Keywords: Longitudinal study; Recreational drug use in UK; Alcohol use; Poly drug use; Lifestyles of young adults
www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo
Introduction
The preoccupation with adolescent druguse in the UK, as elsewhere over the 1990s,has shaped most drugs discourses and anti-drugs strategies. This is understandable given‘the children of the nineties’ became so drug
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413398
experienced compared with their predeces-sors. British youth have topped the Europeanleague tables for drug taking since their intro-duction (EMCDDA, 1999; ESPAD, 1997;Griffiths et al., 1997). Regional surveys in theUK have routinely found lifetime rates of50–60% for mid adolescents (Aldridge et al.,1999; Barnard et al., 1996) and national sur-veys have found only slightly lower rates(Flood-Page et al., 2000; HEA, 1999; Millerand Plant, 1996). Nevertheless, whilst there issome conflicting evidence (ONS, 2000), itdoes seem likely that new millennial, adoles-cent birth cohorts are being slightly moreabstentious (Balding, 1999; Plant and Miller,2000).
An important research and policy questionbeing sidelined by this focus on today’steenagers is what is happening to yesterday’scohorts? The aim of this paper is to discussthe substance taking behaviour of a sampleof 1990s children as they become adults.Whilst at 22, we should not expect the pro-cesses of ‘settling down’ and ‘maturing out’to be complete, we would traditionally expectto see significant moderation in progress. Ifthis is not the case, we need to speculate onthe reasons, giving particular attention to thebackcloth of extended transitions to adultstatus.
Unfortunately because after reaching 16young Britons take diverse educational andemployment routes, it is extremely hard tofind cost-effective ways of surveying them.We consequently have incomplete researchevidence about substance use amongst British18–25s and much of what there is was under-taken in the mid 1990s. A clutch of surveys ofuniversity students has reported that a signifi-cant minority are heavy drinkers, a majorityregular drinkers and around 60% have triedillicit drugs, primarily cannabis (Webb et al.,1996). Time series surveys found that rates ofdrug use for mid 1990s medical students had
more than doubled since the mid 1980s(Birch et al., 1999; Makhoul et al., 1998;Ashton and Kamali, 1995). Whilst cannabiswas widely used these studies suggest only aminority (13–18%) had ever tried the dancedrugs (amphetamines, LSD, ecstasy) withonly around 10% having regular experienceof these substances (Webb et al., 1996).
The main household survey upon whichmeasuring drug use is reliant has also plottedincreases in recent drug use amongst youngadults across the last decade (Ramsay andPartridge, 1999). Past month use for 16–19year olds rose from 20% in 1994 to 22% in1998; for 20–24 year olds from 15% in 1994to 17% in 1998 and finally for 25–29 yearolds from 9% in 1994 to 11% in 1998. TheHEA (1999) survey undertaken in 1996 foundpast month drug use was 21% for 16–24 yearolds, but only 12% for 25–29 year olds. In1992/1993, the first Youth Lifestyles Survey,a large national random household survey(14–25s) of England and Wales, found pastyear drug use was 22% (Graham and Bowl-ing, 1995). The second survey conducted in1998/1999, admittedly using a different ad-ministration technique, found this had risento 32% for the same age group (Flood-Pageet al., 2000). It also found past month druguse was 17% for 16–17 year olds risingsteeply to 26% for 18–21 year olds but fallingto 16% for 22–25s. This beginning trend isconsistent with that found in the BritishCrime Survey (Ramsay and Partridge, 1999).
Finally, in terms of indicative data, wemust refer to the clutch of studies of youngadult night clubbers. Their rates of drug useare extraordinarily high and are broadly sus-tained across their twenties. With lifetimerates for amphetamines, LSD and ecstasy of80–90% and recent use around 70%,alongside regular cannabis use and drinking,the clubbers appear the ultimate post-modernconsumers (Forsyth, 1998; Akram, 1997; Re-
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 399
lease, 1997). These earlier findings are dupli-cated in the most recent studies in NorthernIreland (1999), Northern England (Meashamet al., 2000) and in a survey of a self-report-ing dance music magazine readership (Win-stock, 2000). It is unwise to use these figuresto support the view that young adult druguse is climbing dramatically however. Theclubbers are a self-selecting group and at themost drug experienced end of the recreationalspectrum. These studies should only be seenas further confirmation that young adult druguse is a significant issue and appears to beprevalent further into the 20–30 age range.
A further issue in this discussion is whetherpoly-drug use is becoming more prevalent. Acommon thread in nearly all the above re-search is that there is a strong correlationbetween smoking, drinking and recreationaldrug use. From mid adolescence onwardsthose who take drugs tend to be smokers andare almost invariably drinkers (Goddard andHiggins, 1999). Whilst the ‘going out’ sectorof young adults still nominate alcohol astheir favourite drug in the UK and acrossEurope, they then go on to identify tobaccoand cannabis as important (Calafat, 1998).
With alcohol use, particularly heavier use,increasing amongst young adults, whethermeasured by the General Household Surveyor discrete studies (Wright, 1999), and smok-ing rates in this age group not falling as theyare amongst middle age Britons (Crace,1997), the need to look at psycho-active con-sumption holistically is clear. However, dueto the traditional separation of tobacco, alco-hol and illegal drug use in terms of markets,policy and research foci there is little enquiryabout combination or consecutive substancetaking episodes. So official household surveysand even the national drug treatment data-base do not allow poly-drug repertoires to beadequately recorded. Yet when we do enquireabout poly-drug use, we find high rates (Boys
et al., 2000; Measham et al., 2000; ONS,2000) and when we profile drug users intreatment its presence is endemic (Gossop etal., 1998). Given the warnings from the litera-ture on drugs transitions across the adoles-cent—adult life course (Lynskey and Hall,2000) and the inter-relationship between to-bacco, alcohol and illicit drug use (Blaze-Temple and Kai Lo, 1992; Bailey, 1992), thisis a worrying omission with public healthimplications.
Finally, if we are to understand what isgenerating any delayed moderation and ces-sation of psycho-active drug use, we mustlook at what is different (beyond drugsavailability) in the lives of today’s youngadults compared with their predecessors.There is a growing literature about the moreuncertain and longer journeys to adult statuscurrently being experienced by young adults.In the UK, over 40% are now in highereducation, mainly from 18–21 years and an-other 20% in occupational training throughto the end of their teenage years. Over halfstill live or return to live at home well intotheir twenties (Bynner et al., 1997). Marriageis being abandoned or delayed as is parent-ing. Young adults seem increasingly commit-ted to pay off debts and yet simultaneouslyprioritise the purchasing of leisure and holi-days. Conceptually this renovated personalagenda has been referred to as indi�idualisa-tion— the notion that today’s younger citi-zens must navigate through a new moreuncertain, rapidly changing world which re-quires flexibility and makes risk taking afunctional necessity (Miles, 2000; Furlongand Cartmel, 1997). It seems important tobegin to assess whether with delayed settlingdown markers-like home ownership, a per-manent job, marriage and parenting beingthe demographic norm—a related delay inmoderating drinking and drug use will alsooccur.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413400
This paper reports on the only UK basedlongitudinal study of 1990s drug-wise adoles-cents (Parker et al., 1998) as they move intotheir twenties. By tracking the same samplesince they were turned fourteen, in 1991, wedescribe the extent to which their tobacco,alcohol and illicit drug use patterns havedeveloped and changed through into the newdecade. We, in particular, focus on their psy-cho-active consumption since they were 18through to them becoming 23 years old.Equally importantly, we aim to locate theirdrug consumption within lifestyles and tran-sitions’ perspectives, searching for key factorsaffecting their current ‘drugs’ status.
Methods
Back in 1991, the North West LongitudinalStudy began by engaging a cohort of 700young people just becoming 14 years old.They were tracked annually with self-reportquestionnaires until 1995, when they were 18years old. The overall aim of the study was toexplore how ‘ordinary’ English adolescentswere growing up in respect of their use ofleisure and how their attitudes to and con-
sumption of alcohol and illicit drugs devel-oped and changed across adolescence (Parkeret al., 1998).
During 1999, as part of a follow up, 465 ofthe sample were successfully recaptured,when they were mainly 22 years old. Table 1describes the sample sizes and indicates someof the complexities of undertaking a panelstudy with this age group. Although the corecohort is now only n=175, for whom wehave complete data for all years of the study,the picture since the big attrition year (Year3) is actually of good retention. For instancein this paper, we mainly compare Years 4/5and Year 9 data and have no �354 completeindividual data sets.
This successful recapture was helped by theresearchers firstly sending a humorousChristmas type card (1998) to over 700 po-tential respondents, who had been in thestudy at Years 4 and 5. The main aim of thiswas to try and establish a current residentialor contact point using a return slip. Severalmonths later further postal and telephonecontacts confirmed over 400 current ad-dresses but left over 200 unconfirmed. Ques-tionnaires (n=711) and an SAE were sent toall these contacts in late 1999. A £10 music
Table 1Change and attrition in the samples (1991–1999)
Year
1 2 3 4 5 9
1716 221514Age (years) 18
189 95 171 year only 6 2 52 years only 160 165 26 20 7 14
67 85 60 54 583 years only 5461 80 103 124 1244 years 100
1171631571425 years 152124175175All 6 years 175 175 175 175
465529536523752776Total respondents
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 401
token was promised upon satisfactory com-pletion and return of the questionnaire.
Back in 1996, when they were 17, 86 panelmembers had been interviewed in depth.These interviews proved very important tothe study particularly in respect of under-standing the processes behind the drugs jour-neys and pathways this drug-wise sampletook (Parker et al., 1998). During 2000, thesame procedure was followed and by coinci-dence exactly 86 panel members were inter-viewed personally using a semi-structuredschedule. Every effort was made to make theinterview sample representative of the recap-tured successfully surveyed sample usingquota sampling in respect of gender, ethnicorigin, class and different drugs statuses.
Data collection
Because of the 4 years gap before recaptureand the need to try and reliably gather dataabout this post-adolescent life period, it wasdecided to redesign and pilot both the ques-tionnaire and interview schedule. From thepiloting with volunteers from the cohortflowed a series of minor changes to bothinstruments, but overall the general structureand content was deemed appropriate. Thebasic previous structure was maintained inrespect of four key sections on personal andsocial characteristics, income and consump-tion, smoking and alcohol consumption, anddrug attitudes and experiences. However, aformat had to be designed to capture infor-mation about these topics most easily for thepast year but also for the 1996–1998 ‘gap’years. Various devices were used to encour-age recall (e.g. asking respondents to think ofchronological landmarks like birthdays,Christmas, starting or completing college/uni-versity). Given the importance of long oftenuncertain transitions to adulthood rightacross this age period, we introduced new
questions about feelings of security– insecu-rity in respect of domestic arrangements, oc-cupational futures, personal and socialrelationships, health and general wellbeing(Parker and Williams, in press).
The interview schedule was more con-cerned with processes, experiences and ‘why’questions and encouraged interviewees to of-fer their own perspectives and recall experi-ences in respect of home life, work,educational courses, friendship patterns, per-sonal and social relationships, and criminalinvolvement. In particular, it encouraged de-tailed accounts of drinking and drug use ex-periences whether personal or offriends/acquaintances.
All eight interviewers were fully trained bythe core researchers. Initial interviews werefully checked and feedback given to ensurequality and consistency. The interviewers hadsummaries of the results of the recently com-pleted questionnaire responses for each sub-ject and were encouraged to check anydiscrepancies that had been identified. All theinterviews were taped, fully transcribed andwhere feasible ‘quantified’.
Reliability and �alidity
Longitudinal studies provide unique in-sights into the strengths and weaknesses ofrelying on structured questionnaires. Thereare few ways beyond dummy drug questionsand internal consistency audits to validateresponses in one off surveys but in panelstudies with regular re-capture and repeatedcore questions any inconsistencies are imme-diately exposed. Most longitudinal studies re-port some inconsistencies (Fendrich andMackesy-Amiti, 2000; Barnea et al., 1987)and this one is no exception. We found forinstance that in the first two sweeps a smallminority of our then mid-adolescents ‘messedaround’ during the survey administration.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413402
This was confirmed in direct questions tointerviewees at 17 and 22. This type of ‘devi-ance’ disappeared from the study by Sweep 4as the post-attrition cohort became whollycommitted to and trusting of the study.
However, two other challenges to vera-cious on-going reporting remain. Firstly,there is strong evidence that in these crucialadult identity forming years some biographi-cal reconstruction occurs (Plant et al., 1985).We noted this initially in respect of solventuse being disclosed at 14, but ‘forgotten’ inrepeat questions at 17. The interview samplewas asked about this inconsistency and sev-eral defined it not as deceit, but as re-definingearlier experiences. In particular, ‘sniffing’solvents was redefined as childish risk taking,not ‘real’ drug taking (Parker et al., 1998).We have little new evidence of this process atrecapture beyond whether one pull on a can-nabis reefer, which has no recognisable effect,is a drug taking experience but intuitively wewould expect a small continuing impact.
A more clear cut challenge to validity isapparent in our attempts to get accurate ‘gap’years alcohol and drugs consumption data.We asked the interviewees who had taken adrug since they were 18, over half the sample,to score on a scale of 1–10, how accuratelythey felt they could recall and record theirdrug taking by year. The majority nominateda score of seven or more.
Attrition
We have also plotted the effects of theattrition on the cohort’s characteristics. Theattrition at Year 3 saw a disproportionalnumber of drug active working class malesand a small number of non-drinking—non-drug taking Muslims lost. The attrition (n=134) between Years 5 and 9 on the otherhand has been of middle class white subjectswith a Protestant background. However, as
with the earlier attrition those lost (at Year 9)are more likely to be drug users. At Year 5,58.2% of the Year 9 attrition group had useda drug in the past year and 39.6% in the pastmonth. Over 43% were smokers and 92%were current drinkers. In short, the thrust ofthe attrition throughout ensures that the ratesof drug involvement presented are highlylikely to be lower than those, which wouldhave occurred without attrition.
Representati�eness
Finally, there is no claim that this cohort isrepresentative of the English young adultpopulation. This study is about representa-tions rather than representi�eness. This said,as we shall see the actual changes in alcoholand drugs consumption found in this samplemimic, quite remarkably, the national epi-demiological picture even to the point ofillustrating the current rapid rise in cocaineuse in the UK (Corkery, 2000).
Results
Table 2 describes the basic demographiccharacteristics of the sample at 18 and 22.The profiles match those identified in theextended transitions literature. The majorityare still living or have returned to theparental home after higher education. Veryfew are parents. Only 6.8% are unemployedwith the vast majority in full and part-timework. The picture is of a hardworking group,but who are still some years away from mar-riage, parenting and home ownership.
Tobacco use
When they were 18, 34% of the samplewere current smokers, with women far morelikely to be current and everyday smokers
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 403
Table 2Demographic characteristics of sample at 18 (year 5) and 22 (year 9)
than men (Table 3). Into their 20s, there hasbeen a slight increase in the current smokingpopulations (35.5%) but with a small reduc-tion in daily consumption and with genderdifferences narrowing. It should also benoted that the smokers are now long-term tobacco users with the mean number ofyears since the onset of regular smoking be-ing 7.3 (roughly when they were 15–16 yearsold).
Alcohol use
The sample’s alcohol use followed the es-
tablished trajectories across their adolescencewith weekly drinking rising annually fromwhen they were 13 through to 18 when 82.9%drank at least once a week. The current rateis almost exactly the same (82.3%) into theirtwenties and there are practically no signifi-cant differences aside from male drinkingbeing more frequent and heavier than forfemales. The sample remain committed con-sumers of alcohol. As Table 4 shows nearlyseven in ten of the weekly drinkers drink atleast two to three times a week with malesbeing more regular and heavier drinkers thanfemales.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413404
Offers of drug use
When they were 18, in 1995, 91% of thissample reported being in drug offer situa-tions. At 22, 93% report being around wheredrugs are available to take for free or formoney. The most cited drugs were cannabis(89%), amphetamines (76%), nitrites (64%),ecstasy (62%), LSD (56%) and cocaine pow-der (47%). Back in 1996 whilst cannabis,amphetamines, ecstasy and nitrites wereequally accessible the sample reported far lessavailability of cocaine (24%) yet moreavailability of LSD (66%) was noted. Thispattern fits the changing availability of illicitdrugs in the UK as a whole (Home Office,2000).
Drug use
Turning to lifetime trying (Table 5), theoverall prevalence for any drug has risenfrom 63.1 to 75.8%. Again we can see theimpact of national drugs availability and con-sumption trends with cocaine powder takingrising from 5.7 to 24.6% over 4 years (withcrack 0.8% at 18 years rising to 2.4%).Clearly this later onset of trying ‘new’ drugshas involved ecstasy as well.
The steep rise in cocaine use is particularlyinteresting because at 18 even the regular
drug users were stating they regarded cocaine(plus heroin and crack) as drugs they wouldsteer clear of, being seen as too addictive andexpensive (Parker et al., 1998). A significantminority have changed their minds as cocainehas become cheaper and more available(Grossman and Chaloupka, 1998) The in-depth interviews provide insights into thisre-assessment suggesting that cocaine uptakeis related to its strong availability and pres-ence in social circles and the impact of havingfriends and acquaintances use it without seri-ous mishap. The caveats are that cocaineshould be used only occasionally and fortime-out adventures and special occasions(e.g. Millennium celebrations):
I’m probably going to keep smoking (can-nabis) and I’ll probably, I don’t know, ifI’m going clubbing I’ll probably have somecoke, for special occasions, but apart fromthat not an awful lot.
This interviewee’s new preference for co-caine rather than amphetamines was a com-monly stated one.
The speed is like really hanging there, youdon’t want to come down, if you’ve got togo to work on Monday you don’t wanna
Table 3Tobacco smoking at 18 and 22 years by gender
At 18 At 22
Gender Total Gender Total
FemaleMaleFemaleMale
224 305n Size 529 197 268 465
29.5 37.3 34.0Current smokers (%) 33.3 37.1 35.511.4 8.9 9.4 9.2Mean number of cigarettes smoked yesterday 12.5 10.7
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 405
Table 4Alcohol consumption profiles at 18 and 22 years by gender
At 22At 18
Female TotalMale Male Female Total
305 529 197n Size 268224 465
Ever had an alcoholic drink (%) 96.9 96.7 96.8 98.5 97.4 97.881.6Weekly drinkers (%) 82.984.7 85.6 79.8 82.32.7 4.3 5.26.5 2.3Every day (%) 3.5
20.5Most days a week (%) 13.3 16.3 23.4 12.6 17.246.6 45.4 44.8 47.1Two to three times a week (%) 46.143.719 16.9 13.014 18.4Once a week (%) 16.1
Less than once a week (%) 17.713.6 15.9 9.4 14.9 12.6
Units of alcohol consumed on last drinking occasion (%)19.1 17.2 12.0 20.31–2 16.513.617.8 15.0 8.19.4 18.73–4 13.79.9 11.8 10.35–6 19.513.5 15.1
be feeling really rough……coke is highlysuperior in all respects, so if you’ve got achoice and you can afford it then all mymates would get some coke instead.
(Female, 23 years, employed graduate,83819)
Recent drug use
Focusing on recency measures, when theywere 18, 52.9% reported past year use, now at22, 52.1% reported past year use—a remark-able consistency in on-going drug taking.Past month rates were 35.2% back in 1996.At 22, 31.2% of the sample report recent drugtaking (Table 6). However, when they were18, we found that the past month categorycontained a proportion of initiates who werenot on-going users whereby only 31% were
current users (Parker et al., 1998). Given thenew male attrition will also have deflatedthese Year 9 rates, it is not clear whetherthere is a small drop or a plateau in recentdrug use, there is certainly no evidence of anincrease.
Table 6 further describes the current drugsof choice by gender. The current preferencesare clear. Today’s twenty somethings, cer-tainly in Northern England, use cannabis,ecstasy and cocaine with only the ‘old’ dancedrug favourites of nitrite poppers and am-phetamines even in the frame. LSD used inthe past month by 5% in 1994 and 1% in1995 is now simply not taken. Acid blotterswere widely used by the drug user sub-sampleback in their mid teens but were also thesubject of the most warnings and regretsfound in the drugs stories told in their socialworlds. This negative image plus significantlyreduced availability of LSD appear causal
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413406
plus perhaps the view that along with sol-vents and glue, ‘trips’ are for ‘kids’, not thosein their twenties who must work full time.Back when she was eighteen one interviewee,now a holiday representative, learnt the hardway:
It was one big long trip, it was horrid andthat’s why I would never do another. I’m abit of a control freak and at least with apill (ecstasy) you can pull yourself out of it.I’ve got a really strong mind with stuff likethat. With the trip I had to lock myself inmy room and lay on the bed. That’s all Icould do for the next three days. Oh it wasawful, it was horrid.
(Female, 22 years, graduate, flexible/multijobs, 43368)
In Table 6, again in line with nationalprofiles, we see that young adult malesmatched by female peers in their teens, nowtake more drugs more often than youngwomen. Interestingly, the gender differencesare smaller for cocaine than the other main
drugs of choice. Although not shown (Parkeret al., in press) differences in socio-economicstatus vis-a-vis on-going drug use are small asthey were across the teenage years. Withmore and more UK studies noting thehighest rates of recreational drug use arefound in professional/middle class groups(ONS, 2000), this finding is again consistentwith the bigger picture.
Finally, whilst we cannot deal withthe complexities of poly-drug use here, itshould be noted that this is wide-spread amongst those that take one or moreillicit drugs. At their last drug takingepisode (n=327) no �76% also drankalcohol and 62% smoked tobacco. Themixing of the licit with the illicit, which beganin adolescence is clearly continuingunchecked.
Experiences of alcohol and drug use
The drinkers and drug takers were asked tonominate reasons for their usage from anextensive list of options. The main reasonsare cited in Tables 7 and 8. Their motives
Table 5Drugs ever tried at 18 and 22 years by gender
need to be understood in a lifestyle context.This is a conventional sample the majority ofwhom are well educated, starting promisingcareers and the remainder gainfully em-ployed. Very few are unemployed or involvedin crime. Their substance use is largelyshaped by a work hard—play hard ethoswith the weekends hosting most psycho-ac-tive consumption.
For drinking (Table 7), we see that alcoholuse is linked to pleasure and enjoyment, es-sentially going out after work or at weekends.According to the interview data ‘celebrating’encompasses not just birthdays, job successor public holidays but simply getting througha working week:
I enjoy it (drinking)…… I’ve had loads ofgood nights out. It’s normally like if itssomeone’s birthday or New Year’s Eve orsomething, just when everybody gets to-gether and you know everybody’s dressedup. I love getting dressed up and you knowas opposed to just kind of all going to sit inthe pub after work.
(Female, 23 years, graduate, media/TV,83X26)
However alongside this enthusiasm for‘time out’ and strongly represented in themain reasons for drinking, is stress relief andthe notion of self medicating the ‘wind down’to temporarily forget everyday pressures.There is new priority given to these less hedo-nistic motives compared with earlier self-as-sessments. For the drug involved/experiencedmajority, these same motivational prioritiesare apparent (Table 8). The desire to enjoyoneself, feeling happy and excited, energeticand sociable is equally associated with ‘timeout’ but with stress relief again high on theagenda.
[Do you smoke cannabis on your own?]
Occasionally yeah, it just depends howstressed I am or anything like that butmostly its when I’m with friends definitelyand we’re drinking and stuff and we smokequite a bit.
(Male, 23 years, car sales, 83U10)
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413408
Two late onset cannabis users, both newlyqualified secondary school teachers, now seecannabis alongside alcohol use as particularlyfunctional.
I think we’d probably had some wine witha meal while we were watching televisionand then just a smoke afterwards so itwasn’t for any particular reason…it’s justrelaxation…I was very relaxed andhappy…and just feeling relaxed and nothaving to worry about stuff for a while,and oh I mean, I find it very difficult torelax most of the time and I find it givesme a ticket to do that, so that’s what Iexpect of it and that’s what I get.
(Female, 22 years, 43U09)[What did you enjoy about smoking it?]
I couldn’t say that, I think it just helpedme, I think I just felt relaxed because I’vebeen quite stressed at school, then justhaving it with a drink, it just, I was quiteuptight and then I felt quite relaxed.
(Female, 23 years, 83U04)
With such a range of reasons articulatedfor using and mixing psycho-active sub-stances and the sustained high rates of con-sumption indicating no immediate likelihoodof rapid desistance, we must look for moresubtle indications of beginning moderation.The qualitative interviews do suggest thatdrinkers and poly-drug users are now morecircumspect about earlier excesses. Asidefrom a few subjects who have moved intonew ‘partying’ social networks via jobs or theending of long-term romantic relationships,almost all the other interviewees spoke ofrelegating complete intoxication in favour ofsociable, less excessive nights out or at leastreducing the frequency of wild weekends:
You know then (in teens) you got ridicu-lously drunk a few times and sick every-where and woke up with a hangover…thatsort of wears off after a bit, the novelty. Imean I still like getting drunk but now Inever drink to the point where I’m throw-ing up everywhere or anything anymore. Ithink lots of younger kids do but I think itis something that we all grow out of.
(Male, 23 years, accountant, 43X05)
Table 7Primary reasons nominated for drinking alcohol at 22–23 years
Agree (%) In between (%) Disagree (%)
95To celebrate 4 1For pleasure 91 6 3
3Because I like the taste 108772To wind down after work/study 15 13
Because it makes me feel good 64 26 10To feel more relaxed with friends/acquaintances 47 30 23
47To calm down if stressed 25 2843 29To get drunk/intoxicated 28
3934To feel more relaxed with ‘opposite’ sex 275624To forget worries 20
Nominated from 17 options; n=438.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 409
Table 8Primary reasons nominated for taking drugs at 22 years
In between (%)Agree (%) Disagree (%)
15For pleasure 1372To have fun/feel excited/happy 68 19 13
55To have a different experience/perspective 22 232354 23To relax/relieve stress
48To enhance an activity (e.g. listening to music/dancing) 17 3517To keep going on a night out with friends 44392334 43To get intoxicated
32To feel more confident in social settings 28 4024 44To calm down if stressed 321832 50To wind down after work/study
Nominated from 20 options; n=297.
No alcohol I don’t drink much anymorecos of the job that I’m doing, it involvesme doing quite a lot of driving so I can’treally afford to drink but when I’m notworking I do enjoy a bit of a drink. WhenI was 18 I was drinking White Lightning(strong cider) and all those nasty concoc-tions of things and now I’d probably justsettle for Becks or Michelob.
(Male, 22 years, events manager, 13095)One young woman in the cohort who was,
at 17, probably the heaviest drug using club-ber in the study, has stopped taking LSD andamphetamines altogether because of their af-ter effects. She now nominates cannabis asher favourite everyday drug and when shegoes out:
…it depends what night it is, if I’m goingto a garage night then my favourite wouldbe an E. If I’m going to a posh restaurant-bar…then it’d be cocaine. If I was going toan ordinary bar or a restaurant then it’d bealcohol.
However compared with her earlier drugtaking rates she now feels:
it was just a phase of my life, I did it, Ienjoyed it but it’ll probably get less andless as it goes on…I’ve got to think aboutchildren and it’s their lives then isn’t it? I’llbe doing different things won’t I?…but I’llstill probably take the odd one (ecstasypill), yeah, just to have a laugh, to think,fucking hell I can still remember how todance.
(Female, 22 years, business managementtrainee, 53N05)
Another more easily quantifiable sign ofmoderation given their multi drug trying an-tecedents is the development of a ‘cannabis-only’ sub sample. There are now 81 ‘pastyear’ cannabis only users in the cohort all butone of whom had tried and used other drugspreviously including amphetamines, LSD andecstasy. So whilst the use of cannabis hasn’tgone up on recency measures, the rate is nowincreasingly defined by respondents who arenot using any other illicit substance.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413410
Discussion
The study provides a moving picture of thelifestyles of a conforming, educated and em-ployed cohort of new adults but still engagedin transitions to full independence. Despitethese conforming characteristics their sub-stance use remains high with levels of to-bacco, alcohol and illicit drug use remainingstable across the 18–22 years life period. Thechanges in their psycho-active repertoires—continuing high rates of alcohol use andmore cocaine use but with LSD and, to alesser extent, amphetamine use being left be-hind—all mirror national trends. Alcohol,tobacco and cannabis are their most favouredmulti-purpose, mixable substances with stim-ulants like ecstasy and cocaine being utilisedsparingly by a minority.
These drugs of choice are best understoodin the context of the emergent young adultlifestyles most of the sample are negotiating.They favour drugs which are easily available,accommodated within their social networksand which fit into the work hard—play hardseven day cycle. All these drugs, users believe,can be utilised effectively for the purposesrequired and in the time slots available. Thusalcohol and cannabis in moderate doses canbe purposefully consumed across the weekwith higher doses and mixing for the week-ends. Stress relief has become more impor-tant, a finding consistent with the literatureon uncertain futures being a feature of con-temporary ‘risk society’ (Furlong and Cart-mel, 1997). When energy, sociability andmore intense excitement are required to goout on long weekend nights, party or club,then for a minority ecstasy and increasinglycocaine are taken alongside alcohol.
There are signs of more strategic and mod-erate substance use in respect of not gettingtotally drunk or intoxicated even at weekendsin response to the requirements of the work-
ing week. Around half the cohort restrictthemselves to licit substances with a signifi-cant minority of drug users now taking onlycannabis from the illicit basket. Even thestimulant drug users preach moderation andoccasional use and avoidance of unpre-dictable less controllable drugs like LSD oramphetamines associated with a long comedown and unwanted after effects. Almost allthe sample whether drug users or not con-tinue to absolutely reject heroin and crackcocaine as ‘acceptable’ substances because oftheir addictiveness and potential to under-mine conventional lifestyles and worse.
The results of this follow up suggest thatdrug-wise children of the nineties are indeedbringing their psycho-active substance usewith them into young adulthood. These find-ings are highly consistent with the nationalpicture in terms of current drugs of choiceand rises in drug use amongst young adults.The aetiology of this delayed or deferredmoderation will be difficult to develop notleast because cognizance must be paid to thecomplexities of the post-modernity debate. Itis not the nature of adolescence and postadolescence, which has changed but the na-ture of the lived experience. Growing up in arisk society, in which consumption is centraland independence takes longer to achieve, isgenerating different coping strategies for to-day’s youth. There is very good evidence thatmarriage, and by implication a family homeand parenting, reduce substance use (Back-man et al., 1997). However, because thesenew responsibilities are being delayed itseems likely that drinking and recreationaldrug use rates amongst twenty somethingswill remain high for longer than has, histori-cally, been the case.
Clearly for a government, which has devel-oped elaborate strategic plans and ambitiousgoals to reduce tobacco, alcohol and all illicitdrug use amongst under 25s, there is no
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 411
comfort in any of this and indeed a case forchanging the target age group to under 30s.With primary prevention programmes show-ing little promise (White and Pitts, 1998) andstrong drugs availability with stable (orfalling) price and steady purity levels, govern-ment is hard pressed to develop any strategicinterventions for this age group of recre-ational drug users. It continues to reject aharm reduction agenda and any requests forre- and de-regulation of illicit drugs, evencannabis possession (Independent Inquiry,2000), emphasising instead enforcement, es-pecially the extension of urine-drug testingand correctional programmes via the criminaljustice system. It is difficult to see how thisimpasse can be broken. Young adult recre-ational drug users like those in this studyhave made reasoned choices about the role ofpsycho-active substances. They believe theirself-regulated drug use to be functional andconsistent with otherwise conforming, pro-ductive lifestyles. All this is anathema to theofficial and national drugs discourses, whichdemand abstinence and emphasise two as-sumptions— that adolescents grow out ofdrug use and settle down by their early twen-ties or that continuing drug use will lead tounhealthy lifestyles, problems with use andcriminal careers (Cabinet Office, 1998). It isvitally important that both these assumptionsare tested and re-tested for if the first isbecoming obsolete in changing times then thesecond becomes vitally important. Will longterm recreational drug careers, such as thosenow evident in this cohort, become problem-atic? We know that the current drug users inthis study self-score their general health farless positively than abstainers for instanceand report numerous worries about usingdrugs (Parker and Williams, in press). Wecan do no better therefore than quote one ofour male subjects, now an accountant, andstill taking a lot of drugs who joined the
cohort when he was 14, and like us, wonderswhy this issue is being ignored:
It’s almost like a guinea pig generation,you know all these people taking…seewhat happens to them in 30 years, some-thing like that. Which does worry you. Idon’t think there’s people doing any re-search on it which I think should happen.(43X05)
References
Akram G. Patterns of use and safety awarenessamongst users of dance drugs in Nottingham Mas-ter of Public Health, Nottingham: University ofNottingham, 1997.
Aldridge J, Parker H, Measham F. Drug trying anddrug use across adolescence, drugs prevention advi-sory service, Paper 1, London: Home Office, 1999.
Ashton C, Kamali F. Personality, lifestyles, alcohol anddrug consumption in a sample of British medicalstudents. Medical Education 1995;29:187–92.
Backman J, Wadsworth K, O’Malley P, Johnston, L,Schulenberg J. Smoking, drinking and drug use inyoung adulthood, New Jersey: Lawrence ElbaumAssoc, 1997.
Bailey S. Adolescents’ multisubstance use patterns: therole of heavy alcohol and cigarette use. AmericanJournal of Public Health V82 1992;9:1220–4.
Balding J. Young people in 1998, Exeter: Exeter Uni-versity, 1999.
Barnard M, Forsyth A, McKeganey N. Levels of druguse among a sample of Scottish schoolchildren.Drugs: education prevention and policy1996;3(1):81–96.
Barnea Z, Rahav G, Teichman M. The reliability andconsistency of self reports of substance use in alongitudinal study. British Journal of Addiction1987;82:891–8.
Birch D, White M, Kamali F. Factors influencingalcohol and illicit drug use amongst medical stu-dents, Newcastle: University of Newcastle, 1999.
Blaze-Temple D, Kai Lo S. Stages of drug use: acommunity survey of Perth teenagers. British Jour-nal of Addiction 1992;87:215–25.
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413412
Boys A, Fountain J, Griffiths P, Marsden J, Stillwell,G, Strang J. Drugs decisions: a qualitative study ofyoung people, London: Health Education Author-ity, 2000.
Bynner J, Ferri E, Shepherd P. Twentysomethings inthe 1990s, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
Cabinet Office, Tackling Drugs to Build a BetterBritain, London: Cabinet Office, 1998.
Calafat A. Nightlife in Europe and recreative drug use,SONAR 98 IREFREA/European Commission,Palma de Majorca, 1998.
Corkery J. Snowed under— is it the real thing?Druglink 2000;15(3):12–6.
Crace J. Dying for a cigarette, Guardian 13.5.1997Resources, pp. 10–11.
EMCDDA, Drugs Problems in the European Union:Annual Report, Lisbon: European Monitoring Cen-tre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 1999.
ESPAD, Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Studentsin 26 European Countries, Stockholm: SwedishCouncil on Alcohol and Other Drugs, 1997.
Fendrich M, Mackesy-Amiti M. Decreased drug re-porting in a cross sectional student drug use survey.Journal of Substance Abuse 2000;11(2):161–72.
Flood-Page C, Campbell S, Harrington V, Miller M.Youth Crime: Findings from the 1998/99 YouthLifestyle Survey, Home Office Research Study 209,London: Home Office, 2000.
Forsyth A. A quantitative study of dancedrug use, PhDGlasgow University, 1998.
Furlong A, Cartmel F. Young People and SocialChange. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997.
Goddard E, Higgins V. Smoking, drinking and druguse among young teenagers in 1998, London: Officeof National Statistics, 1997.
Gossop M, Marsden J, Stewart D, Lehmann P, EdwardC, Wilson A, Segar G. Substance use, health andsocial problems of service users at 54 drug treat-ment agencies. British Journal of Psychiatry1998;173:166–71.
Graham J, Bowling B. Young people and crime, homeoffice research study 145, London: Home Office,1995.
Griffiths P, Vingoe L, Jansen K, Sherval J, Lewis R,Hartnoll R. New Trends in Synthetic Drugs in theEuropean Union, Lisbon: EMCDDA, 1997.
Grossman M, Chaloupka F. The demand for cocaineby young adults: a rational addiction approach.Journal of Health Economics 1998;17:427–74.
HEA. Drug Use in England, London: Health Educa-tion Authority, 1999.
Home Office. Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics,United Kingdom, 1998, Home Office Statistical Bul-letin 3/00, London: Research, Development andStatistics Directorate, 2000.
Independent Inquiry. Drugs and the Law, Report ofthe Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of DrugsAct 1971, London: Police Foundation, 2000.
Lynskey M, Hall W. The effects of adolescent cannabisuse on educational attainment: a review. Addiction2000;95(11):1621–30.
Makhoul M, Yates F, Wolfson S. A survey of sub-stance use at a UK university: prevelance of use andviews of students. Journal of Substance Misuse1998;3:119–24.
Measham F, Aldridge J, Parker H. Dancing onDrugs: Risk health and hedonism in the Britishclub scene. London: Free Association Books,2000.
Miles S. Youth Lifestyles in a Changing World. Buck-ingham: Open University Press, 2000.
Miller P, Plant M. Drinking, smoking and illicit druguse among 16 and 16 year olds in the UnitedKingdom. British Medical Journal 1996;313:394–7.
ONS. Drug use, smoking and drinking among youngteenagers in 1999. London: Office of NationalStatistics, 2000.
Parker H, Aldridge J, Measham F. Illegal Leisure: Thenormalization of adolescent recreational drug use,London: Routledge, 1998.
Parker H, Williams L, Aldridge J. The normalisation of‘Sensible’ recreational drug use: further evidencefrom the North West Longitudinal Study, Sociology(in press).
Parker H, Williams L. Illegal leisure revisited: is recre-ational alcohol and drug use reducing as the drug-wise children of the nineties move into adulthood?Chapter in Coomber R, Best D. Beyond 2000:Drugs in Britain, Harwood/Routledge (in press).
Plant M, Peck D, Samuel E. Alcohol, Drugs andSchool-Leavers. London: Tavistock, 1985.
Plant M, Miller P. Drug use has declined amongteenagers in the United Kingdom. British MedicalJournal 2000;320:1536.
Ramsay M, Partridge S. Drug misuse declared in 1998:results from the British Crime Survey. London:Home Office Research Study 197, 1999.
Release. Release drugs and dance survey. London: Re-lease, 1997.
Webb E, Ashton C, Kelly D, Kamali F. Alcohol anddrug use in UK university students. Lancet1996;348:922–5.
White D, Pitts M. Educating young people about
L. Williams, H. Parker / International Journal of Drug Policy 12 (2001) 397–413 413
drugs: a systematic review. Addiction1998;93(10):1475–87.
Winstock A. Risky behavioural harm reductionamongst 1151 clubbers. Paper to 11th International
Conference on the Reduction of Drug RelatedHarm. Jersey, 2000.
Wright L. Young people and alcohol. London: HealthEducation Authority, 1999.
