distinguishing blunts users from joints users

Transcription

In: New Research on Street Drugs
Editor: Spencer M. Cole, pp. 245-273
ISBN 1-59454-961-3
© 2006 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 12
DISTINGUISHING BLUNTS USERS FROM
JOINTS USERS: A COMPARISON OF
MARIJUANA USE SUBCULTURES
Geoffrey L. Ream, Bruce D. Johnson,
Stephen J. Sifaneck and Eloise Dunlap
ABSTRACT
This paper presents quantitative findings from a mixed-methods ethnographic and
sample-survey investigation of marijuana use among NYC youth. Ethnographers targeted
for recruitment peer groups of marijuana users ages 17 through 35 in typical marijuana
use settings. Valid N = 579, including 513 users overall, 210 of whom both prefer and
use blunts but not joints ("blunts" user type), 125 of whom prefer and use joints but not
blunts ("joints" user type), and 178 of whom prefer and use both or neither in favor of
pipes, bongs, etc. ("mixed" user type). "Blunts" users emerged as a distinct group on
several dimensions: measured: Blunts Users are more likely than Joints Users to be male,
black, unemployed, still living at home, into Hip Hop, playing roles in the drug scene,
dependent on marijuana, and inexperienced with other illicit drugs. The average Blunts
User is also younger, less educated, and more likely to have an arrest record than the
average Joints User. Blunts Users started using marijuana earlier, use more tobacco, and
have fewer friends who do not smoke. Blunts Users do not experience substantially
greater problems in their lives than Joints Users in spite of the fact that they do not use
strategies to forestall marijuana-related harm to their lives and relationships as often as
Joints Users. The gestalt of the findings indicates that Blunts use is a distinct practice,
associated with a distinct subculture, from Joints use. Knowledge of Blunts subculture is
critical to properly phrasing and targeting prevention messages aimed at reducing
marijuana-related risk.
246
Geoffrey L. Ream, Bruce D. Johnson, Stephen J. Sifaneck et al.
DISTINGUISHING BLUNTS USERS FROM JOINTS USERS:
A COMPARISON OF MAR!JUANA USE SUBCULTURES
In order to make a blunt, a user takes a low-cost cigar - typically a Dutch Master or
Phillies Blunt - splits it open, removes the tobacco filter, fills the shell with marijuana, and
reseals the shell (Dunlap et al 2005, Sifaneck et al 2005). To the casual observer, this seems
like just another way to prepare the same drug/ a variation on the familiar theme-of rolling
joints. However, in terms of context of use, use practices, and personal and cultural meaning
and significance, the difference between blunts and joints among users of marijuana may be
comparable to the difference between cigars and cigarettes among users of tobacco. Sifaneck
and others (2003, 2005) have already written a background and brief history of blunts. This
paper will distinguish "Blunts Users" - here, defined as users who both primarily prefer and
usuaIly use blunts but neither prefer nor usually use joints - from other types of marijuana
users in terms of their life circumstances, use practices, experiences, use of other drugs, and
many other factors.
The differences between Blunts Users and other types of marijuana users are important
from a drug subcultures perspective. A drug subcultures perspective is distinct from a
traditional pharmacological perspective, from which the amount of the substance used is the
main predictor of health risk and the only meaningful difference between blunts and joints
would be the THe content. Generally, a traditional pharmacological perspective is primarily
concerned with individual-level predictors of substance use, the amount consumed, the effect
produced, the degree of dependence, and effects on physical/psychological health. A drug
subcultures paradigm complements consideration of these factors by contextualizing them in
the user's involvement in a subculture (Golub, Johnson, and Dunlap, 2005a). While still
regarding drug risk behavior as a personal choice, it acknowledges the personal meaning and
social implications of the behavior alongside the potential risks as factors bearing upon an
individual's choice about drug use.
Understanding the meaning and implications of a behavior in cultural, subculniral, and
life-course context is necessary for designing and implementing prevention and intervention
efforts so that they will be, in a figurative sense, in users' own languages. Drug subcultures,
like all other subcultures, have their own distinctive conduct norms, rituals, argot, behavioral
patterns, and values. These subcultural influences have implications for health and social risks
that are independent of the direct pharmacological effects of the drugs consumed. Subculture,
furthermore, may explain variance in health and social consequences that pharmacological
effects do not, and could help identify which individuals could be expected to have
substantial problems associated with their illicit drug use and which will likely moderate their
consumption and successfully conceal their use from others in the community. Subculture
may also exert influence through pharmacological effects, as subcultural and structural
influences encourage certain potentially riskier drug use practices over others with different
associated levels of risk, e.g., crack vs. powder cocaine. The authors (Johnson 1973, 1980,
Johnson et al 1985; Golub, Johnson, Dunlap, Sifaneck, 2004; Sifaneck, Johnson, and Dunlap,
2005) have elaborated how drug use practices are strongly enmeshed with subcultural factors.
Ethnographic work by these authors has found clear evidence of a blunts subculture
(Golub, Johnson, and Dunlap, 2005a; Sifaneck, Johnson, and Dunlap, 2005; Dunlap et al
2005; Benoit et al 2002; Johnson, Golub, and Dunlap 2005a, 2005b; Johnson, Golub, Dunlap,
\
Distinguishing Blunts Users From Joints Users
]
247
and Sifaneck 2004) marked by users' primary preference for and use of blunts. This
preference appears to distinguish Blunts Users from other marijuana users in general and
specifically from Joints Users, who prefer and use joints but do not prefer or primarily use
blunts. Identifying and describing the blunts subculture is particularly important because it is
not well understood and represents a different (again, in figurative terms) "language" from
that of Joints Users, the target of public health messages about marijuana. This subculture
framework provides insights which health professionals and policymakers may need to learn
in order to communicate with the population they serve.
Operating from a public-health oriented pharmacological perspective, agency staff
implicitly assume that the THC content ofthe marijuana is the only important aspect of any
method of marijuana use and that the social components are relatively insignificant. The
federal, state, and local government agencies, and most other American institutions, appear to
be unaware of and rarely discuss blunts separately from other marijuana use practices. The
operating assumption of American policy is that most consumers smoke joints and rarely
consume marijuana in other ways. They also suggest that smoking joints increases
dependency, encourages progression to other drugs (the putative "gateway" effect), is
associated with a variety of health hazards, and increases the risk of a variety of social and
legal consequences. Although blunts are rarely referenced, the assumption is that blunts are
no different than joints, and that all forms of marijuana consumption is harmful and
unacceptable. Marijuana consumers, for their part, ignore or downplay the claims made by
govenunent agencies about marijuana and its harmfulness.
Blunt smoking is actually only one ~fmanydistinct marijuana use practices, all of which
maybe associated with "their own subcultural expressions. Consuiners have developed a
powerful and extensive set of mechanisms for making marijuana available to virtually all who
seek it in American society. Especially during the 1960s and 70s, when marijuana use
expanded dramatically among youth in American society, the major form of consumption was
(and remains) the joint. Joints, which have ,no tobacco content, are essentially marijuana
cigarettes, rolled in cigarette paper and smoked via deep inhalation among users. Although
bongs and pipes were/are known among marijuana users, they are far less commonly used
than joints. Several other cannabis use rituals exist in other societies that are not widely
known nor adopted among American youths. For example, spliffs, marijuana wrapped in
tobacco leaves, are widespread in Jamaica and the West Indies but rare in the United States.
Throughout Europe and the British Isles, cannabis, either in its flowered form (marijuana) or
as resin (hashish) is typically rolled in cigarette paper and mixed with loose tobacco. This unit
is referred to as a joint in Europe or blowtje in the Netherlands (Sifaneck et al 2003).
American visitors to Europe now label this unit (marijuana with tobacco) as a Euro (after the
currency) to distinguish it from the tobaccoless Americanjoint.
The development of the blunt as a m~jor form for consuming marijuana appears to be a
uniquely American phenomenon. The blunt was quite clearly introduced by African
Americans and promoted through hip-hop and rap music, and associated with a variety of
clothing" and lifestyles that are most concentrated among African-Americans. The term
"phat," for instance, may describe blunts - which are oversized compared to joints - as well
as other expressions of the "living large" values of hip hop culture, including "forties" (400z
bottles of beer or malt liquor), "bling" or oversized jewelry, and baggy pants and sweatshirts.
A subcultures perspective highlights the importance of understanding that blunts may be as
much a part of hip hop culture as is graffiti art and sports team jackets and caps. Blunts
248
subculture also has its own novel terms for marijuana, e.g., chronic, ism, boom, live, lah, dro.
Blunts Users regard as obsolete terms traditionally associated with white hippies, such as pot,
reefer, Mary Jane, and grass. Weed is one of the few terms that both subcultures reliably have
in common. In this way, Blunts Users may be intentionally distancing themselves from white
marijuana users and hippie culture (Sifaneck, Johnson, and Dunlap, 2005). Argot also defines
the boundaries of their subculture so that members of the subculture can recognize and
communicate with each other while preventing outsiders from understanding them (Johnson,
Bardhi, Sifaneck, and Dunlap, 2005).
Participation in the blunts ~ubculture may even have protective value relative to other
patterns of marijuana use. The ascendancy of what might be called a "blunts era," in which
blunts are the preferred drug that young peopl~ use and that is in fashion at the moment,
comes as the crack and heroin injection eras have ended (Johnson, Golub, Dunlap 2006). The
decline of crack marked a decline of crime, particularly in impoverished neighborhoods. An
ethnographic study (Mateu-Gelbert et aI., 2005; Friedman, submitted; Friedman, Maslow, et
aI., 2004) of one such neighborhood, Bushwick (in Brooklyn), found that a major force
behind the improvement of conditions was, indeed, a cultural and normative change.
Residents, tired of living with the violence and constant disruption of life in a "drug
supermarket," limited or outright forbade the use and sale of hard drugs on or near their
property. High risk youths repudiated the crack and heroin use of their parents' generation
and foreswore even alcohol for its mind-numbing effects. They only illicit substance they
regularly consumed was marijuana (Friedman.isubmitred). A fortunate side-effect of this shift
was that youths were much less exposed to HIV through injection drug use and HIV infection
rates in Bushwick dropped to national averages (Friedman, Maslow, et aI., 2004). The
Bushwick findings may exemplify what, according to national statistics, happened all over the
country, as marijuana use rates among young people rose (Compton, Grant, Colliver, Glantz,
and Stinson, 2004; Golub and Johnson, 2001) but hard drug use did not (Golub and Johnson,
2001). Those statistics cast doubt upon conv~ntional wisdom of marijuana as a gateway drug
(also see Golub and Johnson 2002) that facilitates transition to harder drug use. Blunt
subculture norms against hard drug use not only protect Blunts Users against the potential
harms of hard drug use itself, but also the risks of acquiring HIV and Hepatitis C associated
with hard drug use practices like injecting heroin and/or smoking crack.
Ethnographic evidence indicates that there are also ways in which Blunts Users may be at
disproportionately greater risk because of their practices. Joints Users tend to shun tobacco.
Blunts Users, in contrast, not only make what they smoke out of a tobacco product but also
often engage in "blunt chasing," i.e., smoking tobacco after marijuana (Sifaneck et al 2005).
TIEs may lead to greater degrees of dependency. Blunts may also more often be smoked
outdoors in groups, leading to greater probability of police attention. Blunts Users may also
take roles in the drug scene, putting them at exceptionally high risk in case of police attention.
This chapter presents empirical evidence of distinct blunts and joints subcultures. The
tables and analyses below test hypotheses that Blunts Users are significantly different from
Joints Users and Mixed Users on several dimensions related to marijuana use including basic
demographic characteristics, cultural/subcultural involvement, use practices, use of other
drugs, and health/social consequences of use. This paper provides some of the first extensive
quantitative data available to document differences between Blunts Users and Joints Users in
the New York City area. It is one of several products emerging from a major
qualitative/ethnographic and quantitative paper-and-pencil survey study, funded by the
(
249
National Institute on Drug Abuse, to study distinctions between blunts, joints, and other
marijuana use practices in order to provide a better understanding of social dimensions of
cannabis use in American society. Early findings from this ethnographic component are
provided elsewhere (Dunlap et al 2005; Sifaneck et al 2005; Benoit et al 2002; Johnson,
Golub, Dunlap 2Q04, 2005; Golub 2005; Johnson et aI., 2005).
METHODS
Procedures
Data for these analyses come from responses to the "Peer Group Questionnaire," the
quantitative survey component of this mixed-methods study. Ethnographers recruited youth
and young adults who appeared to be between the ages of 17 and 35 who were current
marijuana users, frequently associated with marijuana users, or frequented social locations
where marijuana use took place. They recruited participants from a variety of group locations
in order to obtain a broad spectrum of users reflective of the diversity among the targeted
population and to ascertain the extent to which behaviors and experiences differed across
persons that tended to frequent different social contexts. Typical group locations included
parks and outdoor spaces, college/school campuses or lounges, indoor gatherings/parties,
coffee shops and restaurants, and bars and clubs.
Ethnographers administered the questionnaire to groups of between 2 and 12 (usually
between 3 and 6) people. Group locations were contexts in which marijuana use took (or was
taking) place and/or where known marijuana users were present. Ethnographers varied their
time of day for collecting data and paid participants $10 cash for completed surveys.
Recruitment began in January 2004 and concluded in April 2005. In their field notes,
ethnographers recorded the type of place, its zip code, date/time/day of week of data
collection, how they achieved access, how many people were present, how many they
attempted to recruit, how many declined and their reasons for declining, other activities
taking place, what type of music was playing (if any), basic demographic description of the
primary group of participants and of others present in the scene, what forms of marijuana and
other substances were visible and observed, and whether anyone reported being high. Only
the.respondent's answers to the items in the peer group questionnaire are analyzed here.
L
1
M-easures
1
The peer group questionnaire contained several items about use of and preference for
various forms of marijuana, living conditions, smoking behaviors, addiction/dependence
symptoms, cultural and lifestyle preferences, contacts with law enforcement, and roles in the
drug scene. Most of these measur~JYere based on qualitative interviews and intended
primarily to quantify ethnographic observations. The addiction/dependence measures,
however, were based on the DSM-IV. Table I describes, in part, how the Cannabis User
Typology was developed from questions about preference for and use of both blunts and
joints. People who preferred and/or used blunts but who neither preferred nor used joints (or
250
were missing data on joints) were categorized as "Blunts Users." People who preferred and/or
usually used joints but who neither preferred nor used blunts (or were missing data on blunts)
were categorized as "Joints Users:' People who indicated any other configuration of
marijuana use practices, includingthosewho preferred at;Jd used both blunts and joints or
neither blunts and joints but pipes, bongs, etc., were classified as "Mixed Users." Finally,
those who indicated neither preferring nor usually using any form of marijuana were
classified as avoiding marijuana. They are excluded from analyses that only involve
marijuana users.
Table 1: Derivation of Marijuana User Typology
from Responses to Preference and Use'Questions
,
JOINTS
Usually Use:
I
Prefer:
BLUNTS
I
No
Yes
No
Yes
Miss
No
No
Yes
Yes
Miss
97
12
17
91
217
No
No
Yes
No
3
6
10
28
No
Yes
6
5
16
37
Yes
Yes
15
36
41
283
, Miss
Miss
0
0
5
14
36
64
163
301
Denotes Blunts Group
Denotes JointsGroup
15
579
Denotes Mixed Group
Denotes Avoid group (n=57) + 40 members ofMixed group (pipe, bong, etc. users)
Participants
Ethnographers collected 579 valid Peer Group Questionnaires from 125 Joints Users, 210
Blunts Users, 178 Mixed Users, 58 avoiders of marijuana, and 8 people who gave incomplete
data. Subsequent analyses, because they are intended to examine differences among
marijuana users, only look only at the joints, blunts, and Mixed User types. Total possible
Valid N is 513, although it is often less due to missing data. Table 2 describes basic
demographic characteristics of the ethnographic and !peer group questionnaire samples. The
two samples were strikingly similar despite very diff~ent recruitment processes. Because of
this, although neither sample was collected through random/representative sampling methods
and is not intended to reflect accurate population estimates, we believe our samples represent
a diverse cross-section of marijuana smokers in New York City and that statistically
significant differences in the sample accurately reflect differences in the population under
study.
.J
251
Table 2. Comparison on Demographic Variables between Ethnographic Data Set (n=97)
and Peer Group Questionnaire Data (n-519~
Ethnographic Data
Peer Group Data
Gender
Male
Female
Trans
N
52
44
I
Valid %
53.6%
45.4%
1.0%
Age at Recruitment
14-17
18-20
21-24
25-29
30+
N
25
21
13
19
19
Valid %
25.8%
21.6%
13.4%
19.6%
19.6%
Current Education
In HS or Voc/Ed
College
Not in school
N
27
21
48
Valid %
28.1%
21.9%
50.0%
Ethnicity
Black
White
Asian
Native American
Nonlatino
31
32
13
2
Latino
8
10
'I
0
Male
Female
Missing
N
311
247
21
Valid %
55.7%
44.3%
14-17
18-20
21-24
25-29
30+
Missing
N
122
96
160
78
67
56
Valid %
23.3%
18.4%
30.6%
14.9%
12.8%
In Jr/Sr. High School
CollegelUnivlTrade Sch.
Not in school or college
Missing
N
164
124
265
28
Valid %
29.7%
22.4%
47.9%
Va~id
Black Only
White Only
Asian Only
LatinolHispanic Only
Other/Mixed/Multiple
N
172
139
37
111
120
N
210
125
178
58
8
Valid %
36.8%
21.9%
31.2%
10.2%
%
29.7%
24.0%
6.4%
19.2%
20.7%
\
Preferred Product(s) Used
Blunts
Joints/Pipes/Bongs
Blunts/Joints
Joints/Blunts
N
'29
10
24
34
Valid %
29.9%
10.3%
24.7%
35.1%
Blunts (not joints)
Joints (not blunts)
Mixed (use both)
Non-User
Missing
RESULTS
Culture and Subculture
Table 3 details differences between the types of marijuana users on basic demographics
and life circumstances. Blunts Users were more likely to be male than Joints Users (65% vs.
40%). More than two-thirds (68%) 6f Blunts Users listed only Black or Latino for their
Geoffrey L. Ream, Bruce D. Johnson, Stephen J. Sifaneck et aI.
252
ethnicity, compared with only a third (34%) of Joints Users. The average Joints User is also
three years older than the average Blunts User (25 vs. 22 years old). ControJJing for age
(regression analysis not shown), Blunts Users 'are significantly less educated than Joints
Users.
Table 3. Demographic Characteristics Among Cannabis User Types
Cannabis User Typology
Joints Mixed
Overall
Row Nor Wald test
Significance of Association
Male
65.4% 40.2% 57.8%
56.5%
281
iIN'497,2d/) = 19.80. P < .001
Female
34.7% .59.8% 42.2%
43.5%
216
Blunts
Gender (column proportions):
Race/Ethnicity (column proportions):
White Only
10.5% 38.4% 31.5%
24.6%
126
Black Only
43.3% 19.2% 24.2%
30.8%
158
Latino Only
24.8% 14.4%
Asian Only
Mixed Ethnicity
13.5% - 18.3%
94
6.7%
5.1%
26
18.1% 22.4% 24.2%
21.3%
109
3.3%
5.6%
iIN>m.ld/) = 61.03, P < .001
Age (category means):
22.2
25.2
22.9
23.2
b>j···. m>j··
F(2,460) = 7.66. P < .001
Educational Level (category means; response categories range from 1=Jr.High to 8=Ph.D.):
2.9
4.5
3.8
3.6
Nonworking
35.5% 13.8% 20.8%
25.0%
124
School Only
24.5% 17.1%
16.8.y: 20.0%
99
Working
40.0% 69.1% 62:4%
b<j"·, b<m···, j>m··· F(2,497) = 37.08, P < .001
Employment Status (column proportions):
c.
_t,,;
55.0%
273
iIN<496,4d/) = 34.00, P < .001
Student Status (column proportions):
Nonstudent
45.8% 62.6% 47.3%
50.5%
248
H.S.Noc. Ed
39.9% 12.2% 26.7%
28.5%
140
Postsecondary
14.3% 25.2% 26.1%
21.0%
103
iIN<491.4d/) = 33.12. P < .001
Where Lived Most of the Time in the Past 30 Days (column proportions):
Home
92.4% 93.6% 92.7%
Jail/Hospital
0.5%
Homeless/Shell.
5.7%
1.4%
Other/Missing
92.8%
476
0.6%
0.6%
3
1.6~
2.2%
3.5%
18
4.0%
4.5%
3.1%
16
0.8%
iIN>m.6dIl= 8.49. P = .205
Live with Parents or Grandparents (category proportions):
56.2% 18.4% 40.5%
41.5%
b>j···.b>m···.j<m..• iIN>m.2d/)=46.22.p<.001
')
r
WaJd test for equality of meansiproportions 2-laiJed p < .05 *, P < .01 **, P < .001 ***
253
Blunts Users are 2.5 times as likely as Joints Users to be neither full nor part time
workers nor students (36% vs. 14%). Blunts Users, largely owing to the fact they are younger
(analysis not shown), are more likely to be students at a high school, college, or trade school
(40% vs. 12%). In part - but not wholly - because of their relative youth and lower
educational level, Blunts Users are far more likely than Joints Users to be living with their
parents or grandparents (56% vs. 18%),Few of our participants lived anywhere other than at
home in a house, apartment, or rented room.
80%
~ 70%
....> 60%
I---
CD
III
I---
~
-
=>
50%
0
c:
0
~
40%
;'
/
30%
Q.
f-
-
f--f---
"
~ 20%
0~
-
I---
~.,;~
:or
~c/:
/
10%
I
}'---
-
'1--"
':~-~: .:
:-1-. >::.: '/:';:
x~
-~
_::...'"
Male
Male
Male
Male
I
While
Black
Latino
Asian
I Olh/Mxl
,-.L
0%
f-
t+t,j--l/j'}-,+"
f--f--
v';~
'.
Male
_ ..:;"
I Female I Female
(~:=,
=~I~ li,=
'~:,
r.~'
,
Female
White 1 Black I Latino
'- '-'
I Female
I Asian
Female
OthlMx
Race/Gender
[!a Blunts o Joints f] Mtxed I
Figure I Proportions of User Typologies ov£Race and Gender
Figure 1 describes, within racevsex categories, the proportions in each of the three
marijuana user types. Females are less likely than males to be Blunts Users overall. Blacks,
Latinos, and (to a letter extent) people of other/mixed ethnicity are more likely to be Blunts
Users than whites. For Asians and people of other/mixed ethnicity, the pattern of findings
looks different based on sex. Asian males and females are roughly equally likely to be Mixed
Users, but Asian males are far more likely to be Blunts Users than Joints Users. Indeed, there
were no Asian female Blunts Smokers in our sample. Among people of other/mixed identity,
females are roughly equally likely to be any type of smoker, while males are
disproportionately unlikely to b~joints smokers compared to the other two types.
Table 4 represents the results of logistic regression analyses intended to determine which
demographic and cultural- factors were significantly associated with user type independent of
others. The first analysis models probability of being a Blunts vs. a Joints User, the seco,nd
models probability of being a Blunts vs. a Mixed User. Odds ratios, the increase in odds of
being in the criterion category - in this case, a Blunts User - independently attributable to a
one-unit increase in the independent variable, are presented here. An odds ratio (OR) of I
means the variable is not associated with any significantly different probability of being a
Blunts User, an OR less than one indicates that variable is associated with lower probability
of being a Blunts User, and an OR of greater than one shows that variable is associated with
greater probability of being a Blunts User.
~54
Table 4. Binary Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood of Blunts User Type vs.
Joints and Mixed User Types from Demographic Variables
Odds Ratios
Joints
Mixed
Age
0.964
0.998
Female
0.383 **
0.681
Black
6.715 ***
5.046 ***
Latino
7.086 ***
5.413 ***
Asian/API
1.187
1.146
, Mixed/Other
4.001 **
2.344 *
Education
0.769 **
0.823 *
Live wIParents
2.332 *
1.267
Into Hip Hop
2.386 **'
1.161
N
271
322
Log Likelihood
-124.518
-195.278
109.91 ***
55.04 ***
Likelihood Ratio X2
?
0.306 ,
0.124
Pseudo R2
'Blunts is the comparison group for both analyses; coefficients represent likelihood of being a blunts
user vs. likelihood of being another' typeof user as a function of race, sex, and other demographics.
Reference category for race is White; for gender, Male. *p<.05, **p<.OI, ***p<.OOI
'Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely to be Blunts Users than Joints (ORs 6.7
and 7.1, respectively) or Mixed (ORs 5.0 and 5.4, respectively) Users. Female gender is
associated with reduced likelihood of being a Blunts User rather than a Joints User, but not
with any difference in likelihood of being a Blunts User vs. a Mixed User. Independently of
race and gender, less highly educated marijuana smokers are more likely to be blunts Users
than either of the other types. Independently of race and gender and educational level, people
still living with their parents and people who identify with Hip Hop culture/scene are also
more likely to be Blunts than Joints Users (OR = 2.4). None of these findings are particularly
mysterious in light of the basic comparisons that Tables 3 and 5 describe, but the fact that
they are significant predictors of blunt smoking independently of each other suggests that
Blunts subculture membership is not wholly dependent on a single factor like being
blacklLatino, or less educated, or male, or still living with one's parents (an indicator of low
opportunity or high residential concentration), or into Hip Hop. Each significant factor - male
gender, Black/Latino ethnicity, education, living with parents, and identification with Hip
Hop - is independently related
to additional probability of being a Blunts
User.
v
_
Table 5 provides information on personal marijuana use history and paraphernalia
ownership. Paraphernalia ownership is one of the few factors on which Mixed Users emerge
as distinct while the other two groups are similar: Mixed Users are significantly more likely ,
to own a bong (25% of Mixed Users vs. 14% of Blunts Users and 16% of Joints Users),
almost twice as likely to own a pipe (49% of Mixed Users vs. 25% of Blunts Users and 28%
of Joints Users) and more ,tha1t twice as likely to own a bubbler (13% of Mixed Users vs. 1%
of Blunts Users and 6% of Joints Users) as either of the other two types. Blunts Users
initiated use of both blunts and joints at a younger age than Joints Users; this difference does,
not disappear when controlling for age (regression analyses not shown). Blunts Users used
joints in the past month on twice as many days as Joints Users used blunts (6 days vs. 3 days),
)
255
and Blunts Users used blunts three more days than Joints Users used joints (14 days vs. II
days). Blunts Users are more likely than Joints Users to have ever been (57% vs. 43%) and to
currently be (39% vs. 16%) daily users of marijuana. Although Blunts Users who were ever
daily users appear to have started daily use earlier than Joints Users who were ever daily
users, this difference becomes non-significant when controlling for current age (regression
results not shown). Such Blunts Users are, however, more than three times as likely as
comparable Joints Users to have never cut back from daily use (26% vs. 8%).
Table S. Marijuana Use and Practices Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
!
Paraphernalia Ownership (category proportions):
Pipe
24.9%
28.1%
48.8%
34.1%
b<m···,j<m···
ill<=.57. 2dO = 24.21, P < .00 I
Bong
14.2%
15.8%
24.5%
18.2%
b<m·
X (N"56. 2dO = 6.68, P = .035
Bubbler'"
1.1%
6.1%
13.0%
6.5%
b<j" b<m···
One-Hitter
6.6%
14.0%
14.8%
11.3%
b<j·, b<m·
2
i
(N='59. 2dO = 19.86, P < .00 I
iIN'459.2dO = 6.94, P = .031
Age First Used Marijuana (category means)...
b<j.
As Joint, Pipe, etc.
13.8
14.8
14.3
As a Blunt
14.9
17.7
15.7
15.8
14.8
14.2
14.2
At all
13.9
14.3
F(2,439) = 5.47, p = .005
b<j···, b<m·,j>m" F(2,463) = 17.50, P < .001
b<j··,j>m·
F(2,502) = 4.31, P = .014
b<j···,b<m···
F(2,501)=20.67,p<.001
How Many of Past 30 Days Used Marijuana as a (category means)...
Joint, Pipe, etc.
Blunt
5.3
10.7
11.0
13.7
2.5
8.8
7.8
8.2 b>j···,b>m···,m>j···F(2,503)=48.83,p< .001
Daily Use of MarijuanalBlunts (category proportions):
Ever'
56.9%
42.6%
63.7%
55.7%
b>j·,j<m···
iIN'497.2dO= 13.05,p= .001
Currently"
39.0%
15.7%
32.2%
31.0%
b>j··· j<m···
X (N'497. 2dO = 19.52, P < .00 I
b<j••• j>m···
F(2,285) = 6.44, p = .002
b<j••, b-ern"
X2(N=270.2dO = 9.21, P = .010
2
Age Began Daily Use (category means):
16.2
17.9
16.3
16.6
Ever Cut Back from Daily Use (category proportions):
73.9%
92.2%
85.2%
81.9%
Wald test for equality of means/proportions • p < .05, •• p < .01, ••• P < .001
"Docs not include respondents who indicate not using marijuana or blunts
256
Table 6. Marijuana Purchase/Sales Measures Among Cannabis User Types
Cannabis User TyPology
Blunts
Joints
Overall
Mixed
Wald Test
Relationship with Usual Marijuana Source (category proponions):
Didn't Buy it
6.1%
11.7%
7.1%
7.8%
Relative
9.1%
5.9%
12.5%
9.5%
Partner/Lover
6.6%
6.7%
11.8%
8.4%
X!IN'487.2df, =
Work Assoc.
1.5%
5.1%
4.1%
3.3%
iIN'48l.2df'
Friend
49.2%
47.5%
58.8%
52.2%
No personal rel,
39.4%
29.4%
27.2%
32.7%
i(l"4&<.. !df,
=
3.42, P = .181
X!IN'48~. 2dfJ = 3.61, P = .164
j<m·
iIN'483.2dfJ =
b>m·
tIN'48b.
3.79. P = .150
= 3.48, P = .175
4.74. P = .093
zen = 6.92. P = .031
Where Last Bought Marijuana (category proportions):
House/Apt.
28.6%
50.4%
39.8%
Street. alley. etc.
31.6%
10.1%
18.1%
Delivery service
11.7%
16.0%
17.7%
ilN.4»« 2dO =
15.71. P < .001
21.8% .~>j •••• b>m··.j<m·
ifN'49b.2dfJ =
22.45. P < .001
14.8%
ilN'49UdO
'" 37.7%
b<j•••• b<m·
=
2.85. P = .241
Cash Paid for Marijuana (category means):
s
64.40
s 49.80 s
84.70
s
F(2.413) = 0.23. P = .796
67.30
Unit Bought at Last Purchase (category proportions):
Didn't Buy it
13.4%
9.0%
11.8%
11.8%
Don't Know
13.9%
19.7%
9.4%
13.8%
Gram
5.9%
5.7%
14.2%
8.7%
b<m··.j<m·
Eighth Ounce
4.9%
24.0%
14.8%
13.0%
b<j•••• b<m··
Quarter Ounce
3.4%
4.1%
4.1%
3.9%
Half Ounce
8.8%
4.9%
3.5%
6.1%
Full Ounce
4.4%
4.1%
2.9%
3.8%
Cube. Tape. Box
1.0%
1.6%
1.8%
1.4%
42.7%
24.6%
33.5%
35.1%
1.0%
1.6%
1.8%
1.4%
Bag or Sack
Vial or Small Jar
= 1.39, P = .500
= 6.30, P = .043
ilN'49UdO = 9.84. P = .007
i 1N-49UdO = 25.08. P < .00 I
i 11"-494 2dO = 0.16. P = .922
iIN'4..... 2dO = 4.94. P = .085
ilN'493.2dO
j>m·
iIN'494. 2df,
.
i
11"-495. 2dfJ
=
2.85. P = .241
= 0.45. P = .797
= 11.20. P = .004
-111"'495. zen = 0.46. P = .794
ilN'494.2dO
b>j···
-IfN'4..... 2dO
On How Many of Past 7 Days Bought Marijuana (category means):
2.1
0.7
1.1
b>j···.b>m···.
j<m·
1.3
F(2.494)
=
22.03. P < .001
F(2.339)
=
0.88. p = .417
How Much Spent on Marijuana in Past 30 Days (category means):
s 128.33 s 95.08: /~ 139.00
s 124.14
How Recently Participant Sold Marijuana (category means. O=never6=within past day):
1.4
0.6
1.2
1.1
b>j···.j<m··
F(2.504) = 7.56. P < .001
How Recently Participant Helped Someone Else Sell Marijuana (category means; O=neve.r 6=within past day):
1.8
1.2
1.7
b>j··.j<m·
1.6
F(2.501)
=
4.04, P = -l81
Wald test for equality of means/proportions • p < .05•.•• P < .01•••• p < .001
Table 6 examines marijuana purchase practices. Blunts Users are roughly one-third more
likely than Joints Users to have no prior personal relationship with their supplier (39% vs.
.-J
J
,
257
29%). Most marijuana users' relationship with their usual source is as a friend, however, and
this does not vary significantly across user types. Blunts Users are less likely to buy their
marijuana in a house or apartment (29% of Blunts Users vs. 50% of Joints and 40% of Mixed
Users) and more likely to buy it in a street or alley (32% of Blunts Users vs. 10% of Joints
and 18% of Mixed Users). Contrary to ethnographic observations, Blunts Users are not
significantly less likely to have used a delivery service for their last purchase - indeed, less
than one in six of any type of marijuana user used a delivery service for their last purchase.
Blunts Users buy more $5, $10, and $20 bags (average weight .8g, 1.2g, and 2.5g respectively
according to our marketing data; variance in price per gram partially explained by the lower
quality of the marijuana sold in smaller units) and fewer eighths (3.5g, price range-between
$20-$80, avg. $47, according to our marketing data) than Joints Users. Although the average
user of any form of marijuana is not. a seller, Blunts Users sell (1.4 vs. 0.6 of past seven days)
and help deal (1.8 vs. 1.2 of past 7 days) more often than Joints Users. All types of users
spend about the same amount on marijuana.
PREFERENCES FOR MAJuJUANA USE MODES
Table 7 describes users' preferences about their use. Because more than two-thirds of
Joints Users have ever used blunts and more than two-thirds"of Blunts Users have ever used
joints, most users can speak with some authority about their preference for a specific mode of
use. Although. less than a third of any type of marijuana user endorsed the belief that a
pipe/bong high is "purer" somehow than a blunt-high, Blunts Users were particularly unlikely
to endorse this belief (12% of Blunts Users vs. 21% of Joints and 30% of Mixed Users).
Although there is no clear consensus as to whether blunts are a more addictive form of
marijuana, less than 10% of any type say joints are more addictive than blunts. Blunts Users
who have used joints are more likely than Joints Users who have used blunts to say that
blunts are more addictive (27% vs. 15%). The Mixed Users are most likely to say that both
are about the same. Mixed Users (roughly half of whom prefer blunts to other forms of
marijuana) and Blunts Users report getting higher than Joints Users but not necessarily
staying high any longer. More Blunts Users than Joints Users reported that they couldn't stop
using either joints/pipes/bongs (23% vs. II %) or blunts (17% vs. 7%).
USE SETTINGS, SOCIAL NETWORKS, AND PRACTICES
.j
re
'So
Table 8 reports on users' social networks. Blunts Users have a greater proportion of their
friends who use blunts than do Joints or Mixed Users have friends who use
joints/pipes/bongs/bubblers. Compared to Joints Users, both Blunts Users and Mixed Users
have a lower proportionof their friends not using marijuana at all. About a tenth of all users
report some tension between user and non-user friends, but this does not vary across user
Y
types.
.
258
Table 7. Blunt vs. Joint Preferences Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Wald Test
Overall
Is the High Produced by a Blunt Different from the High Produced by a Joint? (category proportions)
Haven't used both
24.6%
25.2%
4.6%
17.8%
Yes. blunts higher
44.9%
37.7%
48.0%
44.2%
No. joints higher
7.3%
2.5%
8.1%
6.4%
Both about the same
14.9%
20.0%
22.5%
18.8%
Don'tknow
9.6%
19.0%
16.2%
14.1%
b>m···.j>m··""
iIN'.99.2dO = 31.56. P < .00 I
l/N=S02.2dO = 3.13. P = 209
b>j·.j<m·
2
X IN<5oo.2d·O= 4.12. P = .127
2
X 1N<501.2dO= 3.77. P = .151
b<j·
2
X /N-50l. 2dO = 6.56. p-= .038
How is the High Produced by a Blunt Different from Pipe. Bong. Bubbler? (category proportions)
Haven't used both
30.9%
33.3%
7.0%
23.2%
No difference
18.6%
24.4%
22.0%
21.2%
b>m···.j>m···
2
X /N' .S7. 2dO= 1.56. P < .458
(,
J
Blunts taste better
Blunt high lasts
,longer
30.3%
5.1%
24.6%
22.4%
19.7%
18.5%
19.3%
19.3%
Pipelbong is purer
11.5%
21.4%
30.4%
20.4%
5.1%
11.1%
7.9%
Pipe high lasts longer 6.7%
C,
itl,j':95.2dO = 38.76. P < .001
b>j···.j<m···
t /N'496, 2dO = 28.00. P < .00 I
2
X (N' .9S.2dO= 0.73. P = .964
b<j •• b<m···
2
X /N••96.2dO = 20.70. P < .001
i(N'497.2dO = 4.12. P = .127
Are Blunts More Addictive than Joints or Pipes, Bongs. Bubblers? (category proportions)
22.6%
24.4%
5.2%
17.0%
b>m···.j>m···
i/N-501.2dO = 26.51. P < .001
Blunts more addictive 27.1%
15.1%
22.5%
22.7%
b>j··
i /N=499.2dO = 6.14. P = .046
Joints more addictive 3.9%
8.1%
4.1%
5.0%
Both about the same
20.1%
22,0%
38.8%
26.4%
Don't know
27.5%
32.5%
30.5%
29.8%
Haven't used both
iIN=5oo.2dO = 3.37, P = .186
b<m···. j<m··
i/N'504.2dO,= 0.98. p = .613
:t
Ever Tri~ to Stop and Couldn't Stop Using ... (category proportions)
Jointslpipeslbongs'
i(N=501.2dO= 15.09.p= .001
22.8%
11.3%
16.4%
1~~2%
b>j·
i /N=4l5. 2dO = 6.18. P = .046
16.8%
6.'6%
12.9%
13.3%
b>j··
2
X /N-450.2dO= 5.69, P = .058
Prefer Blunts to Joints. Pipes. Bongs. etc. (category proportions):
87.0%
9.1%
46.9%
55.1%
b>j···. b>m···.
j<m···
i/N-445.2dO = 16454. P <
.001
How High do you Get from Marijuana/Blunts (category means; I=don't get high to 4 = very high)
.
2.3
1.9
2.2
??2
b>j···.j<m···
F(2.452)=17.54.p<.001
How Long do you Stay High (category means; l=don't get high. 7 = more than 24 hours)
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.4
F(2,294) = 2.41. P = .091
WaJd test for equality of means/proportions 2-taiJed p < .05 *, p < .OJ **, p < .001 ***
a includes only participants who reported using joints, pipes, bongs
b includes only participants who'reported using blunts
!
259
Table 8. Social Networks Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts Joints
Mixed
Overall
Row N or Wald Test
How Many ofyour Friends ... (category means; O=None 4=-AlI)
Use blunts
3.0
1.7
2.6
2.5 b>j···. b>m.. •• j<m"· F(2.503) =- 73.44. P < .001
Use joints. pipes. etc.
1.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
b<j···. b,m···
F(2.498) =- 4.54. P =- .011
F(2.497) =- 2-11. P =- .122
Do not use cannabis
I. I
1.3
1.1
I .2
b<j··.j>m··
Smoke nothing at all
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
b<j·
F(2.503) =- 60.45. p < .001
How Often do your Friends who Use MarijuanaIBlunts Hang Out with your friends who do not use it?
(category means; O=Never 4=-Always)
2.0
2.3
2.1
J
c
.
F(2.503) =- 4.60. P =- .011
Is there Ever Tension between your User Friends and Non-User friends (column proportions):
Not Applicable
10.7%
5.6%
7.5%
8.3%
42
No
70.4% 74.4%
Yes
10.7%
Not Sure
74.6%
72.8%
367
9.6%
8.1%
9.5%
48
8.3% 10.4%
9.8%
9.3%
47
X,\l',"~04.6dO =- 4.02. P =- .674
Which Age Groups Use Blunts the Most? (category proportions)
7-12
13-17
5.8%
b>j·",j<m···
0.0%
6.3%
4.6%
56.7% 52.1%
61.3%
57.2%
x' IN"
1.42. P =- .491 .
0.16. P =- .924
x,2/N'50Z.ZdO
Z
=- 7.61. P =- .022
95.2 dO =-
2.46. P =- .292
18-21
75.0% 78.3%
80.0%
77.5%
Z
x' fN' 503. 2dO =-
22-30
48.6% 47.1%
46:60/0
47.5%
z·[
X, (N-505.ZdO =-
30+
15.0%
16.0%
1'3.9%
l(N'~02.2dO =- 3.08. P =- .214
9.2%
.
Wald test for equality of means/proportions 2-tailed p < .05·. p < .01 ... P < .001 ...
Table 9 addresses use practices. The three types of users did not differ significantly in
their endorsement of most reasons for using marijuana (data not shown in table): to feel
good/get high (71% overall), to relax or relieve tension {61% overall), to have a good time
with friends (61% overall), to experiment - see,) what's it's like (33% overall), because of
boredom or having nothing to; do (29% overall), or to seek deeper understanding (24%
overall). The only differences are among the less-often cited reasons. Blunts Users were less
likely than Joints or Mixed Users to report using marijuana to increase their creativity (15%
of Blunts Users vs. 26% of Joints and 25% of Mixed Users) and roughly half as likely to
report using marijuana to increase the effect of other drugs (7% of Blunts vs. 12% of Joints
and 15% of Mi,xed Users). No Joints Users reporting being "hooked," and Joints Users were
about half as likely as blunts or Mixed Users to report using in order to relieve anger or
frustration (8% of Joinfs vs. 16% of Blunts and 19% of Mixed Users).
In terms of customs observed while using marijuana, the types differed on some but not,
on other measures. All user types were equally likely to observe boundaries involving their
relationships to others, e.g., only with friends and partner (1.6% overall), not with parents
(51% overall), not with relatives (22% overall), and not around people they don't know (21%
overall). All avoid using when police are around (62% overalljand unconcerned about use in
combination with alcohol (7% overall). Blunts Users were less likely to observe customs to
\..
260
prevent their use from becoming a nuisance to others, e.g., not around children (43% of
Table 9. Use Reasons, Customs, Locations Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
Most Important Reason(s) for Using Marijuana/Blunts
Fit in with group I like,
Because of anger/frustration
Increase effect of other drug(s)
9.2%
16.4%
2.5%
8.3%
6.8%
8.2%
12.4%
6.4%
6.6%
18.6%
14.7%
15.2%
10.8%
b>j"
b>j·.j<m··
b'<m"
= 5.55, P = .062
= 6.17, P = .046
i(N-49R.2df) =6.49. P = .039
i(N.497.!dO
i
(N·499. 2dfl
0.0%
25.6%
4.1%
4.8%
b>j..·.j<m..
i t l•• seo, 2df)
= 11.58, P = .003
25.0%
20.8%
b<j" b<m"
;(t1.'500. 2df)
=
Customs/Rules FolIowed about Marijuana/Blunts Use
Not during work. study
32.8% 43.6%
Not during the day
16.6% 16.4%
42.7%
14.0%
38.9%
15.6%
30.2% 31.4%
29.3% 26.3%
26.6%
bcm"
23.4%
b<j·. b'<rn"
"Hooked," I have to have it
Increase creativity
i
"
'"
14.5%
Not in traffic/driving
20.5%
Not in the morning
11.4%
Not with parents
Not around children
Not with relatives
50.3% 49.6%
42.5% 54.7%
53.8%
57.0%
17.9%
16.4%
23.7%
38.1%
10.0%
19.9%
21.\%
21.4%
24.3%
30.8%
18.0%
14.7%
Not in public spaces
9.0%
21.8%
Not in a nonsmoking setting
Not with alcohol
17.9%
8.1%
Not when police around
64.2%
17.4%
63.0%
3.5%
13.9%
2.6%
17.8%
In moderation, not too often
Not while concentrating
Not around ppl. I don't know
Only with friends and partner
Mainly with family. relatives
Follow no such rules
25.6%
27.6%
5.1%
13.7%
i
(N-m. 2df)
= 6.53. p = .038
2
X (N-4aR. 2df) = 7.10. P = .029
b<j". b<m*
i
20.4%
24.0%
14.3%
23.5%
b<m··
29.1%
8.2%
24.1%
7.4%
b<m*
59.9%
15.7%
6.4%
62.4%
15.7%
15.5%
21.5%
15.9%
4.3%
(N-m. 2df)
= I 1.47, P = .003
= 0.17. P = .917
= 9.82, P = .007
i (N=490. 2df) J= O.t'S. P = .722
i (N-4S9. 2df) = 7.30, P = .026
i (N'48b. 2df) = 1.17, P = .557
i (N.492. 2df) = 0.76. P = .686
i(N=490. 2df) = 0.78, P = .617
i (No489. 2df) = 3.0 I , P = .222
iCN=491. 2df) = 0.86. P = .651
i(N=490. 2df)
'J
iIN-489. 2df)
\
J
Park. nature, outdoors
40.3%
39.5%
50.3%
On the street. sidewalk
45.3%
42.9%
44.6%
43.5%
44.4%
Bars. clubs
16.0%
5.5%
32.5%
25.2%
23.1%
7.6%
9.6%
7.4%
86.6%
b<j", b<m·
i(N=487.2df)
i
= 2.59. P = .274
1.22, P = .543
(N·485. 2df) =
i(N'4S5.2df)=
i
i
i
i
17.90.p< .001
(N'4S5. 2df) =
11.07. P = .004
4.72. P = .094
(N'486. 2df) =
0.18. P = .915
(No4S4. 2d1) =
I 1.85. P = .003
(No4S<. 2df) =
2
X (N=485. 2df) = 2.31. P = .316
8.5%
3.4%
j<m"
14.9%
6.8%
13.3%
18.7%
8.9%
School, studying
14.2%
b>j*.j<m"
Creative pursuits
13.9%
24.6%
26.5%
20.8%
b<j·. b<m"
Together with partner
33.5% 33.0%
Before going to sleep
34.5%
49.~:o
38.3%
41.6%
35.1%
40.6%
When I get up in the morning
27.4%
10.6%
21.\%
26.4%
25.5%
93%
12.7%
11.0%
At work, during work
(N-m.!df)
16.2%
20.8%
Parties
At home
Concerts, music festivals
Cinema.movie
v l.
i
iIN.489. 2df)
92.4% '88.0% 88.5%
70.0% ,75.6% 71.\% .71.8%
49.0% 68.9% 64.5% 60.2% b<j·... b<m ..•
20.0% 33.9% 33.7% 28.1% b<j". b<m"
Cafes. coffeeshops
= 5.23, P = .073
= 0.55. P = .758
b<j·. b<m"
Situations Smoked in Past 12 months
With friends
·lC"N'489.2d1)
·liN-487. 2df)
= 0.66, P = .720
= 8.83. P = .012
21.5%
iIN-4SS. 2df) = 2.64, P = .267
26.7% b<j· ... b<m·· X2fN. 49 I.2df) = 20.24. P < .00 I
51.3%
50.5%
"
When no other commitments
8.55. P = :014
b<j"
Wald test for equality of means/proportions 2-tailed p < .05 *, P < .01 **. P < .001 *..
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
(N=4S<. 2df) =
8.48. P = .014
=
8.13, P = .011
(N=485. 2df)
10.05. p = .007
= 1.20, P = .549
(N-4S5. 2df) =
(N'4S2. 2df)
(N=485. 2df) =
(N=486. 2df)
7.13, P = .028
= 1.59, P = :453
(N=482. 2df) =
0.83, P = .659
r.
261
Blunts vs. 55% of Joints and 57% of Mixed Users), not in traffic or while driving (21%
of Blunts vs. 30% of Joints-and 31% of Mixed Users), and not in a nonsmoking setting (18%
of Blunts vs. 2~.'Yo of Joints vs. 29% of Mixed Users). Blunts Users were also less likely to
observe boundaries that would protect them against harms associated with use, including
moderation (16% of Blunts Users vs. 38% of Joints and 31% of Mixed Users), not while
concentrating (10% of Blunts Users vs. 21% of Mixed and 18% of Joints Users), and only
when they have no other commitments (9% of Blunts Users vs. 15% of Joints and 20% of
Mixed Users). With respect to use situations/settings, all user types are highly likely to smoke
with friends (89% overall) and at parties (72% overall). Blunts Users are not significantly
more likely to smoke outdoors. They are, however, less likely to ~moke in the more
acceptable and protected settings favored by Joints and Mixed Users, including at horne (49%
of Blunts Users vs. 69% of Joints and 65% of Mixed Users), -at concerts and outdoor music
festivals
(20% of Blunts vs. 34% of Joints and 34% of Mixed Users), in bars and at clubs
.c .
(16% of Blunts Users vs. 33% of Joints vs. 25% of Mixed Users). Blunts Users also
distinguish themselves from Joints subcultures in that they are just a little more than half as
likely as Joints or Mixed Users (14% vs. 25% and 27%) to use marijuana as part of their
creative pursuits.
--TOBACCO, ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS
Table 10 presents data on tobacco use, both independently of and as related to marijuana
use. Although half of all types of users generally use Phillies to make blunts when they do
make blunts (57% of Blunts, 53% of Joints, and 56% of Mixed Users), Blunts Users have a
distinct preference for Dutch Masters (83% of Blunts Users vs. 58% .of Joints and 61% of
Mixed Users) and White Owl (20% of Blunts Users vs. 8% of Joints Users and 27% of Mixed
Users). Corroborating ethnographic evidence of the "blunt chasing" phenomenon (Sifaneck et
aI., 2005), Blunts Users use more tobacco both after marijuana and in general - both
cigarettes and cigars - than Joints Users. Mixed Users, however, consume tobacco more than
either other type (71 ~ of Blunts, 68% of Joints, and 81% of Mixed Users have ever smoked
cigarettes; 30% of Blunts, 25% of Joints, and 44% of Mixed Users have ever smoked cigars;
61% of Blunts, 53% of Joints, and 71% of Mixed Users smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days;
17% of Blunts, 8% of Joints, and 30% of Mixed Users smoked cigars in the past 30 days).
.Blunts Users who smoke cigarettes started younger than Joints Users who smoke cigarettes,
and this difference does not disappear after controlling for age (regression analyses not
shown). The finding that Blunts Users started smoking cigars first is too weak to be
statistically significant and disappears after controlling for age. There are no significant
differences between the user types on how much they spent_on their last cigar purchase, how
many they purchased last time, and how much they spent per their last cigar purchase, how
many they purchased last time, and how much they spent per cigar, but that is probably
because the prices of the cigars they buy are quite standard and many never bought cigars at
all. In terms of cigarette brands, Blunts Users show a strong preference for Newports (62% of
Blunts Users vs, 11 % of Joints and 33% of Mixed Users. Conceivably, this is because
Newports are aggressively marketed toward and preferred by African-Americans. However,
the association between Blunts use and preference for Newports does not disappear when
262
controlling for race (logistic regression analysis not shown). Joints and Mixed Users' brand
preferences are diverse. About half of all user types are likely to buy their cigarettes in a
store. Blunts Users, however, are almost six times as likely as Joints Users to buy "loosies"
(45% vs. 8%) and two and a halftimes as likely to buy clgarettes on the street (46% vs. 17%).
Table II describes differences between the types with respect to alcohol and other drug
use. Except with respect to tobacco, Blunts Users are significantly less likely than either
Joints or Mixed Users to use other drugs or alcohol. Theyuse alcohol less often than Joints or
Mixed Users, and engaged in heavy drinking on fewer of the past 30 days (2.7 days for Blunts
Users vs. 5.3 for Joints and 5.4 for Mixed Users). Blunts Users were less likely than other
user types to have ever engaged in any non-medical use of most drugs, including Cocaine
(24% of Blunts Users vs. 50% each of Joints and Mixed Users), LSD (8% of Blunts Users vs.
26% of Joints and 34% of Mixed Users), other hallucinogens (9% of Blunts Users vs. 39% of
Joints and 43% of Mixed Users), Ketamine (5% of Blunts Users vs. 17% of Joints gnd 15% of
Mixed Users), MDMNEcstasy (14% of Blunts Users vs. 42% of Joints and 38% of Mixed
Users), GHB (l % of Blunts Users vs. 6% of Joint? and 8% of Mixed Users), Nitrous Oxide
(3% of Blunts Users vs. 25% of Joints and 26~ of Mixed Users), Metbampheramine (I % of
Blunts Users vs. 16% of Joints and 14% of Mixed Users), other Amphetamines (4% of Blunts
Users vs. 15% each of Joints and of Mixed Users), sedatives/tranquilizers (9% of Blunts
Users vs. 32% of Joints and 28%vof Mixed Users), narcotic painkillers (9% of Blunts Users
vs. 28% of Joints and 23% of Mixed Users), and cough syrup (7% of Blunts Users vs. 15%
each of Joints and Mixed U~rs). Blunts Users are not significantly less likely to use
marijuana with alcohol, but ate sigrrificantly less likely than Mixed Users to use it with
powder cocaine and less likely than either Joints or Mixed Users to use 'it with other drugs.
Very few of our respondents report ever using crack at all, let alone with marijuana.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USE
Blunts Users'vrepudiation of other drugs seems to be at a trade-off for their higher
dependency on marijuana. Table 12 describes dependency symptoms. Although significances
of differences on individual measures vary, Blunts Users endorse all symptoms at the highest
rate (between 33% and 55%), followed by Mixed (between 21% and 53%) and then Joints
(between 18% and 50%) users. This difference in the elevated amount of dependency risk that
. Blunts Users face needs further investigation (see Dunlap et al., 2006). There were no
significant differences in the extent to which the user groups reported having problems with
their emotions, nerves, or mental health either alleviated or exacerbated by their marijuana
use.
Table 10. Tobacco
Use.~mong Cannabis
Blunts
Joints Mixed
Overall
263
User Types
Row N or Wald test
Cigar Product Participant Usually Uses to Make Blunts (category proportions):
Phillies
57-4% 52.9% 55.6%
56.1%
b>j··, b>m···
Dutch Masters
82.8% 58.0% 60.5%
71.3%
b>j·,j<m···
White Owl
20.4%
8.0% 27.2%
21.4%
b>j·,j<m"
Optirnos
3.0%
0.0%
4.6%
3.3%
Backwoods
12.6% 16.0% 11.8%
12.8%
O.()%
2.6%
3.3%
Fronto leaf
4.6%
Blunt Wrap
12.6% 11.8% 13.2%
12.7%
.i lN~J'l9.
2dl) = 0.35, P = .841
iIN~4()O.2dl) = 25.78. P < .001
IZIN'397.2dl) = 8.42.;p = .015
ilN'399.2dl) = 2.63, P = .269
12 lN'4()O.2dl) = 0.59, P = .744
i IN·4()O.2dl) = 2.92, P = .232
ilN~401.2dl) = 0.07, P = .966
Money Spent on Last Cigar Purchase (category means):
s 2.82 s 2.58 s 2.30 '$ 2.61
F(2,339) = 0.12, P = .883
Number of Cigars Purchased Last Time (category means):
I. 7
2.0 . 2.3
F(2,332) = 0.44;1> = .643
Money Spent Per Cigar (category means):
$1.96 ,~.1.61
$t.76
1.9
s 1.85
F(2,33I ) = 0.03, p = .967
How Frequently Use Tobacco after Joint, Pipe, Bong (category means; responses range from O=never to 4=always):
b>j··,j<m···
F(2,383) = 6.10, p = .003
1.8
1.2
1.9
1.7
How Frequently Use Tobacco ~fter Blunts (category means; responses range from O=never to 4~always):
1.8
1.0
1.9
1.7
b>j···,j<m···
F(2,391)=8.05,p<.001
Ever Smoked Cigarettes (category proportions):
71.0% 67.5% 80.5%
12lN~s04.2dl) = 7.26, P = .027
(
Smoked Cigarettes in the Past 12 Months (category proportions):
60.6%
52.8%71.3%
62.3%
.
"
ilN=48S.2dl)
Age First Smoked Cigarettes (category means)'
13.0
14.5
13.8
F(2,294) = 12.02, P = .003
13.6
How Many of Past 30 Days Smoked Cigarettes (category means)'
21.0
18.3
20.6
20.2
=
10.74, P = .005
F(2,298) = 1.22, P = .298
Participant's Preferred Brand of Cigarettes (category proportions)'
Marlboro
16.4% 14.3% 28.8%
20.9%
b<m· ,j<m·
lN~297. 2dl) = 7.58, P = .023
Camel
9.5% 25.4% 15.3%
15.2%
b<j·
ilN=291.2dl) = 8.04, P = .018
Parliament
3.5% 15.9% 11.0%
9.2%
b<j·, b<m·
ilN-29S.2dl) = 8.28, P = .016
Newport
62.1% 10.9% 33.1%
39.6% b>j···. b>m···,j<m··· ilN=298.2dl) = 48.58, P < .001
American Spirit
2.6% 14.3%
7.7%
7.1%
b<j·
i lN~493.2d1) = 7.52, P = .023
i
How Much Money Paid for a Pack of Cigarettes (category means)"
s 5.63 s 6.07 $ 5.97
$ 5.87
How Participant Buys Cigarettes (category proportions)':
At a store
50.0% 57.8% 60.7%
55.9%
"Loosies"
45.3%
7.8% 15.3%
25.4%
33.0%
Street
46.1% J 7.2% 28.8%
Internet
6.9%
6.3%
3.5%
5.4%
6.0%
7.8% 14.4%
9.7%
Out of state
Indian Reservation
2.6%
0.0"/0
0.9%
1.3%
Ever Smoked Cigars (category proportions):
29.8% 24.6% 44.3%
F(2,216) = 1.73, P = .180
b>j···, b>m··
b>j···, b>m··
33.5%
12lN=291.2d~ = 2.82, P = .244
= 41.29, P < .001
i IN-291. 2dl) = 17.08, P < .00 I
viIN.296. 2dl) = 1.46, P = .481
ilN.m.2dl) = 5.09, P = .078
ilN-299.2dl) = 2.42, P = .299
ilN-m.2dl)
ilN-SOI.2dl)
= 14.66, P = .001
Smoked Cigars in Past 12 Months (category proportions):
17.0%
8.2% 28.5%
18.8%
Age Smoked first Cigar/Cigarillo (category proportions)":
14.9
17.0
16.4
15.9
b<j.
Wald test for equality of means/proportions • p < .05, •• p < .0 I, ••• P < .001
a includes only participants who reported smoking cigarettes in the past 12 months
b includes only participants who reported smoking cigars in the past 12 months
F(2.175) = 3.01, p = .052
264
Table 11. Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Cannabis User Types
Cannabis
Blunts
USN'
Joints
Typology
Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
How Often Participant Uses Alcohol (category means. O=never 6=daily):
'-<"
2.2
3.1
2.9
2.636
b<j···. b<m···
F(2.502) = 24.76, p < .001
How Many of Past 30 Days Participant hadS or More Alcoholic Drinks (category means):
2.7
5.3
5.4
4.285
b<j···. b<m···
F(2,507) "<:..11.86, P < .001
39.5%
b<j •••, b<m···
8.1%
j<m"
10.9%
b'<rn"
llN'S07,2dl) = 33.46, P < .001
2lN-SOO.2dl)
X
= 6.48, P = .039
2 \.
XIN'507, 2dl) = 6.04. P = .049
Ever used for nonmedical reasons (category proportions)...
24.3% 49.6% 50.0%
Cocaine
Crack
7.2%
4.1%
Heroin
6.8%
13.7%
12.0"/0
,
13.6%
PCP, Angel Dust, Wet
9.7%
12.9%
16.6%
12.9%
LSD, Acid
7.7% 25.8% 33.5%
21.1%
Other Hallucinogens
8.7% 39.2% 42.6%
27.9%
Ketamine, Special K
5.3%
15.3%
11.6%
14.4% 42.4% 37.5%
29.3%
8.0%
4.3%
25.0% 25.6%
13.3%
MDMA, Ecstasy
GHB
17
Nitrous Oxide
0.5%
3.4%
16.9%
5.7%
Methamphetamin~
1.4%
16.3%
14.2%
9.5%
Amphetamines
4.3%
14.5%
15.3%
10.6%
4.0%
Barbiturates
1.9%
4.0%
3.2%
Sedatives. Tranquilizers
8.7% 32.0% 27.8%
21.0%
Antidepressants
6.3%
8.1%
8.5%
7.5%
Oxycontin. Oxycodone
1.9%
6.5%
9.1%
5.5%
Buprenorphine, Suboxone
0.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
Painkillers, e.g., Codeine
9.1% 28.0% 23.3%
18.7%
Darvon
1.4%
llN'SOS.2dl) = 3.97, P = .137
2IN-S08.2dl)
X
= 40.48, P < .001
2IN'S09,2dl)
b<j···, b<m··· X
= 65.18. P < .001
2lN-S08,2dl)
b<j··, b<m··
X
= 13.91, P = .001
b<j···. b<m··· X2IN'S09. 2dl) = 38.31, p < .00 I
b<j···. b<m···
b<j", b<m···
la".so7.2dl) = 13.54. p = .001
b<j•••, b<m··· tIN'S08.2dl) = 43.38, p < .001
b<j"?", b<m··· X2IN'S07,2dl) = 26.86, P < .001
b<j··, b<m···
tlN-S08.2dl) = 14.78, p = .001
b<j •••, b<m···
t IN-S06. 2dl) = 32.98, P < .00 I
b<m··
tlN'S08,2dl) = 0..79, p = .673
2lN'S07,2dl)
X
= 9.61, P = .008
2lN'S08,2dl)
X
= 1.50, P = .473
ta"=S08.2dl)= 1.74,p=.419
o-
b<j •••• b<m···
Demerol, Fentanyl
0.5%
6.5%
2.8%
2.8%
b<j··
tlN'S09.2dl) = 22.11, P < .001
2
XIN-SOO. Ul)= 0.13, P = .936
2lN'S06.2dll
X
= 10.25, P = .006
Cough Syrup
6.8%
15.3%
14.8%
11.6%
b<j •• b-ern"
t1N-S07, 2dl) = 8.10, P = .017
1.6%
1.1%
1.4%
How often Used MarijuanalBlunts with ... (category means; I=never 5=always)b
Alcohol
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.8
Powder Cocaine
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
Crack
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
Other drugs
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
F(2,483) = 2.49, P = .084
b<m··
F(2.46I) = 3,88, p = .021
F(2,457) = 1.59, P = .205
b <j", b<m·
Wald test for equality ofmeans/proporti~ns· p < .05, .. P < .01, ... P < .001
F(2,461) = 3.54,.p = .030
265
Table 12. Dependency Measures Among Cannabis User Types
Cannabis User TyPology
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
Addiction Symptoms: In the Past 12 Months, Have You ... (category proportions)
Spent more time than you intended using marijuanalblunts?
40.8%
20.8%
26.8%
31.1%
b>j···. b>m**
iO"'489.ZdO = 16.19, P < .001
Neglected usual responsibilities because of using marijuanalblunts?
32.5%
Wanted to cut
d~wn
18.2%
<,'
~
21.1%
25.1%
b>j··, b>m·
;ft1"·487.2dO = 10.34, P = .006
32.9%
32.2%
b>j···,j<m··
ifl'l'482.ZdO = 13.06, P = .001
b>j···,j<m··
XZI1"'486.ZdO ='18.97, P < .001
on your marijuanalblunts use?
39.1%
19.5%
Frequently found yourselfthinking about using marijuanalblunts?
52.8%
27.7%
44.1%
43.6%
Used marijuanalblunts to relieve feeling such as sadness, anger, boredom, depression?
\
55.3%
50.4%
53.2%
2t1"'48S.ZdO
X
= 0.71, P = .700
53.4%
Need to use more marijuanalblunts to get the effect you wanted?
37.2%
20.2%
23.5%
28.4%
b>j···.b>m··
ifl'l'476.2do=13.3I,p=.001
In the Past 12 Months, were Problems with your Emotions, Nerves, or Mental Health...(category proportions)
Alleviated by marijuana!
28.9%
3 I.9%
32.9%
29.8%
2(1"<486.2dO
X
= 2.50, P = .287
13.9%
15.8%
16.8%
15.4%
X2t1"r495.2dO = 0.63, P ~ .729
blunts use
Made worse by marijuana!
blunts use
Wald test for equality of means/proportions 2-tailed p < .05 ., P < .0 I •• , p < .00 I •••
Table 13 contains data on problems experienced with marijuana use. Social, work, and
family problems were rare in general, and Blunts Users did not experience them at
meaningfully greater rates than Joints or Mixed Users. The association between user type and
problems with parents/family did not disappear when controlling for whether the participant
actually lived with their family (regression analysis not shown). Health problems were also
relatively rare, and Blunts Users reported experiencing the two most common - less energy
(27% of Blunts Users vs. 44% of Joints and 39% of Mixed Users), and lower emotional
stability (5% of Blunts Users vs. 8% of Joints and 10% of Mixed Users) - less often than
joints and Mixed Users. Few of our participants report ever being in treatment.
According to Table 14 (and ethnographic findings; e.g., Johnson et aI., 2006), Blunts
Users have more contact with police than other user types. Blunts Users are more likely both
to get stopped/search and to get arrested. They are about 1.5 times as likely as Mixed Users
and almost four times as likely as Joints Users to have ever been punished by the courts (34%
of Blunts Users vs. 9% of Joints and 24% of Mixed Users). This is despite not using strategies
for avoiding police attention at any significantly lower rate than Mixed or Joints Users. About
266
half of marijuana users make sure to smoke in a secluded area (49% overall), and about a
third either never smoke in public (33% overall) or keep moving while smoking (33%
overall).
Table 13. Problems with Use Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
Problems Caused by MarijuanaIBlunts Use (category proportions):
Caused behavior I later regretted
17.3% 19.5% 20.8%
19.1%
X21"r~.2dn = 0.77, P = .679
Hurt relationship with ...
7.4%
16.8%
16.3% b>j···,j<m· tn<~~.2dn = 10.62, P = .005
16.4%
9.8%
17.2%
15.1%
7.2%
6.5%
9.8%
7.9%
10.5%
4.1%
8.1%
8.1%
Involved me with people who
were a bad influence
16.8%
18.0%
14.4%
16.3%
tI1'l-s04.2dn
Hurt work/school perf.
19.6%
15.3% 14.9%
17.0%
tn<r~07.2dn = 1.79, P = .409
Less interested in other
activities than I was before
16.3%
17.9%
17.3%
17.0%
X2IN'~O~. 2dn = 0.16, P = .922
8.1%
Parents/Family
21.1%
Partner, boy/girlfriend
Friends
Teacher/Supervisor
Less emotionally stable
4.8%
10.4%
7.6%
44.4% 39.1%
35.4%
28,2%
21.9%
4.9%
8.6%
6.0%
Less energy
26.9%
Interfered with my ability to
think clearly
13.9% 26.8%
Other bad psych. effects
4.4%
Bad physical health
5.3%
3.3%
8.1%
5.8%
Unsafe driving
1.4%
4.9%
7.5%
4.4%
29.~. 19.5% 25.9%
25.7%
Spent too much money on it
Used other drugs
8. %
4.9%
11.1%
5.7%
1.6%
8.5%
4.6%
4.4%
Memory loss
22.5% 30.7% 26.6%
25.9%
Trouble with the police
19.6%
13.9%
14.3%
Lost control
5.7%
tn<'~05.2dn = 3.62, P = .163
tfl"~07.2dn = 1.35, P = .510
b>j·
X2IN.~04.2dn = 4.20, P = .123
= 0.79, P = .674
tn<.~o3.2dn = 4.27, P = .118
b<j··, b<m·
b-<i••
J ,
b<m···
t(1'Ir$06. 2dn
~ 11.92, P = .003
t(Nr$06.2dn
~ 13.59, p = .001
-,
= 3.42, p = .181
X2(N.~.2dn = 3.32, P = .190
b<m··
tIN.sos.2dn = 8.42, P = .015
b>j·
iIN'~~' 2dn = 3.90, P = .142
j-cm"
·i n<'~04. 2dn = 3.50, P = .174
X2(N'~O~. 2dn = 3.15, P = .207
in<'.l06.2dn = 2.77, P = .251
b>j···,j<m· X2n<-~~.2dn = 12.32,g = .002
in«.l04.2dn
Ever in Treatment for Use of Marijuana or other Drugs!Alcohol (category proportions):
For marijuana
4.9%
1.7%
3.5%
3.6%
For other drugs
8.8%
5.8%
6.9"10
7.4%
t n<·~J.2dn = 2.62, p = :270
t
= 2.26, p = .322
t n<·~oo. = 1.08, P = .584
For alcohol
2.0%
0.8%
1.7%
1.6%
X2(N'~' 2dn = 0.62, P = .732
Never
87.8% 93.4% 89.1%
89.6%
Wald test for equality ofmeans!proportions 2-tailed p < .05·, p < .01 ••, P < .001 •••
n<-499.2dn
2dn
)
267
Table 14. Contacts with Law Enforcement Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
Joints Mixed
Overall
Wald Test
Significance ofAssociation
-How Often have PoLice ... (category means; O=never 4=in last 30 days)
Stopped or searched you
1.2
05
0.1
0.9 b>j···, b>m·, j<m··· F(2,495) = 13.39, p < .00 I
Arrested you
0.7
0.1
05
05 b>j···,b>m·,j<m···F(2,505)=14.49,p<.001
EverfHow Punished by Court (category proportions):
Never punished
65.7% 91.2% 76.0%
Case dismissed
14.6%'- 0.8%
12.2%
Plead guilty
5.9%
3.2%
1.2%
Fined
8.2%
1.6%
4.1%
Community service
8.2%
1.6%
Put on probation
2.4%
2.4%
Drug/misdemeanor court
3.9%
Jail time
4.4%
75.5% b<j···, b<m·,j>m·,··llN'5lf7.2dl) = 27.46, p < .001
2(N'499.2dl)
10.4%
b>j·",j<m···
X
= 1654, P < .00 I
2
b>m·
3.6%
XIN=50J. 2dl) = 6.10, P = .047
5.2%
b>j"
2.3%
4.6%
b>j··, b>m··
1.2%
2.0010
l(Nr501.2dl) = 0.91, p < .636
2.4%
1.1%
2.6%
1.6%
2.9%
3.2%
llN'505.2dl) =2.81, P = .245
2
XIN-50/>. 2dl) = 1.97, p = .372
X2(No501.2dl) = 7.50, P = .024
X2lNr503.2dl) = 10.76, P = .005
Strategies Used to Avoid Police Attention (category proportions):
Never smoke in public
33.0% 35.3% 30.6%
2lN=492.2dl)
X
= 0.71, P = .701
2
XIN=49l.2dl) = 1.20, P = .548
2(N=496.2d1)
= 4.62, P =.099
X
Don't worry about police
13.0%
11.2%
11.4%
Use in secluded area
51.0% 40.2% 51.7%
48.6%
Smoke tobacco to mask
smell
13.9%
10.7% 18.1%
14.6%
rlNo49J,2d1) = 3/2, p ~ .200
31.0%
33.1% 33.7%
32.5%
rlN'496,2dl) = 0.33, p = .847
Keep moving
9.0%
32.7%
j<m·
(I)
Wald test for equality of meansiproportions 2-tailed P < .05 ., p < .01 ••, P < .001 •••
ACTIVISM AND CULTURE
Examining political positions and opinions about marijuana, table IS indicates Blunts
Users are subtly somewhat less activist about their marijuana use than their counterparts.
Although the user types do not differ significantly in how strongly they endorse making
marijuana entirely legal (about two-thirds overall), Blunts Users are twice as likely as either
other type to say they would use marijuana more often if it were legal to use and legally
available (22% of Blunts Users vs. II % of Joints Users and 10% of Mixed Users). They are
also the least likely to say that current laws are too harsh (62% of Blunts Users vs. 80% of
Joints Users and 70% of Mixed Users) and least likely to say they would use some strategy to
beat a drug test if it were required to apply for a job (8% of Blunts Users vs. 24% of Joints
Users and 18%ofMixed,Users). They-are also least likely to.say.smoking marijuana should
be not prohibited in private (71% of Blunts Users vs, 840/0 of Joints Users and 74% of-Mixed
Users) but most likely to say it should not be prohibited in public (49% of Blunts Users vs.
32% of Joints Users and 35% of Mixed Users).
268
Table JS. Policy Positions Among Cannabis User Types
Blunts
With respect to legality, marijuana should
Entirely legal
67.6%
A minor violation
14.0%
A crime
2.9%
Don't know
15.5%
Joints
Mixed
Overall
RowN or
Wald test
be... (column proportions)
70.5% 57.6%
64.9%
18.9% 22.9%
18.2%
1.6%
4.7%
3.2%
9.0% 14.7%
13.6%
It should be legal to sell marijuana to ... (column proportions)
No-one
10.6%
5.8%
8.8%
Only adults
52.0% 61.2% 60.0%
Anyone
15.7%
7.4% 11.2%
Don't know
21. 7% 25.6% 20.0%
324
91
16
68
8.8%
57.1%
12.1%
22.1%
43
279
59
108
If Marijuana were Legal to Use and Legally Available, you would ... (column
Not use it
5.6%
6.6%
5.4%
5.7%
Try it
3.5%
2.5%
3.6%
3.3%
Use as often as now
45.5% 57.4% 55.1%
51.7%
Use more often
22.2% 10.7%
9.6%
15.0%
Use less often
4.0%
0.8%
5.4%
3.7%
Don't know
19.2% 22.1% 21.0%
20.5%
proportions)
28
itN>.87. 10d/l = 19.28, P = .037
16
252
73
18
100
Current Laws about Marijuana Possession/Sale are ... (column proportions)
Too lenient
3.4%
3.2%
2.9%
3.2%
About right
6.8%
0.8%
4.6%
4.5%
Too harsh
62.3% 80.0% 70.0%
70.0%
Don't know
27.5% 16.0% 22.3%
22.3%
16
23
355
113
ilN=507.6dO= 14.83,p= .022
Should People be Prohibited from Smoking MarijuanaIBlunts...(column proportions)
In private?
:elN'502.••ll) = 9.96, p = .041
No
71.4% 84.0% 73.7%
75.3%
378
Not sure
17.5%
9.6% 19.9%
16.3%
82
Yes
11.2%
6.4%
6.4%
8.4%
42
In public?
No
48.8% 31.7% 35.1%
39.9%
199
12lN" 99 • 4dl)=12.22,p=.016
Not sure
28.3% 39.0% 38.6%
34.5%
172
Yes
22.9% 29.3% 26.3%
25.7%
128
Ever Tested for Drugs? (category proportions)
33.7% 28.2%
31.7%
ilN~'7I.2dl) = 1.00, P = .606
31.6%
If You Applied for a Job with a Mandatory Drug Test, What Would you Do? (category proportions)
Not apply
25.9% 19.8% 15.3%
20.7%
b<m*
12lN=405.2dl)=5.40,p=.067
Apply for the job
26.3% 25.3% 27.8%
26.6%
12lN'.lo.2do = 0.20, P = .906
Not use fora month
28.1% 43.6% 37.8%
35.1%
b<j*
ilN'408.2dl)=7.15,p=.028
b<j**,
Try to beat the test
7.8% 23.9% 18.3%
15.2%
b<m**
12lN=40,.2dO = 13.60, P = .001
7.7%
4.3%
Take my chances
4.2%
5.7%
12tN=407.2dl) = 2.18, P = .336
2
b>j*
Keep smoking
5.9%
1.1%
2.1%
3.4%
1 IN=408. 2dl) = 5.36, P = .069
1.8%
0.0%
2.1%
Accept loss ofjob
1.5%
12tN•408.2dl) = 1.85, P = .395
Have you Ever Used the Internet to ... (category proportions)
Get info on tobacco/
25%
26%
35%
marijuana
Buy tobacco/marijuana
12.3%
6.8%
7.5%
29%
9.2%
b<m*
ilN~'7•.2dl) = 5.11, P = .078
i IN-'55. 2dl) = 3.34, P = .188
Wald test for equality ofmeanslproponions 2-tailed p < .05 *, p < .01 **, P < .001 ..*
269
Table 16 reveals differences in cultural and stylistic preferences between Blunts Users
and Joints/Mixed Users. Blunts Users were more likely than Joints Users to identify with hip
hop (55% vs. 24%) and basketball (19% vS.,6%) scenes, and less likely to identify with punk
(5% vs. 15%), martial arts/yoga/Pilates (5% vs.IO%), veganlnaturallifestyle (4% vs. 15%),
the art scene (9% vs. 32%), and skateboarding (7% vs. 19%). Blunts Users are more likely
than Joints Users to listen to Hip Hop (74% vs. 53%) and Rap (60% vs. 45%) and less likely
to listen to Jazz (20% vs. 49%), Classical (15% vs. 25%), Punk (13% vs. 35%), Folk (6% vs.
21%), and Indie Rock q.O% vs. 38%). Blunts Users are more likely to report that these music
and cultural preferences influence their use of blunts (26% vs. 10%).
·1
I
DISCUSSION
Quantitative findings of this study demonstrate, within the sample of marijuana users,
clear distinctions between primary Blunts Users and primary Joints Users largely along the
same lines as ethnographic findings from this project. There is, however, at least some
overlap between the populations on all dimensions. For instance, it is not the case that only
Blunts Users are into Hip-Hop or that no Joints Users experience problems with the police.
However, on many, the average Blunts User differs from the typical Joints user and/or the
typical Mixed User. There is considerable diversity among marijuana users and practices and
subcultures. In interpreting these findings, it is as important to note the commonalities
between marijuana subcultures as the differences.
Blunts Users are distinct from Joints Users with respect to their demographics and
cultural/stylistie preferences. Demographic factors associated with greater likelihood of being
a Blunts User include being male, Black or Latino, lower educational level, and living with
parents (indicating lower economic opportunity and/or high residential concentration).
Marijuana smokers who identify with typically African-American cultural expressions (hip
hop, basketball) are more likely to be Blunts Users, and those who identify with typically
white cultural expressions (punk, vegetarianism, yoga/Pilates, skateboarding) are more likely
to be Joints Users. These quantitative results confirm ethnographic findings that blunts
consumption is associated with a relatively new Blunts subculture, which is also associated
with being high school or college age, black/Latino, and into hip-hop, Joints, in contrast are
associated with a subculture that is also associated with being college age or slightly older,
white, and lifestyle/subculture choices such as. punk, skateboarding, yoga/Pilates,
vegetarianism, or the art scene.
Of pharmacological significance is the finding that Blunts Users consume on more days
and start at younger ages than Joints Users. Other research has speculated on the particularly
deleterious effects of early substance use on the still-developing brain (Volkow, 2004). Blunts
Users also disproportionately report more dependence symptoms, believe blunts to be more
addictive than joints, and yet prefer and use blunts anyway, suggesting that they are less
interested in protecting themselves against dependence. They are also less likely to observe
customs that would protect themselves from the social consequences of their use. Blunts
Users expose themselves to greater risk by taking roles in the drug scene (Friedman et aI.,
1998), "copping" (that is, buying) and using outdoors, buying more often (implied by the fact
that they buy in lower quantities), and by less often observing customs that would prevent
270
their use from becoming a nuisance to others. Blunts Users also have a particularly low
proportion of friends who are non-users which likely reinforces their greater usage and lower
use of strategies to reduce risk. Overall, Blunts Users appear to consume more marijuana than
Joints Users and do less to protect themselves against the psychological and social harm
associated with its use. Their riskier practices probably have little to do with their reasons for
using marijuana, because these were cited at very similar rates across user types. Our
contention is that they have much more to do with subculture.
Table 16. Lifestyle Choices Among Cannabis User Types
Cannabis User Typology,
Blunts
Joints
Mixed
Overall
CUltures/Styles Participant Identifies With (category proportions):
·J6.1%
7.7% 14.8%
13.6%
Rastafarian
6.8%
5.3%
3.7%
0.5%
Anarchist
4.5%
7.7%
6.5%
6.0%
Rave
43.4%
54.7% 23.7% 43.5%
Hip hop
10.5% 10.3% 15.3%
12.1%
Graffiti
6.0%
8.8%
12.3%
Basketball
18.9%
16.7%
12.0% 23.9% 17.3%
Fashion
9.5%
4.5% 10.3% 14.7%
Hippie
7.7%
4.7%
4.9%
3.5%
Jock
3.4%
4.7%
2.9%
1.0%
Gothic
5.0% . 14.5% 10.6%
9.2%
Punk
Martial arts,
8.8%
7.6%
5.0% 10.3%
yoga, Pilates
Natural lifestyle
9.0%
3.5% 14.5% 11.8% '
(Vegetarian. organic)
19.5%
Art scene
9.0% 31.6% 23.5%
7.0% 18.8% 14.7%
12.5%
Skateboarding
<,
--:
Music Styles Participant Listens To (category proportions):
46.2% 42.2% 55.6%
Reggae
48.4%
20.4% 48.8% 42.9%
35.0%
Jazz
15.3% 24.8% 25.7%
21.2%
Classical
49.0%
47.8% 47.5% 51.5%
R&B
16.5% 22.7% 18.3%
18.6%
House
23,2%
Punk
13.0% 34.7% 27.3%
14.5%
12.9% 13.2% 17.4%
Techno
5.8% 20.7% 16.0%
12.9%
Folk
59,6% 44.6% 57.8%
55.4%
Rap
74.0% 52.5% 64.2%
65.5%
Hip Hop
23.6%
Indie Rock
9.6% 38.0% 30.4%
WaldTest
b>j·
b>j··. b>m··
r(N=48S.2dl) = 4.72. P = .094
r (N=488. 2dl) = 10.26. p = .006
r(N0487.2dl) = 1.47. P = .480
b>j···. b>m·.j<m··· X2(N=489.2dll = 29.09, P < .001
r (N·487. 2dl) = 2.48. P = .289 .
2
b>j •••• b>m··
X (N-487. 2dl) = 14.24, P = .00 I
2o"=48S.2dl)
b<j··
X
= 7.61. P = .022
2(N'487.2dl)=
b<m··
X
11.31, p= .004
tIN'488.2d1) = 2.83. p = .243
b<m*
X2INo488.2dl) = 4.72, P = .094
2
b<j··. b-ern"
X..N=487.2dl) = 8.56, P = .014
2
XIN'488.2dl) = 3.52, P = .172
b<j··, b<m··
b<j •••• b<m···
b<j··, bern"
j<m·
b<j •••• b<m···
b<j·. b-cm"
b<j •••, b<m···
b<j···, b<m··
b>j··.j<m·
b>j*··, b>m·,j<m·
b<j •••, b<m···
Do These Cultures/Styles Influence your Own Use of Blunts? (category proportions):
9.6% 16.8%
19.0%
b>j···, b>m·
26.4%
rIN'488.2dl) = 13.40. P = .001
r(N=488,2dl) = 26.99. p < .001
= 10.52, P = .005
iINo487.2dl)
2IN'SOO.2dl)
X
= 5.82. P = .054
tIN=497.2dl) = 34.11. p < .001
tIN-SOI.2dl) = 21.16. P = .025
tIN=S02.2dl) = 0.63, p = .729
i (N=494. 2dl) = 1.92. P = .384
tIN-SOO.2dl) = 22.63. p < .001
t IN-S02,2dl) = I. 78. P "0 .411
t(N=497,2dO= 17.23.p<.001
r (NoS02. 2dl) = 7.58, P = .023
tIN'SO/.2dl) = 15.82, P < .001
2(N=SOO.2dl)
X
= 40.91, P < .001
'"
r(N=437.2dl) = 12.80, P = .002
Wald test for equality of means/proportions 2-tailed p < .05 ., p < .01 ••, P < .001 •••
Compared to Joints Users, the risks that Blunts Users experience as a result of their use
are greater in some ways and less in others. Probably as a direct result of their use practices,
Blunts Users may be more dependent on THC and nicotine than Joints Users and experience
271
more trouble with the police. Blunts Users, however, used alcohol and virtually every other
iHicit drug that was at all common among our participants at significantly lower rates than did
the Joints Users. Blunts subculture apparently maintains norms that protect against hard drug
use. Blunts use practice and avoidance norms, furthermore, are an exception to conventional
wisdom of marijuana as a gateway drug. To the extent that marijuana is a gateway drug at all,
this effect is especially weak among Blunts Users. In the final comparison of problems
associated with use, the unique risks and protective factors associated with blunts use and
joints use practices and subcultures seem to offset each other somewhat. Blunts Users are
more likely to report that their use caused problems with their parents 'and family - and not
because they're more likely to live with their parents and family. Problems associated with
use were, however, relatively rare among all three types, and Blunts Users experienced most
problems at comparable rates to Joints Users.
Overall, these findings provide evidence of clear distinctions between an emergent blunts
subculture and the existing joints subculture. The subculture associated with blunts use
practice has become one of several subcultures associated with marijuana use practices.
Within the norms and values of a subculture, smoking marijuana has meaning and
significance over and above its pharmacological effects, and different subcultures attribute
different meaning and significance to the use of marijuana. Although individuals definitely
choose whether to smoke marijuana, whether and how they smoke marijuana depends greatly
on their social, cultural, economic, and subcultural context (Golub et aI., 2005a). Intervention
efforts aimed at altering individuals' decision process around marijuana must be informed by
knowledge of context and these distinct subcultures if they are to be effective.
A'UTHOR NOTE
This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA--5ROI DA
013690-04) to study blunts/marijuana use patterns. Additional support is provided by other
projects (ROI DA09056-IO, T32 DA07233-22, Marijuana Policy Project). The first author
was supported as a postdoctoral fellow in the Behavioral Sciences Training in Drug Abuse
Research program sponsored by Medical and Health Association of New York City, Inc.
(MHRA) and the National Development and R~earch Institutes (NDRI) with funding from
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (5T32 DA07233). The ideas or points of view in this
paper do not represent the official position of the U.S. Government, Medical and Health
Association of New York City, Inc., or National Institute on Drug Abuse, or National
Development and Research Institutes Inc. The authors acknowledge the many contributions
of Ellen Benoit, Flutura Bardhi, Anthony Nguyen, Doris Randolph, and Ricardo Bracho.
REFERENCES
Benoit, E., Randolph, D., Dunlap, E., and Johnson, B. D. (2003). Code switching and inverse
imitation among marijuana-smoking crack sellers. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3),
506-525.
272
Compton, W. M., Grant, B. F., Colliver, J. D., Glantz, M. D., and Stinson, F. S. (2004).
Prevalence of marijuana use disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002.
JAMA : the Journal ofthe American Medical Association, 291( 17),2114-2121.
Dunlap, E., Johnson, B. D., Sifaneck, S. J., and Benoit, E. (2005). Sessions, cyphers, and
parties: Settings for informal social controls of blunt smoking. Journal of Ethnicity and
Substance Abuse, 4(3/4),43-77.
Dunlap, E., and Johnson, B. D. (1998). Gaining access to hidden populations: Strategies for
gaining cooperation of sellers/dealers in ethnographic research. In Mario De La Rosa,
Bernard' Segal, Richard Lopez (Eds). Conducting Drug Abuse Research with Minority
Populations: Advances and Issues. Wilmington, PA: Hayworth Press.
Friedman, S. R. (submitted). Social capital without trust or consensus: Neighborhood success
in meeting challenges, in a context of endemic conflicts, through social ties and
normative pressures.
Friedman, S. R.,Furst, R. T., Jose, B., Curtis, R., Neaigus, A., Des: Jarlais, D. c., et a1.
(1998). Drug scene roles and HIV risk. Addiction, 93(9), 1403-1416.
Friedman, S. R., Maslow, c., Bolyard, M., Sandoval, M., Mateu-Gelabert, P., and Neaigus,
A. (2004). Urging others to be healthy: "intravention" by injection drug users as a
community prevention goal. AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the
International Society for AIDS Education, 16(3), 250-263.
Johnson, B. D. (1973). Marihuana Users and Drug Subcultures. New York: John Wiley.
Johnson, B. D. (1980). Towards a theory of drug subcultures. Pp. 110-119 in Dan J. Letteri,
Mollie Sayers, Helen W. Pearson (Eds.), Theories on. Drug Abuse: Selected
Contemporary Perspectives. Rockville, MD: NIDA Research Monograph 30.
Johnson. B. D., Bardhi, F., Sifaneck, S. J., and Dunlap, E.. 2005. Marijuana argot as
subculture threads: Social constructions by users in New York City. British Journal of
Criminology (June): 1-32.
Johnson, B. D., Goldstein, P. J., Preble, ,E., Schmeidler, J., Lipton, D. S., Spunt, B., and
Miller, T. (1985). Taking Care,ofBusiness: The Economics ofCrime by Heroin Abusers.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Johnson. B. D., Golub. A., and Dunlap, E.. 2006. The rise and decline' of drugs, drug markets,
and violence in New York City. Pp. 164-206 in Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman.
(Eds.) The Crime Drop in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Second
edition).
Golub, A., and Johnson, B. D.,. 2001. The rise of marijuana as the drug of choice among
youthful arrestees. Research in Brief, NCJ 187490. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
Golub, A., and Johnson, B. D.,. 2002. Substance use progression and hard drug abuse in
inner-city New York. pp. 90-112 in Kandel, D. B. (ed.) Stages and Pathways of
Involvement in Drug Use: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., and Dunlap, E.. 2005a. Subcultural evolution and substance use.
Addiction Research and Theory 13(3): 217-229.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., Dunlap, E.. 2005b. The growth in marijuana use among American
youths in the I990s and the extent of blunts smoking. Journal ofEthnicity and Substance
Abuse 4(3/4): 1-21.
OJ
273
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., Dunlap, E., and Sifaneck, S. 2004. Projecting and monitoring the
life course of the marijuana/blunts generation. Journal of Drug Issues Spring 36 1-388.
[219]
Mateu-Gelabert, P., Maslow, Ci.Fforn, P. L., Sandoval, M., Bolyard, M., and Friedman, S. R.
(2005). Keeping it together: stigma, response, and perception of risk in relationships
between drug injectors and crack smokers, and other community residents. AIDS care,
17(7), 802-8 I3.
Sifaneck, S. 1., Johnson, B. D., and Dunlap, E. (2005). Cigars-for-Blunts: Marketing of
.. flavored tobacco products to youth and minorities. Journal of Ethnicity and Substance
Abuse 4(3/4), 23-42.
Sifaneck, S. J., Kaplan, C. D., Dunlap, E., and Johnson, B. D. (2003). Blunts and blowtjes:
Cannabis use cpractices in two cultural settings and their implications for secondary
prevention. Journal ofFree Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 31(3), I-II.
Volkow, N. D. (2004). Exploring the why's of adolescent drug abuse. NIDA Notes: Directors
19(3),
Retrieved
November
9,
2005,
from
http://www.nida.
Column,
nih.govlNIDA_notesINNvoJ20 I9N2003/DirRepVol20 I9N2003.html.

distinguishing blunts users from joints users

Transcription

Similar documents

PSORIASIS- ARTHRITIS

In the bars of the Northern Zone a “joint” of marijuana can cost 20

Joints - What is the address of my individual web space?

Eric Martin, MAC, CADC III, CPS

Elastomer Expansion Joints

Now - OCEA - Ontario Cooperative Education Association

ARTICULATIONS!

Do you have joint pain? It could be Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Joints