Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?

Abstract

Since psychoactive substances have adverse effects on human health and their consumption rates have been increasing globally, they have become a major issue in public health. In this view, the aim of the research was to examine the association between the consumption of caffeine (licit substance) and the use of illicit psychoactive substances. The study employed survey methodology and sampled 85 undergraduate students, who were in their first year, using the conventional method of sampling. Data analysis indicated that there was a significant association between the consumption of caffeine and smoking among participants, χ(1) = 0.5441, p = 0.02. However, the consumption of caffeine among students had insignificant association with unsafe drinking, χ(1) = 0.008, p = 0.929, and drug abuse, χ(1) = 3.009, p = 0.078. Therefore, the findings indicated that the consumption of caffeine had a link with smoking, but it did not have a link with unsafe drinking and drug abuse.

Introduction

Psychoactive drugs refer to chemical substances that cross the blood-brain barriers and act on the central nervous system, resulting in an alteration of mood, perception, cognition, behavior, and consciousness, thus, affecting brain functions. One could use psychoactive substances for recreational purposes because they alter the conscious state of individuals (Kassa, Taddesse, & Yilma, 2014). There are considerable health risks associated with the use of psychoactive substances, especially nicotine, alcohol, and illicit drugs (Brice, & Smith, 2002). Therefore, with a clear understanding of the description of psychoactive substances, it was imperative to review the use of these substances among undergraduate students.

Globally, the use of psychoactive substances has presented a major public health issue (Teichman & Kefir, 2000). Whilst the reasons for people using psychoactive substances are still speculative, the association between the use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances is the focus of this study. The gateway drug hypothesis posits that substance use commences with the consumption of a licit substance (caffeine) and gradually progresses to “harder” drugs (Vanyukov, et al., 2012). From this hypothesis, one could speculate that identifying high consumption of licit substances could shed some light on traits leading to the consumption of illicit substances. Hence, there is a need for more research into the use of psychoactive substances to support or refute the gateway hypothesis. It also serves as a query in the determination of licit substances, which may act as gateway drugs. Therefore, the research aims to gather data on the use of psychoactive substances, as well as examine the associations between the consumption of licit and illicit substances.

Method

Design

A survey research design was used in collecting quantitative data about the consumption of psychoactive substances among first-year undergraduate students. The survey questions focused on the nature of psychoactive substances consumed and the frequency of their consumption.

Sample

A convenience method of sampling was employed in selecting a sample of the first-year undergraduates during a scheduled morning lecture on psychology. The sample comprised 85 participants aged between 18 to 48 years with an average age of 20.7 years. Before the survey, the participants signed the informed consent forms. The participants were asked to state their gender, age, and student number. The participants were also assured of the privacy their data.

Materials

Major materials that were used are surveys and informed consent forms. Moreover, statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) was used in data analysis.

Procedure

The participants were informed about the essence of the study and were requested to participate by giving their informed consent. Having understood the essence of the study, the participants signed the informed consent forms and agreed to participate in the study. Moreover, surveys were administered to the participants. The licit psychoactive substances surveyed were nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine. The illicit psychoactive substances were: amphetamines, cannabis, barbiturates, steroids, psilocybin, heroin/ opiates, amyl/butyl nitrates, methylenedioxymethamphetamine cocaine, cannabis, lysergic acid diethylamide, and other drugs.

The questions in the surveys were “Do you smoke?” “How often do you smoke?” “Do you consume alcohol? How often do you drink alcohol?” “Do you drink caffeinated coffee? How often do you drink caffeine?” “Do you drink caffeinated tea? How often do you drink caffeinated tea?” “Do you drink caffeinated soft drinks?” How often do you drink caffeinated soft drinks?” With caffeinated drinks, participants were asked to state which caffeinated soft drinks they consumed, for example, Red Bull, Coca Cola and the quantity per day, times of day, for instance, during the day and evening, and quantity per week. “Do you currently or have you ever, taken psychoactive drugs?” with the follow up question “If yes, how often do you use these substances?”

Method of Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS. Heavy caffeine users were classified as those participants with a regular intake of 200mg daily. Smokers were defined as those participants smoking 14 cigarettes or more per week. In alcohol consumption, units consumed were noted and the government guidelines for responsible consumption were applied to define heavy alcohol use.

Results

The study obtained 85 completed surveys from the participants within a period of 30 minutes. Analysis of the results indicated that 21 participants were smokers, while 64 were non-smokers. In the aspect of unsafe drinking, the collected data revealed that 34 out of 85 participants were unsafe drinkers. The results also showed that 47 out of 85 participants were above average in consumption of caffeine. Drug use also showed that 47 out of 85 participants abuse drugs. On a scale of zero to one, the descriptive statistics (Table 1) show that the mean of smokers was the lowest (M = 0.25, SD = 0.434) was lower than the mean of unsafe drinkers (M = 0.40, SD = 0.53). The participants, who consume caffeine and abuse drugs, had the highest and similar means (M = 0.55, SD = 0.54).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic
Smoker 85 0 1 .25 .047 .434 .188
UnsafeDrinker 85 0 1 .40 .053 .493 .243
DrugUse 85 0 1 .55 .054 .500 .250
AboveAveCaff 85 0 1 .55 .054 .500 .250
Valid N (listwise) 85

Analysis of data using Chi-square test indicated that the consumption of caffeine has significant association with smoking, χ(1) = 0.5441, p = 0.02. However, the consumption of caffeine has insignificant association with unsafe drinking, χ(1) = 0.008, p = 0.929 and drug abuse, χ(1) = 3.009, p = 0.078.

Discussion

The analysis of the data using Chi-square test to establish the association between the consumption of caffeine and psychoactive substances such as cigarettes, alcohol, and “hard” drugs gave different findings. Evidently, Chi-square test indicated that there was a significant association between the consumption of caffeine and smoking among participants, χ(1) = 0.5441, p = 0.02. This finding implies the consumption of caffeine predisposes people to smoke. Moreover, the findings indicated that the consumption of caffeine had an insignificant association with unsafe drinking, χ(1) = 0.008, p = 0.929, and drug abuse, χ(1) = 3.009, p = 0.078. These findings show that there is no link between consumption of caffeine and consumption of psychoactive substances such as alcohol and drugs. Hence, the association between the consumption of caffeine and smoking supports the gateway hypothesis. The gateway hypothesis holds that individuals consume licit substances such as caffeine and gradually progresses to consume “hard drugs” (Vanyukov, et al., 2012). In this view, caffeine acts as a gateway drug that leads to smoking.

However, the study has limitations because the design of the research and sample of population confounded the findings. The design limitation was evident during the survey because of the tense used in the follow up question on illicit drug use. “If yes, how often do you use these substances?” was ambiguous in that people, who were regular users, but did not currently use drugs, might have given no data. Moreover, since it was difficult to ascertain the units of alcohol in each drink, the estimation of alcoholic content was a limitation. Finally, the accuracy of the research findings was dependent on the honesty of the participants. Despite the limitations, the self-report method was still the best test design because longitudinal observational method is impractical. Thus, the limitations did not prevent the researchers from conducting a reasonably accurate survey, which presented an overview of psychoactive substance use among undergraduate students.

Offering a category for “other” drugs was an important strength of the research. The pattern of consumption of psychoactive substances is generally similar to that of traditional drugs of abuse (Coppola & Mondola, 2012). From the findings, it was clear that the rate of psychoactive substance use was high among students. Previous studies have indicated that the consumption of caffeine and other psychoactive substances increase with age (James, & Rogers, 2005).

Conclusion

In conclusion, individuals who consume caffeine are more likely to smoke than their non-consumer counterparts. Therefore, the finding that caffeine acts as a gateway substance that leads to drug abuse supports previous findings.

References

Coppola, M., & Mondola, R. (2012). Research chemicals marketed as legal highs: The case of pipradrol derivatives. Toxicology Letters, 212(1), 57-60. Web.

Kassa, A., Taddesse, F., & Yilma, A. (2014). Prevalence and factors determining psychoactive substance (PAS) use among Hawassa University (HU) undergraduate students, Hawassa Ethiopia. BMC Public Health, 44(14), 1-78.

Brice, C., & Smith, A. (2002). Factors associated with caffeine consumption. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 53(1), 55-64.

James, J., & Rogers, P. (2005). Effects of caffeine on performance and mood: Withdrawal reversal is the most plausible explanation. Psychopharmacology, 12(1), 1-8.

Teichman, M., & Kefir, E. (2000). The Effects of Perceived Parental Behaviors, Attitudes, and Substance-Use on Adolescent Attitudes toward and Intent to Use Psychoactive Substances. Journal of Drug Education, 30(2), 193-204.

Vanyukov, M., Tarter, R., Kirillova, G., Kirisci, L., Reynolds, M., Kreek, M., & Conway,

K. (2012). Common liability to addiction and “gateway hypothesis”: Theoretical, empirical and evolutionary perspective. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 123(1), 3-23. Web.

Appendices

Frequency Tables

Smoker
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 64 75.3 75.3 75.3
Yes 21 24.7 24.7 100.0
Total 85 100.0 100.0
UnsafeDrinker
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 51 60.0 60.0 60.0
Yes 34 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 85 100.0 100.0
AboveAveCaff
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 38 44.7 44.7 44.7
Yes 47 55.3 55.3 100.0
Total 85 100.0 100.0
DrugUse
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 38 44.7 44.7 44.7
Yes 47 55.3 55.3 100.0
Total 85 100.0 100.0

Chi-square Tests

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.441 1 .020
Continuity Correctionb 4.325 1 .038
Likelihood Ratio 5.467 1 .019
Fisher’s Exact Test .024 .019
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.377 1 .020
N of Valid Cases 85
Dar Chart

Unsafedrinker* AboveAvCaff

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .008 1 .929
Continuity Correctionb .000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .008 1 .929
Fisher’s Exact Test 1.000 .554
Linear-by-Linear Association .008 1 .929
N of Valid Cases 85
Bar Chart

DrugUse*AboveAvCaff

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.099 1 .078
Continuity Correctionb 2.374 1 .123
Likelihood Ratio 3.110 1 .078
Fisher’s Exact Test .086 .062
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.062 1 .080
N of Valid Cases 85
Bar Chart

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, August 31). Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist? https://studycorgi.com/psychoactive-substances-does-an-association-between-licit-and-illicit-use-exist/

Work Cited

"Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?" StudyCorgi, 31 Aug. 2022, studycorgi.com/psychoactive-substances-does-an-association-between-licit-and-illicit-use-exist/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist'. 31 August.

1. StudyCorgi. "Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?" August 31, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/psychoactive-substances-does-an-association-between-licit-and-illicit-use-exist/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?" August 31, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/psychoactive-substances-does-an-association-between-licit-and-illicit-use-exist/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?" August 31, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/psychoactive-substances-does-an-association-between-licit-and-illicit-use-exist/.

This paper, “Psychoactive Substances: Does an Association Between Licit and Illicit Use Exist?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.