Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use

Word Count: 5320

AP Research

April 30, 2018

 Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of marijuana, as a gateway drug, on

the perspectives of other illicit drugs for LA County resident teenagers from the ages of 16-18.

Through the use of in-depth case studies, with a purposive snowball sampling method to collect

the sample size of 8 teenagers, interviews were conducted to deduce whether prior experience

with the use of marijuana affected views on other illicit substances, such as heroin, cocaine,

crack, etc. Other factors such as annual income, perceptions of social support, and quality of life

were considered. Each case consisted of three interviews, with two mandatory and one optional,

ranging from 20-30 minutes, with the use of two questionnaires, a survey, and a semi-structured

interview format. It was found that marijuana usage did correlate with increased willingness to

use other illicit drugs, with social attachment playing a significant role. Due to the inherent bias

of a purposive sampling method for sample collection, in addition to the small sample size, this

study may not be representative of the population at large, however it does provide preliminary

investigation into a current, and controversial topic and the effects therein with the recent

legalization of marijuana in California. It also explores a largely undefined and ambiguous

branch of study in the existing body of knowledge, serving as a pilot study for future research.

Additional future research may allow for a larger and more representative sample group with

fewer limitations.

Key Terms: gateway drug, perspectives, teenagers, marijuana, social attachment, illicit drugs
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 1

Introduction

In 1996, California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana (California

Legislature Information: Code Section, 2017). As stated in Article 2B, “patients and their

primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the

recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” Twenty

years later, California is the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana with the Adult Use of

Marijuana Act, but with some significant provisions over the other four states (California

Legislative Information: AB-64, 2017). The concessions outlined in what is popularly called

Prop 64, passed on November 8, 2016, are a bit convoluted. Amanda Reiman of the Drug Policy

Alliance said in an interview with The Times, “You cannot legally buy a marijuana plant, but

someone can give you one” (Steinmetz, 2016). In addition, an individual may only grow six

marijuana plants per household, regardless of size, and there is no allowance for the smoking or

ingesting of weed in public (Steinmetz, 2016). There is also a corollary statement that prohibits

the smoking of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare. The previous restrictions on

usage of marijuana prior to and during the operation of any transportation vessel still apply

(Steinmetz, 2016).

These legislative changes correlate strongly with continuing rise in support for marijuana

legislation, with a study done by the Pew Research Center showing about 61% of Americans

saying the use of marijuana should be legalized (Geiger, 2018). This is a shocking revelation

when compared with statistics from 2000, where only 31% of Americans said marijuana should

be legalized (Geiger, 2018). It is not surprising that with 2/3 of Americans supporting the

legalization of marijuana that states are beginning to entertain the idea: California, Alaska,

Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maine have all legalized both
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 2

recreational and medical marijuana, while 23 other states have legalized medical marijuana

(State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map, 2018). There are two issues with the recent trend towards

legalization of marijuana – the fact that Federal law still mandates marijuana is an illegal drug

and the Gateway Hypothesis.

The U.S Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration maintains a list of all

controlled substances, updated at frequent intervals (it was last updated March 30, 2018), and

organizes them based on “whether they have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the

United States, their relative abuse potential, and likelihood of causing dependencies when

abused” (Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], 2018). All substances are organized into

different “tiers” that denote their relative danger or use to the general population, with Tier I

having “no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use

under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse” and Tier V, the lowest, least

dangerous, and/or most useful tier, having a low potential for abuse relative to all higher tiers and

consisting primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics (DEA,

2018). Marijuana is currently contained in Tier I alongside drugs like heroin, with a 2016 study

conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration in reaction to petitioners clearly outlining

the reasoning behind this decision and essentially proving their motivations for keeping it in Tier

I. The findings stated that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted

medical use in the U.S., and a significant portion of users are under the age of 18, among other

conclusions (Office of Diversion Control, 2016).

Marijuana is a Tier I drug, yet it is legal in a growing number of states in contrast to

implications of its danger to the public. Most importantly, the Office of Diversion Control found

that a large number of marijuana users are under the age of 18, and a recent study conducted in
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 3

reaction to recent recreational marijuana legalization corroborated with these findings by

asserting that, like alcohol and tobacco, “products that are legal only for adults inevitably find

their way into the hands of adolescents…to a significant degree” (Hall and Weier, 2017). A

study by Magdalena Cerda and a team of researchers found that, using data from the National

Survey on Drug Use and Health, states that legalized marijuana had higher rates of marijuana use

for all age groups (Cerda, Wall, Keyes, Galea, & Hasin, 2012). Paired with the Gateway

Hypothesis, this could have serious implications for the youth in legalized marijuana states,

based solely on marijuana’s indirect effects.

The Gateway Hypothesis is a term for the medical theory that the use of a psychoactive

drug can be associated with an increased probability of the use of further drugs (Vanyukov,

Tarter, & Kirillova, 2013). Essentially, certain drugs serve as “gateways” for the use of other

drugs. Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis, a book

co-written by a panel of researchers with doctorates in their fields is key to the body of existing

knowledge as it has cleared much of the ambiguity and variance surrounding the definition and

application of the Gateway Hypothesis, providing a substantial base for further research on the

topic (“Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis”, 2002).

The publication solidifies the concept of the Gateway Hypothesis and develops the notion that

involvement in various classes of drugs is not opportunistic but follows definite pathways. In

essence, an individual who participates in one drug behavior is at risk of progressing to another.

However, it is not implied that these stages are either obligatory or universal, nor that all users

must progress through each stage in turn. A user does not need to enter a certain stage and use

the corresponding drug in order to progress to another stage and use that corresponding drug; i.e.,

one must use marijuana in order to use heroin. Nor does a user need to move on from a stage that
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 4

they are in; i.e., a marijuana user does not necessarily need to start using heroin and may

continue to use solely marijuana indefinitely.

However, studies have found that marijuana users typically go on to further stages of

drug use. A study headed by Roberto Secades-Villa found that a large proportion of cannabis, or

marijuana, users go on to use other illicit drugs (Secades-Villa, Garcia-Rodriguez, Jin, Wang, &

Blanco, 2003). Analyses were conducted on the sub-sample of participants of the National

Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) who started marijuana

use before any other drug that led to this conclusion. Another study headed by M.T. Lynskey

found from a cross-sectional survey of national Australian young adults with co-twin controls

that early access to and use of marijuana may “reduce perceived barriers against the use of other

illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs,” with significant emphasis on peer and social

context of usage, and social attachment (Lynskey, Heath, Bucholz, Slutske, Madden, Nelson, &

Martin, 2003). Social attachment for adolescents and adults is defined as “a deep and enduring

emotional bond that connects one person to another across time and space” (McLeod, 1970).

Marijuana exhibits almost all features of a gateway drug, as was determined by a study

conducted by Denise Kandel. Kandel is a highly credentialed researcher with a focus on

substance abuse and found in a study focused solely on marijuana that “the use of marijuana

precedes the use of other illicit drugs,” with this trend having “been observed in the United

States as well as in other western societies.” (Kandel, 2003). These conclusions were based on

large sample groups gathered from various western societies, such as the United States, Canada,

and Australia, and Kandel further advanced the Gateway Hypothesis by presenting three implied

interrelated propositions: sequencing, association of initiation, and causation. It was determined

that marijuana exhibited all three of these to some degree. Sequencing is a fixed relationship,
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 5

where one substance is regularly initiated before the other, and it was found that very few

individuals who have tried heroin and cocaine have not already used marijuana, with these

findings supported by multiple studies (Kandel, 2003; Jessor & Jessor, 1973). This also reflects

on traits of initiation, where use of a drug increases likelihood of initiation of other substances,

supported by these same studies. Marijuana does exhibited traits of causation, however the

highly controversial nature of this proposition has led to varying findings and heated debate, so

nothing can be concluded as of the time of writing.

There are many studies on how marijuana acts as a gateway drug and how it correlates

with the usage of more illicit and addictive drugs, but there is little to no research on how the

usage of marijuana as a gateway drug actually affects how teenagers view other more illicit

drugs. This culminates in the specific focus of this research study – how does marijuana use as a

recreational gateway drug affect overall viewpoints on illicit drug use for high schoolers in the

Los Angeles county? This study aims to explore the effects of recreational marijuana usage on

perspectives of illicit drugs for teenage high school students, with the LA county chosen as the

representative region due to proximity to the researcher. It is hypothesized that the use of

marijuana by high schoolers in this region will decrease the magnitude of negative associations

with other illicit drugs, especially in comparison to high schoolers with no first or second-hand

experience with marijuana.

Methods

This research study is founded upon the collection of data through a case study of

teenagers enrolled in high school, within the age range of 16-18, that have had and have not had

prior experience with the use of marijuana. As a control group, an equally sized set of

participants who have not had experience with marijuana at any point in time, neither first hand
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 6

nor second hand, was chosen as a reference group in order to determine how perspectives have

changed in relation to the experimental group of students who have had experience with the use

of marijuana. The sample size of 8 teenage residents within the LA county who participated

within this study was gathered through a purposive snowball sample, where initial participants

with previous affiliation to the researcher were invited to participate in the study based upon

their own volition.

Purposive sampling is “widely used in qualitative research for the identification and

selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources” and is

accepted as a proper method for selecting research participants (Palinkas, Horwitz, Green,

Wisdom, Duan, & Hoagwood, 2013). Due to its nature of being inherently bias, it allows for a

much more efficient form of information gathering and for selection of participants that can

immediately and directly aid in furthering the research of this study (Palinkas et al., 2013).

Snowball sampling is a type of purposive sampling that allows for the “identification of

an initial subject who is used to provide the name of other actors,” where in this case ‘actors’

refers to other potential participants (Sedgwick, 2013). Initial participants put the researcher in

direct communication with other potential participants, thus eliminating the need for inquiries of

large amounts of individuals within the county to find individuals relevant to the study. In

addition, as drug use is very heavily stigmatized in most societies, the population of those that

use drugs is particularly hard to track (University of California, Davis, 2013; Room, 2005). Due

to the chain referral nature of purposive snowball sampling, the difficulty of coming into contact

with previously stated population thus becomes a negligible barrier to the gathering of data for

this research (Penrod, Preston, Cain, & Starks, 2003). Thus, by using a purposive sampling

method for this study the researcher was able to sufficiently gather participants with a known
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 7

and/or public history of marijuana use with the boundaries of the LA county area, without the

need for preliminary screening to determine qualified participants or mass surveying of the

student body within the county, saving both time and resources for all involved.

The method used in this research is a case study, which is implemented after the initial

sample groups are gathered using a purposive snowball sampling method, as previously

described. In a case study, sometimes called idiographic research, a “particular individual,

program, or event is studied in depth for a defined period of time” and usually entails the

collection of an extensive amount of data on that which is being studied (Leedy & Ormrod,

2010). Drug use is a highly complex issue and can depend on an innumerable amount of

contributing factors, ranging from income and education to family circumstances and social

attachment. Drug use also has a wide array of effects on the individual in question, one of which,

a change in perspectives on more illicit, addictive drugs, is being studied by this research.

Because of this, there can be no assumptions nor generalizations, and a case study, with the focus

on individual cases and excessive amounts of data collected, perfectly suits this research study.

This study aims to explore how marijuana expresses itself as a gateway drug by observing the

responses of teenagers within the LA county area who have and have not used the drug when

presented with hypothetical questions of potential drug use.

The case study will consist of a set of 2-3 interviews per individual, lasting for around 20

to 30 minutes each. Each interview will have its audio recorded on a local isolated recording

device by the researcher, with a consent form signed by each participant relating the nature of the

study, the presence of a recording device, the right to decline to answer, the right to privacy and

confidentiality, and the option to stop participating in the study at any time. The researcher will

be taking notes throughout each interview on speech patterns, body language, pauses, and other
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 8

suggestive signs of the participant’s state of mind. The first interview will be based on a list of

questions, provided in the Appendix, that aim to gather background information and

circumstances of marijuana usage or experience for each participant, or circumstances that occur

in absence of any marijuana usage or experience. The participant will also fill out two

questionnaires: the WHOQOL-BREF and the ISEL-Shortened Version, also included in the

Appendix. These will measure the quality of life, quality of health, and quality of other areas of

the participants life, as well as perceptions of social support, respectively. The ISEL has three

specific subscales designed to measure three dimensions of perceived social support: appraisal

support, belonging support, and tangible support. These three dimensions and the participant’s

quality of life are integral to understanding the sources of influence on the participant’s decision

to use, continue using, or not use marijuana, and are an important part of each case. The second

interview will include a short survey in Likert scale format listing different types of illicit,

illegal, and addictive drugs as organized by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Schedule

List and a repeated questioning on the list of questions used in the first interview, to ensure

consistency. Participants will be presented with options going from “not at all likely” to “very

likely,” with an option for lack of knowledge about the drug. Any option other than “not at all

likely” or the option for unknown is considered as potential willingness to use the drug, given a

numerical value of one, and the total points are summed. This total value provides a numerical

representation of propensity, or willingness, to use illicit drugs. The third interview is optional

and is reserved for additional supporting information or updates on sudden and significant

changes for the participant should they arise and will be requested, but not enforced, by the

researcher. Interviews were chosen as the primary method of data collection for each case as it

allows for a more personal, flexible form of inquiry, which increases the chances of participants
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 9

relinquishing more personal and honest information. In addition, the data obtained can be much

richer and informative than data obtained from other methods as a result of the potential to more

deeply probe answers of participants (University of Sheffield, 2014).

All audio recordings will be stored locally on an isolated laptop computer, transcribed to

a Word document, then deleted to ensure it cannot be reproduced. The data is organized through

a hybrid mix of a pre-set and open coding process, where initial codes such as “friend” and

“party” are initially used, but then emergent codes such as “cope” and “edible” are added in later.

Because of the tendency of interviews to become unstructured, coding will allow the qualitative

data to become easier to analyze by significantly reducing both its volume and any irrelevant

information.

When all necessary data is collected and organized, connections will be drawn between

influencing factors, as determined by the WHOQOL-BREF and the ISEL-Shortened Version,

history of marijuana usage, and potential for using other substances through observed trends and

correlational relationships, as well as comparisons between the control and experimental groups.

Due to the number of independent and difficult-to-define factors that change for each participant,

neither a direct causal comparative nor correlational method can be directly applied, leading to

the previously stated hybrid within a case study model being the best and most reliable option.

Results

Overall, usage of marijuana demonstrates an increased willingness to use other illicit

drugs, and social attachment seems to be a key factor. For all users of marijuana, there is a

general trend for increased propensity, or willingness, to use illicit drugs such as heroin and

cocaine in comparison to high schoolers that have not had any prior experience with marijuana,
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 10

with exception for one outlying student that has not used marijuana but exhibited excessive

willingness to use illicit drugs in the future.

Table 1: Questionnaire and Survey Data

Tables were used as a method to display participant data due to the necessity of an

organized display structure and the highly individualistic nature of the information gathered.

Charts and graphs did not prove to be efficient enough at representing the rich and varied

information sources of this study, in addition to portraying individual data in a far too

generalized way.

Table 1 shows the gathered data for all eight participants in this study, including factors

such as experience with marijuana, socioeconomic status, and the data gathered from the two

questionnaires and illicit drugs survey. Socioeconomic classification was determined by raw

income values reported by participants that were than compared with classifications provided by

the United States Census Bureau (US Census Bureau, 2010). Participants one through four have

all had prior experience with marijuana, while participants five through eight have not. Gender

was not considered as a study headed by M.D. Newcomb found that sex differences were not a
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 11

significant determinant for risk factors for drug use among adolescents (Newcomb, Maddahian,

& Bentler, 2011).

Age and socioeconomic class, while known to play a role in marijuana usage, was used

solely as reference information in this study (Little, 2016). Due to the small sample size, no

correlations could be determined based on the information from the eight participants in this

study, and thus these two factors were not considered in the course of this study. Age was used

primarily as a designation of the participants’ status as teenagers in high school, which is the

focus group of this study.

The WHOQOL-BREF contains an overall perceived Quality of Life measure in addition

to four domains, each representing different aspects of health of the participants’ lifestyle. The

domains are physical health, psychological health, social relationship health, and environment

health, respectively (World Health Organization & University of Washington, 1997). A

significant trend is observed upon comparing the social relationship health (Domain 3) measures

of participants one through four to participants five through eight, with measures for the

marijuana users being significantly higher. Participant eight is an outlier, with a perfect score that

is much higher than all other participants, and interview data supported the assumption that an

outside factor was the cause as the participant frequently receives psychiatric aid. Within this

domain there is also a lower standard deviation between marijuana users (11.7893) in

comparison to non-marijuana users (18.05547). Within all other domains, across the board, the

total average measurement values of marijuana users and non-marijuana users remained

relatively similar, suggesting that social relationships are the primary aspects within high

schoolers’ lifestyles that are significantly impacted as a result of marijuana usage.

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 12

The ISEL-Shortened contains three subscales, with each measuring perceptions of social

support within the participants’ lifestyles. The subscales are Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible,

with each representing perceptions of advice or guidance, perceptions of empathy, acceptance or

concern, and perceptions of help or assistance, respectively (Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, &

Hoberman, 1985). A significant trend is observed within the belonging subscale upon comparing

values between marijuana users and non-marijuana users, with the prior demonstrating much

higher values across the board than the latter. The total average value for marijuana users in this

domain demonstrates a much greater difference than shown in the other two subscales, where

individual and average values are much closer. In addition, standard deviation between

marijuana users (.8164) and non-marijuana users (1.8929) in this subscale again suggests that

marijuana plays a sufficient role in stabilizing perceptions of belonging for high school students.

Propensity, or willingness to use, illicit drugs correlates with usage of marijuana, with all

participants with prior experience with marijuana demonstrating willingness to some extent. The

average of marijuana users (6) was much higher than non-marijuana users (3.25), in fact being

almost double. It was also expressed during interviews that there was an interest to use other

illicit drugs in the future for the experience, similar to initial marijuana usage with friends. The

average willingness to use illicit drugs for participants five through eight is very low, with the

average significantly increased by participant seven as an outlier. The average without

participant seven would be 1. Thus, lack of willingness to use illicit drugs appears to correlate

with a lack of history of marijuana usage.

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 13

Table 2: Interview Data (Coded)

Table 2 shows the coded data of the interviews of participants one through four,

categorized and quantified into twelve categories. The interview data was determined not to be

applicable to participants five through eight, as they had no prior experience with marijuana that

could be categorized and coded; their interview data was not relevant to the focus of this study.

Within the interview sessions of marijuana users, it was found that there was a high

frequency of mentions of “friend” or “friends” in context of their usage. This was the primary

category, as it received the most mentions across the board and was mentioned by every

participant, where all but two other categories were not. It was found that marijuana was ingested

in two forms, edible and smoked, with the former being most common. Usage of marijuana was

mentioned as being “fun” for all participants, but the extent of this perception varied greatly

between participants. It is important to note that the “party” category was selected prior to the

coding process, and was not found within any of the interviews, and thus was not relevant to

marijuana usage for any of the participants. For half of the participants, it was noted that they
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 14

expressed their usage coming from a “desire to relax” and a “need to cope.” These two

categories seem to correlate with more positive attitudes about marijuana usage, and across the

board all participants exhibited primarily positive attitudes about their usage of marijuana with

undertones of neutrality at times and no obvious signs of regret or dissatisfaction that would

imply negative attitudes about their usage.

Repeated questioning of interview, questionnaire, and survey questions demonstrated

great consistency with participants’ responses, implying credibility and reliability with the

findings of the various sources of information with each case in this case study.

Discussion and Analysis

In response to the original question of this research study, marijuana, in context of its

properties as a gateway drug, used recreationally decreases the magnitude of negative

associations with other illicit drugs, and it was found that willingness to use other illicit drugs

was higher for students who have had prior experience with marijuana. Thus, it can be concluded

that marijuana use causes high school students in the Los Angeles county area to see other illicit

drugs with less negativity, increasing their potential to use other illicit drugs in the future, with

social attachment playing a significant role.

The initial analysis of the data collected in this study occurred during the coding process

of the interview data, where a code structure was formulated both off of predetermined

categories and categories that presented themselves upon deeper analysis. Secondary analysis

occurred with the comparison of data across the various sources, the questionnaires and survey,

and the drawing of correlations and trends. As was stated in the methods section, a direct casual

comparative or correlational method could not be applied.

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 15

It was found from the questionnaires that social relationship health and perceptions of

empathy, acceptance or concern were much higher for marijuana users than for non-marijuana

users, demonstrating that marijuana users typically perceived greater acceptance and support

from peers and their social environments. Across both questionnaires, there appeared to be

correlations between elevated levels of social proclivity and satisfaction with the state of the

social aspect of participants’ lifestyles, but standard deviation was also very high for social

relationship health for marijuana users, leading to the conclusion that marijuana use may have

resulted from difficulty in coping with a situation or a desire for social attachment. This

correlates with the analysis from the interview coding process, with “friend”, “desire to relax”,

and a “need to cope” representing a significant portion of the participants. Marijuana usage

appears to have resulted in a boost of social relationship health and perceptions of social health

for marijuana users, likely due to the fact that acceptance into a social cohort of friends and peers

provided a sense of belonging and social attachment, which was substantiated with direct

interview responses.

The survey on illicit drugs demonstrates that marijuana usage is associated with an

increased propensity to use other illicit drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, which were listed in

the survey. Marijuana users overall showed a willingness to use a greater number of illicit

substances than non-marijuana users, demonstrating that they did not view other illicit

substances with the same regard that non-marijuana users did. When considering the higher

scores from Domain 3 and the Belonging subscale of the two questionnaires, it can be reasonably

inferred that the resulting satisfaction of marijuana users with the social aspects of their lifestyles

became associated with the usage of marijuana, and this reduced the magnitude of negative

associations with other illicit substances. Marijuana is still largely considered taboo in most
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 16

societies, even if to a lesser degree than other drugs, and thus by providing social and

psychological relief, as demonstrated in Table 2, to the participants they began to assume

positive attitudes about marijuana that likely carried over to other illicit substances as the sense

of taboo was lessened. This was represented to some degree in the study conducted by M.T.

Lynskey (Lynskey et al., 2003).

This study is distinct from previous knowledge because it contributes to a branch of the

current knowledge given by researchers such as Kandel and Hall and Weier that is largely

unexplored and undefined. Most studies about marijuana usage and the youth of society focus on

building statistical analyses or providing longitudinal studies on marijuana usage rates, but very

few focus on individual high schoolers and students, and none focus on the individual stances

and opinionated form of high school students in context of their usage. In this sense, this research

is a pilot into a new area of study. It confirms the notions of marijuana’s characteristic properties

as a gateway drug but goes beyond that to explore just exactly how and why marijuana expresses

these properties on high school students in the LA county area, in a strictly individualistic

fashion.

This research study does have several limitations, and they are important to take note of.

First and foremost, the researcher is an inexperienced coder, and likely was not able to provide as

rich and as representative a coding set as an experienced coder would have been able to provide.

As this study is largely founded on interview data and a subsequent coding process, this is

integral when considering the strength of this research and its findings. One of the most

substantial limitations to the study was the extremely small sample size, and this is largely due to

the highly complex and resource intensive nature of the methods applied. This detracts from the

aim of this study to represent the teenage high school student body as a whole. In addition, the
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 17

researcher exerted great caution in preventing any type of psychological harm being inflicted

upon the participants of this study as the topic of drug use can have great personal stigma and

emotional implications, thus the researcher was not able to probe as deeply or as thoroughly as

was desired. An important omission in this study was the consideration of frequency of

marijuana usage, which may have had significant ramifications for the effects of compounded

usage on the participants in this study, and this is certainly something to be researched in future

studies as it is also a gap in the current body of knowledge. Lastly, this study assumed complete

honesty from its participants. That is, that the participants thoroughly and carefully reasoned

their choices for the questionnaires and survey, and their responses to the interview questions.

With such a personal and stigmatized topic, there is no small chance for responses to be falsified

or have significant parts omitted for fear of confrontation or judgement on the side of the

participants (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

Conclusion and Future Directions

This research project fulfilled the goal of providing insight on the changing perspectives

of high schoolers on illicit drugs in context of usage of marijuana. There is a significant gap in

this body of work that seems to stem from a lack of motivation to understand how teenagers

actually respond in light of marijuana and substance usage, and thus this research was a

worthwhile investment into a new pathway for future research. The use of a case study centered

around the individual nature of each student’s opinionated stance and views on illicit drugs

proved to reveal a great amount of insight into what is largely an unknown area with little

research, most likely due to the resource intensive nature of the study. By exploring a previously

ambiguous and relatively untrekked area of knowledge, this research serves as a pilot study that

can provide direction and a foundation for future research to build off of. With this as one of its
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 18

primary motives, this research significantly impacted the general field of drug usage and

substance abuse, most notably the direct and indirect psychological effects.

This research can draw the conclusion that legalization of marijuana should be conducted

with all due caution, as marijuana legalized for adults will inevitably find its way into the hands

of teenagers, and results of this study demonstrate how marijuana usage can increase the

willingness to use other illicit drugs. Thus, potential for illicit drug use is greatly increased and

this should be considered for both current and future legislative policy. States that have legalized

marijuana in any form and states that are considering this course of action should consider the

specific implications marijuana usage has on the American youth when crafting and modifying

policy to offset the respective potential consequences.

The implications of this research may prove to be quite staggering. It could cause,

ironically, a shift in perspectives on how many different aspects of common accepted lifestyle

can have both diverse and adverse effects. In essence, it could lead to widespread questioning of

how commonly accepted practices, policies, traditions etc. can impact the positive and/or

negative associations with widely stigmatized social taboos. For example, how the ubiquity of

waste disposal services in modern countries leads to the notion that excessive material waste is

an accepted, unharmful exercise that one can practice unabashed with great frequency, even in

consideration with the harmful effects it has on the global environment.

It must be noted that this research did not consider another significant gap in the existing

body of knowledge – frequency of marijuana usage. A vast majority of studies into general

marijuana usage and marijuana usage on the global youth focus on rates of marijuana usage, be it

per capita, age group, etc. rather than the frequency of usage and the subsequent effects.

Frequency of usage was not considered in this study, and due to the compounding effects of
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 19

increased marijuana usage, it is extremely important that this factor be considered in future

studies (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2018). There is also the matter of active

efforts on the part of the community or school to inform the student body of the deleterious

effects of both legal and illegal substances, as this can greatly affect how perspectives change

and the current views of students.

A future researcher, in order to substantiate the findings and argument of this research,

would likely find great success in avoiding the limitations of this study, in addition to several

other factors. Longitudinal studies would be an excellent tool for analyzing the long-term

changes in perspectives of high schoolers as they age and their usage of marijuana adjusts over

time. Paired with increased sample size and consideration for frequency of usage, a future

researcher could make great strides in furthering this extension of the current body of knowledge

by addressing the flaws in this study and strengthening the focus and reputability of the study.

Most importantly, a future researcher could design other studies exploring the implications,

previously stated, of this study by applying the abstract ideas of this study to other areas of

society.
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 20

References

California Legislature (2017, June 27). Ab-64 Cannabis: Licensure and Regulation. Retrieved

February 14, 2018, from

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB64

California Legislature (2017). Code Section. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=11362.5

.&lawCode=HSC

Cerdá, M., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D. (2012). Medical marijuana laws in 50

states: Investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and

marijuana use, abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 120(1-3), 22-27.

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.06.011

Cohen S., Mermelstein R., Kamarck T., & Hoberman, H.M. (1985). Measuring the functional

components of social support. In Sarason, I.G. & Sarason, B.R. (Eds), Social support:

theory, research, and applications. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Niijhoff.

Drug Enforcement Administration. (2018, March). List of Scheduling Actions, Controlled

Substances, Regulated Chemicals [PDF]. U.S. Department of Justice.

Geiger, A. (2018, January 05). About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization.

Retrieved January 13, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2017). Has Marijuana Legalization Increased Marijuana Use Among US

Youth? JAMA Pediatrics, 171(2), 116. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3917

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 21

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1973). A social psychology of marijuana use: Longitudinal studies of

high school and college youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 1-

15. doi:10.1037/h0034214

Kandel, D. B. (2003). Does Marijuana Use Cause the Use of Other Drugs? Jama, 289(4), 482.

doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.482

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Little, K. (2016). The Relationship Between Substance Use and Social Class Among College

Students. Honors in the Major Thesis, 1-47. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

http://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=honorstheses

Lynskey, M. T., Heath, A., Bucholz, K., Slutske, W., Madden, P., Nelson, E., . . . Martin, N.

(2003). Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls.

Jama, 289(4), 427. doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.427

McLeod, S. (1970, January 01). Saul McLeod. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018, February). Marijuana. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

Newcomb, M. D., Maddahian, E., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Risk factors for drug use among

adolescents: Concurrent and longitudinal analyses. American Journal of Public Health,

76(5), 525-531. doi:10.2105/ajph.76.5.525

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 22

Office of Diversion Control. (2016, July). Schedule of Controlled Substances: Maintaining

Marijuana in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act [PDF]. Drug Enforcement

Administration.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013).

Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method

Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental

Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Penrod, J., Preston, D. B., Cain, R. E., & Starks, M. T. (2003). A Discussion of Chain Referral

As a Method of Sampling Hard-to-Reach Populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing,

14(2), 100-107. doi:10.1177/1043659602250614

Room, R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug and Alcohol Review,

24(2), 143-155. doi:10.1080/09595230500102434

Secades-Villa, R., Garcia-Rodríguez, O., Jin, C. J., Wang, S., & Blanco, C. (2015). Probability

and predictors of the cannabis gateway effect: A national study. International Journal of

Drug Policy, 26(2), 135-142. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.07.011

Sedgwick, Philip. (2013). Snowball sampling. BMJ (online). 347. f7511. 10.1136/bmj.f7511.

Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis. (2002).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map. (2018, January 12). Retrieved April 14, 2018, from

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 23

Steinmetz, K. (2016, November 09). California Legalizes Marijuana: Everything You Need to

Know. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://time.com/4565438/california-marijuana-faq-

rules-prop-64/

University of California, Davis. (2013, October). Types of Samples. Retrieved January 23, 2018,

from http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/sampling/types.htm

University of Sheffield. (2014, August 29). Learning and Teaching Services: Interviews.

Retrieved December 2, 2017, from

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets/strategy/resources/evaluate/general/methods-

collection/interviews

US Census Bureau. (2010). Data. Retrieved February 29, 2018, from

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-

households.html

Vanyukov, M., Tarter, R., & Kirillova, G. (2013). Common liability to addiction and “gateway

hypothesis”: Theoretical, empirical and evolutionary perspective. NCBI, 123(Suppl 1),

12th ser. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.12.018

World Health Organization, & University of Washington. (1997, June). WHOQOL-BREF [PDF].

University of Washington.
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 24

Appendix A:

ISEL – Shortened

Description of Measure:
A 12-item measure of perceptions of social support. This measure is a shortened version
of the original ISEL (40 items; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). This questionnaire has three different
subscales designed to measure three dimensions of perceived social support. These dimensions
are:
1.) Appraisal Support
2.) Belonging Support
3.) Tangible Support
Each dimension is measured by 4 items on a 4-point scale ranging from “Definitely True” to
“Definitely False”.
Scale:
Instructions: This scale is made up of a list of statements each of which may or may not be true
about you. For each statement circle "definitely true" if you are sure it is true about you and "probably
true" if you think it is true but are not absolutely certain. Similarly, you should circle "definitely false" if
you are sure the statement is false and "probably false" if you think it is false but are not absolutely
certain.
1. If I wanted to go on a trip for a day (for example, to the country or mountains), I would have a hard
time finding someone to go with me.
1. definitely false 2. probably false 3. probably true 4. definitely true
2. I feel that there is no one I can share my most private worries and fears with.
1. definitely false 2. probably false 3. probably true 4. definitely true
3. If I were sick, I could easily find someone to help me with my daily chores.
1. definitely false 2. probably false 3. probably true 4. definitely true
4. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling problems with my family.
1. definitely false 2. probably false 3. probably true 4. definitely true
5. If I decide one afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that evening, I could easily find someone to
go with me.
1. definitely false 2. probably false 3. probably true 4. definitely true

[Not continued due to length, short excerpt provided as an example]

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 25

Appendix B:

WHOQOL-BREF
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 26
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 27

[Not continued due to length, short excerpt provided as an example]

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 28

Appendix C:

Interview Questions

Interview Questions

1. What is your name?

2. What is your age?
3. What is your median family income?
4. What area do you live in?
5. What is your religious affiliation?
6. Have you ingested marijuana in any form (smoking, chewing, etc.)?
7. What is your firsthand experience with marijuana or other types of drugs? This includes smoking
and alcohol.
a. Once again, I must attest to the confidentiality of this interview. I am legally and morally
obligated to ensure your privacy and all information used in this experiment.
8. [If subject states they do not use marijuana, stop interview]
9. Please relate the usage of the stated drugs in context of friends and family.
10. If you have a significant other, do they use marijuana? If yes, do you encourage, dissuade, or
remain impartial to their usage?
11. What is the period of time, in years, you have been using marijuana?
12. What were the circumstances of your first usage of marijuana?
13. What are your reasons for your initial and/or continued use of marijuana?
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 29

Appendix D:

Illicit Drugs Survey

[Not continued due to length, short excerpt provided as an example]

Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 30

Appendix E:
Participant Data Table (Full & Combined)