Exploring General and Specific Attitudes Toward Drug Policies Among College Students

Abstract

Numerous studies have focused on issues dealing with students’ attitudes toward drug use. Although these studies have examined attitudes toward drug use, there has been little research focusing on drug policy attitudes. Although some research has been conducted on attitudes of students and professionals regarding criminal justice policies, the literature has not directly addressed the perceptions of students regarding specific drug policies in the United States. Using data collected from 294 students enrolled at a southern university, this study examined criminal justice/legal studies majors’ and nonmajors’ perceptions regarding current drug policy and demographic factors influence these perceptions. Findings revealed little variation in overall attitudes among the two study cohorts; however, college major emerged as a significant predictor of more tolerant marijuana attitudes.

Keywords

drug policy marijuana attitudes

Introduction and Review of Literature

The “war on drugs” has been waging for more than three decades, and the possibility of an end seems unattainable. Current, punitive arrest and incarceration policies have placed an inordinate number of individuals under the control of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the United States continues to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on waging the war. In 2008, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) requested US$14.1 billion dollars to combat the war on drugs (Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], 2009). Though this amount represents a steady decrease in budgeting since 2002, it should be noted that the 2003 ONDCP budget eliminated items that do not directly influence the war on drugs (i.e., incarcerating drug offenders). Robinson (2008) also found a proposed cut in the 2009 ONDCP fiscal year budget, reducing demand reduction initiatives to 34.8% of the total while supply reduction initiatives continued to increase; this is a decrease from 49.6% in 2001. This measure is controversial given the fact many programs housed under demand reduction include treatment and prevention measures. Admittedly, since the drug war began, there has been an increase in treatment and prevention programs; nevertheless, the amount spent on these programs has been dwarfed by a continued increase in criminal justice control policies. If these criminal justice policies had provided some indication of success, the overallocation of funding would not be an issue, however, as noted by Jonathan Caulkins of the Rand Policy Research Center (2005), this is not the case. With increased spending, everexpanding control measures, and no end in sight, the war on drugs has come under heavy criticism by the academic, political, and medical communities and many have declared the war a failure.

The controversy among the aforementioned communities has been well documented (Miron, 2004; Musto, 1999), and the public seems to agree that there are major problems with the current drug policy. In 2007, 63% of the respondents surveyed in a national poll reported that the United States had failed to make progress in its efforts to deal with the problem of illegal drugs (Gallup Poll, 2008; cited in Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). Ironically, the extant literature on drug policy has largely failed to address public attitudes toward America’s war on drugs (Lock, Timberlake, & Rasinski, 2002) Although there has been multiple international studies conducted looking at attitudes toward drug policy abroad (Cruz, Patra, & Fischer, Rehm, & Kalosek, 2007; Fountain & Korf, 2007; Odegard, 1995; Pearson & Shiner, 2002), studies focusing on drug policy attitudes in the United States have been limited (Blendon & Young, 1998; Cintron & Johnson, 1996; Fernez, 1975; Lock et al., 2002). The paucity of academic research that does exist has focused mainly on professional attitudes and has relied on specific policy items such as drug treatment (Goddard, 2003), drug testing (Labig, 1992; Linn, Yager, & Leake, 1990), and programs such as needle exchange strategies (Beletsky, Macalino, & Burris, 2005). More surprisingly, a number of studies have addressed college student perceptions of drug use (Giacopassi & Vandiver, 1999; Hastings & Hodge, 1986; Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin, & Presley, 1999; Ricketts & Higgins, 2007); however, the literature addressing student attitudes toward drug policy in the United States is scant. Studies have only focused on policy issues as a part of a much broader agenda (Benekos, Merlo, Cook, & Bagley, 2002; Farnworth, Longmire, & West, 1998).

As noted, most attitudinal studies on criminal justice policy focus on a much broader agenda than drug policy. Farnworth et al. (1998) incorporated attitudes toward the war on drugs into their analysis of punitivesness among criminal justice students. Using a cross-sectional design, Farnworth and colleagues (1998) surveyed 638 students from four universities. The authors found that seniors were less likely than freshman to have a punitive view of criminal justice issues. This change in vantage point was attributed to the liberalizing effect of college. The authors, however, did not find a liberalizing effect on criminal justice major’s attitudes toward punishment. Other studies have found similar results. For instance, Mackey & Courtright (2000) surveyed five universities (N = 633) using a nonproability sample to determine punitiveness among college majors. They found that “both criminal justice majors and other majors displayed less punitive attitudes with increased years of education” (p. 436). Nevertheless, criminal justice majors held higher levels of punitiveness than other majors. It has been noted, however, that cross-sectional designs cannot “prove” a change in attitude (Eskridge, 1999).

Because of these apparent gaps in the extant literature, we rely on general and specific perceptions of drug policy and use this information as a basis for our conclusions. Using data collected at a Southern university, this analysis examined student attitudes toward three drug policy areas: general drug policy efforts, marijuana use, and drug testing. We compare criminal justice/legal studies majors’ attitudes toward current drug policy with those of noncriminal justice–related majors. Previous literature has expressed that criminal justice students are more punitive toward offenders (Mackey & Courtright, 2000); however, Lane (1997) found that those exposed to factual information regarding punishment had a decreased level of punitiveness. We hypothesize that educational exposure to drug-related issues among criminal justice/legal studies majors will result in more tolerant attitudes regarding drug policy as compared to nonmajors. This hypothesis may at first appear counterintuitive given the perceived level of conservatism among criminal justice practitioners overall, nevertheless, we postulate the potential for criminal justice/legal studies majors, as a group, to receive greater fact-based information on drug issues will relate to more tolerant or less punitive perceptions.

Attitudes Toward Drug Policy in the United States

The PEW Research Center (2001) reported that 74% of the participants agreed that the United States is not only losing the war on drugs but also because of high levels of illicit drug demand government strategies have been virtually useless. Albeit this critique, illicit drug use is considered a serious problem within the United States (Blendon & Young, 1998; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). National polls have found that a majority of those surveyed felt that the United States has spent “too little” on drug addiction and interdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).

Historically, the public has favored more punitive policies toward possession and sale of drugs (Blendon & Young, 1998). In 1978, Fernez conducted a study on the attitudes of criminal justice personnel toward drugs laws. Although the study is dated and has some serious methodological flaws, Fernez was able to determine that criminal justice personnel (i.e., district attorneys, probation officers, and police officers) were not inclined to relax the current drug laws or conclude that current drug laws had served a deterrent effect. The author gave the impression that the laws were considered too lax to be effective. Considering the sample, it is not surprising that more punitive sanctions were favored. Nonetheless, the public has consistently held these same views. Blendon and Young (1998) found that 84% of their sampled population supported more severe criminal penalties for drug violations. In addition, more than 70% of the respondents supported crime control measures “indicating broad positive feeling toward measures that “get tough” on users and traffickers of drugs” (Lock et al., 2002, p. 384). Koven and Shelly (1993) also found support, albeit not as strong, for more punitive policies. Although Cintron and Johnson (1996) were not able to find any difference between treatment and criminal justice-oriented approaches, Lock et al. (2002) found a significant difference in attitudes toward treatment/prevention and criminal justice policies; treatment/prevention was favored above the traditionally favored criminal justice-oriented policies. In addition, treatment/prevention programs were rated more useful than crime control policies. Although, as noted by Lock et al. (2002), there is little consistency across the wording of these studies, the results of the former study may be an indication that attitudes toward the current drug policy is changing.

Attitudes Toward Marijuana

The most noted changes on drug perceptions are attitudes toward marijuana. Approximately 95 million individuals within the United States have reported using marijuana at least once in their lifetimes. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among high school and college students. Of the high school seniors in 2008, almost 43% reported using marijuana (Monitoring the Future, 2009). Between 26% and 44% of college students have reported using marijuana (Presley, Meilman, & Lyeria, 1993; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996). Although marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which considers the drug as being highly addictive and having no legitimate medical usage, the acceptance of marijuana in mainstream society has continued to increase regardless of specific crime control polices. In 2007, the Gallup Poll found that approximately 55% of those surveyed agreed possession of small amounts of marijuana should not be considered a criminal offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, 2009). Although polling information consistently reports an opposition to the legalization of marijuana, the increasing acceptance has resulted in the decriminalization of the drug in almost one third of the United States, while many cities have enacted ordinances making the possession of marijuana a fine-only offense or in some instances requiring drug counseling, education, or treatment as the normative, criminal consequence. When discussing the use of medical marijuana, acceptance of these policies has been well documented in the literature. Support for doctor-prescribed medical marijuana has consistently exhibited a high level of acceptance (PEW, 2001). This acceptance has led 14 states to authorize legislation making it legal to hold a prescription for marijuana. State and local governments are increasingly making attempts to curtail the punitive policies targeting this widely used drug. Although the federal government has attempted to maintain its castigatory stance toward marijuana as can be seen in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to ban the use of marijuana even if a state allows it, recent decisions by the Obama administration have held that the government “will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws” (Barrett, 2009). Current federal law still prohibits the use of marijuana; however, it appears as if public support for the decriminalization of marijuana and the use of the drug for medical purposes may be affecting governmental policies toward the criminalization.

Attitudes Toward Testing

As with attitudes toward drug policy and marijuana, there is a sparse amount of research that specifically examines student attitudes toward mandatory drug testing. In fact, the majority of the research in this area has been based on sample results of various types of employees (see Brown, Bain, & Freeman, 2008; Paronto, Truxillo, Bauer, & Leo, 2002). Nolan (2001) has noted that mandatory drug testing is a controversial issue due to its invasiveness and perceived disrespectfulness toward employees. Furthermore, Mastrangelo and Popovich (2000) note that negative attitudes toward drug testing correlate with employee withdrawal. Research conversely recognizes a high level of acceptance of drug testing in certain public safety fields (Bennett, Blum, & Roman, 1994; Mastrangelo & Popovich, 2000). Nevertheless, drug testing in both the private and public sectors has become more commonplace (Brunet, 2002; Murphy, Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990).

Drug perceptions’ research utilizing student sampling has generally attempted to focus on relevant demographic and specific drug use variables such as research based on national data sources (i.e., Monitoring the Future Survey, CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, and the like). These various datasets have been utilized across disciplines to understand factors and trends related to drug use behavior among adolescents and young adults. Although these data are valuable, they shed little light on student attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace. Murphy and colleagues (1990) utilized a sample of university students and found that attitudes toward drug testing are strongly accepted by some and rejected by others. These researchers reported that “attitudes toward employee drug testing programs do not appear to vary as a function of employment experience, qualifications, or political inclinations, and are not strongly related to the individual’s exposure to others’ drug use” (Murphy et al., 1990; p. 615). The study did, however, reveal that support for drug testing correlated with the respondent’s individual drug use, with self-reported use being negatively related to acceptance of testing programs.

Although their study is somewhat dated, Murphy and Thornton (1992), sampled college senior and nontraditional college student attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace. These researchers used data reduction techniques to observe differences in attitudes among the two groups, traditional and nontraditional college students. While these researchers found considerable convergence among the two groups in terms of drug testing perceptions, the research was useful in that it highlighted various factors or constructs for consideration.

Consistent with the approach taken by Murphy and Thornton (1992), the present study utilizes an undergraduate student sample selected by major, criminal justice/legal studies or noncriminal justice. Data reduction techniques are utilized to test the hypothesis of whether attitudes toward drug policy, marijuana in general, and drug testing discriminate across the two groups.

Method

Data and Sample

The sampling frame in this exploratory study consisted of a convenience sample of 294 college students attending a midsize southern university during the spring/fall 2009 semesters.¹ The sampled population consisted of individuals who were at least 18 years of age or older in compliance with the standards established by the Institutional Review Board. Using a 50-item survey, students were asked questions in relation to basic demographic information, drug use, and attitudes regarding the current drug policy. To obtain the sample, faculty were asked if surveys could be distributed in their classrooms. Participating faculty allowed the researchers to disseminate the surveys during the assigned class times. Prior to distribution, students voluntarily consented to participate in the survey; students who did not wish to take part in the survey were asked to return any unanswered questionnaires to the collection receptacle.

Although the sample was drawn primarily from criminal justice-related courses, less than half of respondents were criminal justice/legal studies majors (see Table 1).² Of the 294 students sampled, 56% of the respondents majored in areas other than criminal justice/legal studies. The distribution in class ranking of the undergraduate students was relatively even; 29.3% were freshmen, 23.8% were sophomores, 24.8% were juniors, and 21.4% were seniors.³ Males represented almost 42% of the sample and females just more than 58%; however, it should be noted that the male to female ratio among criminal justice/legal studies students was equally distributed. Overall, class rank and gender were found to be consistent with the university’s undergraduate population. Whites were represented in the sample at 72.4% and non-Whites at 27.6%. These racial characteristics are largely consistent with the general undergraduate population. With the exception of an oversampling of criminal justice/legal studies majors, the sample is comparable to the overall university.

Table 1.

Description of Variables of Major Variables (n = 294)

Variable and coding	Distribution and descriptive findings
Gender (male = 0)	Male = 41.8%; Female = 58.2%
Race (White = 0)	White = 72.4%; Nonwhite = 27.6%
Class rank (rank; freshman = 1)	Freshman = 29.3%; Sophomore = 23.8%; Junior = 24.8%; Senior = 21.4%; Graduate = 0.7%
Major (nonmajor = 0)	Nonmajor = 56%; Major = 44%
Legitimate prescription (prescribe; no = 0)	No = 26.6%; Yes = 73.4%
Illegal drugs(illegal; no = 0)	No = 48%; Yes = 52%
Believe in treatment (no = 0)	No = 20.8%; Yes = 79.2%
Attitudes toward marijuana use/policy	Range = 5-19; M = 11.21; SD = 3.15
Attitudes toward general drug policy	Range = 4-14; M = 8.42; SD = 1.79
Attitudes toward drug testing	Range = 5-20; M = 12.41; SD = 2.62

Of the respondents surveyed, 75% reported using prescription drugs. Of those using prescription drugs, more than one quarter of the participants admitted not having a prescription from a doctor for all of medications. In addition, 52% of the students surveyed disclosed using illegal drugs at some point. As expected, marijuana was the most commonly reported drug used by the sample, with all other reported drug use being less than 10%. Almost 53% of the students reporting illegal drug use admitted to smoking marijuana with the next closest illicit drug consumed, other than nonprescribed prescription medication, being cocaine (8.2%).

The majority of the respondents agreed that there was a serious drug problem in the United States; however, more than 80% perceived the war on drugs as being a failure. Approximately 75% of the students surveyed reported that drug users should be sentenced to treatment programs rather than incarcerated. Moreover, almost 80% agreed that drug treatment programs work.

Attitudinal Scales

Using data reduction modeling, three summary indexes were constructed to measure student perceptions of current American drug policy. As illustrated in Table 2, all indexes were composed of composite Likert-type scale attitudinal questions assessing whether students were likely to agree or disagree with the survey statement. All items were logically recoded to reflect a continuum of more tolerant to less tolerant attitudes; therefore, lower scores on the indexes referred to more tolerant attitudes. The indexes that emerged were attitudes toward marijuana and marijuana policy, attitudes toward general drug policy, and attitudes toward drug testing.⁴ The index for “attitudes toward marijuana and marijuana policy” was constructed from six items relating to marijuana. The second summary index combined four general policy questions addressing attitudes toward the war on drugs and supply reduction techniques. The final scale, “attitudes toward drug testing,” combined five variables examining attitudes toward employee, law enforcement official, and student drug testing. Each of the indexes had relatively high levels of internal consistency with cronbach alpha coefficients (α) ranging from .64 to .82; only the general, drug policy index failed to reach a reliability level above .70.

Table 2.

Data Reduction Models for General Attitudes, Marijuana, and Drug Testing

Mode1 1: Marijuana attitudes (MA)	α = .820
• Medical marijuana should remain illegal
• Marijuana should be legalized
• Marijuana is a physically addictive drug
• There is no scientific evidence that marijuana has legitimate medical uses
• Marijuana is a dangerous drug
• Marijuana users are more likely to commit violent acts than nonmarijuana users
Model 2: General drug policy attitudes (DPA)	α = .643
• The war on drugs has been successful
• Policies that target drug users have caused a reduction in drug use
• Crop eradication programs have successfully limited the amount of drugs entering the United States
• Placing ephedrine-based medication behind pharmacy counters has stopped the production of methamphetamine
Model 3: Drug testing attitudes (DTA)	α = .749
• Students who test positive for drugs should be expelled
• Employees who test positive for drugs should be fired immediately
• Law enforcement agencies should not employ anyone who has ever used drugs
• All students who participate in extracurricular activities should be drug tested
• All law enforcement officials should be drug tested

Note: All items were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale from strong agreement to strong disagreement.

Results

There were some theoretically interesting findings at the bivariate level (as illustrated in Table 3). Gender was found to be correlated with attitudes toward marijuana use (r = .169**), which suggested that females were less tolerant of marijuana use as compared to males; however, there was no correlation between gender and the other dependent variables, attitudes toward drug policy, or attitudes toward drug testing. Class rank was found to be correlated with attitudes toward marijuana (r = −.169**) and attitudes toward drug policy (r = −.181**). This finding indicated that upperclassmen were more tolerant of marijuana and general drug policy issues. However, college major was only correlated with attitudes toward marijuana use and policy (r = −.191**). Criminal justice/legal studies majors revealed less punitive attitudes toward marijuana use and policy as compared to noncriminal justice–related majors. Illegal use of prescription drugs was also correlated with more tolerable attitudes toward marijuana use and policies (r = −.489**). Illegal drug use was found to have a significant relationship with the remaining attitudinal indexes: general drug policies (r = −.194**) and attitudes toward drug testing (r = −.429**). Not surprisingly, all of the attitudinal variables were correlated with one another.

Table 3.

Zero Order Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	Y1	Y2
^X1Gender
^X2Race	.046
^X3Rank	−.098	.150*
^X4Major	.151**	.111	.510*
^X5Prescribe	.128*	.076	−.115	−.102
^X6Illegal	.220**	−.006	.187**	.119*	−.303**
^X7Treatment	.014	−.024	−.024	−.111	.039	−.012
^Y1MA	.169**	−.086	−.169**	−.191**	.207**	−.489**	−.032
^Y2DPA	−.034	−.089	−.181**	−.107	−.024	−.194**	.095	.281**
^Y3DTA	.150*	−.041	−.114	−.051	.183**	−.429**	−.123*	.521**	.249**

Note: MA represents marijuana attitude index; DPA, general drug policy index; and DTA, drug testing index.

p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the independent variables and attitudes toward the current drug policy. Gender, class rank, major, illegal prescription drug use, illegal drug use, and attitudes toward drug treatment were regressed on the dependent variables: marijuana attitudes and policy (MA), drug policy attitudes in general (DPA), and drug testing attitudes (DTA).⁵ Each of the models was found to be significant (see Table 4). Although previous research (Farnworth et al., 1998) determined that attitudes toward the war on drugs did not differ in regard to major, our analysis found that this assumption is not so clear cut. Interestingly, college major was a significant predictor of attitudes toward marijuana use and policy; however, there was not a statistically significant difference between majors and nonmajors in relation to attitudes toward drug policy and attitudes toward drug testing. For this analysis, criminal justice/legal studies’ majors were significantly likely to have more tolerant MA attitudes (b = −.136*). The variable that measured attitudes toward drug treatment programs (b = −.131*) was found to be a statistically significant predictor in only one model (DTA). Prior illegal drug use remained a statistically significant predictor of more tolerant attitudes for each index—MA (b = −.304**), DPA (b = −.002*), and DTA (b = −230**).

Table 4.

Regression Analysis of Marijuana, General Drug Policy, and Drug Testing Attitudes

	Model 1 MA	Model 2 DPA	Model 3 DTA
Variable	β	β	β
Gender	.046	−.072	.017
Race	−.068	−.032	−.026
Rank	−.040	−.146	−.018
Major	−.136*	−.069	.117
Prescribe	.062	−.142*	.083
Illegal	−.304**	−.002*	−.230**
Treatment	−.021	.092	−.131*
DPA	.142**		.169**
DTA	.313**	.216**
MA		.199*	.342**
N	294	294	294
R² _{(F-Significance)}	.416(**)	.184(**)	.361(**)

Note: MA represents marijuana attitude index; DPA, general drug policy index; and DTA, drug testing attitude index.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In sum, each regression model was significant with explained variances ranging from 18% to 42%. The MA model, with an R² of .42, explained the most variance with college major, prior illegal drug use, DTA, and DPA all being significant. Simply stated, being a criminal justice/legal studies’ major, those with prior illegal drug experience, and those with more tolerant DPA and DTA perceptions predicted more tolerant MA perceptions. With an R² of .36, Model 3 (DTA) revealed that, as with Model 1, prior illegal drug use and attitudes on the two other indexes (MA and DPA) explained some of the overall variance in the dependent variable. As stated earlier, this model also suggested that more favorable attitudes toward treatment programs related to less tolerance for drug testing. Model 2 (DPA) suggested that prior illegal use and both MA and DTA perceptions were significant predictors. Though Model 2 explained the least amount of variance (R² = .18), it also revealed that those having used controlled substances without a legal prescription were more tolerant of less punitive drug policies.

Discussion and Conclusion

Criminal justice/legal studies majors were less likely than nonmajors to hold punitive attitudes toward marijuana use and marijuana policy. As noted, however, this analysis did not find any relationship between major and attitudes toward drug policies and attitudes toward drug testing. Hence, the data is only in partial contrast to the findings of Farnworth and colleagues (1998). One possible explanation for the conflicting results is that the previous study combined attitudes toward marijuana policies and attitudes toward general policies such as supply reduction techniques together. Since these variables factored out in our analysis, they were analyzed separately. Over the past decade, attitudes toward marijuana use and marijuana policy have become more liberal. For instance, we have seen a move to not only decriminalize the drug but legalize it for medical purposes. Even the current administration has stated that the federal government would not target those prescribing or producing the drug for legitimate medical uses. More important, this difference in attitudes may be a result of changes in academic programs teaching, a less punitive agenda than in years past. Although criminal justice/legal studies majors were less likely to have punitive attitudes toward marijuana, there was no difference between major in attitudes toward drug policies dealing with supply reduction techniques. Lock et al. (2002) found that treatment prevention was favored over more criminal-justice related policies. This may indicate that attitudes toward drug policy have changed, suggesting a more lenient perspective on the demand side (i.e., treating drug offenders). If this is correct, our failure to find a significant difference between majors may indicate that students agree with targeting the supply side of the war on drugs but are against targeting drug users. One must, however, be cautious in attributing changes in attitudes toward the liberalizing effect of education. Eskridge (1999), in his criticism of Farnworth et al. (1998), held that relying on cross-sectional data could result in erroneous conclusions. To predict a liberalizing effect, studies need to use a longitudinal approach. Even though there was a statistically significant difference between major’s attitudes, it cannot definitely support the liberalization effect perspective.

With the changing attitudes toward marijuana use and drug policy, in general, it is necessary to sample those who may make future policy decisions. Although not all criminal justice majors will go into decision-making careers, it is logical to assume that many of these students will have a moderate effect on future policies toward combating the “drug war.” Although universities have been attributed with having a liberalizing effect on students (Farnworth et al., 1998; Lane, 1997; Mackey & Courtright, 2000), changes in attitudes toward criminal justice policies may not be a matter of liberalization, but a response to the exposure to the realities surrounding criminal justice policies. Rather than making uniformed choices based on subjective information such as religion or political affiliation, criminal justice majors may have the information and training to create effective criminal justice policy, specifically drug policy. Lane (1997) concluded that since various researchers and academicians affect the knowledge, ideologies, and beliefs of students concerning drug use behavior, punitive and less punitive attitudes are in part a reflection of these interactions. As this study indicates, exposure to empirically based information may lead to less or more punitive attitudes toward drug policies.

With this being said, it can be assumed that not all current drug policies are faulty. Although many of these policies are punitive in nature, one cannot assume that drug testing employees in occupations related to law enforcement is prejudicial. Inherently, some of the current policies are beneficial to society. As noted, however, the current attitudes toward marijuana policy have evolved over the last few decades with changing attitudes based on scientific research. Hence, it is important for those educated in the criminal justice field to guide future polices in the drug war.

As with all exploratory research utilizing less than probability-based sampling techniques, this study has the expected limitations. Although the sample is comparable to the sampled university with the exception of major, we cannot generalize our findings to undergraduate students across university undergraduate populations or to samples outside of the university setting. In addition, the rationale for the research resulted in a somewhat skewed sample, reflecting an overrepresentation of criminal justice/legal studies’ majors. Obviously, the admitted skewness is less of a problem given the context of the research and theoretical importance of college major as a predictor variable. A stated purpose of the research was to observe general and specific indexes of drug attitudes. Where previous research has utilized data reduction models to create general concepts with appropriate levels of reliability, this research has attempted to conceptualize these attitudes utilizing both general and specific models. In doing so, we find that the importance of college major (criminal justice/legal studies’ or other), may explain some of the variance in specific marijuana attitudes as opposed to general drug attitudes or attitudes toward drug testing.

The subtle differences across the three models tested suggest an alternative direction that future research might take. This new direction reveals a need for more contextualized conceptualizations that reflect both general and specific beliefs concerning drug use behavior and policy. Consistent with this viewpoint, it may be in part pragmatism (i.e., the need to address the exorbitant costs related to the drug war) and/or less traditionalism in drug education curriculum that most influences the perceptions of college students (criminal justice and noncriminal justice majors). Continued exploration of specific and general conceptualizations of the drug “problem” or “dilemma” is certainly warranted, since important constituent groups (including criminal justice majors) will be integral to carrying out general drug policies as well as making discretionary decisions based on their individual or collective beliefs.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

References

Barrett

(2009, October 27). New medical marijuana policy: Obama administration will not seek arrests for people following state law. The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/new-medical-marijuana-pol_n_325426.html

Beletsky

Macalino

G. E.

Burris

(2005). Attitudes of police officers towards syringe access, occupational needle-sticks, and drug use: A qualitative study of one city police department in the United States. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16, 267-274.

Benekos

P. J.

Merlo

A. V.

Cook

W. J.

Bagley

(2002). A Preliminary study of student attitudes on juvenile justice policy. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13, 273-296.

Bennett

Blum

Roman

(1994). Employee attitudes toward drug testing: Effects of individual characteristics and employment setting. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7(2), 117-128.

Blendon

R. J.

Young

J. T.

(1998). The public and the war on illicit drugs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 827-832.

Brown

S. K.

Bain

Freeman

(2008). Employee perceptions of alcohol and drug policy effectiveness: Policy features, concerns about drug testing, and the key role of preventative measures. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 15, 145-160.

Brunet

J. R.

(2002). Employee drug testing as social control: A typology of normative justifications. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22, 193-215.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Drugs and crime facts: Public opinion about drugs. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/poad.cfm

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Attitudes toward treating possession of marijuana as a criminal offense. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t200032005.pdf

10.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Attitudes toward legalization of the use of marijuana. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2672009.pdf

11.

Caulkins

J. P.

Reuter

Iguichi

M. Y.

Chiesa

(2005). How goes the “war on drugs”? An assessment of U.S. drug problems and policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

12.

Cintrón

Johnson

W. W.

(1996). The modern plague: Controlling substance abuse. In Flanagan

T. J.

Longmire

D. R.

(Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Cruz

M. F.

Patra

Fisher

Rehm

Kalosek

(2007). Public opinion towards supervised injection facilities and heroin-assisted treatment in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(1), 54-61.

14.

Eskridge

C. W.

(1999). A brief response to “students’ views on criminal justice,” by Farnworth, Longmire, and West. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 10(2), 291-295.

15.

Farnworth

Longmire

D. R.

West

V. M.

(1998). College students’ views on criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9(1), 39-57.

16.

Fernez

F. J.

(1975). Attitudes of certain criminal justice personnel toward drug laws and drug offenders. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3, 354-362.

17.

Fountain

Korf

D. J.

(2007). Drugs in society: European perspectives. Oxford, England: Radcliffe Press.

18.

Gallup Poll. (2008). Illegal drugs. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx

19.

Giacopassi

Vandiver

(1999). University students’ perceptions of tobacco, cocaine, and homicide fatalities. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 163-171.

20.

Goddard

(2003). Changing attitudes towards harm reduction among treatment professionals: A report from the American Midwest. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14, 257-260.

21.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

22.

Koven

S. G.

Shelley

M. C.

(1993). No consensus on fighting the drug war: Differences between state policy elites and the mass public. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 1531-1548.

23.

Labig

C. E.

Jr. (1992). Supervisory and nonsupervisory employee attitudes about drug testing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(2), 131-141.

24.

Lane

J. S.

(1997). Can you make a horse drink? The effects of a corrections course attitudes toward capital punishment. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 240-252.

25.

Linn

L. S.

Yager

Leake

(1990). Physicians’ attitudes toward substance abuse and drug testing. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 427-444.

26.

Lock

E. D.

Timberlake

J. M.

Rasinski

K. A.

(2002). Battle fatigue: Is public support waning for “war”-centered drug control strategies. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 380-398.

27.

Mackey

D. A.

Courtright

K. E.

(2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. Justice Professional, 12, 423-441.

28.

Mastrangelo

P. M.

Popovich

P. M.

(2000). Measuring applicants and employees’ attitudes toward specific drug testing policies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 3-17.

29.

Monitoring the Future. (2009). Teen marijuana use tilts up, while some drugs decline in use. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/09data.html#2009data-drugs

30.

Miron

J. A.

(2004). Drug war crimes: The consequences of prohibition. Washington, DC: The Independent Institute.

31.

Murphy

K. R.

Thornton

G. C.

III. (1992). Development and validation of a measure of attitudes toward employee drug testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 189-201.

32.

Murphy

Thornton

Reynolds

(1990). College students’ attitudes toward employee drug testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 615-632.

33.

Musto

D. F.

(1999). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. London, England: Oxford University Press.

34.

Nolan

(2001). Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

35.

Odegard

(1995). Legality and legitimacy: On attitudes to drugs and social sanctions. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 525-542.

36.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2009). National drug control strategy: FY 2009 budget summary. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/fy09budget.pdf

37.

Paronto

M. E.

Truxillo

D. M.

Bauer

T. N.

Leo

(2002). Drug testing, drug treatment, and marijuana use: A fairness perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1159-1166.

38.

Pearson

Shiner

(2002). Rethinking the generation gap: Attitudes toward illicit drugs among young people and adults. Criminal Justice Matters, 2(1), 71-86.

39.

Perkins

H. W.

Meilman

P. W.

Leichliter

J. S.

Cashin

J. R.

Presley

C. A.

(1999). Misperceptions of the norms of the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47, 253-258.

40.

PEW Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001). Interdiction and incarceration still top remedies: More important findings. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=120

41.

Presley

C. A.

Meilman

P. W.

Lyeria

(1993). Alcohol and drugs on American College campuses: Use, consequence, and perceptions of the campus environment, Vol. 1: 1989-1991. Carbondale, IL: The Core Institute.

42.

Publishers Group. (2002). Street drug: Drug identification guide. Plymouth, MN: Author.

43.

Ricketts

M. L.

Higgins

G. E.

(2007). A preliminary study of the factors that influence college student perceptions of the nonmedical use of prescription drugs: Criminal justice versus noncriminal justice students. Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 407-422.

44.

Robinson

(2008). More fuzzy math in the drug war budget. DrugSense Weekly. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.drugsense.org/nl/show_dsw.php?the_file=2008/ds08.n537#sec6

45.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (1996). 1995-96 core drug and alcohol survey at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Web site: http://www.med.unc.edu/alcohol/prevention/unccore.html