



































 

 
CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

The Role of Resocialization in the Disposition of 
California College Students toward the Legalization of Marijuana 

 
 

Michael Bouvet 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 
 

Previous research on marijuana consumption indicates that peer influence plays a significant 
role in an individual’s decision to try it; however, there is little research that focuses on the 
role of the collegiate environment as a tool of resocialization in the disposition of college 
students toward marijuana.  The author argues that it is through a process of resocialization 
that an individual will begin to become more liberal on certain issues.  From the perspective 
of a resocialization process, the author proposes that (1)attending college will proliferate a 
process of resocialization, specifically in the belief that the use of marijuana by a student or 
other students within the college environment is not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, 
a socially acceptable behavior; and that (2) college students that had been re-socialized to 
perceive marijuana use as part of a collegiate style of life will be more likely to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana. Using data drawn from a 2009 availability sample of 220 CSULA students at 
various stages of their college education, this paper found,through a multivariate regression 
analysis, that respondents who had received more college education were more likely to 
support the legalization of marijuana.These findings clearly demonstrate a correlation 
between the dependent variable and key independent variable, supporting the hypothesis that 
attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, at the very least, on this 
specific topic of support for the legalization of marijuana.  From the re-socialization 
perspective, when exposed to a collegiate environment, most individualswill experience a 
transformation in previous socialized perceptions, which is significant as the implications of 
marijuana’s legalization suggest a relief in the current economic crisis plaguing college 
students across the country. 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
1 Most studies agree that marijuana is the 
most widely used illicit drug in the United 
States today.  According to the 2004 

                                            
Michael Bouvet is a graduate student in the 
Department of Sociology. His paper was originally 
submitted to SOC. 410 Advanced Statistics, taught by 
Dr. Hyojoung Kim in Winter 2011. 
 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health 
(NSDUH), approximately 96.8 million 
(40.2%) Americans ages 12 and older have 
used marijuana in one form or another at 
least once during their life.  Comparatively 
25.5 million (10.6%) individuals reported 
using marijuana in the past 12 months, and 
14.6 million (6.1%) individuals reported 
using marijuana in the past 30 days.  
Adjoined with wide use of marijuana has 
come an escalated concern specifically on 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 93 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

public policy regarding the possession and 
use of marijuana.   Recently, the associated 
press reported that the legalization of 
marijuana has gained substantial momentum 
in California.  Many marijuana supporters 
and advocates are accumulating signatures 
to appropriate as many as three marijuana-
legalization measures for the 2010 
California ballot, essentially fashioning what 
could be a groundbreaking clash with the 
federal government over U.S. drug policy on 
Marijuana (Wohlsen, 2009).   

The issue of whether to legalize 
marijuana is an extremely heated topic.   
There is an extensive laundry list of the pros 
and cons with valid arguments coming from 
both sides.  Some of the most prominent 
arguments for legalization of marijuana are 
based on the assumption that significant 
amounts of money would be generated or 
saved if legalization would occur.   Funds 
derived from the tax revenue generated from 
a regulated marijuana market, reduction in 
prosecutions of marijuana offenses and 
subsequent jail sentences, and increased 
production and market of hemp based 
products could potentially create a large sum 
of money that could ease the effects that the 
current economic downturn has had on the 
state.   However, there is another hidden 
factor adding wind to the sails of this issue 
and that is the sea of change in the public 
perception of marijuana that has occurred 
since the smear campaigns of the 50s and 
80s to eradicate it.   Its usage is more and 
more socially acceptable among younger 
generations. 

As one might expect, college students 
use marijuana at higher rates than the U.S. 
population generally.   A 2007 National 
College Health Assessment (NCHA) 
reported that nearly a third of college 
students have tried marijuana in their 
lifetimes.  It has been theorized that the 
college environment may play a role in these 
higher rates of usage since it is a very 

impressionable time for young adults.  For 
many college students, it is their first real 
taste of freedom.  It is a transition from 
living at home and having the supervision 
and guidance of their parents, to becoming 
an adult with more freedom than ever.   It is 
often a period of radical change that can 
arguably be fostered by a collegiate 
atmosphere of learning and a collective 
coming of age.   

One interesting scenario that occurs 
when addressing public policy regarding 
possession and use of marijuana among 
college bound voters is that students tend to 
misperceive the usage rate among their 
peers.  Studies have noted that, despite the 
actual campus norm, college students tend to 
behave in accordance with what they believe 
to be the expectations and behaviors of their 
peers.  This particular study employs a 
socialization theory and tests the hypothesis 
that re-socialized college students that 
perceive marijuana use as part of a 
collegiate style of life will be more likely to 
agree that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana. 

 
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 
 
Key Research Hypothesis: 
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology 
states that re-socialization is a process of 
identity transformation in which people are 
called upon to learn new roles, while 
unlearning some aspects of their old ones.  
The need to learn new roles may result from 
voluntary or involuntary changes in status.  
When the role requirements of the new 
status conflict with an individual's earlier or 
primary socialization, the process of re-
socialization may be necessary.   This 
process often requires an unlearning of 
internalized norms, values, beliefs, and 
practices, to be replaced by a new set which 
is considered appropriate to the new role.  



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 94 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

Re-socialization most often occurs when an 
individual is called upon to adopt a new 
specialized status, often in adulthood.  Thus 
it is sometimes referred to as adult 
socialization.  Examples include joining the 
military or a religious order; enrollment in a 
school or college; becoming a prisoner; or 
being hospitalized for mental illness.  In 
each case, a person is required to take on a 
new identity as a professionalized or 
institutionalized self, and must adopt new 
ways of relating to both self and others.    
Therefore it is theorized that attending 
college will proliferate a process of 
resocialization, specifically in the belief that 
the use of marijuana by a student or other 
students within the college environment is 
not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, 
a socially acceptable behavior.   
Accordingly it is hypothesized that college 
students that had been re-socialized to 
perceive marijuana use as part of a 
collegiate style of life will be more likely to 
agree that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.   
 
Current College Education: It is 
hypothesized that more education received 
by the college student surveyed, the more 
likely the student is to agree that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore, undergone a process of 
resocialization. 

It is further hypothesized that other 
control variables will affect a college’s 
students perception of marijuana as socially 
acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.  
 
Gender:  Males are hypothesized to more 
often perceive marijuana as a collegiate style 
of life and will be more likely to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana. 

 
Age:  It is hypothesized that the older the 
age of the college student surveyed, the 
more likely the student is to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.   
 
Mother’s Education: Because children are 
more likely to be influenced by their 
mothers compared to other influences, it is 
hypothesized that the more education 
received by the mother of the college 
student surveyed, the more likely the student 
is to agree that smoking marijuana is 
socially acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.   
 
Religion: It is hypothesized that the more 
religious the college student surveyed, the 
less likely the student is to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.   
 
Mother’s Religion: Because children are 
more likely to be influenced by their 
mothers compared to other influences, it is 
hypothesized that the shared religious 
beliefs of the college student surveyed and 
his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief 
that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore inhibit the support 
for the legalization of marijuana.   
 
Political affiliation: It is hypothesized that 
certain political affiliations and/or 
background political beliefs (republican) 
will likely inhibit the belief that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore inhibit the support for the 
legalization of marijuana.   
 
Mother’s political affiliation: Because 
children are more likely to be influenced by 
their mothers compared to other influences, 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 95 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

it is hypothesized that a shared political 
affiliation and/or background political 
beliefs of the college student surveyed and 
his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief 
that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore inhibit the support 
for the legalization of marijuana.   
 
Past/present marijuana consumption: It is 
hypothesized that if a college student 
surveyed indicates a past/present 
consumption of marijuana, the more likely 
the student is to agree that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.   
 
The belief that college peers currently 
consume marijuana regularly: It is 
hypothesized that if the assumption that 
college peers  regularly consume marijuana 
is present, the more likely the student is to 
agree that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.   

 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

There are numerous studies that have 
been conducted on the prevalence of 
marijuana usage among college students.  
The data on student marijuana usage at any 
given campus in the United States can range 
from 5% to 40%.  However, the 2007 
National College Health Assessment 
(NCHA) reported that 12.7% of college 
students reported using marijuana in the past 
thirty days.  Additionally, 31.2% reported 
using marijuana in their lifetime (American 
College Health Association, 2008).  The 
2006 Core Institute reported similar 
numbers; in the past 30 days, 16.7% 
reported usage and 30.1% reported usage in 
their lifetime (The Core Institute, 2007).   
This data seemingly corroborates the notion 
that recreational use of marijuana has 

considerably increased within the United 
States in the past few decades, especially 
among college students. 

Another interesting facet to the increased 
usage of marijuana among college students 
is the misconception of how prevalent usage 
is among peers.   The 2007 NCHA surveyed 
students about their perceptions of the 
marijuana usage rate for the typical student.   
Eighty percent of the survey respondents 
believed their peers used marijuana in the 
past thirty days, clearly overestimating 
usage (American College Health 
Association, 2008).  Overall, previous 
studies indicate that higher marijuana use by 
relatively younger collegiate age groups 
suggests that a separate analysis of college 
students could be particularly useful in 
understanding the role of college in a 
resocialization process of young adults. 

Early socialization of children by parents 
or guardians regarding the negative affects 
of marijuana usage is usually typical in the 
United States.  Often parents attempt to 
enforce their version of American reality on 
their children.  This is normally perceived 
by individuals within society as the duty of 
the parent or guardian, to be done for the 
good of community and for the good of the 
child.  This stems from the societal norm 
that it is both moral and scientifically 
soundfor parents to do so (Goode, 1969).   

Furthermore, many students who attend 
college are living away from home for the 
first time in their lives, and they are free 
from direct parental supervision and control.  
They are also faced with the challenges of 
making new friends and acquaintances, 
establishing new living arrangements, and 
negotiating their way around a college 
campus (Beck et al., 2008).  It is 
understandable that marijuana is used in the 
context of social facilitation, to make friends 
more easily and to form relationships with 
others.  As noted by Gledhill-Hoyt et al 
(2000), there are a number of factors that 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 96 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

propagate the heightened usage of marijuana 
among college students, including absence 
of parental controls and oversight, the 
tendency of college students to try new, 
previously prohibited behaviors, and the 
economic ability to afford the cost of usage.   
The 1972 published reports of the National 
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, 
indicated a strong relationship between 
marijuana use and social values among 
college students, attitudes, and life styles 
expressing opposition to authority (Knight, 
Sheposh, & Bryson, 1974).    

Additionally several studies have 
demonstrated peer and faculty influence on 
college student’s values and attitudes 
(Chickering, 1969; Thistlewaite and 
Wheeler, 1966; Wallace, 1966; Vreeland 
and Bidwell, 1965; New comb et al., 1970, 
1971).  Most researchers agree that much of 
the environmental impact of colleges and 
their sub- environments is mediated, 
enhanced, or counteracted by the informal 
contacts of students with peers and faculty.  
Friends, reference groups, and the general 
student culture have an important impact on 
student values and personal development.  
In contrast, faculty are particularly important 
in influencing intellectual development, 
educational aspirations, and occupational 
decisions (Wilson, 1966; Clark, et al., 1972; 
Gamson, 1967).  Basically, colleges may be 
viewed as socializing organizations where 
students come to accept normative attitudes 
and intellectual values through interaction 
with the agents of socialization. 

One specific theory, the reference group 
theory, suggests that a person may use 
marijuana in an attempt to emulate others 
who use it.  A reference group is a group a 
person takes as a frame of reference for self-
evaluation (Merton, 1957: Shibutani, 1967).  
A reference group is a source of standards of 
conduct and beliefs for an individual.  
Usually, groups to which a person belongs 
are reference groups for that person, such as 

peer groups on college campuses (Secord 
and Backman, 1964).   

Many researchers have suggested that 
marijuana use occurs, at least in part, as a 
result of the influence of peers.  However, 
there is little research conducted on the role 
of college as an agent of resocialization in 
the particular context of marijuana usage 
among college students.  This study attempts 
to address that specific area of research. 
 
THE DATA, SURVEY PROCEDURES, 
AND VARIABLES 
 

The survey design utilized for this 
particular study was a questionnaire, or a 
survey instrument containing the questions 
in a self-administered survey.  This 
particular design is versatile because they 
can be used to study a wide range of social 
phenomena.  It is also efficient because data 
can be collected on large numbers of people, 
at relatively low cost, and often very 
quickly.  Finally, it is more easily 
generalizable because questions are asked to 
a large number of persons at a low cost, 
making it relatively easy to create a 
representative sample of the target 
population.  With a representative sample, 
the findings are safely generalizable, or 
applicable, to the target population. 

In this particular study on the 
resocialization of college students, a random 
sample of 220 California State University, 
Los Angeles students from various 
sociology classes were administered the 
survey included here in appendix 1.  The 
specific classes are as follows: 

1) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 9:50am-
11:30am, KH B3018 

2) Sociology 426, Mo-We, 11:40am-
1:20pm, KH B4013 

3) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 1:30pm-
3:10pm, KH B3018 

4) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 4:20pm-
6:00pm, KH B3018 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 97 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

5) Sociology 454, Mo-We, 4:20pm-
6:00pm, FA 345 

6) Sociology 383, Mo-We, 6:10pm-
10:00pm, BIOS 334 

7) Sociology 201, Tu-Th, 9:50-11:30am, 
KH 3018 

8) Sociology 497, Tu-Th, 6:10-8:50pm, 
KH 1021 

The professors that agreed to allow the 
survey to take place during their class 
periods all informed their students that the 
survey was completely optional and in no 
way mandatory.  All 220 students that were 
asked to take the survey agreed and 
participated in the survey, therefore, there 
was a 100% response rate.  The target 
population is all college students in the 
United States.  The population is all CSULA 
students.  The target sample is 220 CSULA 
students.  Finally, the sample consists of all 
220 CSULA students that were asked to 
participate.  The nonprobability sampling 
method utilized was availability sampling, 
or sampling in which the elements are 
selected on the basis of convenience.  

The representativeness of the sample, or 
a how much the sample “looks like” the 
population from which it was selected in all 
respects that are potentially relevant to the 
study, is flawed because it is an availability 
sample. However, it does to a certain extent, 
look like the population.  The selection of 
various classes had the benefit of providing 
a better representative sample than random 
surveying of students on campus because all 
students within the classes participated.  To 
a certain degree, their participation, although 
not mandated, was heavily suggested and 
therefore, ensured a distribution of 
characteristics among the elements of the 
sample that mirrored the characteristics of 
the total population.  The specific way that 
the sample differs from the whole 
population is that they are all sociology 
students.  Sociology, by nature, evokes a 
more liberal way of thinking by suggesting 

that a detachment from social norms is 
required to prevent a bias in research on 
society.  Therefore, a sociology student may 
possess a more relaxed perception of 
marijuana usage and therefore a sample 
drawn only from sociology students may 
present an issue with measurement validity. 

Furthermore, an assessment of this 
survey clearly would indicate a propensity 
for the social desirability effect, or a 
tendency of respondents to reply in a 
manner that will be viewed favorably by 
others, because marijuana usage is, to a 
certain extent, still a taboo issue.  However, 
students were assured that they would 
remain anonymous and their responses 
would also remain confidential.  The results 
indicate that the students appeared to accept 
this agreement because many indicated that 
they have consumed marijuana in the past.  
However, it is noted that the accuracy of 
those results could be skewed due to the 
social desirability effect and the potential 
inhibition of responses. 
 
Focus Group Outcomes 

The focus respondents included three 
(3) students from our SOC 490: Quantitative 
Research Methods class, (1) one student 
from the UCLA Sociology Doctorate 
program, (1) one graduate from the UCLA 
Sociology program, (1) one graduate from 
the UC Irving Political Science program, (1) 
one graduate from the New York Fine Arts-
Graphic Design program. 
The three students from our SOC 490: 
Quantitative Research Methods class were 
chosen due to their perspective on the 
project, having had to complete the same 
project and possessing a unique 
understanding of what is required.  The one 
student from the UCLA Sociology 
Doctorate program was chosen due to her 
overall knowledge of how to construct a 
survey, her previous and current experience 
conducting surveys, and her advanced 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 98 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

insight on how to improve the quality of a 
survey.  The one graduate from the UCLA 
Sociology program, the one graduate from 
the UC Irving Political Science program, 
and the graduate from the New York Fine 
Arts-Graphic Design program were all 
chosen because they are all responsible for 
research and development of data collection 
for the City of Los Angeles Community 
Development Department Youth 
Opportunity System.  They all have previous 
experience creating, developing, and 
administering surveys to individual and 
therefore possess a distinct insight on how to 
construct survey questions.  All individuals 
in the focus group reported that it took them, 
on average, 3 minutes to complete the 
survey.  

The focus group activity assisted in the 
revision of the questionnaire by helping to 
identify flaws in the questionnaire that 
weren’t readily apparent upon its initial 
construction.  Of the most important 
observations provided by the focus group 
was the identification of the “loaded” 
questions that might have invalidated data 
due to the social desirability affect.  
Additionally, the order of the questions 
themselves was an issue in that all of the 
strong and emotionally charged questions 
were all at the beginning of the survey as 
opposed to the end.  The feedback was 
extremely helpful in that it provided the 
opportunity to see how respondents would 
react to certain questions.  The focus group 
was extremely helpful in identifying lapses 
in the indicators as responses.  Finally, the 
response categories were also revised 
according to the responses of the focus 
group.   

 
 

MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES 
 
Dependent Variable: 

Support for the Legalization of Marijuana: 
The support for the legalization variable is 
here defined as the intention to vote for the 
legalization of marijuana on the 2010 
California ballot. Respondents are asked the 
following question: How much do you 
support or oppose the idea of legalizing 
marijuana in California?  Respondent 
responses are measured in an ascending 
order, with the value of 1 indicating a 
“Strongly Oppose” answer; 2 indicating a 
“Oppose” answer; and 3 indicating a 
“Neither Support nor Oppose” answer; 4 
indicating a “Support” answer; and 5 
indicating a “Strongly Support” answer.For 
data analysis purposes the answer choices 
were collapsed.  According, it has been 
recoded into a collapsed variables Oppose (1 
= Strongly Oppose and Oppose), Neither 
Support nor Oppose (2 = Neither Support 
nor Oppose), and Support (3 = Support and 
Strongly Support). 
 

Key Independent Variable: 
Current College Education: The education 
variable is here defined as the highest level 
of college education completed.  It is 
hypothesized that the more education 
received by the college student surveyed, the 
more likely the student is to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore, has undergone a process of 
resocialization. Respondents are asked the 
following question: Which of the following 
best indicates the level of college education 
you are currently receiving? Respondent 
responses are measured in an ascending 
order, with the value of 1 indicating 
Freshman; 2 indicating Sophomore; 3 
indicating Junior; 4 indicating Senior; 5 
indicating first year of grad school; and 6 
indicating second or more years of grad 
school. 
 

Other Control Variables:  
Gender: The gender variable is here defined 
as the biological sex type that the college 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 99 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

student surveyed most identifies with.  
Males are hypothesized to more often 
perceive marijuana as a collegiate style of 
life and will be more likely to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.  Respondents are asked the 
following question: What is your gender? 
Respondent responses are measured in an 
ascending order, with the value of 1 
indicating female; and 2 indicating male.  
For the purpose of analysis, the results were 
recoded into ascending order based on N-
value (number) alone with a value of 1 
indication males; and 2 indicating females. 
 
Age:  The age variable is here defined as the 
number of years the subject has been alive.  
It is hypothesized that the older  the college 
student surveyed, the more likely the student 
is to agree that smoking marijuana is 
socially acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.  Respondents are 
asked the following question: How old are 
you currently? Respondent responses are 
measured in an ascending order, with the 
value exactly corresponding to the age they 
indicate (eg. Recorded answer is 18, then a 
value of 18 is assigned). 
 

Mother’s Education: The mother’s 
education variable is here defined as the 
highest level of education completed by the 
respondent’s mother, if applicable.  It is 
hypothesized that because children are more 
likely to be influenced by their mothers,the 
more education received by the mothers of 
the college student surveyed, the more likely 
the student is to agree that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana. Respondents are asked the 
following question: Which of the following 
best describes the highest level of education 
your mother has received? Respondent 
responses are measured in an ascending 
order, with the value of 1 indicating less 

than high school graduation; 2 high school 
graduation, 3 some college; 4 college 
degree; and 5 post-college degree. 
 

Religion: The religion variable is here 
defined as the practiced religion of the 
subject.  It is hypothesized that the more 
religious the college student surveyed, the 
less likely the student is to agree that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.  Respondents are asked the 
following question: With what religion do 
you most closely align your beliefs with? 
Respondent responses are measured in an 
ascending order, with the value of 1 
indicating a “Catholicism” answer; 2 
indicating a “Protestantism” answer; 3 
indicating a “Buddhism” answer; 4 
indicating a “Judaism” answer; 5 indicating 
a “Islam” answer; 6 indicating a “Hinduism” 
answer; 7 indicating a “Agnosticism” 
answer; 8 indicating a “Atheism” answer; 
and 9 indicating a “other” answer.  
Unfortunately, the survey was conducted 
utilizing CSULA students only.  As a result, 
the vast majority of the respondents (47.3%) 
identified themselves as Catholics, with only 
9.1% as Protestants, 8.2% as Buddhists, 
6.4% as Agnostics, 6.8% as Atheists, and 
22.3% as some other various denomination.  
Accordingly, the ability to examine the 
respondent’s religion is quite limited.  Since 
Catholicism is the mainstay of religions 
among CSULA students, it is utilized as the 
reference group.  Accordingly, it has been 
recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for 
the Catholic Respondents variable, 0 
otherwise).  The same recoding has been 
done for the other religions of significance: 
Protestant Respondents (1 = Protestant, 0 = 
otherwise), Buddhist Respondents (1 = 
Buddhist, 0 = otherwise), Agnostics 
Respondents (1 = Agnostic, 0 = otherwise), 
Atheist Respondents (1 = Atheist, 0 = 
otherwise), Other Denomination 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 100 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

Respondents (1 = Other Denomination, 0 = 
otherwise). 
 

Mother’s Religion: The mother’s religion 
variable is here defined as the practiced 
religion of the respondent’s mother, if 
applicable.  It is hypothesized that because 
children are more likely to be influenced by 
their mothers,the shared religious beliefs of 
the college student surveyed and his/her 
mother will likely inhibit the belief that 
smoking marijuana is socially acceptable 
and therefore inhibit the support for the 
legalization of marijuana. Respondents are 
asked the following question: With what 
religion does your mother most closely align 
her beliefs with? Respondent responses are 
measured in an ascending order, with the 
value of 1 indicating a “Catholicism” 
answer; 2 indicating a “Protestantism” 
answer; 3 indicating a “Buddhism” answer; 
4 indicating a “Judaism” answer; 5 
indicating a “Islam” answer; 6 indicating a 
“Hinduism” answer; 7 indicating a 
“Agnosticism” answer; 8 indicating a 
“Atheism” answer; and 9 indicating a 
“other” answer.Unfortunately, the survey 
was conducted utilizing CSULA students 
only.  As a result, the vast majority of the 
respondents (56.4%) stated that their 
mothers identified themselves as Catholics, 
with only 12.3% as Protestants, 10.9% as 
Buddhists, and 20.5% as some other various 
denomination.  Accordingly, the ability to 
examine the respondent’s mother’s religion 
is quite limited.  Since Catholicism is the 
mainstay of religions among CSULA 
student’s mothers, it is utilized as the 
reference group.  According, it has been 
recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for 
the Catholic Mothers variable, 0 otherwise).  
The same recoding has been done for the 
other religions of significance: Protestant 
Mothers (1 = Protestant, 0 = otherwise), 
Buddhist Mothers (1 = Buddhist, 0 = 
otherwise), Other Denomination Mothers (1 
= Other Denomination, 0 = otherwise). 

 

Political affiliation: The political affiliation 
variable is here defined as the political 
affiliation of the subject.  It is hypothesized 
that certain political affiliations and/or 
background political beliefs (republican) 
will likely inhibit the belief that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore inhibit the support for the 
legalization of marijuana.  Respondents are 
asked the following question: What is your 
political affiliation? Respondent responses 
are measured in an ascending order, with the 
value of 1 indicating a “democrat” answer; 2 
indicating a “republican” answer; 3 
indicating a “libertarian” answer; 4 
indicating a “independent” answer; and 5 
indicating a “other” answer.  Unfortunately, 
the survey was conducted utilizing CSULA 
students only.  As a result, the vast majority 
of the respondents (65%) identified 
themselves as Democrats, with only 11.8% 
as Republicans, 13.6% as Independents, and 
9.5% as some other various political 
affiliation.  Accordingly, the ability to 
examine the respondent’s political affiliation 
is quite limited.  Since the Democratic Party 
is the mainstay of political affiliations 
among CSULA students, it is utilized as the 
reference group.  According, it has been 
recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for 
the Democratic Respondents variable, 0 
otherwise).  The same recoding has been 
done for the other political affiliations of 
significance: Republican Respondents (1 = 
Republican, 0 = otherwise), Independent 
Respondents (1 = Independent, 0 = 
otherwise), Other Political Affiliation 
Respondents (1 = Other Political Affiliation, 
0 = otherwise). 
 

Mother’s political affiliation: The political 
affiliation variable is here defined as the 
political affiliation of the subject’s mother, 
if applicable.  It is hypothesized that because 
children are more likely to be influenced by 
their mothers,a shared political affiliation 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 101 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

and/or background political beliefs of the 
college student surveyed and his/her mother 
will likely inhibit the belief that smoking 
marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore inhibit the support for the 
legalization of marijuana.  Respondents are 
asked the following question: What is your 
mother’s political affiliation? Respondent 
responses are measured in an ascending 
order, with the value of 1 indicating a 
“democrat” answer; 2 indicating a 
“republican” answer; 3 indicating a 
“libertarian” answer; 4 indicating a 
“independent” answer; 5 indicating a 
“other” answer; and 6 indicating a “don’t 
know” answer.  Unfortunately, the survey 
was conducted utilizing CSULA students 
only.  As a result, the vast majority of the 
respondents (57.3%) stated that their 
mothers identified themselves as Democrats, 
with only 16.7% as Republicans, and 8.3% 
as some other various political affiliation.  
Accordingly, the ability to examine the 
respondent’s mother’s political affiliation is 
quite limited.  Since the Democratic Party is 
the mainstay of political affiliations among 
CSULA student’s mothers, it is utilized as 
the reference group.  According, it has been 
recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for 
the Democratic Mothers variable, 0 
otherwise).  The same recoding has been 
done for the other political affiliations of 
significance: Republican Mothers (1 = 
Republican, 0 = otherwise), Other Political 
Affiliation Mothers (1 = Other Political 
Affiliation, 0 = otherwise).  The “don’t 
know” category was coded as a missing 
value. 
 

Past/present marijuana consumption: The 
past/present marijuana consumption variable 
is here defined as the past or present 
consumption of marijuana as reported by the 
subject.  It is hypothesized that if a college 
student surveyed indicates a past/present 
consumption of marijuana, the more likely 
the student is to agree that smoking 

marijuana is socially acceptable and 
therefore support the legalization of 
marijuana.  Respondents are asked the 
following question: Have you ever 
consumed marijuana (in any form) in your 
life? Respondent responses are measured in 
an ascending order, with the value of 1 
indicating a “No” answer; and 2 indicating a 
“Yes” answer. 
 

The belief that college peers currently 
consume marijuana regularly: The belief 
that college peers currently consume 
marijuana variable is defined as the 
assumptions that college peers have 
currently use marijuana regularly (past 30 
days) as reported by the subject.  It is 
hypothesized that if the assumption that 
college peers do regularly consume 
marijuana is present, the more likely the 
student is to agree that smoking marijuana is 
socially acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana. Respondents are 
asked the following question: Do you 
believe that a majority of your college peers 
use marijuana? Respondent responses are 
measured in an ascending order, with the 
value of 1 indicating a “No” answer; and 2 
indicating a “Yes” answer. 
 
THE FINDINGS 
 
Univariate Analysis of the Variables 

Table 1 reports the univariate 
distribution of the respondents on each of 
the variables utilized in the analysis.  A 
large percentage of the respondents showed 
support for the dependent variable: Support 
for theLegalization of Marijuana (45%), as 
opposed to those that opposed it (20%).  A 
number of students neither supported nor 
opposed the legalization of marijuana (35%), 
potentially indicating, at least, a mixed 
opinion about marijuana usage.  See Graph 1 
for the frequency distribution for the 
dependent variable in the analysis (Support 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 102 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

for the Legalization of Marijuana) displayed 
in a bar chart.   

Additionally, the measurement of the 
key independent variable (Current College 
Education) placed many of the respondent’s 
in their second, third or fourth year of 
college.  As a whole, a large percentage of 
the respondents (90.5%) had completed at 
least one year of college education, 
indicating that a majority of them had been 
exposed to the collegiate environment at 
length.  A significant portion of the 
respondents were sophomores(23.2%), 
juniors (30.9%), or seniors (28.2%), with 
relatively few students surveyed(8.2%) 
pursuing a post graduate degree.See Graph 2 
for the frequency distribution for the key 
independent variable in the analysis 
(Current College Education) displayed in a 
bar chart. 

The respondents were surprisingly 
predominately female in gender, with only 
one third (33.6%) reporting that they were 
male.  The largest percentage of students 
were either 19 years old (22.3%), 20 years 
old (10.9%), and 21 years old (12.3%) with 
a mean of 22.66 years of age.  Both the 
majority of the respondent’s mothers 
(59.6%) and fathers (60%) had not received 
any previous college education.  A large 
portion of the respondents (47.3%) indicated 
that Catholicism was the religion with which 
they most closely aligned their religious 
beliefs with.  This was also the case with the 
majority of the respondent’s mothers 
(56.4%).  Additionally, a majority of the 
respondents (65%) indicated that they were 
democrats.  Also, this was the case with the 
majority of the political affiliation of the 
respondent’s mothers (75% Democrats).  A 
little over half of the respondents (50.5%) 
indicated that they had previously consumed 
marijuana at some point in their lives.  
However, a significant portion of the 
respondents (78.7%) indicated that they 
believed that a majority of their college 

peers use marijuana.  See Table 1 for the 
univariate statistics for the variables in the 
analysis. 

 
Bivariate Analysis of the Variables 

To examine how college education 
affects a respondent’s support for the 
legalization of marijuana, specifically here 
in California, we examine the Pearson’s 
correlation coefficients of variables used in 
the analysis.  As shown in Table 2, the 
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between 
Support for Legalization and Current 
College Education turns out to be positive 
and significant at the 0.01 level.  This 
indicates that the more education that an 
individual receives is associated with an 
increased support for the legalization of 
marijuana.  Contrariwise,the Pearson’s 
correlation coefficient between Support for 
Legalization and Republican Respondents is 
negative, but statistically significant at the 
0.01 level reflecting less incidences of 
support for the legalization of marijuana 
among Republican respondents in 
comparison to those of other political 
affiliations.  Finally, the Pearson’s 
correlation coefficient between Support for 
Legalization and Past Marijuana 
Consumption is positive and statistically 
significant at the 0.01 level, indicating that 
the previous marijuana usage is associated 
with an increased support for the 
legalization of marijuana.  No other 
correlation is significant between the 
dependent variable and other independent 
variables when analyzing the table of 
Pearson’s correlation coefficients of 
variables used in the analysis.  

 
Multivariate Regression Analysis 

It is fairly well known that the outcomes 
of bivariate associations may be misleading 
and spurious due to the effects of other 
variables that may affect both the dependent 
variable (Support for the Legalization of 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 103 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

Marijuana) and the key independent 
variable (Current College Education) 
simultaneously.  More accurate evidence can 
be discovered if the effects of these other 
variables are controlled for.  In order to 
control the effects of the other variables on 
the support for legalization of marijuana, I 
utilized multivariate regression techniques to 
analyze the data.  Please note that the 
dependent variable (Support for the 
Legalization of Marijuana) is ordinal, 
consisting of different levels of support for 
legalization.  Since the variable is ordinal, 
the ordered logistic regression model was 
utilized for the analysis to separate out the 
effects of the independent variable (Current 
College Education) net of the effects of the 
other control variables.  

A unique aspect of ordered logistic 
regression is that there should be only one 
regression coefficient for each independent 
variable but multiple intercepts. Therefore, 
the ordinal logistic regression analysis 
assumes that the slope coefficient for the 
independent variables is constant for each 
level of the dependent variable; this is called 
the parallel regression assumption.  In order 
to verify this assumption, a score test is 
utilized (the parallel regression assumption 
test: 2,**).  The score test for this particular 
data set is statistically insignificant at the 
0.05 level.  This indicates that the parallel 
regression assumption is met for this data, 
and therefore the ordered logistic regression 
model can be justifiably utilized.   

In addition to the parallel regression 
assumption test, there are another two tests 
that demonstrate the significance of the 
findings, which are Likelihood Ratio ( 2) 
and the Nagelkerke (R2).  The Likelihood 
Ratio ( 2), also known as the Likelihood 
Ratio Chi-Square test,indicates that at least 
one of the predictors' regression coefficients 
is not equal to zero in the model; or in other 
words, that at least one of the independent 
variables has a significant effect on the 

dependent variable (Support for the 
Legalization of Marijuana).The Likelihood 
Ratio ( 2) is positive and statistically 
significant at the 0.05 level.Because logistic 
regression does not have an equivalent to the 
R-squared that is found in OLS regression, a 
pseudo R-squared statistic is utilized.  There 
are a wide variety of pseudo R-squared 
statistics which can give contradictory 
conclusions.  Therefore, in this particular 
analysis, only one pseudo R-squared statistic 
is utilized, the Negelkerke (R2).In this 
particular analysis, the Negelkerke (R2) 
value is .321, which indicates that the model 
explains that 32.1% of the variance in the 
dependent variable(Support for the 
Legalization of Marijuana). 
 The regression coefficient for the 
key independent variable (Current College 
Education) indicates that it is positive and 
statistically significant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.  
This is indicative of a positive relationship 
between the dependent variable and key 
independent variable in which the more 
college education a student received, the 
more likely the student is to support the 
legalization of marijuana.   
 The regression coefficient for 
Gender indicates that it is positive and 
statistically insignificant,net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, whether a 
respondent is male or female has no 
significant effect on their support for the 
legalization of marijuana.   
 The regression coefficient for Age is 
negative and statistically insignificant, net of 
all the other variables in the model,at the 
0.05 level.According to this data, how old a 
respondent is has no significant effect on 
their support for the legalization of 
marijuana.   

The regression coefficient of 
Mother’s Education is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 104 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, the more 
education a respondent’s mother received 
has no significant effect on a college 
student’s support for the legalization of 
marijuana.     

The regression coefficient 
forProtestant Respondents is negative and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, there is no 
significant difference between respondents 
that align their religious beliefs with 
Protestantism and those that align their 
beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to 
support for the legalization of marijuana.     
 The regression coefficient for 
Buddhist Respondents is negative and 
statistically significant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.01 level.  
This demonstrates that respondents that 
align their religious beliefs with Buddhism 
are less likely than those who align their 
beliefs with Catholicism to support the 
legalization of marijuana.   

The regression coefficient for 
Agnostic Respondents is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.05 level.  
According to this data, there is no significant 
difference between respondents that align 
their religious beliefs with Agnosticism and 
those that align their beliefs with 
Catholicism when it comes to support for 
the legalization of marijuana.     

Likewise, the regression coefficient 
for Atheist Respondents is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.05 level.  
According to this data, there is no significant 
difference between respondents that align 
their religious beliefs with Atheism and 
those that align their beliefs with 
Catholicism when it comes to support for 
the legalization of marijuana.     

Similarly, the regression coefficient 
for Other Denomination Respondents is 
positive and statistically insignificant, net of 
all the other variables in the model, at the 
0.05 level.  According to this data, there is 
no significant difference between 
respondents that align their religious beliefs 
with any other religious denomination and 
those that align their beliefs with 
Catholicism when it comes to support for 
the legalization of marijuana.     

The regression coefficient for 
Protestant Mothers is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.05 level.  
According to this data, there is no significant 
difference between respondents’ mothers 
that align their religious beliefs with 
Protestantism and those that align their 
beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to 
the respondent’s support for the legalization 
of marijuana.     

Contrariwise, the regression 
coefficient forBuddhist Mothers is negative 
and statistically significant, net of all the 
other variables in the model,at the 0.01 
level.This demonstrates that respondents’ 
mothers that align their religious beliefs with 
Buddhism are less likely than those who 
have mothers that align their beliefs with 
Catholicism to support the legalization of 
marijuana.   

The regression coefficient forOther 
Denomination Mothers is negative and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, there is no 
significant difference between respondents’ 
mothers that align their religious beliefs with 
any other religious denomination and those 
that align their beliefs with Catholicism 
when it comes to the respondent’s support 
for the legalization of marijuana. 

The regression coefficient for 
Republican Respondents is negative and 
statistically significant, net of all the other 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 105 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.  
This demonstrates that respondents that are 
politically affiliated with the Republican 
Party are less likely than those who affiliate 
themselves with the Democratic Party to 
support the legalization of marijuana. 

The regression coefficient 
forIndependent Respondents is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, there is no 
significant difference between respondents 
that are politically affiliated with the 
Independent Party and those that are 
politically affiliated with the Democratic 
Party when it comes to support for the 
legalization of marijuana.     

The regression coefficient for Other 
Political Affiliation Respondents is positive 
and statistically insignificant, net of all the 
other variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, there is no 
significant difference between respondents 
that are affiliated with any other political 
party and those that are politically affiliated 
with the Democratic Party when it comes to 
support for the legalization of marijuana.     

The regression coefficient 
forRepublican Mothers is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.05 level.  
According to this data, there is no significant 
difference between respondents’ mothers 
that are politically affiliated with the 
Republican Party and those that are 
politically affiliated with the Democratic 
Party when it comes to the respondent’s 
support for the legalization of marijuana.     

The regression coefficient forOther 
Political Affiliation Mothers is negative and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model, at the 0.05 level.  
According to this data, there is no significant 
difference between respondents’ mothers 
that are affiliated with any other political 
party and those that are politically affiliated 

with the Democratic Party when it comes to 
the respondent’s support for the legalization 
of marijuana.     

The regression coefficient forPast 
Marijuana Consumption is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, whether or not 
a respondent has consumed marijuana in the 
past has no significant effect on their 
support for the legalization of marijuana.     

Finally, the regression coefficient for 
Past Marijuana Consumption is positive and 
statistically insignificant, net of all the other 
variables in the model,at the 0.05 
level.According to this data, whether or not 
a respondent has the perception that a 
majority of their peers consume marijuana 
regularly has no significant effect on their 
support for the legalization of marijuana.     
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 This study theorized that attending 
college will proliferate a process of 
resocialization, specifically in the belief that 
the use of marijuana by a student or other 
students within the college environment is 
not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, 
a socially acceptable behavior.   
Accordingly, it was hypothesized that 
college students that had been re-socialized 
to perceive marijuana use as part of a 
collegiate style of life will be more likely to 
agree that smoking marijuana is socially 
acceptable and therefore support the 
legalization of marijuana.  
 To examine how the dependent 
variable (Support for the Legalization of 
Marijuana) was affected by the independent 
variable (Current College Education), a 
frequency distribution of all variables in the 
study was initially analyzed (seeTable 1 in 
the appendix). Additionally, an analysis was 
conducted utilizing Pearson’s correlation 
(Table 2).  Pearson’s correlation indicates 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 106 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

the strength and direction of a linear 
relationship between two variables; in this 
particular case, the dependent variable 
(Support for the Legalization of Marijuana) 
and an independent variable were compared 
without taking into account the potentially 
spurious relationship of the other 
independent variables in the model.  Finally, 
a multivariate regression analysis for ordinal 
dependent variables was performed on all 
the variables in the model (see table 3 in the 
appendix) to produce a more statistically 
accurate analysis of the data.   
 The multivariate regression analysis 
showed that respondents, who had received 
more college education, were more likely to 
support the legalization of marijuana.These 
findings clearly demonstrate a correlation 
between the dependent variable and key 
independent variable, supporting the 
hypothesis that attending college will 
proliferate a process of resocialization, at the 
very least, on this specific topic of support 
for the legalization of marijuana.  
Additionally, statically significant findings 
were also uncovered through the 
multivariate regression analysis.  Namely, 
Buddhism appears to be a substantial factor, 
or counteragent of resocialization, among 
college students.  Both Buddhist 
respondents, as well as those with Buddhist 
mothers, exhibited a resilience to 
resocilization when it came to their opinions 
of legalization of marijuana and their 
support for it.  This could stem from a strong 
alignment, of the respondent, with Buddhist 
ethics.  One of the specific five precepts, or 
training rules, that Buddhists believe are 
necessary in order to live a better and 
happier life, is to refrain from intoxicants 
which lead to loss of mindfulness 
(specifically, drugs and alcohol).  The very 
adherence to this rule could theoretically 
diminish any support of a Buddhist 
respondent, or one that was raised in a 
Buddhist family, for the legalization of 

marijuana.  Furthermore, Republican 
respondents also exhibited a resilience to 
resocialization when it came to their 
opinions of legalization of marijuana and 
their support for it.  This could stem from a 
strong alignment, of the respondent, to the 
Republican platform.   Republicans 
traditionally have staunchly supported 
policies against illegal drugs since the 
1980s, when President Reagan expanded the 
federal government's drug interdiction effort 
and Nancy Reagan, the first lady, led a "Just 
Say No" campaign against drugs that 
equated use with immorality.  As with 
Buddhism, the very adherence with the 
Republican platform could diminish support 
of a Republican respondent for the 
legalization of marijuana. 

As of the date that this conclusion was 
written (March 2010), the Tax & Regulate 
Cannabis 2010 campaign had achieved a 
major victory in its efforts to legalize 
marijuana for all adults in California; they 
had gathered the signatures necessary for 
inclusion on the state's November ballot.  
This indicates that, at the very least, one of 
the three predicted measures, mentioned in 
the introduction of this study, will be 
included on the California 2010 November 
ballot.  A win would mean that Californians 
would be the first in the nation to decide 
whether they believe marijuana ought be 
taxed and regulated for all adults over 21, 
much the same way alcohol is. 

The drug reform movement's eyes will 
be on California late this year because many 
advocates believe that if the initiative 
passes, many other states could follow.The 
Board of Equalization, California's tax 
regulator and the agency charged with 
collecting alcohol and tobacco taxes, 
estimates that legalizing marijuana could 
generate about $1.4 billion in tax revenue 
annually (Ammiano, 2009).Furthermore, the 
California Legislative Analyst's Office 
(LAO) published a report stating that legal 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness
http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf
http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf


RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 107 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

marijuana would free up "several tens of 
millions of dollars annually" in correctional 
and law enforcement resources, which 
would in turn, would redirect funds to more 
urgent matters (LAO, 2009).As of March 
1st, California's debt was in excess of $83.5 
billion.It is the largest borrower in the 
country, and pays 21.3 percent more interest 
on its nearly-junk-rated debt than states with 
the highest ratings.Public school systems 
and social programs are feeling the brunt of 
the debt crisis, which has even included 
closing national state parks, and the cutting 
of all California State Universities’ 
budgets.The very possibility of an influx of 
$1.4 billion could generate a sea change in 
the support of legalization among college 
students, as the implications of its 
legalization suggest a relief in the current 
economic crisis plaguing college students, 
not only in California, but across the 
country. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1423724020091214
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1423724020091214


RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 108 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

REFERENCES 
 
Ammiano. 2001. Staff Legislative Bill 
Analysis. State Board of Equalization. 

<http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab
0390-1dw.pdf> 
Beck KH, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, 

O'Grady KE, Wish ED, Arria AM.  
(2009).  The social context of cannabis 
use: Relationship to cannabis use 
disorders and depressive symptoms 
among college students.  Addictive 
Behaviors.34(9), 764-768. 

Competing Theories of Marijuana Use: A 
Longitudinal Study Author(s): Irving J.  
Ginsberg and James R.Greenley 
Source: Journal of Health and Social 
Behavior, Vol.  19, No.1 (Mar., 1978), 
pp.  22-34 Published by: American 
Sociological Association Stable URL: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136320 
Accessed: 09/10/2009 13:04 

Education and Political Party: The Effects of 
College or Social Class? Author(s): 
Terry S.  Weiner and Bruce K.Eckland 
Source: The American Journal of 
Sociology, Vol.  84, No.4 (Jan., 1979), 
pp.  911-928 Published by: The 
University of Chicago Press Stable 
URL: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778029 

Gledhill-Hoyt J; Lee, H; Strote, J and 
Wechsler H.  2000.  Increased use of 
marijuana and other 

illicit drugs at US colleges in the 
1990s: results of three national 
surveys.  Addiction 95(11):1655-1667. 

Interpersonal Relationships as Mediators of 
Structural Effects: College Student 
Socialization in a Traditional and an 
Experimental University Environment 
Author(s): William B.  Lacy Source: 
Sociology of Education, Vol.  51, No.3 
(Jul., 1978), pp.  201-211 Published 
by: American Sociological Association 
Stable URL: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112665 

Marijuana and the Politics of Reality 
Author(s): Erich Goode Source: 
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 
Vol.  10, No.2 (Jun., 1969), pp.  83-94 
Published by: American Sociological 
Association Stable URL: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2948355 
Accessed: 09/10/2009 13:07 

The California Legislative Analyst Office. 
(2009).  Retrieved March 11, 2010, 
from 
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090
512.aspx 

The Core Institute.  (2007).  Prevalence: 
Annual and 30-day prevalence of use 
of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs 
amongst college students.  Retrieved 
March 10, 2009, from 
http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778029
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112665
http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/


RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 109 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

APPENDIX 1 
 

COMPLETE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 
 
Dear CSULA Student, 
My name is Michael Bouvet and I am currently a graduate student here at CSULA in the 
Sociology program.  The issue of whether to legalize marijuana is an extremely heated topic in 
the US today.  Questions on this survey are designed to collect current data on CSULA students 
regarding the topic of marijuana legalization.  Your participation in the survey will greatly help 
improve our understanding of people’s opinion about this issue. It should take about three to five 
minutes to answer all the questions. 
 
No names are recorded guaranteeing complete anonymity.  No one outside the university 
will have access to the questionnaire you return.  You may be assured of complete 
confidentiality! 

 
 

1.  What is your gender?  
 
<1>  Female      <2>  Male 

 
 
2.  How old are you currently? ________________________ 

 
 

3.  Which of the following best indicates the level of education you are currently 
receiving?  
 
<1> Freshman<2>  Sophomore    <3>  Junior    <4>  Senior 
 
<5>  1st Yr. Grad School    <6>  2nd or more Yrs. of Grad School     
 

 
4.  Which of the following best describes the highest level of education your mother has 

received?  
 
<1>  Less than HS Degree    <2>  HS Degree    <3>  Some College  
 
<4>  College Degree              <5>  Post-College Degree     
 
 

5.  Which of the following best describes the highest level of education your father has 
received?  
 
<1>  Less than HS Degree    <2>  HS Degree    <3>  Some College  
 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 110 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

<4>  College Degree              <5>  Post-College Degree     
 
 

6.  With what religion do you most closely align your beliefs with?  
 
<1>  Catholicism     <2>  Protestantism     <3>  Buddhism     <4>  Judaism      
 
<5>  Islam               <6>  Hinduism     <7> Agnosticism <8>  Atheism                 
 
<9> Other (please specify):________________________ 
 
 

7.  With what religion does your mother most closely align her beliefs with?  
 
<1>  Catholicism     <2>  Protestantism     <3>  Buddhism     <4>  Judaism      
 
<5>  Islam               <6>  Hinduism     <7> Agnosticism <8>  Atheism                 
 
<9> Other (please specify):________________________ 
 
 

8.  With what religion does your father most closely align his beliefs with?  
 
<1>  Catholicism     <2>  Protestantism     <3>  Buddhism     <4>  Judaism      
 
<5>  Islam               <6>  Hinduism     <7> Agnosticism <8>  Atheism                 
 
<9> Other (please specify):________________________ 
 

 
9.  What is your political affiliation?  

 
<1>  Democrat     <2>  Republican     <3>  Libertarian     <4>  Independent 
 
<5> Other (please specify):________________________ 
 
 

10.  What is your mother’s political affiliation?  
 
<1>  Democrat     <2>  Republican     <3>  Libertarian     <4>  Independent 
 
<5> Other (please specify):________________________           <6>  Don’t Know 
 
 
 
 
 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 111 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

11. What is your father’s political affiliation?  
 
<1>  Democrat     <2>  Republican     <3>  Libertarian     <4>  Independent 
 
<5> Other (please specify):________________________           <6>  Don’t Know 
 

 
12. How much do you support or oppose the idea of legalizing marijuana in California?  

 
<1>  Strongly Support     <2>  Support     <3> Neither Support nor Oppose     
 
<4>  Oppose<5>  Strongly Oppose    
 
 

13. At any point in your life, previous to entering college, did you believe that consuming 
marijuana was wrong?  
 
<1>  Yes            <2>  No             
 
 

14. Since entering college, has your perception of marijuana and the consumption of it 
changed at all?  
 
<1>  Yes            <2>  No 

 
15. Have you ever consumed marijuana (in any form) in your life?  

 
<1>  Yes            <2>  No 
 
 

16.  Do you believe that a majority of your college peers use marijuana?  
 
<1>  Yes            <2> No            <3>  Don’t Know 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 112 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE DV AND THE KEY IV 
Graph 1: Dependent Variable 

 
 
Graph 2: Key Independent Variable 

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Current College Education

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

1st Yr. Grad School

2nd Yr. or more of Grad School



R
E

SO
C

IA
L

IZ
A

T
IO

N
 I

N
 S

T
U

D
E

N
T

S 
T

O
W

A
R

D
 M

A
R

IJ
U

A
N

A
 b

y 
M

ic
ha

el
 B

ou
ve

t 
11

3 
 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA

 S
O
C
IO

L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS

U
E
 1
: 9
2-
11
6)
 

A
P
P
E
N
D
IX

 
T
ab
le
 1
:S
ur
ve
y 
Q
ue
st
io
ns
 a
nd

 D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
 S
ta
ti
st
ic
s 
of
 V
ar
ia
bl
es
 U
se
d 
in
 th

e 
A
na
ly
si
s 

 

V
ar
ia
bl
e 

Su
rv
ey
 Q
ue
st
io
ns
 U
se
d 

R
es
po
ns
e 
C
at
eg
or
ie
s 

F
re
qu

en
cy
 

M
ea
n 

S.
 D
. 

Su
pp

or
t 

L
eg

al
iz

at
io

n 
H

ow
 m

uc
h 

do
 y

ou
 s

up
po

rt
 o

r o
pp

os
e 

th
e 

id
ea

 o
f 

le
ga

liz
in

g 
m

ar
iju

an
a 

in
 C

al
if

or
ni

a?
 

1 
= 

O
pp

os
e 

2 
= 

N
ei

th
er

 S
up

po
rt

 n
or

 O
pp

os
e 

3 
= 

Su
pp

or
t 

44
 

77
 

99
 

(2
0%

) 
(3

5%
) 

(4
5%

) 

2.
25

 
0.

76
8 

C
ur

re
nt

 C
ol

le
ge

 
E

du
ca

tio
n 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 in

di
ca

te
s 

th
e 

le
ve

l o
f 

ed
uc

at
io

n 
yo

u 
ar

e 
cu

rr
en

tly
 re

ce
iv

in
g?

 
1 

= 
Fr

es
hm

an
 

2 
= 

So
ph

om
or

e 
3 

= 
Ju

ni
or

 
4 

= 
Se

ni
or

 
5 

= 
1st

 Y
r. 

G
ra

d 
Sc

ho
ol

 
6 

= 
2nd

 o
r m

or
e 

Y
rs

. o
f G

ra
d 

Sc
ho

ol
 

21
 

51
 

68
 

62
 

15
 

3 

(9
.5

%
) 

(2
3.

2%
) 

(3
0.

9%
) 

(2
8.

2%
) 

(6
.8

%
) 

(1
.4

%
) 

3.
04

 
1.

14
 

G
en

de
r 

W
ha

t i
s 

yo
ur

 g
en

de
r?

 
1 

= 
M

al
e 

2 
= 

Fe
m

al
e 

74
 

14
6 

(3
3.

6%
) 

(6
6.

4%
) 

1.
34

 
0.

47
4 

A
ge

 
H

ow
 o

ld
 a

re
 y

ou
 c

ur
re

nt
ly

? 
 

 
 

22
.6

6 
5.

36
 

M
ot

he
r’

s 
E

du
ca

tio
n 

W
hi

ch
 o

f t
he

 fo
llo

w
in

g 
be

st
 d

es
cr

ib
es

 th
e 

hi
gh

es
t 

le
ve

l o
f e

du
ca

tio
n 

yo
ur

 m
ot

he
r h

as
 re

ce
iv

ed
? 

1 
= 

L
es

s 
th

an
 H

S 
D

eg
re

e 
2 

= 
H

S 
D

eg
re

e 
3 

= 
So

m
e 

C
ol

le
ge

 
4 

= 
C

ol
le

ge
 D

eg
re

e 
5 

= 
Po

st
-C

ol
le

ge
 D

eg
re

e 

82
 

49
 

42
 

36
 

11
 

(3
7.

3%
) 

(2
2.

3%
) 

(1
9.

1%
) 

(1
6.

4%
) 

(5
.0

%
) 

2.
30

 
1.

26
 

Pr
ot

es
ta

nt
 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
W

ith
 w

ha
t r

el
ig

io
n 

do
 y

ou
 m

os
t c

lo
se

ly
 a

lig
n 

yo
ur

 b
el

ie
fs

 w
ith

? 
 (p

le
as

e 
sp

ec
if

y 
yo

ur
 

de
no

m
in

at
io

n)
 

 [R
ef

er
en

ce
 G

ro
up

 =
 C

at
ho

lic
s]

 

0 
= 

N
ot

 P
ro

te
st

an
t 

1 
= 

Pr
ot

es
ta

nt
 

20
0 

20
 

(9
0.

9%
) 

(9
.1

%
) 

0.
9 

0.
28

8 

B
ud

dh
is

t 
R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 B
ud

dh
is

t 
1 

= 
B

ud
dh

is
t 

20
2 

18
 

(9
1.

8%
) 

(8
.2

%
) 

0.
8 

0.
27

5 

A
gn

os
tic

 
R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 A
gn

os
tic

 
1 

= 
A

gn
os

tic
 

20
6 

14
 

(9
3.

6%
) 

(6
.4

%
) 

0.
06

 
0.

24
5 

A
th

ei
st

 
R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 A
th

ei
st

 
1 

= 
A

th
ei

st
 

20
5 

15
 

(9
3.

2%
) 

(6
.8

%
) 

0.
07

 
0.

25
3 

O
th

er
 

D
en

om
in

at
io

n 
 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 

0 
= 

N
ot

 O
th

er
 D

en
om

in
at

io
n 

1 
= 

O
th

er
 D

en
om

in
at

io
n 

17
1 

49
 

(7
7.

7%
) 

(2
2.

3%
) 

0.
22

 
0.

41
7 



R
E

SO
C

IA
L

IZ
A

T
IO

N
 I

N
 S

T
U

D
E

N
T

S 
T

O
W

A
R

D
 M

A
R

IJ
U

A
N

A
 b

y 
M

ic
ha

el
 B

ou
ve

t 
11

4 
 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA

 S
O
C
IO

L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS

U
E
 1
: 9
2-
11
6)
 

   

Pr
ot

es
ta

nt
 

M
ot

he
rs

 
W

ith
 w

ha
t r

el
ig

io
n 

do
es

 y
ou

r m
ot

he
r m

os
t 

cl
os

el
y 

al
ig

n 
he

r b
el

ie
fs

 w
ith

? 
 (p

le
as

e 
sp

ec
if

y 
yo

ur
 d

en
om

in
at

io
n)

 
 [R

ef
er

en
ce

 G
ro

up
 =

 C
at

ho
lic

s]
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 P
ro

te
st

an
t 

1 
= 

Pr
ot

es
ta

nt
 

19
3 

27
 

(8
7.

7%
) 

(1
2.

3%
) 

0.
12

 
0.

32
9 

B
ud

dh
is

t 
M

ot
he

rs
 

0 
= 

N
ot

 B
ud

dh
is

t 
1 

= 
B

ud
dh

is
t 

19
6 

24
 

(8
9.

1%
) 

(1
0.

9%
) 

0.
11

 
0.

31
2 

O
th

er
 

D
en

om
in

at
io

n 
 

M
ot

he
rs

 

0 
= 

N
ot

 O
th

er
 D

en
om

in
at

io
n 

1 
= 

O
th

er
 D

en
om

in
at

io
n 

17
5 

45
 

(7
9.

5%
) 

(2
0.

5%
) 

0.
20

 
0.

40
4 

R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
W

ha
t i

s 
yo

ur
 p

ol
iti

ca
l a

ff
ili

at
io

n?
 

 [R
ef

er
en

ce
 G

ro
up

 =
 D

em
oc

ra
ts

] 

0 
= 

N
ot

 R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

1 
= 

R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

19
4 

26
 

(8
8.

2%
) 

(1
1.

8%
) 

0.
12

 
0.

32
4 

In
de

pe
nd

en
t 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
0 

= 
N

ot
 In

de
pe

nd
en

t 
1 

= 
In

de
pe

nd
en

t 
19

0 
30

 
(8

6.
4%

) 
(1

3.
6%

) 
0.

14
 

0.
34

4 

O
th

er
 P

ol
iti

ca
l 

A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 

0 
= 

N
ot

 O
th

er
 

1 
= 

O
th

er
 

19
9 

21
 

(9
0.

5%
) 

(9
.5

%
) 

0.
10

 
0.

29
5 

R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

M
ot

he
rs

 
W

ha
t i

s 
yo

ur
 m

ot
he

r’
s 

po
lit

ic
al

 a
ff

ili
at

io
n?

 
 [R

ef
er

en
ce

 G
ro

up
 =

 D
em

oc
ra

ts
] 

0 
= 

N
ot

 R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

1 
= 

R
ep

ub
lic

an
 

14
0 

28
 

(8
3.

3%
) 

(1
6.

7%
) 

0.
17

 
0.

37
4 

O
th

er
 P

ol
iti

ca
l 

A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

M
ot

he
rs

 

0 
= 

N
ot

 O
th

er
 

1 
= 

O
th

er
 

15
4 

14
 

(9
1.

7%
) 

(8
.3

%
) 

0.
08

 
0.

27
7 

Pa
st

 M
ar

iju
an

a 
C

on
su

m
pt

io
n 

H
av

e 
yo

u 
ev

er
 c

on
su

m
ed

 m
ar

iju
an

a 
(i

n 
an

y 
fo

rm
) i

n 
yo

ur
 li

fe
? 

1 
= 

N
o 

2 
= 

Y
es

 
10

9 
11

1 
(4

9.
5%

) 
(5

0.
5%

) 
1.

50
 

0.
50

1 

Pe
rc

ep
tio

n 
of

 
Pe

er
 

C
on

su
m

pt
io

n 

D
o 

yo
u 

be
lie

ve
 th

at
 a

 m
aj

or
ity

 o
f 

yo
ur

 c
ol

le
ge

 
pe

er
s 

us
e 

m
ar

iju
an

a?
 

1 
= 

N
o 

2 
= 

Y
es

 
32

 
11

8 
(2

1.
3%

) 
(7

8.
7%

) 
1.

79
 

.4
11

 

  



R
E

SO
C

IA
L

IZ
A

T
IO

N
 I

N
 S

T
U

D
E

N
T

S 
T

O
W

A
R

D
 M

A
R

IJ
U

A
N

A
 b

y 
M

ic
ha

el
 B

ou
ve

t 
11

5 
 

C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA

 S
O
C
IO

L
O
G
Y
 J
O
U
R
N
A
L
, 2
01
1,
 V
O
L
. 3
 (I
SS

U
E
 1
: 9
2-
11
6)
 

T
ab
le
 2
:P
ea
rs
on
’s
 C
or
re
la
ti
on
 C
oe
ff
ic
ie
nt
s 
of
 V
ar
ia
bl
es
 U
se
d 
in
 th

e 
A
na
ly
si
s 
1 

(a
) 

(b
) 

(c
) 

(d
) 

(e
) 

(f
) 

(g
) 

(h
) 

(i
) 

(j
) 

(k
) 

(l)
 

(m
) 

(n
) 

(o
) 

(p
) 

(q
) 

(r
) 

(s
) 

(t
) 

(a
) S

up
po

rt 
Le

ga
liz

at
io

n 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(b
) C

ur
re

nt
 C

ol
le

ge
 E

du
ca

tio
n 

0.
23
 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(c
) G

en
de

r 
-0

.1
2 

-0
.0

8 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(d
) A

ge
 

0.
11

 
0.
49
 

-0
.1

2 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(e
) M

ot
he

r's
 E

du
ca

tio
n 

0.
06

 
-0

.0
3 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.0
2 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(f
) P

ro
te

st
an

t R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
0.

04
 

-0
.0

4 
-0

.0
4 

0.
06

 
0.

13
 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(g
) B

ud
dh

is
t R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

-0
.0

3 
-0

.0
8 

0.
00

 
-0

.0
8 

-0
.0

8 
-0

.0
9 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(h
) A

gn
os

tic
 R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0.
01

 
0.

12
 

0.
11

 
-0

.0
1 

-0
.0

2 
-0

.0
8 

-0
.0

8 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(i
) A

th
ei

st
 R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0.
10

 
0.

10
 

-0
.1
9 

-0
.0

3 
0.

08
 

-0
.0

9 
-0

.0
8 

-0
.0

7 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(j
) O

th
er

 D
en

om
in

at
io

n 
R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0.
02

 
0.

06
 

-0
.0

1 
0.

11
 

0.
14
 

-0
.1
7 

-0
.1
6 

-0
.1
4 

-0
.1
5 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(k
) P

ro
te

st
an

t M
ot

he
rs

 
0.

11
 

0.
02

 
-0

.0
6 

0.
10

 
0.

09
 

0.
75
 

-0
.1

1 
-0

.0
4 

0.
06

 
-0

.0
7 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(l)
 B

ud
dh

is
t M

ot
he

rs
 

-0
.0

2 
-0

.0
8 

0.
00

 
-0

.0
7 

-0
.0

8 
-0

.1
1 

0.
85
 

-0
.0

3 
-0

.0
4 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.1
3 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

(m
) O

th
er

 D
en

om
in

at
io

n 
M

ot
he

rs
 

-0
.0

8 
-0

.0
1 

0.
05

 
0.

01
 

0.
21
 

-0
.1

2 
-0
.1
5 

0.
10

 
0.

00
 

0.
65
 

-0
.1
9 

-0
.1
8 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(n
) R

ep
ub

lic
an

 R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
-0
.1
8 

-0
.1
4 

-0
.0

7 
-0

.0
8 

0.
07

 
0.

13
 

0.
04

 
-0

.1
0 

0.
01

 
-0

.0
6 

0.
08

 
0.

10
 

-0
.0

1 
1.

00
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(o
) I

nd
ep

en
de

nt
 R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 

0.
11

 
-0

.0
5 

-0
.0

3 
-0

.0
5 

0.
10

 
0.

01
 

-0
.0

2 
0.
17
 

0.
10

 
0.

04
 

-0
.0

3 
-0

.0
5 

0.
09

 
-0
.1
5 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 
 

(p
) O

th
er

 P
ol

iti
ca

l A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 
0.

12
 

0.
06

 
-0

.0
3 

-0
.0

3 
0.
13
 

-0
.0

5 
-0

.0
4 

0.
11

 
0.

03
 

0.
24
 

0.
07

 
-0

.0
6 

0.
26
 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.1
3 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

 

(q
) R

ep
ub

lic
an

 M
ot

he
rs

 
-0

.1
2 

-0
.2
1 

0.
00

 
-0

.1
3 

0.
22
 

0.
25
 

0.
05

 
-0

.0
5 

0.
04

 
-0

.0
5 

0.
14

 
0.

08
 

0.
01

 
0.
63
 

0.
12

 
-0

.0
6 

1.
00

 
 

 
 

(r
) O

th
er

 P
ol

iti
ca

l A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

M
ot

he
rs

 
0.

06
 

0.
08

 
-0

.0
2 

0.
13

 
-0

.0
4 

-0
.0

9 
0.
15
 

0.
01

 
-0

.0
7 

0.
25
 

-0
.0

4 
0.

13
 

0.
22
 

-0
.1

1 
0.
28
 

0.
33
 

-0
.1

3 
1.

00
 

 
 

(s
) P

as
t M

ar
iju

an
a 

C
on

su
m

pt
io

n 
0.
36
 

0.
24
 

-0
.1
9 

0.
14
 

0.
08

 
0.

00
 

-0
.1
4 

0.
07

 
0.

09
 

-0
.0

2 
0.

07
 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.1
1 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.0
3 

0.
04

 
-0
.1
7 

-0
.0

1 
1.

00
 

 

(t
) P

er
ce

pt
io

n 
of

 P
ee

r C
on

su
m

pt
io

n 
0.

03
 

-0
.2
3 

0.
28
 

-0
.1

2 
-0

.0
3 

0.
02

 
0.

15
 

0.
05

 
-0
.2
3 

-0
.0

7 
0.

01
 

0.
06

 
0.

01
 

0.
04

 
0.

03
 

0.
09

 
0.

07
 

-0
.0

3 
-0

.1
4 

1.
00

 

C
or
re
la
ti
on
 is
 s
ig
ni
fi
ca
nt
 a
t t
he
 0
.0
1 
le
ve
l (
2-
ta
ile
d)
. 

C
or
re
la
ti
on
 is
 s
ig
ni
fi
ca
nt
 a
t t
he
 0
.0
5 
le
ve
l (
2-
ta
ile
d)
. 

1 
Pe

ar
so

n’
s 

co
rr

el
at

io
n 

co
ef

fi
ci

en
t i

s 
m

ea
ni

ng
le

ss
 f

or
 m

ul
tin

om
in

al
 v

ar
ia

bl
es

 s
uc

h 
as

 o
ur

 re
lig

io
us

 a
ff

ili
at

io
n 

ty
pe

s.
  A

cc
or

di
ng

ly
, I

 re
co

de
d 

th
es

e 
va

ri
ab

le
s 

in
to

 fo
ur

 d
ic

ho
to

m
ou

s 
va

ri
ab

le
s 

(e
.g

. P
ro

te
st

an
t R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 is

 1
 if

 a
 re

sp
on

de
nt

 is
 a

 P
ro

te
st

an
t a

nd
 0

 o
th

er
w

is
e)

.  
I u

se
 th

es
e 

di
ch

ot
om

ou
s 

ve
rs

io
ns

 o
f t

he
 R

el
ig

io
us

 A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

an
d 

Po
lit

ic
al

 A
ff

ili
at

io
n 

ty
pe

s 
va

ri
ab

le
s 

in
 th

is
 b

iv
ar

ia
te

 c
or

re
la

tio
n.



RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 116 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 

Table 3:Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for the Legalization of Marijuana on Selected Variables 

Independent Variables Regression 
Coefficients Standard Error (s.e.) 

Intercept 1 1.465 (1.760) 

Intercept 2 3.346 (1.782) 

Current College Education .584 (.229) 

Gender .070 (.436) 

Age -.049 (.042) 

Mother's Education .141 (.171) 

Protestant Respondents -1.404 (1.758) 

Buddhist Respondents -20.463 (.964) 

Agnostic Respondents .427 (1.000) 

Atheist Respondents .859 (.999) 

Other Denomination Respondents .232 (.788) 

Protestant Mothers 2.013 (1.734) 

Buddhist Mothers -20.778 (.727) 

Other Denomination Mothers -.639 (.761) 

Republican Respondents -2.559 (.895) 

Independent Respondents .060 (.790) 

Other Political Affiliation Respondents 1.118 (1.010) 

Republican Mothers .612 (.849) 

Other Political Affiliation Mothers -.065 (.975) 

Past Marijuana Consumption .631 (.423) 

Perception of Peer Consumption .606 (.515) 

Likelihood Ratio chi-square 37.512 

Nagelkerke R-square .321 

Score test for Parallel Regression 
Lines 25.002 

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 


