regional Drug Situation

Analysis are exhibited in tables 1 and 2 which follow.

Limitations of the Data Base. Many of the data presented in these regional

analyses are taken from the DAWN and CODAP systems and thus are

subject to the limitations already described. In addition, there is very little

breakdown of data by user characteristic in these documents.

6. National Drug Abuse Treatment Utilization Survey (NDATUS)

Description. This data base is composed of statistics similar to those

collected by CODAP and suffers from many of the limitations inherent in

the CODAP data base.

Unlike CODAP, NDATUS collects data from all known treatment units in

the U. S., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, regardless of their funding

source. The data are collected annually for a point prevalence period (i.e.,

for a given point in time). The most recent published data are for April

1979. Before 1979, data were collected only for drug treatment facilities;

however, in 1979, the data base was expanded to include alcoholism

treatment units as well as drug treatment units.

21
Northeastern

Region

Phila.

Nationwide SMSA

Under 18 11.4% 8.4%

18 - 25 38.2% 38.3%

26 - 44 45.1% 49.0%

Over 44 5.2% 4.4%

North Central Southeastern South Central

Region Region Region Western Region

Chicago Miami Dallas Los Angeles

SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA

Table 1

Age at Time of Admission to Federally Funded Drug Treatment

Programs, 1978 (Regional Drug Situation Analysis)

5.8% 21.2% 5.5% 5.0%

34.5% 39.5% 39.5% 36.0%

55.4% 35.3% 50.1% 52.8%

4.3% 4.0% 5.0% 6.3%
Table 2

Average Number of Drug-Related Deaths per Quarter by Drug and

Region, 1978 (Regional Drug Situation Analysis)

Northeast North Central Southeastern South Central Western

Boston New York Chicago Detroit Atlanta Wash. D.C. Dallas Denver Los Angeles San Francisco

Nationwide SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA SMSA

Heroin 142 2 1 5 20 14 1.5 2 2.0 .5 41 16

Cocaine 11 -- -- 0.8 0 .25 .25 -- .8 -- .8

Hallucinogens 20 2 .3 2.3 .8 0 0 -- -- 7.8 1.8

Stimulants 67 4 6 4.5 1.3 1 3 2.0 2.0 14 8

Depressants 406 12 50 -- -- 5.5 -- -- -- -- --

* -- indicates no listing for that drug type, or no deaths for that drug type.
Data/Results. In 1979, 3,590 drug abuse treatment units participated in the

survey, which represented 94.7 percent of all known drug treatment

facilities. The data related to the number of drug abusers are summarized

below.

There were 202,689 clients in treatment as of April 30, 1979. This

represented a utilization rate of 85.4 percent of the budgeted

treatment slots.

Between 1977 and 1978, clients in treatment decreased by 9

percent and the utilization rate dropped 2.0 percentage points.

Between 1978 and 1979, the utilization rate dropped 3.6

percentage points.

Limitations of the Data Base. Although these data can provide some

general trends, they are limited in their usefulness for estimating the

number of drug users nationally.

As with all treatment data, the numbers reflect a unique subpopulation of

drug abusers--those who seek treatment. From these data, there is no way

to estimate the number of users who have neither elected to nor been

forced to participate in a treatment program. Also, the NDATUS data are

not presented by type of drug problem, a factor which is critical to making

estimates of the number of youthful users and the services they might

need. Thirdly, the data are not organized according to any demographic

features of the clients. Therefore, projections for specific subpopulations

become impossible.

II. SURVEY DATA

Because nonmedical drug use is of concern to individuals in many walks of

life, a host of studies have been conducted to investigate the problem.

Often these studies are undertaken by State or local agencies or by school

systems. While data gathered by these studies can be extremely useful for

monitoring the level of drug use in a particular locale, national estimates

cannot be based on these figures. Therefore, this report will consider only

surveys of national scope.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has sponsored several nationwide

surveys in the past decade. This section will discuss those surveys

conducted by NIDA which have focused on special groups of respondents

(e.g., young men or high school students). The series known as the National

Household Surveys will be the topic of the section that follows.

1. Young Men and Drugs--A Nationwide Survey

Description. A landmark study was Young Men and Drugs--A Nationwide

Survey (O’Donnell et al. 1976). Data on the nonmedical use of psychoactive

drugs was collected in 1974 and 1975 on men aged 20 to 30 years. This study

had three characteristics that no previous study combined:

The sample was representative of the general population rather

than of clinical or other special populations.

24
All of the commonly used psychoactive drugs were studied in a

standard framework, to allow comparisons between drugs in

patterns and correlates of use.

Detailed information on the correlates and consequences of drug

use were collected.

Respondents and Sampling. Data for this study were collected from October

1974 to May 1975 by personal interviews with 2,510 men out of an original

sample of 3,024. The study was designed so that data would be

representative of all men in the general population who were 20 to 30 years

old, inclusive, in 1974. The survey utilized a multistage stratified random

sample from Selective Service lists maintained by local Selective Service

Boards. By this method, all young men in the U. S. registered with Selective

Service had a known chance to be selected.

Drugs Investigated. Nine classes of drugs were investigated in this study:

tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, psychedelics, stimulants, sedative-hypnotics,

heroin, other opiates, and cocaine.

Information Collected. The core of the interviews conducted for this survey

related to past and current drug use. The questionnaire included a series of

screening questions to determine which drugs had been used, and how often.

These were followed by detailed questions about drugs used ten times or

more. The interview also covered a variety of demographic characteristics

(e.g., education, religion, criminal behavior, occupation).

In addition, there were two brief self-administered questionnaires to obtain

factual data and some indicators of attitudes and values.

Data/Results. The data from this survey show that:

Larger proportions of men in the younger cohorts than in the older

used all drugs with the exception of alcohol and tobacco.

Median age at onset of use was lower in the younger than in the

older cohorts.

Age is inversely related to drug use.

By the best estimates available,

More than 1,000,000 men in the 20-30 year age range had used

heroin, over 2,500,000 had used cocaine, and more than 10,000,000

had used marijuana.

Of the men interviewed, 38.2 percent were currently (1974-1975)

using marijuana.

Men were more likely to continue using alcohol and marijuana

once they began using them than they were the other drugs.

2 5
Of the men interviewed, 49 percent of those born in 1954 were

currently (1974-1975) using marijuana, while only 19 percent of

those born in 1945 were currently using marijuana.

Limitations of the Data Base. This data base is limited for a number of

reasons. First, it was intentionally limited to young men. Second, it was

limited in its use of Selective Service lists; it excluded men who enlisted

before age 18 and stayed in the service beyond age 26 (they were not

required to register), as well as any men who simply failed to register. In

addition, as the authors pointed out, much of the analysis of these data

consisted of comparisons of one part of the sample with another, although

there was no basis to assume that all parts of the sample were

representative of the corresponding parts of the population because the

sample had not been stratified.

2. Drugs and American Youth

Description. This study was begun in 1966 to examine the changing

lifestyles, values and preferences of American youth on a continuous basis.

A panel of 2,200 young men were followed for 3-1/2 years, from the fall of

their tenth grade year to the spring of their first year out of high school. A

second phase of the study involved surveys of male high school seniors

between 1969 and 1974. Drug questions were included beginning in 1970.

Then, in 1975, followup surveys were conducted with the entire class for five

separate years after graduation.

Respondents and Sampling. 1,798 males were tested in 1970. This

represented 71 percent of the original sample, which was drawn to be

representative of the national population of boys who were starting tenth

grade in public high schools in the continental United States in the fall of

1966.

Drugs Investigated. Drugs included in the survey were: alcohol, marijuana

(including hashish), amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, and hallucinogens.

Information Collected: For each drug class listed above, the following

questions were asked:

How many of your friends would you estimate use the drug?

How often have you done this during part or all of the last year

for other than medical reasons?

Previous to this past year (that is, before last summer), how often

had you done this for other than medical reasons?

Additionally, opinions were gathered on the use of various drugs, and on the

availability of various drugs.

Data/Results. Although 29 percent of the original sample were not

interviewed in this study, the authors conclude that the “population

estimates of such things as drug use were probably changed very little due

to panel attrition.”

26
Pertinent results for the 1970 data are as follows:

Twenty-one percent had used marijuana sometime in the past.

For other drugs, usage at sometime in the past ranged from 1.8

percent for heroin to 7 percent for hallucinogens.

Thirty-four percent had used marijuana during the year just after

high school graduation.

For other drugs, 2.2 percent had used heroin in the past year and

11.4 percent had used hallucinogens.

Limitations of the Data Base. Although these data appeared to be

comprehensive, their usefulness for making national predictions was limited

in several ways. First, there was the problem of attrition and its relation to

drug usage. By comparing the remaining sample and the original sample the

authors concluded this was not a problem. However, there was evidence to

indicate that dropouts were underrepresented in the sample and it was

difficult to know how their drug use patterns may have differed from the

in-school sample.

The other limitations of the data base have been discussed earlier so only

will be mentioned here. The age range was limited. Geographic dispersion

was not assured. Finally, the drug data were not available for more than

one year.

3. Drug Use Among American High School Students 1975-1977; Drugs and

the Class of ‘78: Behaviors, Attitudes, and Recent National Trends;

and Drugs and the Nation’s High School Students Five-Year National

Trends

Description. All three of these reports (Johnston et al. 1977; Johnston et al.

1979a; Johnston et al. 1979b) are products of the project, Monitoring the

Future: A Continuing Study of the Lifestyles and Values of Youth. This

study was conducted by the University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research. These three reports present data, respectively, on the graduating

classes of 1975 through 1977; the graduating classes of 1975 through 1978; and

the graduating classes of 1975 through 1979. Each of these reports presents

data on the following general topics

Current prevalence of drug use among high school seniors;

Trends in drug use since 1975;

Grade of first use;

Intensity of use;

Attitudes and beliefs regarding various types of drug use; and

Perceptions of certain relevant aspects of the social environment.

27
The general purpose of the Monitoring the Future study was to develop an

accurate picture of the current situation and trends of illicit drug use among

young Americans. This would, in turn, provide a rational basis for public

debate and formulation of policy. In order to determine the extent of

involvement with drugs, this study focused attention on higher frequency

levels rather than on proportions of respondents who had “ever used” drugs.

Respondents and Sampling. The same data collection and sampling

procedures were used for all five years. Data were collected from high

school seniors in the spring of each year, beginning with the graduating class

of 1975. Approximately 125 public and private high schools were selected to

provide a cross-section of high school seniors.

It should be noted that each sampled school (except for half in 1975) was

asked to participate in two data collections. This permitted replacement of

half of the total sample of schools each year. The advantages of this were

increased administrative efficiency and the ability to determine whether

appreciable shifts in scores from one graduating class to the next were

attributable to differences in the newly sampled schools.

Within each selected school, up to 400 seniors could be included in the data

collection. In schools with fewer than 400 seniors the usual procedure was

to include all seniors. In larger schools a subset of seniors was selected

either by randomly sampling classrooms or by some other random method.

Sample weights were assigned to each respondent to take into account

variations in the size of the sample from school to school as well as

variations in selection probability occurring at earlier sampling stages. The

response rate over the five years averaged 79 percent.

Drugs Investigated. Eleven classes of drugs were distinguished for purposes

of this study: marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, natural

and synthetic opiates other than heroin, stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers,

alcohol, and cigarettes. In making their responses, students were asked to

exclude usage of these drugs under medical supervision.

Information Collected. Data were collected by means of five different

questionnaire forms, distributed in an ordered sequence which ensured five

virtually identical subsamples. One-third of each of the five questionnaire

forms consisted of key or core variables common to all forms; all

demographic variables and nearly all drug use variables were included in

these core variables.

Data/Results. Data resulting from this study include the following:

In 1977, 61.6 percent of the seniors reported using illicit drugs at

some time in their lives, as compared to 64.1 percent in 1978 and

65 percent in 1979. However, a substantial portion of all illicit

users (42 percent in 1977 and 43 percent in both 1978 and 1979)

have used only marijuana.

Roughly one-third of the seniors in 1977 through 1979 reported

using an illicit drug other than marijuana at some time.

28
Marijuana was by far the most widely used illicit drug--47

percent of the class of 1975, 59 percent of the class of 1978, and

60 percent of the class of 1979 reported some use in their lifetime.

Heroin was the most infrequently used drug; only 1.6 percent of

the sample in 1978 and 1.1 percent of the sample in 1979 admitted

to ever having used it.

In general,

Higher proportions of males than females were involved in drug

use, especially heavy drug use. However, nearly equal

proportions of males and females reported at least some illicit

use of drugs other than marijuana in the last year.

Between 1975 and 1979 there was only a small increase in the

proportion who used some illicit drug besides marijuana, with

lifetime prevalence rising only 1 percent (from 36 percent to 37

percent) between 1975 and 1979 and annual prevalence rising only

2 percent (from 26 percent to 28 percent).

Limitations of the Data Base. The two major biases inherent in this

methodology stem from the use of high school seniors and the

administration of the questionnaire in the classroom. As the authors note,

this methodology excluded both high school dropouts (15-20 percent of each

age cohort) and absentees. It is likely that both dropouts and students who

were regularly absent were more likely to be involved in drug use than the

remainder of the high school seniors. However, the authors note that this

bias would quite probably remain the same from year to year, thus not

affecting their trend data. In addition, it is important to note that the

sampling methodology utilized in this study increased the likelihood of

schools with larger senior classes being selected for data collection.

However, weights were assigned to respondents to minimize any bias

resulting from this sampling method.

III. THE NATIONAL SURVEY

The data base which appears to provide the most consistent source of drug

use data on youth and young adults is the National Survey conducted

between 1971 and 1977. There are five studies in this series.2 The first two

surveys were conducted for the National Commission on Marihuana and

Drug Abuse. The most recent three were conducted for the National

Institute on Drug Abuse. The five studies are entitled:

1) 1971 study: Public Attitudes Toward Marihuana.3 (Published in

1972.)

2) 1972 study: Drug Experience, Attitudes and Related Behavior

Among Adolescents and Adults. (Published in 1973.)

3) 1974 study: Public Experience with Psychoactive Substances.

(Published in 1975.)

29
4) 1976 study: Nonmedical Use of Psychoactive Substances.

(Published in 1976.)

5) 1977 study: National Survey on Drug Abuse. (Published in 1977.)

These surveys share several critical characteristics which contribute to

their utility for estimating drug use:

Data collection on the “at risk” 18-25 year age bracket;

Adequate and consistent sampling methodology;

Comparability of drugs investigated;

Comparability of question formats; and

Accessibility of detailed tabular data.

Each of the five studies is discussed below to demonstrate its adequacy as a

data base for projecting the number of drug users in the United States in

future years.

1. Public Attitudes Toward Marijuana

Description. The data from this 1971 survey were sought to provide a base

from which policy-relevant information could be gathered. The study was

planned to cover three aspects of the marijuana issue as well as selected

other substances: (1) attitudes, feelings, and beliefs relative to marijuana and

other substances, (2) knowledge of marijuana and other substances, and (3)

the relationship between attitudes, beliefs, and behavior and certain

explanatory variables.

Respondents and Sampling. A nationwide probability sample of youth (age

12-17) and adults (18 and older) was selected for this study and yielded 2,405

adults and 781 youth. The adult data were further subdivided into the

following age categories for analysis: 18-25, 26-34, 35-49, and 50 and over.

Young adults were considered to be particularly important for a drug use

study; therefore, young adults aged 18-34 were oversampled and adults over

age 35 were undersampled. The data were later weighted to compensate for

this oversampling.

Drugs Investigated. Data were collected on the following drugs: alcohol,

tobacco, marijuana, specific pills, cocaine, LSD, and heroin. However, the

emphasis of the study was on marijuana, not on other drugs.

Information Collected. Three different types of instruments were used in

this study:

A face-to-face structured interview for adults;

A self-administered questionnaire for adults to complete

following the interview; and

30
A self-administered questionnaire as the only instrument for the

youth sample.

The majority of questions in this study concerned attitudes and beliefs

about marijuana and selected other drugs. However, several

self-administered questions were asked about usage of various drugs. The

self-administered questionnaire also gathered detailed information on the

circumstances surrounding the respondents’ initial contact with and/or use

of marijuana. Table 3 depicts certain questions which could provide data on

the prevalence and incidence of drug usage.

Data/Results

Among adults, age 18 and older, 15 percent reported using

marijuana at some time. The comparable figure for youth, age

12-17, was 14 percent. Five percent of adults and 6 percent of

the 12-17 age group classified themselves as present users.

Highest experience levels: 39 percent of young adults, 18-25; 44

percent of college students. There was a rapid falloff in reported

usage after age 25.

2. Drug Experience, Attitudes and Related Behavior Among Adolescents

and Adults

Description. The 1972 survey drew heavily upon the earlier report (Public

Attitudes Toward Marihuana) in forming questions and in providing

background information about the drug abuse problem. As with the previous

survey the majority of questions were asked during a personal interview, but

some questions were self-administered.

Respondents and Sampling. The sampling strategy was the same as for the

1971 survey, with the exception that the sample was designed to oversample

the 18-29 age group. The number of adults interviewed was 2,411, and the

number of youth was 880.

Drugs Investigated. The following drugs were included in the survey:

tobacco; alcohol; ethical4 and proprietary5 tranquilizers, stimulants, and

sedatives; heroin; cocaine; LSD; marijuana; glue; and methadone (knowledge

only).

Information Collected. The questions asked in this survey covered admitted

drug behavior as well as attitudes and knowledge related to drugs. The

usage of pills was covered in the face-to-face interview, while the usage of

other drugs was covered in the self-administered questionnaire. Table 4,

below, presents those questions which are critical to estimating the amount

of youthful drug use and the specific drugs for which they were asked. Data

on pills were included only when used for nonmedical reasons.

Data/Results

Overall reported experience with marijuana was about the same

as in 1971, 16 percent of adults and 14 percent of young people

had had experience with it.

3 1
Questions

Table 3

1971 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific Drugs

Have you ever used (drug)? x x x x x x x x x x x

How old were you when you first

tried (drug)? x

On the average, about how often

do you use (drug) at the present

time? x

About how many of your friends

use (drug) at least once in a

while? x

x

During the past 30 days, on how

many days did you use (drug)?
Table 4

1972 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific Drugs

Questions

When was the first time that you x x x x x

tried (drug)? About how old

were you?

How often do you use (drug) at the x x

present time?

When was the most recent time you

used (drug)?

x x x x

About how long ago did you have x x

(drug) for the first time?

Ever tried (drug)? x x x x x x x x x x x

During past 7 days did you use x

(drug)?

*Data on pills are included only for nonmedical use.
Four percent of adults and 4 percent of youth used marijuana at

least once a week.

Of all respondent characteristics, age was most markedly related

to marijuana experience. Consumption peaked during ages 18-2 1.

(55 percent of that group had had marijuana experience) and

dropped off rapidly after that.

Trials of other substances were reported as follows:

Adults Youths

LSD/other

Hallucinogen 4.6% 4.8%

Glue/inhalants 2.1% 6.4%

Cocaine 3.2% 1.5%

Heroin 1.3% .6%

3. Public Experience with Psychoactive Substances

Description. The 1974 survey included some of the same questions asked in

the earlier surveys, and at the same time expanded its coverage of patterns

of drug use. As with the previous surveys, a combination of

interviewer-administered and self-administered questionnaires was

employed.

Respondents and Sampling. As with the previous surveys, the youth and

adult respondents were selected on the basis of a nationwide probability

sample. In this survey, a slightly larger age range (18-34) was oversampled

compared to the oversampling of the 18-29 age range in the 1972 survey.

The number of respondents interviewed in the adult category was 3,071 and

the number of youths was 952.

Drugs Investigated. The following drugs were included in this survey:

tobacco; alcohol; ethical and proprietary sedatives, tranquilizers and

stimulants; marijuana; hashish; heroin; cocaine, methadone; LSD; and opium.

Information Collected. The data collection covered both attitude and drug

behavior items. Sensitive behavioral questions were self-administered to

increase the perceived anonymity of the response. Less threatening

questions, including attitudes and some behaviors, were included in the

questionnaire administered by the interviewer. The self-administered

questions covered the patterns of drug use engaged in by the sample

respondents. Certain of these questions are critical for estimating the

amount of drug use occurring during that period. Table 5 presents a list of

critical questions and the drugs about which they were asked. This table

includes those drugs covered in the self-administered section as well as the

interviewer-administered section.

Data/Results

The public had had more experience with marijuana than with any

of the other psychoactive drugs studied. Nearly one adult in five

(19 percent) and more than one young person in five (23 percent)

reported ever having used marijuana. This represented a slight

34
Table 5

1974 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific Drugs

Questions

About how long ago was the first x x x x x x x x x x x x

time you tried (drug)?

When was most recent time you x x x x x x x x x x x x x

used (drug)?

During the last month, how many x x x x x x x x x x x x x

days did you use (drug)?

Previous month, how many days x x x x x x x x X x x x

did you use (drug)?

Likely to use (drug) again? x x x x x x x x x x x x

Ever use (drug)? x x x x x x x x x X x x x x
increase for the adult population, and a marked increase among

the 12-17 age group.

Under half of the adults who had tried marijuana were current

users (7 percent), while 12 percent of youth were current users.

Among the drugs studied, experience with psychotherapeutic

drugs was next in incidence to marijuana, with 13 percent of the

adult public and 10 percent of the young people reporting some

nonmedical experience with an over-the-counter or prescription

sedative, tranquilizer, or stimulant.

The use of marijuana, whether measured in terms of those who

had ever tried it or those who were current users, showed strong

age relationships. In each instance, people aged 18-25 formed the

highest use cohort.

4. Nonmedical Use of Psychoactive Substances

Description. The 1976 survey consisted of two parts, a personal interview

and a self-administered questionnaire. The study is sometimes referred to

as the 1975-76 study.

Respondents and Sampling. The sampling procedure remained the same;

however, those individuals in the 18-34 age group were oversampled because

they were considered to be the most likely to provide drug use data. The

number of adults interviewed was 2,590 and the number of youths was 986.

An increased emphasis was placed on the 18-25 age grouping and all

important data were presented for this group individually. Therefore, data

are available on the following groups of individuals

Males/females 18-25;

Whites/nonwhites 18-25;

Not high school graduate/high school graduate/some college/not

college graduate/college graduate/college student 18-25; and

Large metropolitan area/other metropolitan

area/nonmetropolitan area 18-25.

Drugs Investigated. The following drugs were included in the survey:

tobacco; caffeine; alcohol; proprietary sedatives, stimulants, and

tranquilizers; barbiturates; sedatives; marijuana; hashish; glue/inhalants;

cocaine; LSD/hallucinogens; PCP/Angel Dust; heroin; methadone; and opium.

Information Collected. The questions asked in this survey can be grouped

into two categories factual or attitudinal questions, and behavior questions.

Table 6 presents questions asked about use of specific drugs.

36
Table 6

1976 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Drugs Used for

Nonmedical Purposes

Questions

Have you ever used (drug)? x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

About how long ago was the first x x x x x x x x x x x x

time you took (drug)?

About how long ago was the most

recent time you took (drug)?

x x x x x x x x x x x x

During past month, on about how

many different days did you use

(drug)?

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Previous month?

Are you likely to use (drug) for

nonmedical reasons again?

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

When it comes to using (this drug)

do you think of yourself as a

x x x x x x x x x x x x

regular user or only an occasional

user?

Just roughly, how many times in

your life have you used (drug)?

x
Data/Results

Among youth (12-17) more than one in five (22.4 percent)

reported having used marijuana, and more than half of these (12.3

percent) reported current use, meaning in the past month. For

adults (age 18 and over) the prevalence rate (21.3 percent ever

used) was similar to that of youth, but adult current use rate was

substantially lower at 8.0 percent.

Among the adult public, young adults between ages 18 and 25 had

more experience with marijuana than older adults, age 26 and

over. In fact, more than half the young adults had used

marijuana while about one in eight older adults had used it.

Those age 18 through 25 also had higher current use rates. Fully

one in four in this age group were current users compared to one

in twenty-five older adults.

5. National Survey on Drug Abuse: 1977

Description. The majority of the questions in the 1977 survey have

remained the same from the previous year, to facilitate comparisons.

Respondents and Sampling. In this survey 1,272 youths and 3,322 adults

were selected for the sample. The sampling procedure remained the same

and included an oversampling of 18-25 year-olds.

Drugs Investigated. Alcohol; tobacco; proprietary sedatives, stimulants, and

tranquilizers; methadone; heroin; opium; marijuana; cocaine; LSD or other

hallucinogens; and glue or other inhalants were all investigated.

Information Collected. This survey included three types of questions:

factual and attitudinal: nominative: and behavioral. The factual and

attitudinal questions primarily covered familiarity with various drugs and

opinions about marijuana.

The nominative technique was developed to provide additional information

about heroin use. Since the reported levels of heroin use in a population are

so small (.5 percent- 1.4 percent), it was considered necessary to gather as

much information relative to heroin use from the sampled groups as

possible. Therefore, in addition to asking the respondent directly about his

or her own heroin use, he or she was asked to report on the heroin use (if

any) of close friends.

As a partial cross-check on the heroin use data, the respondents were also

asked to indicate how many of their friends knew for sure that they had

used heroin.

The third type of data collected was behavioral. Table 7 lists those

questions which provide estimates of the amount of drug use which was

occurring in the population.

38
Table 7

1977 Survey: Critical Questions Asked About Specific Drugs

Question

Have you ever used (drug)? x x x x

How much (drug) daily? x

About how long ago was the first x x x

time you took (drug)?

About how long ago was the most x x x

recent time you took (drug)?

During the past month, on about x x x

how many different days did you

use (drug)?

When it comes to using (this drug) x x x

do you think of yourself as a

regular user or only an occasional

user, or a non-user?

Just roughly, about how many times x x x x

in your life have you used (drug)?

With (drug) tried first, second, x x x x

etc.?

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x
Data/Results

More than one-fourth (28.2 percent) of youth (age 12-17)

reported marijuana experience and about one-sixth (16.1 percent)

reported current use (in past month). For adults (age 18 and over)

the lifetime prevalence rate (24.5 percent) was somewhat lower

than that of youth, and current use (8.2 percent) was half of that

reported by 12-17 year-olds.

It is important to note that marijuana experience was strongly

related to age and that the highest prevalence was found in 18-25

year-olds. Of this age group, six in ten had used marijuana,

compared to fewer than two in ten adults 26 and over.

Young adults also reported greater lifetime prevalence in the use

of hallucinogens, with 19.8 percent reporting use at some time as

compared to 2.6 percent of older adults.

Use of a drug “stronger” than marijuana (and/or hashish) was

reported by about one in four young adults, one in ten youth, and

one in twenty-five older adults.

6. An Index of the Number of Drug Abusers in States and Major Urban

Areas

Description. This study was conducted in 1975 based on the 1972 data

collected for Drug Experience, Attitudes and Related Behavior Among

Adolescents and Adults. The purpose of this study was to provide data on

drug abuse for geographic units smaller than the whole U.S. The national

surveys discussed earlier provide reasonably good estimates of the- number

of abusers in the total U.S. population; however, the structure of the

sampling plan does not allow for State-by-State estimates with the same

level of precision. The procedure of the current study involved considering

factors which were related to drug use (e.g., age, region of the country,

education) and estimating the number of drug users in each State based on

the number of individuals having had each of the critical characteristics.

Respondents and Sampling. The entire sample of adults (2,411) in the 1972

survey were used in this study. In addition, a subsample of 418 youth (12-17

years) were selected. This subsample represented all youth who were

interviewed in a household where an adult also had been interviewed.

Drug Investigated. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, and volatile

substances were investigated. These drugs were investigated individually

as well as grouped as follows: one or more illegal substances; nonmedical

use of ethical sedatives, tranquilizers, or stimulants; nonmedical use of one

or more psychotropic drugs (sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants); one or

more illegal substances and/or medical use of psychotropic drugs.

Two risk factors were also included in this study: ever used and current use

(within the past year).

Data/Results. A regression analysis was conducted to predict usage of

specific drugs according to certain demographic and locational

40
characteristics. Marijuana was the drug for which the constellation of

characteristics predicted best. Roughly 27 percent of the variance in

marijuana usage (ever used) was accounted for by the following variables:

(age/education, sex, race/ethnic group, family income, community type,

region, and percent of population in college dormitories). The strongest

predictor appeared to be whether the individual was between 18-24 years

old and a student. Usage of drugs other than marijuana was predicted much

less successfully.

Once the regression coefficients had been calculated, it was a simple

matter to apply them to specific State data, add up all of the weighted

predictors, and adjust for State population to provide an estimate of State

drug use.

Summary

The foregoing studies were reviewed to judge their adequacy as data bases

for estimating the number of youthful drug users in the population. Several

factors were considered in assessing each study’s potential usefulness for

making projections, including: the respondents selected for study, the

sampling methodology used, the drugs investigated, and the information

collected. Based on these factors the following conclusions were derived.

Treatment-oriented data bases have one major advantage: the data are

collected routinely every year. However, these data bases are not adequate

for estimating youthful drug abuse for several reasons.

The respondents are self-selected and represent a unique

subpopulation of drug users.

Geographical representation is not assured.

Generally, published data are not reported with the level of detail

necessary for our estimates (e.g., age, race, or sex of user).

Therefore, although some of these data could possibly be used to

corroborate drug use trends, they cannot be the basis from which the

estimates will be derived.

Also considered as data sources for the drug use estimates were those

high-quality surveys which investigated young adults and were national in

scope. Those studies described in this review all contained sound sampling

methodologies which made them warrant further attention. However,

there were several reasons why, as a group, these studies were not suitable

for prediction purposes:

Generally, the studies were one-shot endeavors. Therefore, it was

impossible to use the data for developing trends.

The one study that was continued over a period of time did not

investigate the full age range of interest.

The drugs investigated and the information collected were not

consistent from study to study.

4 1
The five national surveys conducted by the National Commission on

Marihuana and the National Institute on Drug Abuse shared certain

characteristics which make them most suitable for predicting future drug

use.

These surveys have maintained essentially the same format over the

nine-year period that they cover. They have used similar sampling

methodologies, drug classes, and wording of questions. The sampling

methodology used has consistently been a sound one which has yielded

reliable and valid results. Also, the sampling frame has adequately covered

the major geographical areas of the United States. Another factor which

makes these studies particularly useful is that generally, in the analyses,

they highlight the age range of interest, 18-25 years.

There are some inconsistencies from year to year which make it impossible

to compare all drug classes or all types of information for every year in

which a study was conducted. Even with these problems, however, the 1976

and 1977 surveys, in particular, provide a wealth of data with which to

estimate the number of 18-25 year-old drug users in the future.

The following chapter presents projections of drug abuse for young adults in

1985, 1990, and 1995.

FOOTNOTES

1

 References in this chapter appear in the list of Drug Abuse Data Sources

which begins on page 79.

2

 A sixth survey in this series was conducted in 1979. However, the data

are not included in this review.

3

 Please note: while “marijuana” is the accepted form of the word, the

spelling may change in the course of this report in order to preserve the

form used in the reference cited.

4

 Ethical drugs require a prescription.

5

 Proprietary drugs can be purchased without a prescription.

42
Chapter 4

Projections of Drug Abuse

INTRODUCTION

The data base which provides the most consistent source of drug abuse

information on young adults is the National Survey conducted between 1971

and 1977. This major data base consists of five individual surveys. The first

two surveys (1971 and 1972) were conducted by the National Commission on

Marihuana and Drug Abuse. The most recent surveys (1974, 1976, 1977)

were conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.1 The 1976 and

1977 surveys report various measures of drug abuse for young adults 18-25

years old. Since this age group is the focus of this study, the projections

presented herein are based on an analysis of 1976 and 1977 survey data.

Several drugs were investigated by both the 1976 and 1977 surveys

marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, and other opiates.

Data on 18-25 year-olds were reported for all these drug categories. In

addition, the 1974 survey reported estimates of marijuana use for 18-25

year-olds. However, the projections of drug abuse presented herein are

based only on the 1976-1977 survey data.

Three different measures of drug abuse were used consistently in the 1976

and 1977 surveys for all the drugs mentioned above:

Lifetime prevalence;

Current use, i.e., use in past month; and

Type of user as reported by respondent, i.e., regular or occasional

user.

The 1976 and 1977 survey data for each drug category and 1974 data for

marijuana are presented in the following sections along with projections of

drug abuse for 1985, 1990, and 1995.

MARIJUANA2

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 60.3 percent of young adults 22-25 years of age admitted to having

used marijuana at some period in their lives; 56.8 percent of the 18-21

year-olds admitted to having used marijuana. Table 1 presents the

corresponding figures for 1976 and 1974 and the percentage change over

time for the three years reported.

43
Table 1

Percent of Young Adults Who Had Used Marijuana:

1974, 1976, and 1977 Surveys, with Changes

Year 18-21 Year-Olds 22-25 Year-Olds

1974 52.8% 47.2%

1976 50.4% 51.6%

1977 56.8% 60.3%

1974-1977 Change

1974-1976 Change

1976-1977 Change

+4.0% +13.1%

-2.4% +4.4%

+6.4% +8.7%

Table 2 presents population projections for young adults in 1985, 1990, and

1995. We used a straight-line approach, based on 1977 reported rates, to

project lifetime prevalence of marijuana for these age groups. The

straight-line approach involves multiplying the most recent reported

prevalence rate (i.e., 60.3 percent as reported in 1977) by the projected

population for various subgroups in 1985, 1990, and 1995. The product of

this arithmetic exercise is a set of projections estimating how many young

adults in various subgroups will admit to using marijuana in 1985, 1990, and

1995; in other words, we calculated the estimates presented in table 3 as

follows:

.568 (reported prevalence of marijuana use for 18-21 year-olds in 1977) x

15,442,000 (projected population of 18-21 year-olds in 1985) =

8,772,000 (projected number of 18-21 year-olds in 1985 who

will admit to using marijuana).

Using this same approach for 1985, we can estimate that 9,886,000

individuals 22-25 years old will admit to some use of marijuana. Estimates

for 1977 and projections of reported lifetime prevalence for 1985, 1990, and

1995 are presented in table 3.

In 1976 and 1977 the National Institute on Drug Abuse also measured

lifetime prevalence of marijuana use among several subgroups of young

adults including females, males, whites, nonwhites, and young adults living

in large metropolitan, other metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan areas.

Table 4 presents the percentage of young adults within each subgroup

admitting to having used marijuana at some point in their lives.

44
Table 2

Projections of Young Adult Populations for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Year 18-21 Year-Olds 22-25 Year-Olds

1985 15,442* 16,566

1990 14,506 14,491

1995 12,995 13,820

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Table 3

Number of Young Adults Who Had Used Marijuana, 1977 Survey,

and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Year 18-21 Year-Olds 22-25 Year-Olds

1977 9,632* 9,261

1985 8,772 9,989

1990 8,239 8,738

1995 7,381 8,333

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Table 4

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Marijuana: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups o f Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

43.6% 54.4%

59.8% 64.5%

53.6% 60.1%

46.3% 54.4%

58.1% 62.7%

57.5% 63.2%

36.2% 47.8%

45
Multiplying the 1977 prevalence rates by the population projections of these

subgroups of young adults (see appendix A), we can project the number of

young adults (18-25) in various subgroups who did admit to having used

marijuana in 1977 and who will admit to its use in 1985, 1990 and 1995.

Table 5

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Marijuana, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990,

and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 8,845* 8,652 7,833 7,229

Males 10,633 10,386 9,416 8,724

Whites 16,971 16,090 14,320 13,036

Nonwhites 2,633 2,849 2,805 2,706

Large Metropolitan Residents 7,947 7,767 7,036 6,506

Other Metropolitan Residents 6,231 6,089 5,516 5,101

Nonmetropolitan Residents 4,881 4,773 4,324 3,999

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on 1977 prevalence rates.

Use in Past Month

In 1977, 30.4 percent of the 18-21 year-olds and 24.2 percent of the 22-25

year-olds reported use of marijuana within the past month. Reported

current use of marijuana for 1974-1977 is presented in table 6.

Table 6

Percent of Young Adults Using Marijuana Currently: 1974, 1976

and 1977 Surveys, with Change

Year 18-21 Year-Olds 22-25 Year-Olds

1974 30.3% 20.4%

1976 25.6% 25.7%

1977 30.4% 24.2%

1976-1977 Change +4.8% -1.5%

46
Using a level straight-line approach to projecting current use in the future,

we can estimate that in 1985 approximately 4,694,000 18-21 year-olds and

4,009,000 22-25 year-olds will be current marijuana users. Projections of

current use in 1985, 1990, and 1995 are presented in table 7.

Table 7

Projections of Young Adults Using Marijuana Currently,

for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Year 18-21 Year-Olds

1985 4,694*

1990 4,410

1995 3,950

22-25 Year-Olds

4,009

3,507

3,344

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

In 1976 and 1977 the National Institute on Drug Abuse also measured

current use of marijuana for various subgroups of young adults (see table 8).

Table 8

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups

Using Marijuana Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

19.6% 20.8%

31.4% 35.1%

26.3% 20.4%

23.8% 24.1%

29.5% 32.0%

29.6% 29.5%

15.6% 18.1%

47
Table 9 presents estimates of the number of young adults in various

subgroups who admitted to being current users of marijuana in 1977 and

who will admit to current use in 1985, 1990, and 1995.

Table 9

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 Using Marijuana Currently,

1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 3,382* 3,308

Males

2,995 2,766

5,786 5,652

Whites

5,124 4,747

7,925 7,603

Nonwhites

6,771 6,160

1,166 1,262 1,243

Large Metropolitan Residents

1,234

4,056 3,964

Other Metropolitan Residents

3,591 3,321

2,908 2,842

Nonmetropolitan Residents

2,575 2,381

1,848 1,807 1,638 1,514

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Type of User

In previous NIDA surveys, respondents described themselves as regular

users, occasional users, or nonusers with respect to marijuana. Table 10

identifies the percentage of 18-21 and 22-25 year-olds describing

themselves as regular or occasional users in 1974-1977.

Table 10

Percent of Young Adults Using Marijuana Regularly or

Occasionally: 1974, 1976, and 1977 Surveys, with Change

Year

18-21 Year-Old 22-25 Year-Old

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

1974 10.8% 27.0% 6.7% 21.6%

1976 6.9% 22.3% 6.5% 27.4%

1977 13.0% 23.7% 10.7% 22.6%

1976-1977 Change +6.1% +1.4% +4.2% -4.8%

48
Using a level straight-line approach to projecting type of use in the future,

we can estimate that in 1985 approximately 2,008,000 individuals 18-21

years old and 1,754,000 individuals 22-25 years old will describe themselves

as regular marijuana users. Estimates for 1977 and projections for 1985,

1990, and 1995 are presented in table 11.

Table 11

Number of Young Adults Using Mariiuana Regularly or

Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and Projections for

1985, 1990, and 1995

Year

18-21 Year-Olds 22-25 Year-Olds

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

1977 2,204* 4,019 1,643 3,471

1985 2,007 3,660 1,773 3,744

1990 1,886 3,438 1,551 3,275

1995 1,689 3,080 1,479 3,123

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

In 1976 and 1977 the National Institute on Drug Abuse also estimated the

percentage of young adults in various subgroups who were regular or

occasional users of marijuana (see table 12).

Table 12

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Marijuana Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroup

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan

Residents

Other Metropolitan

Residents

Nonmetropolitan

Residents

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

4.4% 20.2%

8.9%

29.2% 7.0%

21.3%

25.8%

26.2% 12.2% 23.7%

6.5% 20.2% 10.5% 22.0%

10.7% 24.8% 13.7% 25.0%

6.2% 30.4% 12.4% 27.1%

3.5% 15.8% 8.2% 15.1%

49
Using the 1977 data as the basis for projecting use, we can estimate the

number of young adults who will admit to being regular or occasional users

of marijuana in 1977 and the number who will admit to this behavior in

1985, 1990, and 1995 (table 13).

Table 13

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Marijuana Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroup

1977 1985 1990 1995

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Females 1,138* 3,463 1,113 3,388 1,008 3,067 930 2,830

Males 2,819 4,253 2,754 4,155 2,496 3,767 2,313 3,489

Whites 3,404 6,613 3,266 6,345 2,909 5,650 2,646 5,141

Nonwhites 508 1,065 550 1,152 541 1,135 538 1,127

Large Metropolitan

Residents 1,736 3,169 1,697 3,097 1,537 2,806 1,422 2,594

Other Metropolitan

Residents 1,223 2,672 1,195 2,611 1,082 2,365 1,001 2,187

Nonmetropolitan

Residents 837 1,542 819 1,508 742 1,366 686 1,263

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on 1977 prevalence rates.

INHALANTS3

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 10.8 percent of young adults surveyed by the National Institute on

Drug Abuse admitted to having used inhalants at some time in the past.

Applying this figure to population projections for young adults, we can

estimate that 3,457,000 million young adults will admit to having used

inhalants in 1985. The corresponding estimates for 1990 and 1995,

respectively, are 3,132,000 and 2,896,000.

Using prevalence rates reported in 1977 with a level straight-line projection

technique, we can estimate the number of young adults who will have used

inhalants in the future. Table 14 presents the 1976 and 1977 reported

prevalence rates and table 15 presents estimates of the number of young

adults in various subgroups who admitted to having used inhalants in 1977

and who will admit to their use in 1985, 1990, and 1995.

50
Table 14

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used

Inhalants: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

5.6%

9.9%

8.3%

5.1%

10.8%

8.3%

3.7%

8.0%

14.4%

11.2%

10.7%

10.7%

13.7%

7.1%

Table 15

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used

Inhalants, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 1,301* 1,272 1,152 1,063

Males 2,374 2,319 2,102 1,948

Whites 3,125 2,998 2,670 2,429

Nonwhites 518 560 552 548

Large Metropolitan Residents 1,356 1,325 1,201 1,110

Other Metropolitan Residents 1,351 1,320 1,196 1,106

Nonmetropolitan Residents 725 709 642 594

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Use in Past Month

A very small percentage of young adults admitted to current use of

inhalants in 1976, and in 1977 this percentage dropped below one percent.

Using the 1977 reported figures (table 16), we can project the number of

young adults, in various subgroups, who did admit to being current users of

inhalants in 1977 and who will admit to current use in 1985, 1990, and 1995

(table 17). In 1985 the number of current young adult users of inhalants is

projected to be approximately 16 1,000.

51
Table 16

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 Using Inhalants Currently:

1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

.3%

1.0% .5%

.5% .3%

.4%

.6% .4%

1.1% .3%

Table 17

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Inhalants Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985,

1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females

Males 82* 81 73 68

Whites 84 80 72 65

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents 51 50 45 42

Other Metropolitan Residents 30 29 26 24

Nonmetropolitan Residents -

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Type of User

In the 1977 NIDA survey, 1.6 percent of young adults surveyed described

themselves as occasional users of inhalants; no young adults surveyed

reported regular use of inhalants. Using the 1977 data (table 18), we can

project the number of young adult occasional users in various subgroupings

(table 19). In 1985, the number of young adult users who will describe

themselves as occasional users is projected to be approximately 512,000.

52
Table 18

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Inhalants Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroup

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan

Residents

Other Metropolitan

Residents

Nonmetropolitan

Residents

-

.3%

-

-

.6%

-

-

.3% -

1.4% -

.8% -

1.5% -

1.4% -

.7% -

.7% -

.8%

2.4%

1.9%

-

.7%

2.8%

.9%

Table 19

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Inhalants Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroup

1977 1985 1990 1995

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Females - 130* - 127 - 115 - 106

Males 396 - 386 - 350 - 325

Whites

-

531 - 509 - 453 - 412

Nonwhites

-

Large Metropoli-

- - - - - - - -

tan Residents - 89 - 87 - 79 - 73

Other Metropolitan Residents - 276 - 270 - 244 - 226

Nonmetropolitan

Residents - 92 - 90 - 81 - 75

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on 1977 prevalence rates.

HALLUCINOGENS4

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 19.4 percent of young adults surveyed by the National Institute on

Drug Abuse admitted to having used hallucinogens at some time in the past.

Applying this figure to population projections for young adults, we can

project that 6,209,000 young adults will admit to having used hallucinogens

in 1985. The corresponding projections for 1990 and 1995, respectively, are

5,626,000 and 5,202,000

53
Using prevalence rates reported in 1977 with a level straight-line projection

technique, we can project the number of young adults in various subgroups,

who will have used hallucinogens in the future. Table 20 presents the 1976

and 1977 reported prevalence rates and table 21 presents projections of the

number of young adults in various subgroups who did admit to having used

hallucinogens in 1977 and who will admit to their use in 1985, 1990 and 1995.

Table 20

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Hallucinogens: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

14.8% 14.4%

19.2% 25.6%

7.9% 21.3%

7.9% 11.6%

18.7% 19.8%

20.8% 23.8%

9.9% 13.2%

Table 21

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Hallucinogens, 1977 and Survey, Projections for 1985,

1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 2,341* 2,290 2,073 1,914

Males 4,220 4,122 3,737 3,462

Whites 5,944 5,702 5,078 4,620

Nonwhites 561 607 598 574

Large Metropolitan Residents 2,509 2,453 2,222 2,055

Other Metropolitan Residents 2,346 2,293 2,077 1,921

Nonmetropolitan Residents 1,348 1,318 1,194 1,104

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

54
Use in Past Month

Less than two percent of the female young adults and three percent of the

male young adults admitted to current use of hallucinogens in 1976 and 1977

(table 22). Using the 1977 reported figures, we can project the number of

young adults, in various subgroups, who did admit to being current users of

hallucinogens in 1977 and who will admit to current use in 1985, 1990 and

1995 (table 23). In 1985 the number of current young adult users of

hallucinogens is projected to be approximately 706,000.

Table 22

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used

Hallucinogens 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

1.2% 1.4%

2.3% 3.0%

1.8% 2.1%

1.9%

1.2% 2.4%

2.5% 2.0%

1.0% 1.7%

Table 23

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Hallucinogens Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985,

1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 228* 223 202 186

Males 495 483 438 406

Whites 586 562 501 456

Nonwhites 9 2 100 9 8 97

Large Metropolitan Residents 304 297 269 249

Other Metropolitan Residents 197 193 175 161

Nonmetropolitan Residents 74 170 154 142

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Type of User

In the 1977 NIDA survey, 7.0 percent of young adults described themselves

as occasional users of hallucinogens; less than one percent described

55

349-353 0 - 81 - 5
themselves as regular users of hallucinogens. Using the 1977 data (table

24) we can project the number of young adults in various subgroups who did

describe themselves as regular and occasional users of hallucinogens in 1977

and who will admit to this behavior in future years (table 25). In 1985, the

number of young adults who will describe themselves as regular users of

hallucinogens is projected to be approximately 32,000. The number of

young adults who will describe themselves as occasional users in that same

year is projected to be 2,241,000

Table 24

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Hallucinogens Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

Females – –

Males – .2%

Whites – .1%

Nonwhites – –

Large Metropolitan Residents –

Other Metropolitan Residents –

Nonmetropolitan

Residents

4.4% 4.6%

6.9% 9.6%

6.1% 7.5%

2.5% 4.5%

5.5% .1% 6.1%

7.2% .2% 9.1%

– 3.5% – 5.1%

Table 25

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Hallucinogens Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

1977 1985 1990 1995

Subgroup Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Females – – 662

Males 33*

748

1,583 32

732 611

1,546

–

1,402

–

Whites 2,008

29 27 1,298

28 2,093 27 24

Nonwhites

1,788 22

– 218

1,627

– 236 – 232 – 230

Large Metroropo1itan

Residents 13 773 12 7% 11 685 10 633

Other Metropolitan

Residents 20 897 19 877 17 794 16 734

Nonmetropolitan

Residents – 521 – 509 – 461 – 427

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on 1977 prevalence rates.

56
COCAINE

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 18.6 percent of the young adults surveyed by the National Institute

on Drug Abuse admitted to having used cocaine at some time in the past.

Applying this figure to population projections for young adults, we can

project that approximately 5,953,000 young adults will admit to having used

cocaine in 1985. The corresponding projections for 1990 and 1995,

respectively, are 5,393,000 and 4,988,000

Using prevalence rates reported in 1977 with a level straight-line projection

technique, we can project the number of young adults, in various subgroups,

who will have used cocaine in the future. Table 26 presents the 1976 and

1977 reported prevalence rates and table 27 presents projections of the

number of young adults in various subgroups who did admit to having used

cocaine in 1977 or who will admit to its use in 1985, 1990, and 1995.

Table 26

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Cocaine: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

9.1% 13.4%

16.1% 24.5%

13.8% 18.8%

8.2% 18.8%

16.6% 23.4%

13.1% 19.3%

8.0% 10.9%

Table 27

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used

Cocaine, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 2,179* 2,131 1,929 1,781

Males 4,039 3,945 3,577 3,314

Whites 5,246 5,033 4,482 4,078

Nonwhites 910 985 970 963

Large Metropolitan Residents 2,966 2,899 2,626 2,428

Other Metropolitan Residents 1,903 1,859 1,685 1,558

Nonmetropolitan Residents 1,113 1,089 986 912

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

57
Use in Past Month

Approximately two percent of the females and six percent of the males

surveyed admitted to current use of cocaine in 1977 (table 28). Using the

1977 reported figures, we can project the number of young adults, in various

subgroups, who did admit to being current users of cocaine in 1977 or who

will admit to current use in 1985, 1990, and 1995 (table 29). In 1985 the

number of current young adult users of cocaine is projected to be

approximately 1,204,000

Table 28

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Cocaine Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

1.5% 1.6%

2.6% 5.9%

2.0% 3.5%

3.1% 5.4%

4.1% 6.1%

1.6% 2.7%

1.0% 1.5%

Table 29

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Cocaine

Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 260* 254 230 213

Males 973 950 861 798

Whites 977 937 834 759

Nonwhites 261 283 278 277

Large Metropolitan Residents 773 756 685 633

Other Metropolitan Residents 266 260 236 218

Nonmetropolitan Residents 153 150 136 125

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Type of Use

In the 1977 NIDA survey, 8.9 percent of young adults surveyed described

themselves as occasional users of cocaine; less than one percent described

themselves as regular users of cocaine. Using the 1977 data (table 30) we

58
can project the number of young adults in various subgroups who did

describe themselves as regular and occasional users of cocaine in 1977 or

who will admit to this behavior in future years (table 31). In 1985, the

number of young adults who will describe themselves as regular users of

cocaine is projected to be approximately 81,000. The number of young

adults who will describe themselves as occasional users in 1985 is projected

to be 2,849,000

Table 30

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Cocaine Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

Females .1%

Males .4%

Whites

Nonwhites 1.5%

Large Metropolitan Residents -

Other Metropolitan Residents .1%

Nonmetropolitan

Residents .7%

4.4% 5.3%

9.2% .5% 12.8%

7.1% .1% 8.8%

4.4% .8% 8.8%

9.5% .5% 11.4%

7.2% .2% 8.8%

3.7% 5.3%

Table 31

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Cocaine Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and

Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

1977 1985 1990 1995

Subgroup Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Females 862 - 843 - 763 704

Males 82* 2,110 81 2,061 73 1,869 68 1,731

Whites 28 2,456 27 2,356 24 2,098 22 1,909

Nonwhites 39 423 42 461 41 454 41 451

Large Metropolitan

Residents 63 1,445 62 1,412 56 1,279 52 1,183

Other Metropolitan

Residents 20 868 19 848 17 768 16 710

Nonmetropolitan

Residents - 541 529 479 443

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on 1977 prevalence rates.

59
HEROIN

The validity of the survey data on heroin use is highly questionable due to

severe underreporting of use. Therefore, the predictions presented below

for young adults’ use of heroin must be interpreted cautiously.

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 3.2 percent of the young adults surveyed by the National Institute

on Drug Abuse admitted to having used heroin at some time in the past.

Applying this figure to population projections for young adults, we can

predict that approximately 1,024,000 young adults will admit to having used

heroin in 1985. The corresponding projections for 1990 and 1995,

respectively, are 928,000 and 858,000.

Using prevalence rates reported in 1977 with a level straight-line

projections technique, we can project the number of young adults, in various

subgroups, who will have used heroin in the future. Table 32 presents the

1976 and 1977 reported prevalence rates and table 33 presents predictions

of the number of young adults in various subgroups who did admit to having

used heroin in 1977 or who will admit to its use in 1985, 1990 and 1995.

Table 32

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Heroin: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

2.2% 1.6%

5.4% 5.7%

3.9% 3.3%

2.2% 5.7%

4.4% 4.4%

4.7% 3.0%

1.6% 2.1%

Table 33

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had Used

Heroin, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 260* 254 230 213

Males 940 918 832 771

Whites 921 883 787 716

Nonwhites 276 299 294 292

Large Metropolitan Residents 558 545 494 457

Other Metropolitan Residents 375 366 332 307

Nonmetropolitan Residents 256 210 190 176

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

60
Use in Past Month

Less than one percent of the young adults surveyed admitted to current use

of heroin in 1977 (table 34). Using the 1977 reported figures, we can project

the number of young adults, in various subgroups, who did admit to being

current users of heroin in 1977 or who will admit to current use in 1985,

1990 and 1995 (Table 35). In 1985, the number of current, young adult users

of heroin is projected to be approximately 113,000.

Table 34

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin

Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

.7%

.3%

.8%

.3%

.5%

Table 35

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin

Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

115* 113 102 95

84 80 72 65

39 42 41 41

38 37 34 31

49 48 44 40

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

Type of Use

In 1977, less than one percent of the young adults surveyed described

themselves as regular or occasional users of heroin. Using 1977 data (table

36), we can project the number of young adults, in various subgroups, who

did describe themselves as regular or occasional users of heroin in 1977 and

who will admit to this behavior in future years (table 37). In 1985 the

6 1
number of young adults who will describe themselves as regular users of

heroin is projected to be approximately 48,000. The number of young adults

who will describe themselves as occasional users in 1985 is projected to be

225,000.

Table 36

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin

Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

Females -

Males -

Whites -

Nonwhites -

Large Metropolitan Residents -

Other Metropolitan Residents -

Nonmetropolitan

Residents

.4% .3% .4%

.6% -

.6% .i%

1.0%

.3%

.3% .4% 2.7%

.6% .5% .5%

.4% - 1.2%

.5% - -

Table 37

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Heroin

Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey, and Projections for

1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroup

1977 1985 1990 1995

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Females 49* 6 5 48 64 43

Males - 161 146

40

135

Whites 28

131

27 24 22

Nonwhites 19 21 141 21 139 20 138

Large Metropolitan

Residents 63 63 62 62 56 56 52 52

Other Metropolitan

Residents - 118 - 116 - 105 - 97

Nonmetropolitan

Residents - - - - - - - -

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

62
OTHER OPIATES5

Lifetime Prevalence

In 1977, 13.1 percent of the young adults surveyed by the National Institute

on Drug Abuse admitted to having used other opiates at some time in the

past. Applying this figure to population projections for young adults, we

can project that approximately 4,193,000 young adults will admit to having

used other opiates in 1985. The corresponding projections for 1990 and

1995, respectively, are 3,799,000 and 3,153,000

Using prevalence rates reported in 1977 with a level straight-line projection

technique we can project the number of young adults, in various subgroups,

who will have used other opiates in the future. Table 38 presents the 1976

and 1977 reported prevalence rates and table 39 presents projections of the

number of young adults, in various subgroups, who did admit to having used

other opiates in 1977 and who will admit to their use in 1985, 1990, and 1995.

Table 38

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who

Had Used Other Opiates: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

8.9% 8.7%

17.3% 17.8%

13.5% 13.2%

12.8% 12.4%

15.0% 13.4%

16.8% 15.3%

5.8% 8.6%

Table 39

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Who Had

Used Other Opiates, 1977 Survey, and Projections for

1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 1,415* 1,384 1,253 1,156

Males 2,934 2,866 2,599 2,407

Whites 3,683 3,534 3,147 2,863

Nonwhites 600 649 639 635

Large Metropolitan Residents 1,698 1,660 1,504 1,391

Other Metropolitan Residents 1,508 1,474 1,335 1,235

Nonmetropolitan Residents 878 859 778 719

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

63
Use in Past Month

Less than one percent of the young adults surveyed admitted to current use

of other opiates in 1977. Using the 1977 reported figures (table 40), we can

project the number of young adults, in various subgroups, who did admit to

being current users of other opiates in 1977 and who will admit to current

use in 1985, 1990, and 1995 (table 41). In 1985, the number of current, young

adult users of other opiates is projected to be 352,000.

Table 40

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other

Opiates Currently: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups of Young Adults 1976 1977

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan Residents

Other Metropolitan Residents

Nonmetropolitan Residents

.8% .8%

2.2% 1.4%

1.8% 1.0%

.3% .9%

1.1% .6%

1.5% 1.7%

2.0% .5%

Table 41

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using Other

Opiates Currently, 1977 Survey, and Projections for

1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroups of Young Adults 1977 1985 1990 1995

Females 130* 127 115 106

Males 231 225 204 189

Whites 279 268 238 217

Nonwhites 44 47 46 46

Large Metropolitan Residents 76 74 67 62

Other Metropolitan Residents 168 164 148 137

Nonmetropolitan Residents 51 50 45 42

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

64
Type of Use

In 1977, 4.3 percent of the young adults surveyed described themselves as

occasional users of other opiates. Using the 1977 data (table 42) we can

project the number of young adults, in various subgroups, who did describe

themselves as regular or occasional users of other opiates in 1977 and who

will admit to this behavior in 1985, 1990, and 1995 (table 43). In 1985, the

number of young adults who will describe themselves as regular users of

other opiates is projected to be approximately 48,000. The number of young

adults who will describe themselves as occasional users of other opiates in

1985 is projected to be 1,376,000

Table 42

Percent of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Other Opiates Regularly or Occasionally: 1976 and 1977 Surveys

Subgroups

1976 1977

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

User User User User

Females

Males

Whites

Nonwhites

Large Metropolitan

Residents

Other Metropolitan

Residents

Nonmetropolitan

Residents

.1%

–

.1%

–

–

–

.2%

1.9%

5.4%

4.0%

2.3%

5.2%

2.8%

3.4%

.3% 2.8%

–

.2%

6.0%

4.5%

– 3.3%

.2% 3.2%

.1% 6.3%

– 2.6%

Table 43

Number of Young Adults 18 to 25 in Various Subgroups Using

Other Opiates Regularly or Occasionally, 1977 Survey,

and Projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

Subgroup

1977 1985 1990 1995

Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional Regular Occasional

Fermales 49* 455 48 445 43 403 40 372

Males 989 - 966 - 876 - 812

Whites 56 1,256 54 1,205 48 1,073 43 976

Nonwhites - 160 - 173 - 170 - 169

Large Metro

poiitan

Residents 25 406 25 396 22 359 21 332

Other Metropolitan

Residents 10 621 10 607 9 550 8 508

Normetropo1itan

Residents - 266 - 260 - 235 - 218

*Numbers presented are in thousands, and are based on

1977 prevalence rates.

65
Summary

The projections of drug abuse presented in this chapter are based on 1977

reported rates of drug abuse. It should be noted that the preliminary results

of the 1979 National Survey of Drug Abuse indicate an increase in drug

abuse rates since 1977. Therefore, the projections for 1985, 1990, and 1995

presented herein are conservative. It can be expected that if straight-line

projections of drug abuse were calculated using 1979 data, the number of

young adult drug abusers in future years would be larger. However, the

projections presented herein are adequate for broad planning purposes.

FOOTNOTES

1

 A sixth survey in this series was conducted in 1979; however, the data are

not yet available for review.

2

 In 1977, 1976, and 1974 marijuana and hashish were treated as separate

categories during the data collection phase. However, for purposes of

this report, these two substances have been combined under the drug

category “marijuana.”

3

 In 1977 and 1976 inhalants were defined as “Glue or some other

substances that people inhale for kicks or to get high. Besides glue, there

are things like gasoline, some aerosols, nitrous oxide, amyl nitrite (which

is also called ‘poppers’) and other solvents.”

4

 In 1977 and 1976 hallucinogens were defined as “LSD and other

hallucinogens like mescaline, peyote, psilocybin, and DMT.”

5

 In 1977 and 1976 other opiates were defined as “Opium or other drugs

containing opium and its derivatives. They are usually in the form of

prescription cough syrups, pain killers, or stomach medicines--things like

morphine, codeine, dilaudid, demerol, and paregoric. Although they are

frequently prescribed for medical reasons, these questions ask about the

use of these drugs for nonmedical purposes--that is, for kicks or for highs,

to gain insight or pleasure.” Also included were hycodan, laudanum, and

talwin.

66
Chapter 5

Overview of Drug Abuse Trends

and Recommendations for Additional Research

Overview of Drug Abuse Trends

Previous research indicates there is a relationship between nonmedical use

of drugs and age, with the highest percentage of drug abusers included in the

young adult (18-25 years old) population. The population projections

presented in appendix A to this report clearly point to the decline in the size

of the young adult population between now and 1995. Given these two facts,

it is reasonable to assume that the number of young adult drug abusers will

also decline between now and 1995.

This study is based on the assumption that rates of drug abuse reported in

1977 will remain stable; and, therefore, the number of young adult drug

abusers can be expected to decline continually between the present and

1995. This trend is demonstrated by many of the tables presented in chapter

4. A decline in the number of young adult drug abusers can be expected

across most subgroups (e.g., both males and females) with one notable

exception. The size of the nonwhite young adult population, unlike other

subgroups of young adults, is projected to grow in future years. Much of this

growth can be attributed to the changing structure of the Hispanic

population. In fact, demographers generally agree that American residents

of Hispanic origin will probably outnumber American Blacks before 1990.

While consistently high birth rates contribute to the rapid expansion of the

Hispanic population, illegal immigration is the largest single growth factor,

accounting since 1970 for more than 50 percent of the population increase.

It is difficult to estimate the total significance and extent of illegal

immigration as a growth factor, but it is certainly a major one.

Historically, a very large proportion of these illegal immigrants have been

young males and there is no reason to believe that this trend will not

continue.

While the number of young adult drug abusers, overall, may decline in the

next decade, it is difficult to estimate with any precision the shape of the

drug abuse problem among this group. If earlier trends continue to repeat

themselves, the following patterns of drug abuse may emerge:

Regular use of marijuana will be on the upswing but the

percentage of occasional users should stabilize.

Use of hallucinogens should not change dramatically.

The percentage of cocaine users, particularly occasional users,

will increase over the next decade.

The percentage of young adults using heroin and other opiates

should not change dramatically.

67
These observations should be interpreted cautiously, of course, because

there are any number of demographic and sociological phenomena that could

influence future drug abuse patterns among young adults. As chapter 2 of

this report suggests, fertility rates in the near future, mortality rates among

young adults, new waves of immigration, the extent of geographic mobility

experienced within this country, the changing family structure, and career

patterns for young adults should be monitored closely in the coming years.

In order to support this effort, an alternative methodology for developing

projections of drug abuse would need to be developed.

Additional Work to Be Accomplished

Several alternative approaches to projecting drug abuse in the future were

reviewed in designing this study. The most straightforward approach to

making projections is to apply the current levels of reported drug abuse to

population projections in order to estimate the numbers of drug abusers at

future points in time.

A second approach is to use data collected at several points in time to

document trends. When such data are available, one can study the direction

and magnitude of change in the level of drug abuse over time and assume

that this same pattern will continue in the future. With this approach one

could modify the most recently reported level of drug abuse and multiply

the modified percentage by population projections to estimate the number

of drug abusers in the future.

Using a third approach, one could identify a number of demographic and

sociological issues which might potentially affect future patterns of drug

abuse. Each issue could be analyzed and a set of hypotheses developed

which express the relationship between drug abuse and changing social

phenomena. Statistical equations could be developed to express these

relationships; and these equations, factored with population projections,

would generate another set of projections of future drug abuse.

Within the scope of this study and the confines of the drug abuse data bases

already established, primarily the first approach was used to develop the

drug abuse projections presented here. This approach produces modest

projections which will be useful for planning drug prevention and treatment

strategies over the next decade. At the same time, this approach and the

second one described above have two major limitations

They assume that current trends will continue, a sometimes

misleading assumption; and

They do not account for other significant demographic and

sociological changes in the future.

Because the demographics of the 1970’s were surprising to many--baby boom

turned baby bust, population redistributions from North to South, shrinkage

in the average household size, and significant increases in the number of

females in the work force--it is important to anticipate similar changes in

the 1980’s in an effort to improve the reliability of projections of future

drug abuse. The modeling technique, presented as a third projection

technique above, would take into consideration a range of demographic

68
and sociological issues. Such an approach would increase the accuracy with

which changing drug abuse patterns over the next decade can be

anticipated. This approach would also make clear the critical demographic

and sociological issues which should be monitored and tracked on a periodic

basis over the next 10 to 15 years as both short- and long-term plans are

discussed. Additionally, development of such a model would enable us to

plot alternative changes in drug abuse patterns in future years. The review

of population trends, the analysis of existing drug abuse data sets, and the

conservative projections of drug abuse presented in this report represent

important steps in this direction.

69
Annotated Bibliography of Selected Materials on

Demographic Trends and Forecasting Techniques

Bane, Mary Jo

1976

Barclay, George

1958

Here to Stay: American Families in the

Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books, 195

pp.

Bane shows, by analyzing demographic and survey

data, that the American family is here to stay,

albeit in a somewhat altered form. Policy

implications are discussed.

W.

Techniques of Population Analysis. New York:

Wiley, 305 pp.

Standard textbook in demographic techniques.

Less detailed than Shryock and Siegal (1975)

and requires less mathematical background than

Keyfitz (1977).

Bean, Frank D., and W. Parker Frisbee

1978

The Demography of Racial and Ethnic Groups.

New York: Academic Press, 314 pp.

Contains several useful articles on blacks and

Hispanics. Topics covered include residential

segregation, education, fertility, mortality, and

households.

Birch, David

1978

Statement, House Select Committee on

Population, Hearings, Consequences of Changing

U.S. Population: Vol. 3, Population Movement

and Planning.

Growth in employment and immigration is due

more to creation and growth of firms than

relocation over long distances. Living

preferences as well as the cost of doing business

influence where firms locate.

Biggar, Jeanne C.

1979

The Sunning of America: Migration to the

Sunbelt. Population Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 1

(March), Washington, Population Reference

Bureau, 39 pp.

70
A comprehensive overview of this important

demographic shift. Includes a discussion of

economic and political implications.

DaVanzo, Julie

1978

U.S. Internal Migration: Who Moves and Why?

Testimonv to U.S. House Select Committee on

Population, Consequences of Changing U.S.

Population: Population Movement and Planning.

Washington: USGPO.

Individuals who migrate improve their earnings

and lessen their incidence of unemployment. For

labor markets, migration is an equilibrating

force. Public policy should be directed at

making migration more effective.

Easterlin, Richard

1978

What Will 1984 be Like? Socioeconomic

Implications of Recent Twists in the Age

Structure. Demography, 15:397-432.

A rise in the relative number of young males

since 1960 has contributed to a number of social

problems, including increased unemployment,

accelerating inflation, and higher levels of

divorce, suicide, crime, and political alienation.

“The U.S. is now at the start of a new period of

growing scarcity of young adults as a result of

the birth rate decline that set in after 1960. This

implies that the 1980’s will see a turnaround in a

wide variety of these social, political and

economic conditions.”

Farley, Reynolds

1977

Residential Segregation and Urbanized Areas of

the United States in 1970: An Analysis of Social

Class and Racial Differences. Demography,

14:497-518.

“Levels of social class segregation varied little

from one urbanized area to another and were

about the same in central cities and suburban

rings. Racial residential segregation was much

greater than the segregation of social classes

within either the black or white communities.

The extent of racial residential segregation does

not vary by educational attainment, occupation or

income.”

71

349-353 O - 81 - 6
Flaim, Paul O., and Howard N. Fullerton, Jr.

1978

Labor Force Projections to 1990: Three Possible

Paths. Monthly Labor Review, (December):25-35.

All three rates of projected growth to 1990 show

a drop from the 1970-77 pace. Projections are

given by age and sex based on Census Bureau

projections for the total population.

Francese, Peter K.

1979

The 1980 Census The Counting of America.

Population Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 4 (September),

Washington: Population Reference Bureau.

A good introduction to the 1980 Census. Includes

discussions of planning for the census, how it will

be conducted and census products and services.

Glick, Paul C.

1978

The Future of the American Family. Testimony

before the House Select Committee on

Population, Consequences of Changing U.S.

Population: Baby Boom and Bust. Washington:

USGPO.

Changes in American family life in the next two

decades will be less than in the last two.

Documents the growth of the number of children

living in single parent households, but points out

that 79 percent of all children under 18 live with

two parents.

Greenberg, Michael R., et al.

1978

Local Population and Employment Projection

Techniques. New Brunswick: Center for Urban

Policy Research, 277 pp.

Includes overview and presentation of detailed

methods, including computer programs.

Guest, Avery

1979

Patterns of Suburban Population Growth,

1970-75. Demography, 16:401-16.

Proximity of central city and age of central city

are both positively associated with net population

loss for suburbs.

72
Keely, Charles B.

1977

Keyfitz, Nathan

1977

Matras, Judah

1973

Counting the Uncountable: Estimates of

Undocumented Aliens in the United States.

Population and Development Review, 3:473-81.

Reviews various estimates of stock and flow and

problems involved in developing sound estimates.

Keely is writing a more up-to-date account of

this problem for American Demographics, which

will be published in 1980.

Applied Mathematical Demography. New York:

Wiley, 388 pp.

Populations and Societies. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice Hall, 550 pp.

A standard text for undergraduate population

courses. Contains considerable historical and

comparative material, as do most such works,

but Matras is more thorough on quantitative

demographic analysis.

Morrison, Peter A.

1978

The U.S. Population’s Changing Regional

Distribution: Trends and Implications. Testimony

to House Select Committee on Population,

Consequences of Changing U.S. Population: Baby

Boom and Bust.

Good overview of the population changes resulting from current trends in internal migration.

Some areas will experience population decline

while others continue to grow at rapid rates.

National Center for Education Statistics

1978

Projections of Education Statistics to 1986-87.

Washington: USGPO, 184 pp.

Chapter 2 gives enrollment projections for all

levels of education. Chapter 3 projects

enrollment by degree subject area. New

projections will be published in 1980.

73
Oak Ridge Associated Universities

1977

Population Forecasting for Small Areas. Oak

Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge Associated

Universities, 90 pp.

A conference report containing papers on

different methods of forecasting and applications

for energy plant siting, education and

transportation planning, and State health care

planning and development.

Pittenger, Donald B.

1979

How to Evaluate Population Forecasts.

American Demographics, February, pp. 33-35.

Users of population forecasts should know which

parts of a forecasting model are buttressed by

theory, which parts are simply empirical, and

which parts represent guesswork.

Reynolds, Reid T.

1979

Demographic Models. American Demographics,

Vol. 1, No. 10 (November):32-33.

Discusses the application of econometric

forecasting techniques to population projections

for separate components of the population and

subnational areas. Demographic models are now

available from several private sources and are

being developed by Federal and State agencies.

Reynolds, Reid T., Bryant Robey, and Cheryl Russell

1980

The Demographics of the 1980s. American

Demographics, Vol. 2, No. 1 (January).

Several important demographic trends of the

1970’s are projected to 1990. Draws together

projections from several different Federal

agencies and evaluates certainty of these

projections. Ten charts.

Rice, Dorothy P.

1979

Long Life to You. American Demographics, Vol.

9, No. 9 (October):9-15.

After slow improvements during the 1960’s, death

rates have declined more rapidly in recent years.

If death rates improve in the next 25 years as

rapidly as in the past decade, we can expect a

decrease in the death rate for all ages

74
combined of 9 percent, with the greatest

improvement for those under 20 and over 45.

Rogers, Andrei

1968

Matrix Analysis of Interregional Population

Growth and Distribution. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 119 pp.

The application of matrix algebra and

multiregional demographic forecasting.

Shryock, Henry S. and Jacob S. Siegal

1975

The Methods and Materials of Demography. 2

Vols. Washington: USGPO, 888 pp.

Discussion of the nature and quality of census

data on immigration.

Siegal, Jacob S.

1978

Collection and Analysis of Immigration Data at

the Census Bureau. Testimony to the House

Select Committee OR Population, Immigration to

the United States.

Slater, Courtney

1980

Pieces of the Puzzle. American Demographics,

Vol. 2, No. 2 (February).

Changes in household size and composition have

affected income trends in recent years.

Steinberg, Joseph (ed.)

1979

Synthetic Estimates for Small Areas. Statistical

Workshop Papers and Discussion. NIDA

Research Monograph 24. Washington: USGPO,

282 pp.

Papers describing and evaluating a new technique

for making estimates of a "target statistic” (e.g.,

level of drug abuse) for specific subnational areas

using descriptive data for the area (e.g., population estimates by age and sex for counties) in

combination with average values of the target

statistic for national or regional territory (e.g.,

drug abuse estimates from the National Surveys

of Drug Abuse).

7 5
U.S. Bureau of the Census

1975a

Historical Statistics of the United States:

Colonial Times to 1970. Two Parts.

Washington: USGPO, 1298 pp.

Comprehensive collection of statistical data for

the U.S. Chapter A--Population; Chapter B--Vital

Statistics; Chapter C--Migration; Chapter

D--Labor; Chapter H--Social Statistics.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1975b

Coverage of the Population in the 1970 Census

and Some Implications for Public Programs.

Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 56.

A detailed assessment of the undercount problem

in the 1970 Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1977a

Reference Manual on Population and Housing

Statistics from the Census Bureau. Washington:

USGPO, 146 pp.

A comprehensive introduction to demographic

data available from the Census Bureau. Useful

discussion of 1970 Census concepts and methods.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1977b

Projections of the Population of the United

States 1977 to 2050. Current Population Reports,

Series P-25, No. 704.

The most recent Census Bureau projections of the

total U.S. population by age, sex, and race.

Three projection series are given to 2050. Each

series assumes net annual immigration of 400,000

and gradual improvements in mortality. Series I

assumes a gradual transition to a total fertility

rate of 2.7; Series II assumes 2.2 (replacement

level fertility); and Series III assumes 1.7. The

bureau does not anticipate releasing new

projections until after results of the 1980 Census

have been analyzed.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1978

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1978.

Washington: USGPO, 1011 pp.

76
An extremely valuable compendium of statistics

gathered by various Federal agencies.

Data relevant to demographic trends are located

in sections 1-5, 13 and 14. The sources for more

detailed information on each statistical series

are mentioned in chapter introductions and

footnotes to tables.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1979a

Illustrative Projections of State Populations by

Age, Race and Sex: 1975 to 2000. Current

Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 796.

Uses fertility and mortality assumptions of the

Series II projections (U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1977b). State population projections are based on

two different assumptions about interstate

migration. Series II-A assumes a continuation of

the 1965-75 rates; Series II-B uses the 1970-75

rates. Series II-B shows lower rates of population

growth for the Northeast and North Central

Regions.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1979b

Population Profile of the United States: 1978.

Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 336.

A useful collection of findings from the Current

Population Survey. Issued annually.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1979c

Projections of the Number of Households and

Families 1979 to 1995. Current Population

Reports, Series P-25, No. 805.

Four series of projections based on changes in

marital status and household status since 1964.

U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Population

1978

Hearings and Reports. Washington: USGPO.

Of the 10 volumes of hearings the most pertinent

are: Consequences of Changing U.S.

Population--Vol. I Demographics of Aging; Vol. II

Baby Boom and Bust; and Vol. III Population

Movement and Planning; and Immigration to the

United States. The most pertinent reports are

Fertility and Contraception in the U.S., Legal and

Illegal Immigration, and the Final Report.

7 7
Several of the background papers prepared by

witnesses are cited in this bibliography by author.

Westoff, Charles F.

1978

Some Speculation on the Future of Marriage and

the Family. Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.

10, No. 279-83.

Foresees a transition to zero population growth in

the next 50 years. Low fertility can be attributed

to the availability of and use of more effective

contraception and greater availability of

abortion. ". . . there are reasons to believe that

some subsidization of reproduction may

eventually become necessary.”

Zuiches, James J., and David L. Brown

1978

The Changing Character of the Nonmetropolitan

Population, 1950-75. In Thomas R. Ford, Rural

U.S.A.: Persistence and Change.

Ames Iowa State University Press, pp. 55-72.

Discusses various characteristics of the

nonmetropolitan population. A good background

for understanding the recent resurgence of some

nonmetropolitan areas.

78
Drug Abuse Data Sources

Abelson, H.; and Atkinson, R. Public Experience with Psychoactive

Substances. Prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse by

Response Analysis Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey, and Social

Research Group, George Washington University, 1975.

Abelson, H.; Cohen, R.; and Schrayer, D. Public attitudes toward

marihuana. Prepared by Response Analysis Corporation. In

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. First Report of the

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Appendix Vol. II.

Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1972.

Abelson, H.; Cohen, R.; Schrayer, D.; and Rappeport, M. Drug Experience,

Attitudes and Related Behavior Among Adolescents and Adults.

Prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse by Response

Analysis Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey, and Social Research

Group, George Washington University, 1973.

Abelson, H.; and Fishburne, P. Nonmedical Use of Psychoactive Substances;

1975/6 Nationwide Study Among Youth and Adults. Prepared for the

National Institute on Drug Abuse by Response Analysis Corporation,

Princeton, New Jersey, and Social Research Group, George Washington

University, 1976.

Abelson, H.; Fishburne, P.; and Cisin, I. National Survey on Drug Abuse:

1977 - A Nationwide Study - Youth, Young Adults, and Older People.

Prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse by Response

Analysis Corporation. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)78-618. Washington,

D.C.: Supt. of DOCS., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977.

Broecker, L., and Berg, D. Illicit Use of Dangerous Drugs in the United

States. A Compilation of Studies, Surveys and Polls. Washington,

D.C.: Department of Justice, Drug Control Division of the Bureau of

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, 1972.

Drug Enforcement Administration. Drug Enforcement Statistical Report.

Statistics Compiled Through September 1979. Washington, D.C.: Drug

Enforcement Administration, 1979.

Drug Enforcement Administration. Regional Drug Situation Analyses

Through September 1979. Northeastern, North Central, Southeastern,

South Central, and Western Regions. Washington, D.C.: Drug

Enforcement Administration, 1979.

Glenn, W.; and Richards, L. Recent Surveys of Nonmedical Drug Use: a

Compendium of Abstracts. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)75-139. Rockville,

Maryland: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1974.

Johnston, L. D. Drugs and American Youth. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1973.

7 9
Johnston, L. D.; Bachman, J. G.; and O’Malley, P. M. Drug Use Among

American High School Students 1975-1977. Prepared for the National

Institute on Drug Abuse by the Institute for Social Research, University

of Michigan. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)78-619. Washington, D.C.: Supt.

of DOCS., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977.

Johnston, L. D.; Bachman, J. G.; and O’Malley, P. M. Drugs and the Class of

‘78: Behaviors, Attitudes, and Recent National Trends. Prepared for

the National Institute on Drug Abuse by the Institute for Social

Research, University of Michigan. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)79-877.

Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979a.

Johnston, L. D.; Bachman, J. G.; and O’Malley, P. M. 1979 Highlights

Nation’s High School Students, Five Year National Trends. Prepared

for the National Institute on Drug Abuse by the Institute for Social

Research, University of Michigan. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)81-930.

Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979b.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. An Index of the Number of Drug Abusers

in States and Major Urban Areas. Prepared by Response Analysis

Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Watch, July 1977. DHEW Pub. No.

(ADM)77-503. Rockville, Maryland: the Institute, 1977.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Data From the National Drug Abuse

Treatment Utilization Survey (NDATUS), April 1978, Series F, No. 6.

DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)79-829. Rockville, Maryland: the Institute, 1978.

National Institute on Drug Abuse and Drug Enforcement Administration.

Dawn Quarterly Report April-June 1978. Prepared by IMS America,

Ltd., Ambler, Pennsylvania, 1978.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Trend Report January 1975-September

1978. Data From the Client Oriented Data Acquisition Process. Series

E, No. 10. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)79-845. Rockville, Maryland: the

Institute, 1979.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Annual Data 1978. Data From the

Client Oriented Data Acquisition Process. Series E, No. 12. DHEW

Pub. No. (ADM)SO-866. Rockville, Maryland, the Institute, 1979.

O’Donnell, J. A.; Voss, H. L.; Clayton, R. R.; Slatin, G. T.; and Room, R. G. W.

Young Men and Drugs - A Nationwide Survey. National Institute on

Drug Abuse Research Monograph 5. DHEW Pub. No. (ADM)76-311.

Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976.

80
Appendix A

Population Projections for Young Adults

for 1985, 1990, and 1995
APPENDIX A

POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR

YOUNG ADULTS FOR 1985, 1990, AND 1995

(IN THOUSANDS)

1985 1990 1995

Total Population 232,880 243,513 252,750

Pop. 12-17 20,909 19,240 21,956

12 3,163 3,280 3,894

13 3,354 3,190 3,835

14 3,728 3,189 3,801

15 3,644 3,236 3,643

16 3,526 3,129 3,450

17 3,494 3,216 3,333

18-21 15,444 14,506 12,995

18 3,606 3,426 3,262

19 3,740 3,769 3,232

20 4,025 3,754 3,338

21 4,073 3,557 3,163

22-25 16,566 14,491 13,820

22 4,065 3,457 3,185

23 4,069 3,488 3,319

24 4,155 3,696 3,724

25 4,105 3,850 3,592

26+ 138,598 149,738 157,543

82
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)

1985 1990 1995

Female 18-25 15,905 14,399 13,290

18 1,782 1,690 1,606

19 1,851 1,860 1,593

20-24 10,192 8,920 8,294

2 5 2,080 1,929 1,797

Male 18-25 16,103 14,599 13,525

18 1,822 1,736 1,657

19 1,889 1,910 1,639

20-24 10,317 9,033 8,434

25 2,075 1,920 1,795

White 18-25 26,772 23,841 21,691

18 2,983 2,772 2,638

19 3,091 3,081 2,606

20-24 12,815 14,788 13,492

25 3,513 3,200 2,955

Nonwhite 18-25 5,237 5,157 5,122

18 621 654 623

19 649 688 626

82a
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)

Nonwhite (cont'd) 1985 1990 1995

20-24 3,325 3,165 3,236

25 642 650 637

Total 18-25 32,009 28,998 26,813

Large Metro 12,387 11,222 10,377

Other Metro 9,634 8,728 8,070

Nonmetro 9,987 9,047 8,366

83

Appendix B

Charts and Tables Depicting

Various Demographic Trends
Chart I. Population Pyramids: 1970-1978

Distribution of the Estimated Total Population of the United

States Including Armed Forces Overseas, by Age and Sex:

April 1, 1970 to July 1, 1978

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,

P-25, No. 800, 1979.

86
Chart II. Projected Population Pyramids: 1980 & 1990

Sources: Bureau of the Census

87

349-353 O - 81 - 7
All Ages

Under 5

5 - 9

10 - 14

15 - 19

20 - 24

25 - 29

30 - 34

35 - 39

40 - 44

45 - 49

50-54

55 - 59

60 - 64

65 - 69

70 - 74

75 - 79

80-84

85 and over

Median Age

Chart III

PROJECTIONS OF THE TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX

1980 AND 1990

(numbers in thousands)

1980 1990

Total MALE

222,159 108,223

16,020 8,201

16,096 8,225

17,800 9,078

20,609 10,468

20,918 10,520

18,930 9,438

17,242 8.555

14,033 6,869

11,689 5,691

11,030 5,383

11,668 5,645

11,401 5,458

9,797 4,583

8,700 3,859

6,793 2,853

4,324 1,698

7,816 989

2,294 709

30.2 29.0

FEMALE Total

113,936 243,513

7,819 19,437

7,871 19,040

8,722 16,718

10,141 16,777

10,398 17,953

9,492 20,169

8.687 20,917

7,164 19,261

5,9% 17,331

5,646 13,889

6,023 11,422

5,944 10,416

5,214 10,360

4.841 10,022

3,940 7,782

2,626 5,501

1,827 3,639

1.585 2,881

31.5 32.8

MALE FEMALE

118,490 125,023

9,963 9,947

9,754 9,286

0,564 8,154

8.546 8,231

9,033 8,920

10,047 10,123

10,377 10,540

9,470 9,790

8,494 8,836

6,770 7,119

5,529 5,893

5,044 5,372

4,901 5,459

4,471 5,551

3,281 4,501

2,148 3,353

1.264 2,375

836 2,045

31.6 33.9

PERCENT CHANGE

FOR TOTALS

1980 TO 1990

+9.6

+21.3

+18.3

(-6.1)

(-18.6)

(-14.2)

+6.6

+21.3

+37.3

+40.3

+25.9

(-2.1)

(-8.6)

+5.8

+15.2

+14.6

+27.2

+29.2

+25.6

+8.6
Chart IV

PERSONS LIVING ALONE BY AGE

1970 AND 1978

(numbers in thousands)

AGE

1970

Male Female

Percent Increase

1978 1970 to 1978

Male Female Male Female

Total 3,532 7,319 6,352

living alone

Under 25 274 282 870

25 to 34 535 358 1,675

35 to 44 398 313 825

45 to 64 1,152 2,470 1,543

65 and Over 1,174 3,897 1,439

Source: Bureau of the Census

10,363 79.4%

741 217.5

1,022 213.1

455 107.3

2,784 33.9

5,362 22.6

41.6%

162.8

185.5

45.4

12.7

37.6
Chart V. Teenage Birth Rates

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Chart VI. Projected School-Age Population

Source: U.S. Bureau

of the Census

90
Chart VII. Retention Rates

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

91
Chart VIII. The Baby Boom and Baby Bust

92
Chart VIII. The Baby Boom and Baby Bust (continued)

This chart is reprinted with permission from American Demographics

magazine, © September 1979.

9 3
Charts IX and X. Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Growth

Where We Live

Most Americans live in metropolitan areas, but since 1970

central cities have lost population and suburbs have

continued to grow.

Source: Census Bureau

Source: Census Bureau

94
Charts XI,XII, XIII. The Regional Shift for Metroplitan and Nonmetroplitan Counties

Charts XI, XII, and XIII are reprinted with permission from American Demographics magazine, © May 1979.
U.S. Immigrants by Region of Origin, 1820-1976

1820-1860 1861-1900

Source: Leon F. Bouvier, with Henry S. Shryock and Harry W. Henderson, “International Migration:

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” Population Bulletin vol. 32 No. 4. Courtesy of the Population

Reference Bureau, Inc., Washington, D.C., Sept. 1977: pp.24. 25.

98
monograph series

While limited supplies last, single copies of the monographs may

be obtained free of charge from the National Clearinghouse for

Drug Abuse Information (NCDAI). Please contact NCDAI also for

information about availability of coming issues and other

publications of the National Institute on Drug Abuse relevant to

drug abuse research.

Additional copies may be purchased from the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO) and/or the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS) as indicated. NTIS prices are for paper copy.

Microfiche copies, at $3.50, are also available from NTIS.

Prices from either source are subject to change.

Addresses are:

NCDAI

National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information

Room 1OA5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20857

GPO NTIS

Superintendent of Documents National Technical Information

U.S. Government Printing Office Service

Washington, D.C. 20402 U.S. Department of Comerce

Springfield, Virginia 22161

1 FINDINGS OF DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH. Not available from NCDAI.

Vol. 1: GPO out of stock NTIS PB #272 867/AS $27.50

Vol. 2: GPO out of stock NTIS PB #272 868/AS $27.50

2 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS IN SOCIO-BEHAVIORAL DRUG USE RESEARCH

1975. Jack Elinson, Ph.D., and David Nurco, Ph.D., eds. Not

available from NCDAI.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #246 338/AS $14

3 AMINERGIC HYPOTHESES OF BEHAVIOR: REALITY OR CLICHE? Bruce J.

Bernard, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-00486-3 $2.25 NTIS PB #246 687/AS $14

99
4 NARCOTIC ANTAGONISTS: THE SEARCH FOR LONG-ACTING PREPARATIONS.

Robert Willette, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-00488-0 $1.10 NTIS PB#1247 096/AS $6.50

5 YOUNG MN AND DRUGS: A NATIONWIDE SURVEY. John A. O'Donnell,

Ph.D., et al. Not available from NCDAI.

GPO Stock #017-024-00511-8 $2.25 NTIS PB #247 446/AS $14

6 EFFECTS OF LABELING THE "DRUG ABUSER": AN IMUIRY. Jay R.

Williams, Ph.D.

GPO Stock #O17-024-00512-6 $1.05 NTIS PB #249 092/AS $6.50

7 CANNABINOID ASSAYS IN HUMANS. Robert Willette, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-00510-0 $1.95 NTIS PB #251 905/AS $12.50

8 Rx: 3x/WEEK LAAM - ALTERNATIVE TO METHADONE. Jack Elaine, M.D.,

and Pierre Renault, M.D., eds.

Not available from GPO NTIS PB #253 763/AS $12.50

9 NARCOTIC ANTAGONISTS: NALTREXONE PROGRESS REPORT. Demetrios

Julius, M.D., and Pierre Renault, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-00521-5 $2.55 NTIS PB #255 833/AS $15.50

10 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DRUG ABUSE: CURRENT ISSUES. Louise G. Richards,

Ph.D., and Louise B. Blevens, eds. Examines methodological issues

in surveys and data collection. Not available from NCDAI.

GPO Stock #017-024-00571-1 $2.60 NTIS PB #266 691/AS $20

11 DRUGS AND DRIVING. Robert Willette, Ph.D., ed. Reviews

research on effects of drugs on psychomotor performance, focusing

on measures of impairment by different drugs at various levels.

GPO Stock #017-024-00576-2 $1.70 NTIS PB #269 602/AS $14

12 PSYCHODYNAMICS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE. Jack D. Blaine, M.D., and

Demetrios A. Julius, M.D., eds. Theoretical and clinical papers

concerned with the intrapsychic determinants of drug addiction.

GPO Stock #017-024-00642-4 $2.75 NTIS PB #276 O84/AS $15.50

13 COCAINE: 1977. Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D., and Richard C.

Stillman, M.D., eds. Reports the extent and limits of current

knowledge about cocaine, its use and misuse.

GPO Stock #017-024-00592-4 $3 NTIS PB #269 175/AS $17

14 MARIHUANA RESEARCH FINDINGS: 1976. Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.,

ed. Technical papers on which the 6th Marihuana and Health report

to Congress was based.

GPO Stock #017-024-00622-0 $3 NTIS PB #271 279/AS $20

15 REVIEW OF INHALANTS: EUPHORIA TO DYSFUNCTION. Charles Wm.

Sharp, Ph.D., and Mary Lee Brehm, Ph.D., eds. Review of inhalant

abuse, including an extensive bibliography.

GPO Stock #017-024-00650-5 $4.25 NTIS PB #275 798/AS $26

100
16 THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEROIN AND OTHER NARCOTICS. Joan Dunne

Rittenhouse, Ph.D., ed. Task Force report on research

technologies and implications for studying heroin-narcotic use.

GPO Stock #017-024-00690-4 $3.50 NTIS PB #276 357/AS $18.50

17 RESEARCH ON SMOKING BEHAVIOR. Murray E. Jarvik, M.D., Ph.D.,

et al., eds. Includes epidemiology, etiology, consequences of

use, and approaches to behavioral change. From a NIDA-supported

UCLA conference.

GPO Stock #017-024-00694-7 $4.50 NTIS PB #276 353/AS $27.50

18 BEHAVIORAL TOLERANCE: RESEARCH AND TREATMNT IMPLICATIONS.

Norman A. Krasnegor, Ph.D., ed. Theoretical and empirical studies

of nonpharmacologic factors in development of drug tolerance.

GPO Stock #017-024-00699-8 $2.75 NTIS PB #276 337/AS $14

19 THE INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE OF DRUG ABUSE. Robert C. Petersen,

Ph.D., ed. Papers from the VI World Congress of Psychiatry which

deal with drug issues of particular interest worldwide.

GPO Stock #017-024-00822-2 $4.50 NTIS PB #293 807/AS $26

20 SELF-ADMINISTRATION OF ABUSED SUBSTANCES: METHODS FOR STUDY.

Norman A. Krasnegor, Ph.D., ed. Techniques used to study basic

processes underlying abuse of drugs, ethanol, food, and tobacco.

GPO Stock #017-024-00794-3 $3.75 NTIS PB #288 471/AS $20

21 PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP) ABUSE: AN APPRAISAL. Robert C. Petersen,

Ph.D., and Richard C. Stillman, M.D., eds. Pioneering volume for

clinicians and researchers assessing what is known about the

problem of PCP abuse.

GPO Stock #017-024-00785-4 $4.25 NTIS PB #288 472/AS $23

22 QUASAR: QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS OF

ANALGESICS, NARCOTIC ANTAGONISTS, AND HALLUCINOGENS. Gene

Barnett, Ph.D.; Milan Trsic, Ph.D.; and Robert Willette, Ph.D.;

eds. Reports from an interdisciplinary conference on the

molecular nature of drug-receptor interactions.

GPO Stock #017-024-00786-2 $5.25 NTIS PB #292 265/AS $33.50

23 CIGARETTE SMOKING AS A DEPENDENCE PROCESS. Norman A.

Krasnegor, Ph.D., ed. Discusses factors involved in the onset,

maintenance, and cessation of the cigarette smoking habit.

Includes an agenda for future research.

GPO Stock #017-024-00895-8 $4.50 NTIS PB #297 721/AS $17

24 SYNTHETIC ESTIMATES FOR SMALL AREAS: STATISTICAL WORKSHOP

PAPERS AND DISCUSSION. Joseph Steinberg, ed. Papers from a

workshop cosponsored by NIDA and the National Center for Health

Statistics on a class of statistical approaches that yield needed

estimates of data for States and local areas. Not available from

NCDAI.

GPO Stock #017-024-00911-3 $5 NTIS PB #299 OO9/AS $21.50

101
25 BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Norman

A. Krasnegor, Ph.D., ed. Papers present commonalities and

implications for treatment of dependency on drugs, ethanol, food,

and tobacco.

GPO Stock #017-024-00939-3 $4.50 NTIS PB #80-112428 $20

26 THE BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS OF SMOKING. Norman A. Krasnegor, Ph.D.,

ed. Reprint of the behavioral section of the 1979 Report of the

Surgeon General on Smoking and Health; introduction by editor.

GPO Stock #017-024-00947-4 $4.25 NTIS PB #80-118755 $15.50

27 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1979: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 41ST

ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS OF DRUG

DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed. Not available from

NCDAI.

GPO Stock #017-024-00981-4 $8 NTIS PB #80-175482 $35

28 NARCOTIC ANTAGONISTS: NALTREXONE PHARMACOCHEMISTRY AND

SUSTAINED-RELEASE PREPARATIONS. Robert Willette, Ph.D., and

Gene Barnett, Ph.D., eds. Papers report research on inserted

sustained-release and long-acting drug devices, and on possible

use with the narcotic antagonist naltrexone. In press.

29 DRUG ABUSE DEATHS IN NINE CITIES: A SURVEY REPORT. Louis A.

Gottschalk, M.D., et al. Epidemiologic study providing data on

drug-involved deaths and procedures for their investigations.

Not available from NCDAI.

GPO Stock #017-024-00982-2 $4.25 NTIS PB #80-178882 $15.50

30 THEORIES ON DRUG ABUSE: SELECTED CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES.

Dan J. Lettieri, Ph.D.; Mollie Sayers; and Helen Wallenstein

Pearson, eds. Volume presents summaries of the major contemporary theories of drug abuse by each of 43 leading theorists.

GPO Stock #017-024-00997-1 $8.50 Not available from NTIS

31 MARIJUANA RESEARCH FINDINGS: 1980. Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.,

ed. The text of the 8th Marijuana and Health report to Congress

and the background scientific papers on which this summary report

was based.

GPO Stock #017-024-01010-3 $5 NTIS PB #80-215171 $18.50

32 GC/MS ASSAYS FOR ABUSED DRUGS IN BODY FLUIDS. Rodger L. Foltz,

Ph.D.; Allison F. Fentiman, Jr., Ph.D.; and Ruth B. Foltz. A

collection of methods for the Quantitative analysis of several

important drugs of abuse by the technique of gas chromatographymass spectrometry.

GPO Stock #017-024-01015-4 $5 NTIS PB #81-133746 $17

34 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1980: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 42ND

ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS OF DRUG

DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed. Comprehensive

assemblage of ongoing research on drug abuse, addiction, and new

compounds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01061-8 $7 NTIS PB #81-194847 $32

102

GPO : 1981 O - 349-353