The International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation
The
Social And
Academic Implications Of Drug Abuse
Among Undergraduates: A
Case
Study Of The
S.V. Kobiowu Ph.D
Faculty
of Education,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
kobiowuvs@yahoo.com
(08039212409)
Citation:
Kobiowu, S.V.
(2006) The Social And Academic Implications Of Drug Abuse Amonst
Undergraduates: A Case
Study of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria International Journal
of Psychosocial
Rehabilitation. 11 (1), 61-68
Abstract
The researcher
investigated the
incidence of drug misuse among university undergraduates, with
particular
reference to Obafemi Awolowo University,
<>
Introduction
The
term ‘drug’ in
the main,
would relate to “any substance that, when taken into a living organism,
may
modify one or more of its functions”, while abuse’ implies “a
particular
application of a drug more destructive than constructive for society,
or the
individual”.
One
may be hooked
emotionally
and psychologically, and may have a physical dependence, where one has
a drug
addiction problem, whether to a legal or illegal drug, there is a
craving for
it. The individual wants to use the drug again and again, and if it is
stopped,
there are usually unpleasant physical reactions.
While
it is not
everyone who
uses drug that becomes addicted, many people do, (may,
2006). Drug addiction involves compulsively seeking to use a substance,
regardless of the potentially negative social, psychological and
physical
consequences. Certain drugs, such as narcotics and cocaine, are more
likely to
cause physical dependence, than are other drugs, (mayo, 2006).
Drug
abuse among
adolescents
and young adults, which embrace university undergraduates, increased
significantly in the united states of america in the late 60s and early
70s
(eason, 1976). Little was known about hard drug and their usage in
Soc.
And acad. Implic. Of drug abuse in the late
70s, usage of
cocaine and heroine became significant in
Drug
abuse or drug
dependence
(as preferred by the world health organization), is defined as “ a state of psychic or physical dependence, or
both on a
drug, following administration of the drug on a periodic or continuous
basis.”
Man has long sought ways to enhance his pleasure, and to ease his
discomforts.
Curiosity, as one of man’s outstanding characteristics, appears early
in life,
and leads to extensive exploratory behaviour. It is not surprising then
that,
many young persons will wish to try certain drugs in order to determine
their
effects for themselves. Studies by okoh (1978), oduaran (1979), and johnson (1979), exhibit a plethora of purposes
for which
students use drugs. The list includes curiosity, boldness,
friends-do–it,
enjoyment of social gathering, academic pressure. Sound-sleep,
sexual- prowess, and performance in sports.
Much
of the
research in the
field of student drug abuse appears to focus on correlates of drug
abuse (
An
area in which
research is
still limited is the impact of drug abuse on the social and educational
perspectives of students. This study will thus address itself of this
realm.
Two hypotheses, which are in the null form, have been posited to guide
the
study, viz: there is no significant relationship between drug abuse and
academic performance. There is no significant relationship between
achieving
social acceptance within a social setting and the act of misuse of
drug. The
study was limited to the use of such drugs as tranquilizers, mandrax,
amphetamines, marijuana, alcohol, and caffeine-related items like
kolanut and
coffee.
Methodology
The
study was
carried out in
the
The
technique
employed in
distributing the questionnaire was stratified random sampling. The
stratification was based on sex – variable male/female. For more
randomness within
each stratum, a random selection of rooms in each undergraduates’ hall
of
residence was undertakes and questionnaire forms were distributed
randomly to
any member of the selected rooms. The questionnaire
Soc.
And acad. Implic. Of drug abuse contained
items meant to
elicit information on the respondents rate of drug usage, or non-drug
usage.
It also contained items that could
bring to light how well or otherwise the respondent
was
performing academically and for the purpose of the equivalent of second
class
lower, were regarded as high performers, while those below were
regarded
as low performers.
Results
Hypothesis
one
posits that
there is no significant relationship between drug abuse and academic
performance.
The
responses of
the respondent
are as contained in table 1.
Table
1
Table
showing drug abuse and academic performance
|
|
High
performance |
Low
performance |
Total
|
|
Drug
abuser |
35 (19%) |
52 (23%) |
87 |
|
Non-drug
abuser |
30 (17%) |
63 (41%) |
93 |
|
Total |
65 |
115 |
180 |
N=
180
The
data were
subjected to
further analysis, using the chi-square statistic, as presented in table
2.
Table
2
Chi-square
comparison of drug
abuse and academic performance
|
Observed |
Expected |
O-e |
(o-e)2 |
|
|
35 |
31.42 |
3.58 |
12.82 |
0.41 |
|
30 |
33.58 |
-3.58 |
12.82 |
0.38 |
|
52 |
55.58 |
-3.58 |
12.82 |
0.23 |
|
63 |
59.42 |
-3.58 |
12.82 |
0.22 |
|
*2 Xc
= 1.24 |
||||
P> 0.05
(*not
significant)
Since
the
calculated value is
less than the tabled, it follows that there is no significant
relationship
between the academic performance of users and the non-abusers. Thus,
the
hypothesis postulated for the study is upheld.
Hypothesis
two
postulates that
there is no significant relationship between drug abuse and social
association.
Table 2 shows the responses of the subjects in relation to social
association.
Table
3
Drug
abuse and social association
|
|
Strong
association |
Weak
association |
Total
|
|
Drug abuser |
65 (36%) |
41 (23%) |
106 |
|
Non-drug
abuser |
45 (25%) |
29 (16%) |
74 |
|
Total |
110 |
70 |
180 |
The
data were further subjected to chi-square statistic for further
analysis, at 0.05 level of significance.
Table
4
Chi-square
comparison of drug abuse and social association
|
Observed |
Expected |
O-e |
(o-e)2 |
|
|
65 |
64.78 |
0.22 |
0.05 |
7.72 x 10-4 |
|
45 |
45.22 |
-0.22 |
0.05 |
1.12 x 10-3 |
|
42 |
41.228.782 |
-0.22 |
0.05 |
1.21 x 10-3 |
|
29 |
|
0.22 |
0.05 |
1.74 x 10-3 |
|
2
Xc= 1.24 |
||||
P >
0.05 (*not significant)
Since
the chi –
square
calculated is less than chi-square tabled, it follows that there is no
significant relationship between drug abuse and undue social
association.
Discussion
The
result of the
analysis in
respect of hypothesis one appears a little surprising. One would have
expected
that the academic performance of drug abusers would be substantially
hampered,
for holister (1971) found that marijuana, like most other hard drugs,
altered
time sense, decreased auditory discrimination, results in difficulty in
concentration, and brings about impairment of ability in some
psychometric
tests, especially those that are related to the manipulation of
numbers. West
(1972) discovered that a significant percentage of regular users are
adversely
affected in terms of mental health; while miller, (1974) and makinde,
(1974)
found that amphetamines increase the availability of no adrenaline at
the nerve
cell connections. Also cohen (1978)
discovered that
flashbacks of lsd state are dangerous; while juman (1981) found that
morphine
and tranquilizers, analgesics and sedatives, may precipitate hepatic
encepahalogphy, possibly as a result of increased brain sensitivity to
centrally acting drugs. Lastly, lesters
(1977) also
found that alcohol increased errors with marginal slowing of reaction
time.
The
result of
hypothesis two is
equally a little surprising. The ‘popular’ impression one has is that
those who
are on hard drugs tend to have strong social association, relative to
their
non-drug user counterparts. But the study revealed that the
relationship is not
statically significant. This thus, in a way, belies the logical
reasoning that
the degree of intoxication, due to drug, is highly related to
sociability.
Soc
and acad.
Implic. Of drug abuse
Harmatz’s
(1973) discovery that such drugs
like marijuana tend to make the user moody, anxious and impulsive
corroborates
this finding. Also, other findings indicate poor social adjustment on
the part
of the user; typified by elevated situational hostility, (mirin, 1973),
and a
preference for passive life styles and low “purpose – in life” scores,
(sheen,
1972).
Nature
has tried
very hard to
protect the brain, and messing around with drugs can change the way the
brain
works naturally. When one takes drugs, parts of the brain start to
disagree on
what to do, and that creates a big problem. The brain can solve
problems, be
creative, be logical, make plans, make wise decisions, and do almost
anything
else one can think of. All parts of the brainwork together, to keep us
healthy,
intelligent and happy (drug enforcement administration, 2006).
Conclusions
and
recommendations
The
following
conclusion
emanate from the results of this study, that there is no significant
relationship
between drug abuse and academic performance; that there is no sign if
cant
relationship between drug abuse and social association; that though
drug might
be a necessary condition for sociability, it is not a sufficient
condition. The
result of this study not–withstanding, the harmful effects of drug
abuse cannot
be overemphasized. The abuser might justify the practice by positing
that it
helps in lifting mood, induces confidence and suppresses worries and
anxiety.
But these feelings are ephemeral, and totally out of tune with reality,
and can
lead to lethal consequences, in the sense that heart functioning and
breathing
can be severely depressed, thereby causing death.
In
order to really
help the
situation, the government should have a well- defined comprehensive and
realistic policy on control of drugs.
This policy should include establishing a federal drug control
centre,
under the auspices of the ministries of health and internal affairs,
which will
collate information on drug use, and liaise with similar smaller units,
to be
based in each state. Public education should be targeted at the
vulnerable
segment of society, such as the older children, adolescent and young
adults.
Such educational measures should be carefully presented through methods
that
avoid threats and dramatization. Also, parents and school authorities
should
carefully warn their children against the destructive effects of these
drugs.
Any realistic attempt aimed at dealing with the issue of drug abuse
must enjoy
adequate multidisciplinary deliberation. Any law, which is deigned to
control
drug abuse behaviour, must embrace suggestions from the country’s
relevant
professional bodies such as psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists,
youth
and welfare officers, counselors, educationists, ministry of health
officials
and law enforcement agents.
References
Clayton, R.(1980) The Family – Drug abuse relationship. Drug abuse from the family perspective. 1980 Washington, D. C.
Cohen, S.(1970) Alternatives to Adolescent Drug Abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association. 238 (14) 1561 – 1562
Drug Enforcement Administration (2006) Get it Straight: The Facts about Drugs.
Eason, W.(1976) Understanding Teenage Drug Abuse. Postgraduate Medicine.
Harmatz, O.(1973) Developmental Psychology in Nigeria. Ibadan, Evans Books.
Holister, C. Roots of Western Tradition: A Short History of the Ancient World. New York, Wiley.
Johnson, M. P. (1979) Power Relations and Affective Style as Determinants of Confidence in Impression Formation in a Game Situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 98 – 110.
Lester, R.(1977) Problems of Discipline in schools. Teachers from. 4 (2).
Makinde, O. The Nature and Pattems of Problems for Secondary School Counselling The Counsellor . Vol. 1
Mayo (2005) Drug Addiction . Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Miller, B.J. (1974) Good Health: Personal and Community. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, Saunders Mirin, C. (1973) Learning in societal setting. Boston: Ally and Bacon, Inc.
Obenabor, O. ( 1979) Some Factors Responsible for Juvenile Delinquency among Nigerian Youths. Ife educator. 2 (1)
Oduaran, D. (1978) Psychological Guidance of the School child. Ibadan, Evans Books.
Okoh, B. (1978) Problems of Secondary School Leavers. Careers. Vol. 2 No. 3.
Paton, S; Kanel D. (1978) Psychological Factors and adolescent illicit drug use: Ethnicity and Sex differences. Adolescence. 13 (50)
Robins, L. N. (1980) The Natural History of Drug Abuse. Theories on drug abuse. Washington D.C.
Sheen, D. F. (1972) The Sociology of Education: Introductory Analytical Perspectives.
Stanton, M. D. (1972) Drugs and the Family. Marriage and Family Review. 2 (1) 2-9 Steffenhagen, R. A. (1980) Self – esteem Theory of Drug Abuse. Theories on Drug Abuse. Washington D. C. Research Monograph Series 30.
Uman, L. (1981) Solidarity and Delinquency in a Street Corner Group. American Sociological Review. October.
West, J. (1972) Interest and Discipline in Education. London, Unwin Brothers Ltd.
Whitten Lori (2005) A Brief Encounter with peer Educator can Motivate Abstinence.
World Health Organization: (1973) Technical Report Series No. 516 on Youth and Drugs. Geneva.
Wright, J. (1977) “The Psychology and Personality of Addict”, Adolescence. 12, 399 – 403. York, Wiley.
All Rights Reserved. A Private Non-Profit Agency for the good of all, published in the UK & Honduras