International Journal of the Addictions

ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19

A Comparison of Chronic Versus Casual Marijuana Users on Personal Values and Behavioral Orientations Thomas M. Kimlicka & Herbert J. Cross To cite this article: Thomas M. Kimlicka & Herbert J. Cross (1978) A Comparison of Chronic Versus Casual Marijuana Users on Personal Values and Behavioral Orientations, International Journal of the Addictions, 13:7, 1145-1156, DOI: 10.3109/10826087809039332 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826087809039332

Published online: 03 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=isum19 Download by: [University of Sydney Library]

Date: 25 March 2016, At: 21:36

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

The International Journal of the Addictions, 13(7), 1145-1 156, 1978

A Comparison of Chronic Versus Casual Marijuana Users on Personal Values and Behavioral Orientations Thomas M. Kimlicka, M.S.

Herbert J. Cross, Ph.D. Washington State University Pullman, Washington

Abstract

Fifty-one chronic (daily) long-term marijuana smokers and 32 casual (1 to 3 times per week) users were interviewed and given a Rokeach Value Survey, a Personal Orientation Inventory (POI), and a Zuckerman Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Value survey results showed that the two groups had the same general value structure. The POI showed no differences between the groups, and the adjective self-ratings were similar. The groups were significantly different on a number of social variables; number of user friends, longest period without drugs, perceived risks, etc., which indicated “drug subculture involvement.” Results are discussed from a sociological point of view. I145 Copyright @ 1978 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

I 116

KIMLICKA A N D CROSS

It is obvious that we need more knowledge about the effects of marijuana. Dornbush (1974) reports that studies of long-term use are more confusing and contradictory than are studies of acute effects. Serious psychopathology has been attributed to long-term marijuana “abuse” (Chopra and Smith, 1974; Halikas et al., 1972a, 1972b; Kaplan, 1971: Keeler, 1967; Kolansky and Moore, 1972a, 1972b; Soueif, 1971). These studies may be criticized on the basis of having been anecdotal or drawn from highly selected populations (Hochman and Brill, 1973: Zinberg and Robertson, 1972). Reports of regular users being better adjusted than nonusers (Beaubrun and Knight, 1973; Hochman, 1972; Weil et al.. 1968) o r showing no differences (Kupfer et al., 1973) are subject to the same sampling criticisms. Taken as a whole, the results of chronic studies are ambiguous (Grinspoon, 1971), and demonstrate the importance of matching the groups of users and controls on important demographic, biological, and social variables (Weckowicz and Janssen, 1973). A frequent error in marijuana research has been a failure to differentiate between types of users and potency of the drugs they used. Those who have smoked infrequently have generally been combined with moderate and heavy smokers to form a group of “users” to be distinguished from “nonusers.” As a result of this lack of specificity, important differences have been obscured (Cheek et al., 1973a, 1973b). Sck era1 pioneering studies have attempted to provide the much-needed differentiation among marijuana users on the basis of frequency and past history (Blum. 1969; Goldstein et al., 1970), and current investigators are beginning to analyze data in terms of user frequency as standard procedure (see Mirin et al., 1971). Results of these studies suggest maladjustment as a correlate of frequency of use. However, the casual or “typical” user cannot be reliably distinguished from infrequent or nonusers on most variables investigated (Cross and Davis, 1972; Mirin et al., 1971; Zinberg and Robertson, 1972). One recent study (Bruhn and Maage, 1975) following the frequency classification suggested by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse found no differences between daily users, multiple users, and nonusers on a comprehensive intellectual and neuropsychological test battery. The authors argue that this finding casts doubt on reports suggesting that long-term usage results in neural disorders. Several studies have compared student populations of heavy users (approximately 3 times per week) with casual (approximately 1 time per week) and nonusers. Results are equivocal and range from increases in psychopathology (Harmatz et al., 1972; Zinberg and Weil, 1970) to

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

CHRONIC VERSUS CASUAL MARIJUANA USERS

1147

increases in what might be termed positive personality factors or humanistic values (Hochman, 1972). Other studies indicate that consistent differences are more likely to be found in social and interpersonal adjustments than in measures of psychopathologyper se (Goldstein et al., 1970; Haagen, 1970; Hogan et al., 1970). The present study is viewed as exploratory because so little is known about long-term use. Several studies have tested for value differences between heavy and nonsmokers (Weckowicz and Janssen, 1973), hippies and college students (Cross et al., 1970), and adamant nonusers and current users (Gasparikova-Krasnec, 1974), but none studied a user population as chronic as will be employed in the present work. Also, no studies have investigated positive measures of mental health although speculation has centered around the question of whether chronic users are different on creativity, spontaneity, positive self-regard, and ability to be intimate. Hochman (1972) speculates that chronic users are more likely to develop attitudes which would facilitate such traits. Cheek et al. (1973b) have noted that a preponderance of heavy users felt better about communication skills, self-knowledge, and creativity. Building on these results and the discussions offered by Hochman (1972) and Zinberg and Robertson (1972), it is hypothesized that chronic users will report different social and personal values, attitudes, and behavior preferences than casual users. The differences expected can be conceptualized on a dimension of nonconventional versus conventional. Chronic users are expected, for example, to rank higher on honesty, selfdirectedness, present focus, and self-acceptance, and lower on ambition, hostility, and responsibility.

SU BJ ECTS Subjects

Sixty male and 23 female volunteers served as subjects. They were recruited primarily from the university community by research assistants who obtained information regarding their drug use in a confidential interview. The subjects of any marijuana study must report on behavior which is unlawful, so special consideration must be made to protect confidentiality. Five subjects were volunteers from a summer seminar on the psychology of drug use. Seventy-eight subjects were recruited by seven undergraduate research assistants (five male, two female) who were trained in data gathering and instructed to obtain volunteers who would

KIMLICKA AND CROSS

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

113x

be willing to participate in a drug study. Data were collected in the summer and fall of 197.5. The research assistants received approximately 10 hours of training and supervision in data collection. Six were psychology majors and one mas a speech pathology major. All were seriously considering graduate work and were interested in learning social science research techniques. The research assistants were able to win the confidence of the 83 marijuana users to grant an interview, fill out three questionnaires, and supply a volunteer significant other. The significant other filled out the (Personal Orientation Inventory) POI describing the subject. The data were insignificant and irrelevant to the present study. Therefore, this sample represents a group of university students who were willing to volunteer to talk with a peer about their drug use, and to supply a volunteer significant other. Subjects were divided into a chronic group and a casual group on the basis of reported frequency of marijuana use. All 52 chronic users (41 male. 1 1 female) met the requirement of smoking marijuana or hashish at least once a day for a period of no less than 1 year (X = 2.6 years, SD = 1.4).The 31 casual users (19 male, 12 female) all reported smoking between 1 and 3 times a week. The chronic and casual groups were matched for age, sex, education, and socioeconomic level. Mean ages for chronic and casual groups were 21.8 i 2.9 and 21.4 f 2.4, and mean years of education were 13.9 4 1.5 and 13.2 Ifi 1 . I . respectively. The two groups were similarly heterogeneous u ith regard to major. The subjects were predominantly sophomore and junior White middle-class students drawn from several academic, social. and living situations which did not differ significantly between groups. Measures

I. 2.

Demographic variables: age, sex, living situation. Academic: Grade point average (GPA), hours of school \vork per week, major, year in school, etc. 3. Drug information: tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, psychedelics, barbiturates on: age began, current frequency, hours per day “stoned,” years using marijuana, longest time without marijuana in past year, perceived risks of using marijuana, attitude toward others using, etc.

CHRONIC VERSUS CASUAL MARIJUANA USERS

1149

4. General adjustment: Experienced depression, working hard as should, received psychological counseling, etc. Personal Orientation Inventory

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

Shostrom’s (1966) POI purports to assess positive mental health. It assumes that the self-actualizing values, attitudes, and behaviors which it measures are healthy. Rokeach Value SurvejJ Rokeach’s Value Survey (Form D, 1969) presents the subject with two lists of 18 values each, one instrumental (referring to means, e.g., Capable, Loving, Honest) and one terminal (referring to goals, e.g., World at Peace, Freedom). The subject ranks the values in order of their importance as guiding principles in his life. Multiple Affect Adjective Check Lisl Zukerman et al.’s (1964) Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) is composed of 132 adjectives and is scored for Anxiety, Depression, and Hostility. Procedures

Research assistants conducted the interview and administered assessment devices during one meeting at a location agreed upon with the subject. Order of presentation was: Interview, Value Survey, POI, MAACL. After all materials were collected, the subjects were debriefed (the study and measures were broadly discussed) and thanked for their participation.

RESULTS All assessment data were tested using two-way analysis of variance for group effect, sex effect, and sex by group interaction. Degrees of freedom were 1, 79 for each comparison. There were no significant group differences on either major scale of the POI. Of the 10 POI subscales, only Self-acceptance approached a significant group difference, F (1,

KIMLICKA A N D CROSS

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

I 1 50

7'1) = 3.63, p < .06, with the chronic group scoring higher than the casual group. There were several significant sex differences on POI subscales and one interaction effect on the Existentiality subscale, F (1, 79) = 4.77, p < .03. Chronic male and casual female users scored higher than casual male and chronic female users. Results of the Rokeach Value Survey indicate virtually identical value patterns across groups. Table 1 depicts the highest and lowest ranked values. The reversal of chronics placing Honest first, Loving fifth, and casuals vice-versa is not significant, F(1, 79) = 2 . 8 5 , ~< .09. There is, liowc\er. a significant sex difference in rank of Loving: females place it first and males eighth, F (1, 79) = 20.7, p < ,0001. The only significant differences in values between the groups were: A World at Peace, F ( 1 , 79) = 5.24, p < .02. where chronic average rank was 8, casual 14, and a Table 1 List of Instrumental and Terminal Value Rankings with Group Medians

Chronic users Value rank

IHighest

Lowest Highest

Value

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5

Lowest

6 7 16 17 18

Casual users Median

Value

Instrumental value rankings 4.9 Happiness Happiness True Friendship 5.3 Freedom Freedom 5.5 Inner Harmony Inner Harmony 5.8 Self-Respect Wisdom 7.0 True Friendship Mature Love 7.8 Comfortable Life Self-Respect 8.0 Wisdom Social Recognition 15.0 Social Recognition National Security 16.6 Salvation Salvation 16.8 National Security Terminal value rankings 4.2 Loving Honest 4.5 Broadminded Broadminded 6.5 Responsible Responsible 6.9 Independent Independent 7.2 Honest Loving 7.8 Forgiving Forgiving 8.4 Capable Capable 12.4 Polite Polite 13.0 Clean Clean 0bedient 17.1 Obedient

Median

3.6 4.4 6.0 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.7 14.3 15.0 17.0 4.2 5.6 5.8 5.8 7.7 8.7 8.8 14.0 15.8 16.4

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

CHRONIC VERSUS CASUAL MARIJUANA USERS

1151

World of Beauty, F (1,79) = 5 . 4 5 , ~< .02, with chronics ranking it at 11 and casuals at 15. There were two significant sex by group interactions: Inner Harmony, F (1, 79) = 7.53, p < .008, and Forgiving, F ( 1 , 79) = 6.98, p < .01. Male chronics and female casuals ranked InnerHarmony higher than male casuals and female chronics. The opposite pattern was true for the value of Forgiving. There were no differences for sex, group, or sex by group interaction effects on the Anxiety, Hostility, or Depression scales of MAACL. The two-way analysis of variance yielded the following values for the Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression scales, respectively: F (1, 79) = 0 . 1 7 , ~ < .68; F (1, 79) = 0.48, p < .49; F (1, 79) = 1.02, p < .31. All group means were well within the normal adult range (Zuckerman, 1965). Results obtained from the interview data are presented in Table 2. It illustrates the extent of drug involvement, which differs predictably between groups. Of particular interest is the report of almost half of each group that their alcohol consumption goes down while using marijuana. Mean differences on variables 1 to 8, which may be indicative of drug involvement, are significantly higher for chronics than casuals with the exception of age began smoking marijuana (Variable 3). Table 3 presents data detailing chronic group’s use of marijuana.

DISCUSSION The results argue against the hypothesis which predicted different values and personal orientations between groups of daily, long-term marijuana users and more casual users. In fact, the results suggest that the two groups are quite similar. The two group differences in value rankings (A World at Peace, A World of Beauty) are not seen as meaningful because of their imbedded position in the middle of both groups’ value rankings. More practical significance might be ascribed to the fact that the highest and lowest ranked values were almost perfectly matched between groups. The considerable concordance of POI scores across both major scales and 9 of the 10 subscales also seems more important than the one nearly significant group difference on the Self-Acceptance subscale. Contributing to the picture of group consonance is the MAACL data which also depict no differences, and, in fact high agreement, between groups’ scores on its Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression scales. Data from the structured interview yield discordant group composites which seem to reflect differential intensity of involvement in what could be

KIMLICKA AND CROSS

1153

Table 2 Structured lnterview Data

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

Variable

Chronic (n = 51)

Casual (n = 32)

1.

Percentage of user friends

84 rt 17

2.

Percentage of heavy user friends

46

3. 4.

Mean age began smoking marijuana Mean number of known marijuana growers Longest period without Subject goes to classes/work “stoned” Subject is high at time of interview Other illicit drugs used (amphetamines, psychedelics, barbiturates, opiates, etc.): 4 or more 3 drugs 2 drugs 1 drug None Self-report of frequency of getting drunk Tobacco users Peiceived risks in using marijuana: Legal only Lung damage No risks Amotivation Psychic dependence Driving impaired Other Perceived effect on other drug use: Alcohol consumption down No effect Will try or tried more drugs Experienced severe depression in last 6 months Has had psychological counseling Grade point average

16.7 years

72 k 27 F(1, 79) = (2.54 P < .05. 15*9 F(1, 79) = 35.0 P CI ,001. 17.5 years

7.5 2.3 weeks 81 % 48 %

3.4 7.1 weeks 10% 3 % (n = 1)

5 times/month 68 %

4 times/month 59 %

37 % 31 % 32 % 0 0 0

25 % 9% 12 ”i, 15% 1972 9 76 9%

5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

* 26

-

45 % 39 % 16%

44 % 3 72 3%

55 % 23 % 2.85

56 % 16% 3.18 F(1, 79) = 7.11 P < .01.

1153

CHRONIC VERSUS CASUAL MARIJUANA USERS Table 3 Marijuana Data for Chronic Group Variable

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

Years since becoming daily user Marijuana smoked per week in ounces Hours spent stoned per day

Mean and standard deviation 2.6 2C 1.5 0.57 2C 0.26 5.7 & 1.8

termed the “drug subculture” (Johnson, 1973). Chronic users report having more marijuana-using friends, many more heavy-using friends, know more people who grow marijuana, began smoking at a younger age, and have used and are continuing to use more illicit drugs more frequently. The genuineness of the chronicity of marijuana use in the chronic group is apparent from the data. It seems accurate to state that typical chronic user in this sample spends about one-third of his awake life intoxicated on marijuana, has done so for a considerable length of time, and across most life situations and tasks. The following composite pictures of a typical chronic user and a typical casual user are offered to illustrate the differential levels of membership in the drug subculture. Interview data indicates that most of the typical chronic user’s friends are also marijuana users (84 k 17%) and almost half of them are heavy users like him/herself (46 k 26%). He/she began smoking by 17 years of age and knows about seven people who grow their own marijuana (7.5 = mean). Although he/she indicated that smoking marijuana was not tremendously important for their daily life, the mean time gone without in the past year was about 2 weeks (2.3 = mean) and 32% of the sample went only 3 days or less. The typical chronic user goes to class and work “stoned” (89%) and almost half reported being “high” at the time of the interview (48%). The typical chronic user smokes about a half ‘‘lid’’ per week (0.57 k 0.26 ounces), spends about 6 hours a day “high” (5.7 i 1.81, and has maintained his/her marijuana use pattern for about 2 years (2.6 & I S ) . The typical chronic user is also an experienced and current user of several other drugs. The most common pattern was amphetamines, LSD, and CNS depressants with cumulative frequency 100 x , 25 x , and 20 x , respectively. The exceptions to this pattern generally took one or more exotic drugs (amyl nitrate, cocaine) in addition. There were only two subjects who indicated opiate use. The typical chronic user is presently taking amphetamines once a month, psychedelics once every 3 months, and barbiturates every 4 months. Perceived risks reported by chronic smokers consisted of possible lung damage and fear of legal punishment.

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

1154

KIMLICKA A N D CROSS

There was a conspicuous absence of the more dramatic potential risks alluded to in the scientific and popular literature. The typical casual user also has many marijuana smoking friends (72 f 27qb) but very few heavy-using friends (15 f 9). He/she began smoking marijuana before 18 years of age (17.5 = mean) and knows about three people who grow marijuana. His/her average time without smoking in the past year was 7 weeks (7.1 = mean) and he/she does not go to classes or work “stoned” (loo/, do). The pattern of use of other illicit drugs is primarily experimental, low frequency, and discontinued with amphetamines being the major drug used for study purposes, and perhaps two or three LSD “trips.” A large percentage had used no other illicit drugs (41010).The typical casual marijuana user is presently using amphetamines twice a year, LSD once a year, or nothing at all. Casual users are more likely to report a panorama of perceived marijuana risks associated Rith use heavier than their own. For example, in addition to legal entanglement and lung dangers, a typical casual user might report that abuse could lead to amotivation, physical or psychic dependence, impaired driving ability, brain cell damage, or “big tits” (gyneocomastia). It may be these perceptions which maintain their casual frequency. These drug interview results are in close agreement with Johnson’s ( 1973) sociological theory of marijuana use which predicts increasing drug subculture involvement with increasing frequency of marijuana smoking. The data on multiple drug use patterns confirm the impressions of other investigators (Hogan et al., 1970; McGlothlin and West, 1968; Mirin et al., 1971) that heavy marijuana use is typically associated with using other more powerful illicit drugs. The failure to reveal any practical group differences on any of the psychological assessment devices is unexpected. A criticism of this study is the lack of a nonuser comparison group which might be expected to demonstrate differences. The decision to exclude a nonuser group was one of economy and based on the growing scientific concensus that casual users cannot be reliably differentiated from nonusers and research effort should be directed to the “heavy user” (see Mirin et a]., 1971). One explanation for the lack of group differences is that all regular marijuana users among present day university students are the distillate of an experience which may screen out those lacking the capacity to use marijuana without serious disorganizing or stigmatizing effects. In contrast to the “hippie versus straight” groups many previous marijuana researchers have delineated, this study suggests that subjects’ similarities may result from mutual membership in a more primary subgroup characterized as young, White, middle class, university student drug users.

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

CHRONIC VERSUS CASUAL MARIJUANA USERS

1155

In summary, little can be said about the differences between chronic and casual marijuana users outside of drug involvement behaviors. The results indicate similarities in mood, values, and positive measures of mental health. The results of this study of a sizable number of very heavy marijuana and multiple drug users suggests that differentiating characteristics of marijuana smokers are most suggestive of social deviance and membership in a deviant subculture. The authors agree with Weckowicz and Janssen (1973) that research effort would be more profitably spent in this area.

REFERENCES BEAUBRUN, M.H., and KNIGHT, F. Psychiatric assessment of 30 chronic users of cannabis and 30 matched controls. Am. J . Psychiatry 130: 309-311, 1973. BLUM, R.H. Students and Drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. BRUHN, P., and MAAGE, N . Intellectual and neuropsychological functions in young men with heavy and long-term patterns of drug abuse. Am. J . Psychiatry 132(4): 1975. CHEEK, F.E., SARETT-BARRIE, M., HOLSTEIN, C.M., NEWELL, S., and SMITH, S. Four patterns of campus marijuana use. Part I. Drug Use. I n f . J . Addict. 8: 320-331, 1973a. CHEEK, F.E., SARETT-BARRIE, M., HOLSTEIN, C.M., NEWELL, S., and SMITH, S. Four patterns of campus marijuana use. Part 11. Social aspects of use. Int. J . Addict. 8: 333-351, 1973b. CHOPRA, G.S., and SMITH, J.W. Psychotic reactions following cannabis use in East Indians. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 30: 24-21, 1974. CROSS, H.J., and DAVIS, G.L. College students adjustment and frequency of marijuana use. J . Counsel. Psychol. 19: 65-67, 1972. CROSS, H.J., DOOST, R.M., and TRACY. J.J. A study of values among hippies. In Proceedings, 78th Convention, American Psychological Association, 1970, pp. 449-450. DORNBUSH, R.L. The long-term effects of cannabis use. In L. E. Miller (ed.) Marijuana: Eflec.ts on Human Behavior. New York: Academic, 1974. GASPARIKOVA-KRASNEC, M. Values as Correlates of’Attifudes toward Marijuana Use. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Washington State University, 1974. GOLDSTEIN, J.W., KORN, J.H., ABEL, W.H., and MORGAN, R.M. The Social Psychology and Epidemiology of’ Student Drug Usage: Report on Phase One. Technical Rep. No 70- 18, Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, 1970. G RINSPOON, L. Marijuana Reconsidered. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971. HAAGEN, C.H. Social and Psychological Characteristics Associated with the Use of Marijuana by College Men. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University, Office of Psychological Services, 1970. HALIKAS, J.A., GOODWIN, D.W., and GUZE, S.B. Marijuana use and psychiatric illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 27: 162- 165, 1972a.

Downloaded by [University of Sydney Library] at 21:36 25 March 2016

1156

KIMLICKA AND CROSS

HALIKAS, J.A., GOODWIN, D.W., and GUZE, S.B. Pattern of marijuana use: A survey of 100 regular users. Conip. Psj,chirrrry 13: 161-163, 1972b. HARMATZ, R., SHADER, R.. and SALZMAN, C. Marijuana users and non-users: Personality test differences. 4rc.h. Gen. Psj~dirurrj.26: 108 1 12, 1972. HOCHMAN, J.S. Murijuuna und Social Evolution. Englewood CliKs, New Jersey: PrenticcHall. 1972. HOCHMAN. I. S., and BRILL. N.Q. Chronic marijuana use and psychological adaptation. .4!)1.J . P.sjdziutr.v 130; 132- 140, 1973. HOGAN. R.. MANKIN, D., CONWAY, J.. and FOX, S. Personality correlates of undergraduate marijuana use. J . Consult. Clin. Psycho/. 35: 58- 63, 1970. JOHNSON. B.D. tisers und drug suhculfure.r.. New York: Wiley-Interscience. 1973. KAPLAN, H.S. Psychosis associated with marijuana. N . Y . Starc. Med. Assoc. Bull. 128: 213 216. 1971. KEELER. M.H. Adverse reactions to marijuana. An?. J . Psj.chiatrq 124: 674-677, 1967. KOLANSKY, H., and MOORE, W.T. Clinical effects of marijuana on the young. Itrr. J . P s i d ~ i u r q10: ~ 55-67, 1972a. KOLANSKY, H,, and MOORE, W.T. Toxic effects of chronic marijuana use. J . An?. Mi,rl. .4ssoc. 222: 35S41, 1972b. KUPFER, D.J.. DETRE, T., KORAL, J.. and FAJANS, P. A comment on the "aniotibational syndrome." An?. J . Psycl?ietry 130: 1319-1322, 1973. MrGLOTHLIN. W.H., and WEST, L.J. The marijuana problem: An overview. An7. ./. P , ~ ~ c h i ~ r125: r j ' 370- 378, 1968. MIRIN, S.M., et al. Casual versus heavy use of marijuana: A redefinition of the marijuana problem .4m. J . P.vqcliiurry 127: 1134-1140, 1971. ROKEACH, M. Beliqfi, Attitudes und Vulues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1969. SHOSTROM, E.L. Manual ,for the P.O.I.: An Inventorj. ,fbr ihi. Meusuretnerir o f ' ScJlf.4mmIi:ution. San Diego: Educational and Testing Service, 1966. SOUEIF. M.I. The use of cannabis in Egypt: A behavioral study. Bull. Nurcotic.\ 23: 17 28. 1971. WECKOWICZ. T.E.. and JANSSEN, D.V. Cognitive functions, personality traits. and social values in heavy marijuana smokers and nonsmoker controls. J . Ahuorni. P.sjdiol. 81: 264 ~ 2 6 9 ,1973. WEIL. A.T.. ZINBERG, N.E., and NELSON, J.M. Clinical and psychological effects of marijuana in man. Science 162: 1234 -1248, 1968. ZLNBERG, N.E., and ROBERTSON J.A. Drugs and rhe Public. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972. ZUCKERMAN, M., LUBIN, B., VOGEL, L., and VALERIUS. E. Measurement o f experimentally induced affects. J . Consult. P.sycho1. 28: 41 8-425, 1964.

A comparison of chronic versus casual marijuana users on personal values and behavioral orientations.

International Journal of the Addictions ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19 A Comparison of Chr...
718KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views