My students are very aware that I have an unusually negative view of chemically altering the human nervous system (with, of course, the exception of my favorite drug of choice–caffeine). I think it’s just fair to let students know if you bring this type of bias into the classroom–sort of a truth in packaging thing. I think working in Murray Jarvik ’s lab at UCLA during the 70s, where we administered all manner of stuff to our poor rhesus monkeys, left me with a strong negative impression.
The psychological literature has traditionally been rather drug-friendly. Emeritus professor Jack Block of Berkeley, probably one of the better-known developmental psychologists in the business, wrote along with Jonathan Shedler that youth who abstained from drug use were poorly adjusted compared to youth who experimented with drugs [1]. In a less-typical report, Joan Turner reported that marijuana abstainers got better grades, were involved in more extracurricular activities, and were emotionally better off than experimenters or heavy users (reporting more satisfaction with friends and family at age 23) [2].
So I was interested to see a report by a team led by Candice Odgers, Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie Moffit that looked at the development of 1000 teens in New Zealand [2]. Their team found that teens who used alcohol and marijuana regularly prior to the age of 15 were a mixed group. About half were traditional “at-risk kids,” or those who had a history of behavior problems in childhood and came from criminal, substance-abusing, and abusive households. The other half were kids who had none of these risk factors.
The Caspi team found that at-risk or not, all of these kids had significantly poorer health in their 30s than non-abusing individuals. Drug use simply put the not-at-risk kids onto the same trajectory as the at-risk kids, whose school failure, lifestyle, later substance abuse, criminal convictions, early pregnancy rates, and health did not differ from each other, but were all significantly worse than kids who didn’t use.
So I think I’ll continue to stick to my caffeine ( and yes, I did quit completely when I was having babies, including no cola, tea, chocolate, etc.). If I’m poorly adjusted as a result, well, I guess I’ll just have to live with that.
1. Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 45 (5), 612–630.
2. Tucker, J.S., Ellickson, P.L., Collins, R.L., & Klein, D.J. (2006). Are drug experimenters better adjusted than abstainers and users?: A longitudinal study of adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39 (4), 488–494.
3. Odgers, C., et al. (2008). Early exposure to drugs and alcohol. Psychological Science [in press]. Click on link to see entire article.
My students are very aware that I have an unusually negative view of chemically altering the human nervous system (with, of course, the exception of my favorite drug of choice–caffeine). I think it’s just fair to let students know if you bring this type of bias into the classroom–sort of a truth in packaging thing. I think working in Murray Jarvik ’s lab at UCLA during the 70s, where we administered all manner of stuff to our poor rhesus monkeys, left me with a strong negative impression.
The psychological literature has traditionally been rather drug-friendly. Emeritus professor Jack Block of Berkeley, probably one of the better-known developmental psychologists in the business, wrote along with Jonathan Shedler that youth who abstained from drug use were poorly adjusted compared to youth who experimented with drugs [1]. In a less-typical report, Joan Turner reported that marijuana abstainers got better grades, were involved in more extracurricular activities, and were emotionally better off than experimenters or heavy users (reporting more satisfaction with friends and family at age 23) [2].
So I was interested to see a report by a team led by Candice Odgers, Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie Moffit that looked at the development of 1000 teens in New Zealand [2]. Their team found that teens who used alcohol and marijuana regularly prior to the age of 15 were a mixed group. About half were traditional “at-risk kids,” or those who had a history of behavior problems in childhood and came from criminal, substance-abusing, and abusive households. The other half were kids who had none of these risk factors.
The Caspi team found that at-risk or not, all of these kids had significantly poorer health in their 30s than non-abusing individuals. Drug use simply put the not-at-risk kids onto the same trajectory as the at-risk kids, whose school failure, lifestyle, later substance abuse, criminal convictions, early pregnancy rates, and health did not differ from each other, but were all significantly worse than kids who didn’t use.
So I think I’ll continue to stick to my caffeine ( and yes, I did quit completely when I was having babies, including no cola, tea, chocolate, etc.). If I’m poorly adjusted as a result, well, I guess I’ll just have to live with that.
1. Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 45 (5), 612–630.
2. Tucker, J.S., Ellickson, P.L., Collins, R.L., & Klein, D.J. (2006). Are drug experimenters better adjusted than abstainers and users?: A longitudinal study of adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39 (4), 488–494.
3. Odgers, C., et al. (2008). Early exposure to drugs and alcohol. Psychological Science [in press]. Click on link to see entire article.