Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 26 (19901189- 194

Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.

189

“Experimenting” with drugs: a critical evaluation

Harith Swadi

Medway Health Authority, Dept. of Child and Family Psychiatry, 118 Maidstone Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 6DL 1lJ.K.t

(Received April 4th, 19901

A group of adolescent drug “experimenters” as defined by the frequency of use t.iV = 496) were compared to non-users W

= 2417) and to “regular” users W = 1251 on a number of variables. These covered the patterns of use, attitudes to drug use, exposure to drugs and to drug use, and other bebavioural correlates. Experimenting with drugs seems to indicate an unfavour- able shift in adolescent behaviour. Experimenters were more likely to resemble regular users especially with respect to the behavioural correlates. In the light of the results observed, the various contexts in which the term “experimenting” is cur-

rently being used are examined with the conclusion that usage of the term remains to be ambiguous, over-inclusive, unjusti- fied, and should be abandoned.

Key words: adolescents; drug abuse; experimenting

Introduction

A term commonly used by professionals as well as lay people to describe some aspects of adolescent behaviour is “experimenting”. Ado- lescents are commonly described as experi- menting with sexual behaviour, with their bodies, with social boundaries, with hobbies etc. Drug use among adolescents is no excep- tion and some users have been (and still are) described as “experimenters”. While it may be clear to everyone concerned as to what is meant by experimenting with sex and sexual behaviour (e.g. touching each other’s genitalia), experimenting with drugs continued to be a notoriously ambiguous term. For research pur- poses, it seems that the least difficult of all the available definitions to quantify, is that related to the frequency of use. Thus, Bailey [l] defined less than weekly use of a certain substance as “experimenting” and weekly or more often use

as “regular” use. Interestingly, the frequency of use as a basis for the definition of.“experi- menting” and “regular” use has been utilised to describe only adolescent use. For adults, there

are other terms: “recreational or casual” at one end of the spectrum and “dependent or addic- tive” at the other. A 25year-old using cocaine or heroin for the first time, or even very occa- sionally, is rarely called “experimenter”; rather he/she is called a “casual” user. An adolescent doing the same thing is still “experimenting”. This is hard to justify, confusing and intimates that drug use has a different role in adolescence from that in adulthood. Furthermore, it implies that drug use (of a similar nature, e.g., fre- quency) carries a better prognosis among ado- lescents than among adults. In this maze of confusion we seem to forget that drug use among adults often starts in adolescence [2].

This paper investigates some epidemiologi- cal aspects of “experimenting” with drugs among adolescents utilising the frequency of use as a criterion for defining “experimenting”. It does not necessarily follow that I believe in defining “experimenting” in terms of the fre- quency of use (that is if I believe in the term at all!). Bailey’s definition has been used because all the alternative defining criteria are extremely difficult to quantify for research

0376.8716/90/$03.50 0 1990 Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd. Printed and Published in Ireland

190

purposes. In the light of the evidence pre- sented, I will attempt to answer the question as to whether the frequency of use does really describe the term “experimenting”, and above all whether the term itself is helpful at all.

Subjects and methods

Anonymous self-reports were obtained from over 3000 adolescents aged 11 - 16 years in six secondary schools in London in the first half of 1987. The detailed methodology of the study has been described elsewhere [3,4]. The sub- stances included in the enquiry were: cannabis, stimulants, tranquilizers, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, and solvents. For the purpose of this study, “experimenters” were those who reported use of any substance “occasionally” or less frequently and “regular” users were those who reported use of one or more substances on a weekly or more frequent basis. “Occasional” use of more than two substances was consid- ered “regular” use. However, none of the users reported doing so. The survey revealed that 621 (20.4%) adolescents W = 30381 had “ever” used any of the substances mentioned. Accord- ing to the frequency of use, 496 (16.3%) were experimenters and 125 (4.1%) were “regular” users. Most of the following analysis is to com- pare the group of “experimenters” against “non-users” and against “regular” users. This comparison was conducted to establish whether “experimenting” with drugs was asso- ciated with the same adverse variables that were associated with “regular” drug use, and if so, to what extent. Consequently, it may be possible to determine whether experimen- ters are more likely to resemble non-users or regular users. This may well influence the degree of concern necessary over experiment- ing. The chi-squared test was used as a test of significance.

Results

Table I shows the proportion of experimen- ters and regular users among boys and girls. Eighty percent of all users were experimen-

Table I. Sex differences among “experimenters” and “regular” users.

Boys Girls All

Ever used a drug 369 252 621 “Experimenters” 307 189 496

83%* 75% 80% “Regular” users 62 63 125

17% 25%1 20% Mean age

“experimenters” 13.7 14.0 13.8 Mean age

“Regular” users 13.8 14.3 14.0

*x2 = 5.8, df = 1, P < 0.02 (corrected for continuity).

ters, and twenty percent were experimenters. It was also more likely for boys than for girls to experiment with drugs. However, girls tended to start later than boys but they showed a sig- nificantly more committed pattern of use; while 17% of boys were regular users, 25% of girls were so (x2 = 5.8, df = 1,P < 0.021.

Table II shows the variables on which the two sets of comparisons were made.

Age Experimenters were slightly (not signifi-

cantly) older than non-users and very slightly (not significantly) younger than regular users. If experimenting with drugs was an age-related phenomenon, (i.e., when adolescents reach a certain age they become more likely to experi- ment with drugs), then one would expect exper- imenters to be significantly older than non- users, and significantly younger than regular users. The differences were very slight sug- gesting that at a certain age, some adolescents chose to experiment with drugs (for reason not to do with age) and some chose not to. Further- more, those who became regular users did so relatively quickly, and the period of experi- menting seems to have been relatively short (average age of regular users - average age of experimenters = 2.4 months).

PattQ?%S Of USQ

There was a tendency for regular users to

191

Table II. Comparison of non-users, “experimenters” and “regular” users.

Variable Non users N = 2417

p’< “Experimenters” N = 496

P< “Regulars” N = 125

Patterns of use 1. Mean age (years)

2. Mean age of first drug use (years)

3. Used LSD, Heroin or Cocaine

4. Take drugs alone

5. Take drugs with friends

6. Smoke cigarettes

7. Drink alcohol once a month or more

Exposure to drugs a. Best friend

uses drugs 9. A family member

uses drugs 10. Know someone

using drugs 11. Offered drugs by

family or friends 12. Offered drugs by

strangers 13. Think drugs are

harmful 14. Wish to stop

taking drugs 15. Do not wish to stop

taking drugs

Behavioural variables

16. Suspended at school

17. Been in trouble out of school

18. Do not get on

with parents

19. *Played truant

13.4 NS 13.8 NS 14.0 - 13.2 NS 12.9

-

-

-

290 12% 304

13%

0.001

0.001

64 13%

16 3%

136 27%

228 46%

156 31%

0.001

NS

0.01

NS

0.001

70 56%

6 5%

51 41% 63 50% 61 49%

73 3%

97

40/b 749 31%

338 14%

145 6%

2127

88%

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

NS

- -

99 20% 76 15%

352 71%J

268 540/c 79 16%

409 82% 69

14% 55 11%

0.001

NS

NS

NS

0.05

0.001

NS

0.001

49 39% 26

21% 89 71% 74 59% 31 25% 70

56% 15 12% 49 39%

217 107 9% 0.001 22%l

653 273 27% 0.001 55% 97 50

4% 0.001 10% N = 981 N = 201

78 49 8% 0.001 24%

NS

NS

NS

0.01

32

26% 73 58% 17

14% N = 50 22 44%

*Carried out among a population of 1232 adolescents. n Level of significance between non-users and “experimenters” on x*-test of significance 2X2 with Yate’s correction.

b Level of significance between “experimenters” and “regular” users on xl-test of significance 2X2 with Yate’s correction.

have started drug use slightly (but not signifi- users was 12.9 years. There is no evidence to cantly) earlier than had the experimenters. The suggest that this may be due to recent changes average age of initiation into drug use for in the initiation age. experimenters was 13.2 years and for regular Experimenting with drugs involved the full

192

spectrum of substances from solvents, canna- bis, pills, and speed to LSD, cocaine and heroin. In fact 13% of experimenters had tried at least one of the latter. Experimenters were also more likely to drink (x2 = 108.8, df = 1, P < 0.0011 and smoke (x2 = 322.5, df = 1, P < 0.001) than non-users.

The social context of drug use (whether experimenters and regular users took drugs alone or with their friends1 did not show a pat- tern which allowed for firm conclusions.

Exposure to drugs Variables 8- 12 were used to examine expo-

sure (knowledge of drug use by family or friends, and access to drugs). On all variables, experimenters were significantly more repre- sented. Given the absence of age differences between the two groups, the differences in exposure have to be explained by some other factor(s). Thus, it cannot be strongly claimed that experimenting with drugs is mainly an age-related phenomenon, and that it is subject to the degree of exposure to and the availabil- ity of, drugs. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed between experimen- ters and regular users in their exposure. This suggests that moving on from experimenting to regular use was unlikely to be a function of exposure to drugs. Consequently, if the claim that experimenting may have largely to do with peer influence (e.g., as suggested by “best friend’s use of drugs” and with whom users took drugs) were true, then it is only partly so. In fact peer drug use influenced both experi- menting and regular use.

Attitude to Drug Use Variables 13-15 were used to examine two

important aspects of the attitude towards drugs and drug use. Equally high proportions of experimenters and non-users thought that drugs could be harmful but significantly fewer regular users thought so (x2 = 38.1, df = 1, P < 0.0011. This is not unexpected; experimenters, unlike regular users had not yet gathered enough information on drug use. Why 56% of regular users responded that drugs were harm-

ful and still continue to use, may well suggest that knowledge about the potential harm in drug use does not carry a deterring influence on adolescents who often do dangerous things “for fun”. Regarding their wish, or otherwise, to stop using no firm conclusions could be made. Equal proportions wished to do so, but signifi- cantly more regular users did not (x2 = 54.6, df = 1, P < 0.001). However, while more than half the regular users seem to have formulated a view on this issue, only one quarter of the experimenters did so. This most probably reflects the transitory nature of experimenting itself.

Behavioural correlates Variables 16- 19 were used to examine the

links between drug use and some socially disap- proved types of behaviour. It must be pointed out that any associations are to be seen as such, and do not imply casual links although such links may exist. On all variables (except truancy), experimenters were similar to regu- lar users, but significantly different from non- users. Even in the case of truanting, the differences between experimenters and regu- lar users were less marked than those between experimenters and non-users. These findings indicate that experimenting with drugs coin- cides with a leap into the area of antisocial behaviour. This further suggests that experi- menting is unlikely to be largely compatible with sociable behaviour.

Discussion

It may well be appropriate to use the term “experimenters” to describe those adolescents who have tried some substances once or twice. However, further qualification is necessary especially with respect to the number of sub- stances “experimented” with. But there are further problems with this term since it has .acquired several meanings and implied many notions. It has been used:

(1) To descm’be the frequency of use. An experimenter may be an adolescent who has tried a drug a small number of times. How

193

many is a “small number of times”, is again sub- ject to different interpretations. Even from a theoretical perspective, this definition can be flawed. What about those who keep on trying different drugs “a small number of times”? There are at least 120 abusable volatile sub- stances [5] and tens of other substances of potential abuse. Surely an adolescent who goes through them one by one only once, cannot be called an “experimenter”.

(21 To describe attitudes towards drugs and drug use. An experimenter has been described as an adolescent who uses a drug once or twice without the intention of going beyond “experi- menting” [l]. It is probably too innocent to sug- gest that some “addicts” started to use with the clear intention of going beyond experimenting. Initial intentions are largely irrelevant in decid- ing and predicting the course and patterns of drug use.

1.Y) To describe potential for harm. Experi- menting can be taken to mean a harmless habit since it means the use only on a few occasions. This implies that it is not associated with physi- cal, social, and/or psychological damage. If that assumption were true, then experimenters must be largely similar to non-users on the vari- ables investigated. For the most part they were not; truancy, antisocial behaviour, conflict with parents, etc. were significantly more common among experimenters. Furthermore, experi- menters can go wrong with disastrous results. At least 10% of 13 - 16 year old children whose deaths were associated with volatile substance abuse died at their first “experiment” [6].

(41 To describe some behaviours during a certain developmental phase. Experimenting with drugs has been taken to imply that it is a transitory phase associated with a certain developmental stage in the life of adolescents. In other words, experimenting happens earlier in life, precedes “regular” use, and follows non- use, i.e., experimenters tend to be older than nonusers and younger than regular users. The above results showed that this is unlikely to be the case.

(5) To describe some patterns of drug use. Experimenting has been taken to mean that the

types of drugs used, and the patterns of use are different from more committed use. In other words the substances used and the patterns of use are likely to be less hazardous and restricted mainly to solvents, cannabis and some pills such as amphetamine [7,8]. The pre- sent study shows that experimenting involves the full spectrum of drugs as well as cigarettes and frequent alcohol. Kandel’s theory on the stages of drug abuse [9] suggests that use of the so-called hard drugs represents an advanced stage in drug use. Thus, since a significant minority of experimenters (13%) in the present study have “experimented” with them, there is some evidence that experimenting does not always involve less hazardous substances.

(61 To describe the aetiology of drug use. Experimenting has been defined as use “moti- vated by peer and social processes” [lo]. While it is true that peer influence is important [ll], there are other reasons and motivating factors. Furthermore, it implies that regular use may be motivated by some other factors. The pre- sent study showed that peer and social pres- sure is a poor discriminating factor between experimenting and regular use.

(7) To describe the prognosis of drug use. It implies that the vast majority stop at experi- menting [8] and never go beyond occasional use, or never use weekly or more. Although the “progression” in “drug careers” is best studied through longitudinal research, cross sectional studies, such as the present one, may give some indicators especially when using multiple age cohorts. The present study suggests that once experimenting occurs, there is a 1 in 5 chance of becoming a regular user. Furthermore, those who move on to regular use do so within a rela- tively short period of time.

(8) To describe prevention priorities. Implicit in the term “experimenting” is the notion that it is not necessary to give it a high priority in prevention as it is likely to resolve spontaneously. This is especially highlighted by the introduction of the “harm minimisation” approach to prevention. Although this approach presumably starts with non-use as an aim, practically it looks for safer methods of

194

drug use. Experimenters would be a less likely target since their use is not seen to have a high potential for damage. In this context, it pro- poses concentrating efforts on ‘regular users’.

In effect, what is being proposed allows for a further step in an adolescent’s drug using career.

(9) To describe a state of resignation on OUT part. Experimenting can be taken to mean that it is an inescapable process during the period of adolescence; sometimes even accepted as such with that rationale, and that ‘they will grow out of it’. The suggestion of its invevitability loses credence by the fact that it is the practice of only a minority of adolescents.

Conclusion

Experimenting with drugs as defined by the frequency of use, represents an undesirable and underrated shift in adolescent behaviour. Generally, experimenters are more likely to show behaviours and patterns of use similar to regular users. Their attitudes towards drug use are inconsistent and cannot be taken as an indication of subsequent regular use (or non- use). This makes it necessary to review both, our attitudes towards “experimenters” and the use of the term “experimenters” itself. At best it is insufficient to claim that “experimenting is generally safe, but experiments can go wrong”. The risks associated are too great to accept. The evidence strongly suggests that the term “experimenting”l”experimenters” is vague, confusing, misleading and above all has taken a tone which underplays the seriousness with which adolescent substance misuse should be

viewed, close to the point of normalisation. Furthermore, it does not stem from a well defined concept (if such a concept exists). It has been liberally used to (inappropriately) describe far too many features of adolescent drug abuse. Altogether, the term is unhelpful, even when it is used to describe the frequency of use, and should be abandoned. We may as well describe at length rather than appear to he vague and complacent for the sake of brevity.

Acknowledgement

My thanks to Dr. Martin Plant for his valua- ble comments and advice on this paper.

References

1

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

Bailey, G. (19891 J. Am. Acad. Child. Adol. Psych. 28, 151- 162.

Sheehan, M., Oppenheiner, E. and Taylor, C. (19881 Br. J. Addict. 83,311- 320. Swadi, H. (19881 Br. J. Addict. 83,935-942. Swadi, H. (19891 Epidemiological aspects of Substance

Misuse in a Population of London Adolescents. M. Phil. Thesis, University of London. ISDD (19891 Drug notes: Solvents. London, Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence.

Chadwick, 0. et al. (19891 Br. Med. J. 298.1679. Oppenheimer, E. (19851 Drug Taking. In: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Modern Approaches (M. Rut- ter and L. Hersov eds.1, pp. 490-500. London, Black-

well Scientific Publications. Hill, P. (19891 Adolescent Psychiatry, p. 301. London, Churchill Livingstone. Kandel, D. (1975) Science 190,912-914 (19751.

Petersen, R. (19871 Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research: The Second Triennial Report to Congress. NIDA, Rockville, Maryland. Swadi, H. and Zeitlin, H. Br. J. Addict. 83, 153-157 (19881.