Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AP Research
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
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
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
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
2018). Marijuana is currently contained in Tier I alongside drugs like heroin, with a 2016 study
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
The ISEL-Shortened contains three subscales, with each measuring perceptions of social
support within the participants’ lifestyles. The subscales are Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible,
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
participant seven would be 1. Thus, lack of willingness to use illicit drugs appears to correlate
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
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.
In response to the original question of this research study, marijuana, in context of its
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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:
Geiger, A. (2018, January 05). About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization.
tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/
Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2017). Has Marijuana Legalization Increased Marijuana Use Among US
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
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.
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
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
Penrod, J., Preston, D. B., Cain, R. E., & Starks, M. T. (2003). A Discussion of Chain Referral
Room, R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug and Alcohol Review,
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
Sedgwick, Philip. (2013). Snowball sampling. BMJ (online). 347. f7511. 10.1136/bmj.f7511.
Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis. (2002).
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
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.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets/strategy/resources/evaluate/general/methods-
collection/interviews
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
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
Appendix B:
WHOQOL-BREF
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 26
Gateway Drugs and Viewpoints on Illicit Drug Use 27
Appendix C:
Interview Questions
Interview Questions
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Participant Data Table (Full & Combined)