Sing a Song of Drug Use-Abuse:Four Decades of Drug

Lyrics in Popular Music-From the Sixties through the

Nineties

John Markert, Cumberland University

Songs dealing with illegal drugs have long dotted popular music. It was not until
the aftermath of the sixties youth counterculture, however, that drug lyrics became a re-
tuning musical motif. In the decades since, the lyrical treatment of drugs has undergone
change. Heroin and cocaine have largely, though not exclusively, been treated antago-
nistically, with the animosity toward cocaine becoming more pronounced after crack co-
caine was introduced in the mid-1980s. Marijuana, on the other hand, has generally been
perceived as innocuous, if not positively assessed, and this treatment has crossed the
decades into the nineties. In more recent years, however, the positive assessment of mar-
ijuana has undergone change, with younger musicians more likely to decry the harm that
drugs do than older musicians do. This prosocial aspect of contemporary popular music
has been largely ignored.

Romantic themes have dominated American popular music throughout the

twentieth century. Nevertheless, there is a multiplicity of thematic variations.
Cooper and Haney (1995, 1997) in their two-volume compilation of rock
music have identified more than forty nonromantic themes, ranging from an
obsession with trains and cars to critiques on war. Many of these themes are
rooted in specific social periods. Trains captured the imagination of lyricists
during the Depression-era 1930s, and songs tended to reflect concerns about
unemployment and encouraged people to uproot themselves in search of jobs
(Cooper and Haney 1997, pp. 233-48; see also Carpenter 1972; McPherson
and Williams 1976). The car replaced the train as a popular form of trans-
portation in the affluent post-World War I1 period, and songs in the mid-1950s
through the mid-1960s lionized teenage use of the automobile (Cooper and
Haney 1997, pp. 2 9 4 2 ; see also Blair and McParland 1990). That songs
reflect shifting social attitudes is seen clearly in lyrical treatment of war: the
American fighting spirit was lauded in fight songs of World War I and 11, but
the lyrics changed during the Vietnam war to reflect and reinforce an anti-war
mentality (Cooper and Haney 1997, pp. 32345; see also Hibbard and
Kaleialoha 1983; Denselow 1990). One nonromantic lyrical variation that has
not been appraised is drugs, though alcohol has been explored in some detail
(Connors and Alpher 1989; DuRant and Rome 1997; Stack 1992; Herd 1993;

Sociofogical Inquiv, Vol. 71, No. 2, Spring 2001, 194-220

82001 by the University of Texas Press, PO.Box 7819, Austin,TX 78713-7819
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 195

DiMaggio, Peterson, and Esco 1972, pp. 38-57). Songs dealing with illegal
drugs present an interesting lyrical connection to society. They have dotted
popular music at least since Fats Waller dreamed about getting high on a
five-foot-long marijuana cigarette in “Viper’s Drag” (193 1) and Cab Calloway
released “Reefer Man” (1932). It was not until the aftermath of the sixties
youth counterculture, however, that drug lyrics became a recurring musical
motif (Chambers 1996; Kaiser 1988; Robinson et al. 1978; see also Motti
1994). In the decades since, the lyrical treatment of drugs has varied. Heroin
and cocaine have largely, though not exclusively, been treated antagonistically,
with the animosity toward cocaine becoming more pronounced after crack
cocaine was introduced in the mid-1980s. Marijuana, on the other hand, has
generally been perceived as innocuous, if not positively assessed, and this
treatment has crossed the decades into the nineties, though some recent
thematic variations are noticeable today.
There has been a lot of critical attention aimed at lyrics that espouse deviant
social behavior. Tipper Gore launched Parents’ Music Resource Center and began
her successful campaign to have music lyrics labeled after discovering the one
about masturbation on Prince’s 1984 album, Purple Rain (DeCurtis 1992, p. 6;
Hersch 1987). The angst of punk and heavy metal music of the 1970s and 1980s
has been vehemently decried because of its antisocial themes, urging listeners to
defy authority and break the norms and rules of society (Arnett 1996; Weinstein
1991; Walser 1993; Fuchs 1998; Hebdige 1979; Laing 1985). More recently rap,
especially gangsta rap, has been singled out for its advocacy of violence and
misogyny (Barongan and Hall 1995; Sommers-Flanegan 1993; Suggs 1994;
Hansen and Hansen 1990; Trzcinski 1994; Lloyd 1994; “Does Censorship . . .”
1994). Despite this concern about deviant lyrics, there has been relatively little
attention to the nearly four decades of lyrics dealing with drugs.
Critical attention to lyrical content is typically based on one of two
intellectual traditions: (1) music is popular because it reflects the values and
beliefs of those who consume it, or (2) music is didactic and acts as a socializ-
ing agent by teaching behavior.
Proponents of Reflection Theory examine cultural forms such as music
lyrics to gain insight into social beliefs. Here music is used to probe the connec-
tion between society and culture (Weber 1994, p. 338). The concern about death
and dying found in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music is related to the
harsh conditions of life during that period (Tawa 1995). The specific songs
selected for inclusion in The Little Red Songbook used by the International
Workers of the World in the early twentieth century are seen to reflect the work-
ers’ grievances toward management (Brazier 1972). The popular attention given
to more contemporary music styles, such as punk, heavy metal, and rap, some
critics view as “horse’s mouth access” to the mood of segments of America’s
196 JOHN MARKERT

youth (Costello and Wallace 1990, p. 33; see also Nehring 1997; Weber 1994).
Proponents of this intellectual tradition see the audience consuming with a
critical eye, selecting songs because the theme(s) relate to them and their world
(Nehring 1997, p. xiv; Weber 1994, p. 338). Reflection Theory is a rather passive
view of media’s effect that holds, according to Herbert Gans (1966, p. 562), “the
prime function of the media is to reinforce already existing behavior and
attitudes rather than create them.”
The concern by those at the other end of the intellectual tradition is that
song lyrics may teach inappropriate social behavior. Mathew Arnold laid the
foundation for this perspective in the last century, and his initial assessment
continues to remain popular (Storey 1998, p. 22; Strinati 1995, p. 23). The
Arnoldian perspective essentially argues that high art edifies while low art is
socially disruptive, catering as it does to the less educated (working-class)
masses who are, according to Arnold, “raw and half-developed” and therefore
easily influenced to mimic socially unacceptable forms of behavior (Storey 1998,
p. 24). This viewpoint lies behind many contemporary attacks against deviant
music lyrics. It has gained renewed vigor because music is the primary enter-
tainment form consumed by young people, and they are at an impressionable age
(Kuskye and Larson 1990; Dorr 1980; Adams-Price and Greene 1990). Youth’s
impressionability is considered to have increased in recent decades as other
agents of socialization-the family, church, school-have weakened (Fryxell
1998; Skolnick 1991). Feminist scholars, in particular, have been vigorous in
denouncing a lot of contemporary popular music because it teaches sexist
behavior to young men (and women) who are at a particularly vulnerable age
(McRobbie 1991; Skeggs 1995; Walby 1990; Tong 1992).
This analysis of popular music draws on and finds support for both theoret-
ical perspectives. In other words, music is recursive: drug use, social context,
and song lyrics are interconnected and each interacts with and influences the
others. Drug lyrics are often rooted in a specific time frame and/or social group
and tend to reflect the values of that group. One reason people select songs is
because the themes relate to them and their social world (see Nehring 1992;
Weber 1994). In turn, the songs act as a socializing agent by suggesting how the
listeners should interpret their social world. This is seen very clearly in songs
that deal with cocaine, which have changed dramatically as the problems associ-
ated with the drug became evident. This is particularly true with crack, and rap
music not only reflects this awareness but also vehemently promotes crack
abstinence. Music reflects the change in attitudes toward crack, but it is also
blatantly didactic by decrying the harm that crack cocaine does, signaling to its
young listeners the “uncoolness” of using this drug. This prosocial aspect of
contemporary popular music has been largely ignored, yet it is a dominant theme
in popular music today, though this has not always been the case.
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 197

Methodology
A number of sources were utilized to obtain information on song lyrics. The
primary source was International Lyrics Network and the on-line AMG Guide to
music: 50 percent of the songs were identified using these sources.’ The first
Internet provider allowed for a song search by subject, the second by title. The
primary subjecdtitle search used the following categories: marijuana, smoking
dope/weedreefer, LSD andor acid, heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine. The
International Lyrics Server was another source, as was The Green Book of Songs
by Subject: The Thematic Guide to Popular Music, 4th edition (1995), and they
provided approximately 25 percent of the lyrics. Excluded from any search were
drug variation categories, such as addiction, getting high, and crack, because
these terms also have other connotations-for example, addicted to love, high on
life, and so forth. The identified lyrics are, then, highly specific and are consid-
ered an undercount of songs that refer to drug use. Songs such as the Beatles’
“I’ll get high with a little help from my friends,” that appears on the psychedelic
Sgt. Pepper 5 album (1967) and is widely considered to refer to drugs, is not in-
cluded in this analysis because it does not mention any specific drug. A third
source of lyrical information, and one that produced the remaining 25 percent of
the songs analyzed, came from my students and my own knowledge of song
lyrics. All songs were personally screened to ensure that (1) a specific illegal
substance was mentioned and (2) duplications were eliminated. In this regard,
only the initial song was counted, despite the fact that some songs, like Lou
Reed’s “Heroin” and Eric Clapton’s initial release of J. J. Cale’s “Cocaine,” have
been widely copied by other artists. The songs were then dated and their lyrics
contextually analyzed to appraise the positive or negative assessment of the drug.
As illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, 808 songs were identified in the aftermath
of the counterculture revolution of the 1960s. The songs were contextually
analyzed to assess how the drug was treated. The lyrics of 21 songs could not be
identified and were therefore discarded, providing a lyrical database of 784
songs. Thirty-six of these songs referred to poly-drug use; almost all of these
were from songs that appeared in the 1990s. The remaining 75 1 songs tended to
focus on a particular drug, even though some of these mentioned another drug.
These songs were classified under the primary drug dealt with in the lyrics and
were not cross-classified. The songs were judged according to whether the song
praised the drug or damned it, whether it was viewed positively for enhancing
one’s well-being or negatively by destroying one’s mind andor body. This was
relatively straightforward as the adjectives used to describe the drug seldom
equivocated in the assessment of the merits or demerits of the drug in question.
The songs were then sorted into time periods to assess any change over
time. The body of the paper discusses the changes in the lyrics and how they
 Table 1
Drug Songs by Category
(1960-1 998)
~~ -~~~~~

Heroin Cocaine LSD Marijuana Multi-Drugs

107 204 172 268 33

n = 784

Table 2
Treatment of Drugs in Musical Lyrics: 1960-1 998

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Pro Con Pro Con Pro Con Pro Con

Heroin
0 100% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%
(n = 12) (n = 17) (n = 25) (n = 53)
Hallucinogens
0 0 71% 29% 32% 68% 4% 96%
(n = 0) (n = 7) (n = 25) (n = 140)
Cocaine
100% 0 24% 76% 18% 82% 11% 89%
(n = 9) (n = 29) (n = 66) (n = 100)
Marijuana
100% 0 82% 18% 74% 26% 48% 52%
(n = 27) (n = 73) (n = 62) (n = 106)

*Multi-drug lyrics begin to appear in the late 1980s; they all negatively assess
the drug experience.
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 199

relate to the different social environments. Portions of the lyrics from some of
the songs analyzed are used in the various sections of this paper to illustrate
songs of the period or to convey the attitudes of the songs toward the drug.
The Cultural Roots of Drug Lyrics
Authorities debate the exact dates of the youth movement, and even the
label “youth movement” is a point of contention. Some other labels include the
hippie culture, acid generation, Woodstock nation, and the sexual revolution.
Some authorities place its antecedents in the fifties, while others contend that the
youth movement existed well into the 1970s. The consensus, however, is gener-
ally accorded the span between 1963 or 1964 to 1973. This period is marked by
the formation of the Students for a Democratic Society in 1963 and the initiation
of the free speech movement at Berkeley in 1964. The movement waned about
the time of the Kent State incident in 1970 and completely lost it momentum
when the Vietnam War (its major cohesive element) ended in January 1973
(Markert 1979, p. 486). The period 1963-1973 was marked by a number of
events. Rebellion toward traditional mores pervaded the youth subculture and
manifested itself with freedom from sexual constraint, the adoption of atypical
dress standards, speech patterns and grooming habits, new musical styies, and,
of course, drug usage (Markert 1979). Indeed, the connection between drugs and
rock music is considered by commentaries on the sixties as the single most
unifying characteristic of the youth subculture (Miller 1991; Farrell 1997;
Plasketes 1989; Robinson et al. 1978). But not all drugs were included in the
hippie drug cornucopia. Dope was unequivocally good, but drugs were more
problematic (Miller 1991, p. 25). In this latter category fell Establishment-used
substances, such as amphetamines and barbiturates, and opiates, such as heroin
(Farrell 1997, p. 212). Steppenwolf (“The Pusher” [Steppenwolf, 19681) perhaps
best makes the distinction between dope and drugs:
You know the dealer
The dealer is a man with love grass in his hand
Ah, but the pusher is a monster
That, God, he’s not a natural man. The dealer for a nickel
Oh, he’ll sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher’ll ruin your body
Lord, he’ll leave your mind to scream. God damn the pusher
God damn the pusher-man.

Dope included marijuana and LSD because adherents of the sixties youth sub-
culture viewed it as expanding one’s mind. Steppenwolf’s pusher sold hard
drugs, and hard drugs such as heroin could destroy you; this is the one constant
that spans all four decades and provides an ideal place to begin the analysis.
200 JOHNMARKERT

Heroin
Just over 100 songs dealing specifically with heroin were identified. Though
there were a few songs about heroin in the 1960s, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed
a modest increase in songs depicting heroin involvement; however, over one-half
of the songs about heroin are rooted to the 1990s. The dramatic changes in the
social world in four decades have not altered society’s assessment of heroin. All
the songs are unequivocal in assessing heroin’s effect.

I hit the city and I lost my band

I watched the needle take another man
Gone. The damage done.
Neil Young, “The Needle and the Damage Done” (Harvest, 1972)

Spin me round, roll me over, fuckin’ circus

Stab it down, one way needle, pulled so slowly
Drains and spills, soaks the pages, fills their sponges
It’s my blood
It’s my blood
Pearl Jam, “Blood” (Vs, 1993)

And it was never enough

And it was never enough
That heroin stuff
Traveling through Daddy’s arm
Cuffed in that junk who knows if I would survive
Once you start shooting, forget living life
Lost in your shadows, no soul, no backbone
Sucked in, locked down, spinning breakdown, heroin whores . . .
Life of Agony, “Heroin Dreams” (SouI Searching Sun, 1997)

This concern about the destructive addictive effect of heroin use is under-
standable, even if heroin is not a widely used drug. Regular use (past 30 days)
has never exceeded one-tenth of 1% of the population (Miller 1997), and annual
use remains at less than 1% of the population (Goode 1999, p. 3 17; Akers 1992,
p. 94; Avis 1999, p. 152). Extremely small fractions of people have a heroin
habit. The concern about heroin, then, does not reflect use. It does, however,
reflect society’s fears. This fear of heroin is certainly legitimate among young
people who may already be involved with drugs. Research supports the concept
that drug use may beget further drug use. Young people who smoke illegally are
more likely to drink illegally, and young people who drink are more likely to use
marijuana. While marijuana use does not necessarily lead to further drug exper-
imentation, the willingness to try marijuana increases the willingness to use
other, more dangerous, drugs (Goode 1999, pp. 227-31; Hamdi 1998, p. 51; Avis
1999, p. 103; Akers 1992, pp. 82-83; Pinger et al. 1998, pp. 29-30). This risk is
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 201

acknowledged in recent song lyrics: “Now, George was a good straight boy to
begin with, but there was bad blood in him; some way he got into the magic
bullets and that leads straight to Devil’s work, just like marijuana leads to
heroin” (Tom Waits, “Crossroads,” [Black Rider, 19931). The intensity of the
lyrics dealing with heroin also appears to have undergone a change-they more
dramatically foreshadow the harm caused by heroin use. The excerpt from
Lynyrd Skynryds 1974 song, much like the popular and often replayed “That
Smell” from Street Survivors (1977), straightforwardly depicts the deadly conse-
quences of heroin use, but more recent songs, such as the excerpts from Guns ’N
Roses and Wasted Youth’s songs, portray not just death but the decaying personal
and social destruction wrought by heroin.

Thirty days, Lord, and thirty nights

I’m comin’ home on an airplane flight
Mama waiting at the ticket line
Tell me, son, why do you stand there cryin’?
It was the needle and the spoon and a trip to the moon
Took me away.
I been feeling so sick inside
Got to get better, Lord, before I die
Sudden darkness couldn’t help my head
Said, “You better quit, Son, before you’re dead.”
Lynyrd Skynryd, “The Needle and the Spoon” (SecondHelping, 1974)

Your daddy works in porno

Now that mommy’s not around
She used to love her heroin
But now she’s underground
Guns ’N Roses, “My Michelle” (Appetitefor Destruction, 1987)

I need it, I must have it

Kill and steal and fight to get it, I need it, must have it
Holes in my arms mean nothing, I need it, must have it
1’11 lose everything I own to buy it, just to have it.
I don’t care if I die
Gotta have it to survive
My arm’s decaying day by day
My veins are collapsing doctors say
I need it, must have it . . .
Wasted Youth, “We Were on Heroin” (Reagan ’s In, 1990)

There is the potential for death in the Lynyrd Skynryd song, but so is the
possibility that the user will quit: “[I] Got to get better, Lord . . . You better quit,
Son, before you’re dead.” The other two songs, like most of those in the 1990%
show more clearly the destructive aspect of heroin: you are either dead, as in the
Guns ’N Roses song “My Michelle,” or, as in the song by Wasted Youth, “We
202 JOHN MARKERT

Were on Heroin,” might as well be, so controlling is “it.” This more strident fear
of heroin and the apparent attempt to dissuade the listener from experimenting
with it is related to the last thematic variation in the music: the purer, more
deadly China White heroin that began to appear in the 1980s. Typically, retail
heroin is only 3% to 5% pure. China White is derived from opium grown in
Southeast Asia and is 30% to 70% pure. In 1983, only 3% of the heroin confis-
cated on the streets of New York was China white; by 1987 this had risen to 70%
(Goode 1999, pp. 316-19; Hamid 1998, pp. 22-3; see also Ray and Ksir 1999,
p. 346). The rise of the more deadly China White on the streets is witnessed by
the more strident, didactic music of the late-1980s and early 1990s: “Silver
spoon and needle / Witchy tombstone smile / I’m no puppet / I engrave my veins
with style / I’ve been through hell, and I’m never going back / To dancing on
glass / Sweet China, you were my Jesus” (Motley Crue, “Dancing on Glass”
[Girls, Girls, Girls, 19871).
The stronger China White heroin resulted in more heroin-related emergency
room admissions in the late 1980s/early 1990s (Epstein and Gforoerer 1997).
This increased lyrical concern about heroin’s affect. The more hostile attitude
toward heroin noticed in the lyrics of the 1990s, witnessed primarily in the
prevalence of anti-heroin songs during this decade, is also related to the growing
problem of heroin use during this period. Young people 12 to 26 years old began
to snort and smoke heroin in the 1990s rather than inject it (Mathias 1997). This
led to outbreaks of heroine use and numerous fatal overdoses among high school
students in middle-class, suburban areas (Avis 1999, p. 152). The music of the
1990s reflects this growing use and paints a horrific picture of the consequence
of such heroin use to its young audience.
Cocaine
Nearly twice as many songs deal with cocaine as with heroin (see Tables 1
and 2). And like songs dealing with heroin, lyrics about cocaine are generally
negative. In the 1960s and early 197Os, however, there was more equivocation
surrounding cocaine. This is seen in songs of those who have their roots in this
period, such as Frank Zappa, J. J. Cale, and Eric Clapton. Frank Zappa’s negative
assessment of cocaine is less to its physical properties than for its association
with the establishment. Cocaine has long been the drug of choice by the more af-
fluent established members of society (Ashley 1975), a group that the youth
anti-establishment subculture wished to distance themselves from: “Chop a line
now- / Cocaine decisions- I You are a person with a snow-job I You got a
fancy gotta go job . . . / Cocaine decisions- I You are a person who is high class
/You are a person not in my class” (Frank Zappa, “Cocaine Decisions” [TheMan
From Utopia, 19831).
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 203

Other songs by musicians who have their roots in the subculture of the
sixties dealt more with the physical properties of cocaine. Eric Clapton’s often
rereleased rendition of J. J. Cale’s song “Cocaine” is hardly negative, nor is the
one excerpt by J. J. Cale, though the other one by Cale, like the often played
Grateful Dead song, “Casey Jones” (1 974), acknowledges the more problematic
aspects of cocaine use.
If you wanna hang out, you’ve gotta take her out: cocaine
If you wanna get down, get down on the ground: cocaine
She’s all right
She’s all right
She’s all right.
If you got that lose, you wanna kick them blues: cocaine
Why your day is done, and you wanna ride on cocaine
She’s all right
She’s all right
She’s all right
Eric Clapton, “Cocaine” (Best of Eric Clapton, 1975)

One toke of reefer, a little cocaine

One shot of morphine and things begin to change
Things don’t seem quite like they used to
As reality leaves, so does the blues
J. J. Cale, “Reality” (No. 8, 1983)

I ain’t high on cocaine

I don’t need the pain
It’s bad for your brain and that’s true
I ain’t droppin’ no games
I ain’t playin’ no games
I’m just one step ahead of the blues
One step ahead of the blues
J. J. Cale, “One Step Ahead of the Blues” (Grasshopper, 1982)

The negative aspects of cocaine are not portrayed as blatantly harmful in

these early songs as they are in later ones-post mid-1980. The changing attitude
toward cocaine was facilitated by the introduction of crack cocaine in the mid-
1980s. This resulted in a greater hostility to the drugs and, as with heroin, songs
dealing with cocaine expressed this more trenchant attitude.
I have never been so happy in my whole life
I’ve been denied this so long, I’m sure it’s right
Finally, this is working
Finally, this is life . . .
In comes the crack
And everything falls apart
In comes the bowl
204 JOHNMARKERT

Then comes the crack

And everything comes apart
Then comes the night
Then you die . . .
Big Black, “Crack” (Hummer Party, 1986)

I’m on crack
I’m on crack
It’s giving me a heart a-ta-ta-tack
I’m on crack
I’m doing lines all the time
John Belushi was a friend of mine
Can’t relate, I’m losin’ weight . . .
Grinding my jaw, breakin’ the law
Stealing tens and twenties from my ma and pa . . .
Dickies, “I’m on Crack” (IdjitSavant, 1995)

All the songs that deal with crack, much like the two above, LIal with it harshly,
even though cocaine, including crack cocaine, does not produce physical
addiction or dependency in the classic sense: there are no heroin-like physical
withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuation of heavy, long-term use (Goode
1999, p. 278; Akers 1992, pp. 33-34). However, it can and often does cause
behavioral dependence because it can be psychologically addictive (Goode,
1999, p. 278; Ray and Ksir 1999, p. 142). Cocaine gives a feeling of exhilara-
tion, elation, and overall well being. It will take an individual using powdered
cocaine about three minutes to get high, and this euphoric feeling lasts approxi-
mately 30 minutes. Crack, on the other hand, produces an immediate orgasmic-
like rush that lasts a few minutes. The desire to repeat this brief but intense
experience can cause addiction. And crack, unlike powdered cocaine, is much
more affordable, mainly because it is only 30% cocaine, the rest being baking
soda or sodium bicarbonate (Goode 1999. pp. 283-86). Crack, then, is a prob-
lem because it is so affordable and because it is an extremely psychologically re-
inforcing drug. The crack problem is further complicated for systemic reasons:
violence is endemic to the world of crack-it is associated with 32% of all homi-
cides and 60% of all drug-related homicides (Goode 1999, pp. 60-162; see
also Hamid 1998, pp. 155-57, 171-72; Ray and Ksir 1999, pp. 33-34). The de-
structive aspect of crack lends itself to a certain amount of lyrical didacticism.
Prince does not hesitate to say, “listen to my song, learn from me:”

Kid! Yo Kid!
I got ta do this, I got the noise, I got ta do this
So pump the big noise, c h o n in the house-
This here rap’s about the true confession
If ya listen close u ’bout to learn a lesson
U must know failure before success
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 205

Now this is the failure I must confess (well . . . )

I was hanging onto life trying deal with this
Playing the games, almost got dismissed
Cocaine was the thmg that I took on
And nowhere was the place that I was going (preacher, come on)
I must tell the truth, I cannot lie
I was headed 4 the kill, steal, destroy, and die . . .
Prince, “New Power Generation” (Grajiti Bridge, 1990)

Rap songs like Prince’s vehemently attack drug use, especially crack
cocaine. The havoc crack wrought, primarily within the inner city, is widely
recognized by those who reside in this community. Indeed, younger (eighteen
and under) age groups are less likely to use crack heavily today; it is the drug of
late-twenty- and early-thirty-year-olds, individuals who became crack addicts
before the consequences of crack were self-evident. Young people are more
likely to see crack today as a loser drug (Goode 1999, p. 87). This is clearly
evident in music, especially rap music, which is sung primarily by black musi-
cians and aimed at a black youth market (Epstein, Pratto, and Skipper 1991).
Black musicians are out to change attitudes, and their didacticism is evident.
While rap is distinctly, though not exclusively, a music form produced and
consumed by African Americans, heavy metal is a distinctly, though not
exclusively, musical form produced and consumed by working class, blue-collar
white males (Epstein, Pratto, and Skipper 1991; Weinstein, 1991, p. 66). Arnett
(1996, p. 78) notes the dialectic between heavy metal music and its audience:
metalheads are more predisposed toward reckless behavior than other young
men, and the intensity and energy of heavy metal music causes them to behave
recklessly. As a group, metalheads are at odds with society and the social
offensiveness of heavy metal music enhances its attraction to its adherents
(Arnett 1996, p. 88). Given this group’s predisposition toward challenging
conventional forms of behavior, one would expect them to be more prone to drug
use and for the music to reflect this attitude and encourage this behavior.
Metalheads do have a propensity to abuse beer and marijuana (Weinstein
1991, pp. 32-133, 209). These lifestyle choices are minimally reflected in songs,
but as much from a negative as a positive perspective. Black Sabbath, for
example, sings the praises of marijuana in “Sweet Leaf,” but Ozzy Osbourne’s
“Demon Alcohol” is an anti-alcohol song (Weinstein 1991, p. 37; Arnett 1996,
p. 46). Independent analyses of heavy metal music show that drug-related songs,
pro and con, are relatively few in number, though there are a fair number of
songs dealing with and promoting excessive drinking, such as Saxon’s “Party ’ti1
You Puke” and W.A.S.l?’s “Blind in Texas” (Weinstein 1991, p. 37; see also
Arnett 1996, p. 46; Walser 1993, p. 139). If anything, heavy metal is antagonist
toward cocaine use, as is rap music, though it is nowhere near as frequently dealt
206 JOHNMARKERT

with in song, largely because it is not as much of a problem in this group’s social
environment. At a 1989 concert, Weinstein reports (1991, p. 209), “W.A.S.P.
showed a film and lectured about the evils of crack, coke, and heroin. The crowd
cheered when it was over.”
The lyrics this group listens to is more about drinking and getting drunk, a
popular recreational activity of metalheads. Drug lyrics are not that prevalent,
since illegal drugs, especially hard drugs, are not a part of their world. The
absence of drug lyrics in heavy metal music, then, can be seen as reflecting the
attitudes and lifestyles of this group, much the same as rap, geared primarily
toward inner-city African American males, so vehemently decries hard drugs,
especially crack, because it is (or was) so much a part of this group’s social
world.
Hallucinogens
Hallucinogens are mind-altering drugs such as LSD (acid), peyote, mesca-
line, and psilocybin. These drugs are distinct from heroin and cocaine because
they are neither physically nor psychologically addictive.
The best known and most popular hallucinogen is LSD. It was introduced
by Timothy Leary in the early 1960s and was quickly adopted by young people
to such a degree that the sixties youth subculture is often referred to as the acid
generation. It is not clear exactly what percentage of young people in the 1960s
were involved with LSD, but it was common enough that no commentary on the
period can neglect its mention. Indeed, the Woodstock-type festivals that
occurred across America in the late 1960s were notorious for what I call “acid
alley”: the back roads in the last quarter- to half-mile leading to the festival site
were typically lined with drug entrepreneurs hawking various chemical con-
coctions like food peddlers at medieval fairs.
In its early years there were certainly problems associated with LSD that are
not as pronounced today. Its newness often resulted in negative experiences,
“bad trips” in the parlance of the day.2 The drug was extremely potent when fist
introduced, ranging anywhere from 200 to 500 micrograms; the average is now
about a quarter of this dosage, thereby reducing its extreme negative reaction. A
change in the rationale for using the drug has also occurred, resulting in a
substantial decrease in the frequency of use from its peak popularity in the
1960s-1970s. In the 1960s and early 1970s, LSD was primarily used for its mind
expanding, consciousness releasing qualities; today it is just another “chemical
in the stew” (Goode 1999, p. 284). This may explain why only 8% of the overall
population have used a hallucinogen with only three-tenths of 1% having used it
in the last month (Goode, 1993, p. 95). Even among the drug-prone 18-25 age
group there is relatively little use of the hallucinogens, with only 4% reporting
using it at all in 1990, a 60% decrease from the preceding decade (Goode 1993,
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 207

pp. 96, 227; Pinger et al. 1998, p. 73), and though there has been a modest
increase in LSD usage in the 1990s (up to 4.6% in 1996), this is still substan-
tially down from its all time high of nearly 10% in 1979 (Goode 1999, p. 255;
Avis 1999, p. 132).
With the exception of the media frenzy over LSD in the 196Os, society, and
especially its young, has not been overly concerned about occasional use of
hallucinogens. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the body rapidly
builds up a resistance to LSD; thus, recurring use does not result in the same
intense experience. A lull of some duration is necessary; hence even frequent
fliers only take two to four trips a year. Second, the LSD experience requires a
monumental effort. Getting through an eight-hour high with all the sensory
bombardment is an extremely draining experience. And third, LSD has
extremely inconsistent effects. The experience varies from trip to t i p and even
ranges widely during a trip. One moment the experience is exhilarating, the
next, horrifying. Such volatility is not conducive to repeat use, especially when
there are more consistently reinforcing drugs on the market (see Goode 1999,
pp. 254-56; Ray and Ksir 1999, pp. 372-80).
Changing attitudes toward LSD are seen in contemporary music. It could be
assumed that the positive assessment of LSD in the sixties should thus be found
in the songs of this period, given their association with the hippie subculture of
the 1960s. It is surprising, however, to realize that four-fifths of the songs are
post-1980 and negatively assess the drug. This reflects the changing attitude
toward LSD by high school seniors: only 35% perceived occasional (once or
twice) use of LSD to be harmful, though an overwhelming majority (81%)
disapprove of its use (Goode 1999, p. 133). Just as LSD was once looked at
positively by a younger generation in the sixties because it distanced them from
the older 30-plus generation, contemporary young people view LSD as the drug
of older, screwed up middle-aged people. The assessment of the former hippies
by contemporary youth is nicely encapsulated in the album, Love Songs for the
Retarded (1993): “Eating magic mushrooms ain’t for me / Or getting all screwed
up on LSD / Or eating bean sprouts all day long /And smoking pot out of a bong
/ Wearing flowers in my hair / And having dirty underwear” (Queers, “Granola-
Head”). This attack on the drug habits and social mores of sixties generation
“oldsters” is a recurring theme in the music of young people in the 1990s, a
lyrical variation that will be returned to in the discussion on marijuana. An
explanation for the lack of LSD lyrics in the heyday 1960s first needs to be
addressed.
The lack of LSD lyrics during their peak popularity in the 1960s is an anom-
aly that is convincingly explained by Roy Baumeister (1 984) in one of the few ar-
ticles to address the connection between acid rock and LSD use. Baumeister
argues that the absence of lyrics is because the psychedelic experience prohibits
208 JOHN MARKERT

a sequential train of thought. Music of the sixties did relate to the LSD experi-
ence, and did so, not lyrically, but through the sound and structure of the music
(see also Weber 1994). The sound of drums and the acoustic piano, in particular,
Baumeister argues, are used extensively in the music of the period to create
varied sensations and not merely for rhythm. Structurally, acid rock used simple
chords but within this framework the improvisation became highly complex. The
lyrics of the Grateful Dead and the Jefferson Airplane, two widely acknowledged
acid rock bands, are particularly noticeable for their lack of lyrical continuity;
indeed, the lyrics of the Jefferson Airplane’s words are “often cryptic to the point
of incoherence” (Baumeister 1984, pp. 342; see also Farrell 1997, pp. 210-13).
This is not particularly surprising, since both Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead,
nicknamed “Captain Trips,” and Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane, often
referred to as the “Acid Queen,” were often “strung out” when they played (Slick
1990;Witchel 1998; Carnegie 1995). I would add to Baumeister’s examples, Jimi
Hendrix, whose music fulfills the criteria of being both simple chords complexly
done and highly improvisational,and whose music was particularly praised at the
time for its emotionally intense, almost ethereal quality-characteristics often
associated with the hallucinogenic experience (see Shapiro and Glebbeek 1990;
Dees and Vera 1978). Indeed, the title of one of his songs, “Purple Haze,” is a
moniker for one of the many varieties of LSD that was widely available in the
sixties. The song appeared on Are You Experienced (1967) and was among a
number of songs on the album that are described as “instrumental freakout jams”
(Erlewine, 1997, p. 423). In fact “Purple Haze,” a ten-minute song, lyrically
relies on only three simple four-line stanzas, the first of which is, “Purple haze all
in my brain I Lately things don’t seem the same I Acting funny but I don’t know
why I ’Scuse me while I kiss the sky.” The deaths of Joplin (1970) and Hendrix
(1 970) signaled the end of the age of acid rock. The Grateful Dead played on to
die-hard, heavy-drug-using Deadheads until Garcia’s demise in 1995.3
Marijuana
Marijuana is the most commonly accepted and frequently used illegal drug,
with one-third of the population having used the drug at least once during their
lifetimes. Though there are certainly vested interest groups that continue to decry
the physical harm caused by marijuana, most research finds the only physical harm
occurs to the lungs, and this occurs more as the result of smoke inhalation (mari-
juana has twice the tar of tobacco) than from the active ingredient in marijuana
(THC) that causes the user high (Goode 1999, p. 220; Akers 1992, pp. 75-76;
Pinger et al. 1998, p. 140). This does not mean that there are no problems associ-
ated with marijuana, only that there are no physiological complications wrought
by its use. This lack of direct physical harm is widely accepted by the American
public. Nevertheless, and despite continued concerns by politicians and media
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 209

Table 3
Perceptions of Marijuana among High School Seniors
~~ ~~ ~ ~

1979 1990 1997

Perceived Harmfulness
Try marijuana once or twice 9% 23% 15%
Take marijuana regularly 42% 78% 58%

Disapproval of Drug Use

Try marijuana once or twice 34% 68% 51%
Take marijuana regularly 45% 81% 79%

Source: Goode 1999, p. 33.

Table 4
Marijuana Use

Youths Young Adults Older Adults

12-1 7 18-25 26 +

1979 1990 1979 1990 1979 1990

Lifetime Prevalence 31% 15% 68% 52% 20% 32%
Annual Use 28% 11% 47% 25% 9% 7%
Current (Past-Month) Use 17% 5% 35% 13% 6% 4%

Source: Goode 1993, p. 100.

pundits about marijuana’s continued popularity, marijuana use has been declining
through the 1980s and 1990s, as has drug use overall (Goode 1999, p. 128; Avis
1999, p. 7; Pinger et al. 1998, pp. 10-1 1, 144). This decline is seen in both usage
and changing attitudes toward marijuana among the typically drug-prone 18-25
age group and is even more apparent among the next generation of drug users, the
12-17 age group.
Three-quarters of high school students are not concerned about the
occasional use of marijuana and over half in the 18-25 age group have tried
210 JOHNMARKERT

marijuana, though 79% fiown on regular marijuana use. With these attitudes
about marijuana, it is not surprising to find a majority of the drug songs about
this illegal substance. The lyrics have generally positively appraised the mari-
juana experience, though there is greater equivocation regarding marijuana in the
1990s. Interestingly, there are relatively few songs dealing with marijuana during
the sixties. This is probably because many record companies would not produce
or distribute records with blatantly approving marijuana lyrics on traditional AM
radio stations, the dominant means used during this period to disseminate music.
(The closure of AM stations to “alternative” music in the 1960s gave rise to FM
radio, which was more often based on large college campuses and aired within
very narrow time limits and a greatly circumscribed broadcast range [see
Fornatale and Mills 19861.) This may also explain the absence of lyrics specifi-
cally dealing with LSD, which could slide though the AM door in the mid-l960s,
since the psychedelic experience was related less to the lyrics than the sound and
structure of the music.
Contrary to popular belief, the drug experience in this country did not occur
in the 1960s but in the 1970s as shown in Figure 1. In the 1960s drugs were con-
fined to the youth subculture, but the attitude toward drugs, especially marijuana,
began to eke through the wider society during the 197Os, as did many other six-
ties-rooted concepts, such as the feminist movement and gay rights movement.
Not surprisingly, music reflected this increased acceptance of marijuana. At
the same time, music of the 1970s can be seen as helping to promote the wider
acceptance of marijuana in its positive assessment of the drug, as it was now
more widely sung about and the music was disseminated through the rapidly
expanding and increasingly popular FM format.

Low I
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Fig. I . Overall Illegal Drug Use: 1960-2000.
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 211

Music in the 1970s and after became increasingly segmented (Straw, 1992).
Music has always been marketed to specific segments of the population, but the
proliferation of FM stations after 1970 led to further segmentation, with stations
increasingly specializing in one type of music format, be it rap, heavy metal,
country, progressive, alternative, and so on. All music formats that continued to
evolve (this excludes “oldies” songs/stations)incorporatedthe positive assessment
of marijuana into its lyrics. Country music is an excellent illustration of this
new/old dichotomy. Classic country is identified with traditional Grand 01’ Opry
personages, such as Johnny Cash and Loretta Lynn. Many traditional male
country songs deal with hard drinking. Marijuana was not a part of the music,
even if singers like Merle Haggard or Willie Nelson smoked it. After the 1970s,
country music began to deal more forthrightly with marijuana; this can be seen
in a number of Charlie Daniels’s and Hank Williams Jr.’s songs, and some of
Willie Nelson’s later ones, such as “Me and Paul,” which appears on
Hempilation 2 (1998), an album devoted solely to singing the praises of mari-
juana (a follow-up to the platinum-selling Hempilation, released in 1995).
All songs about marijuana are not positive. Increasingly since the late 1980s
and certainly through much of the 1990s a distinctly negative assessment of
marijuana has been emerging. About half the new songs released in the 1990s
are positive, and half are negative. The songs cross musical categories. They do
not tend to cross age categories, however. Positive lyrics are more likely to come
from older musicians and are aimed at an older audience; the more negative
lyrics come from younger musicians for a youth audience.
For example, J. J. Cale, Tom Petty, and Sheryl Crow all released albums in
the late 1990s that featured songs lauding marijuana smoking, and both Petty’s
and Crow’s videos were frequently aired on MTV J. J. Cale and Tom Petty are
older musicians who have been performing for decades. Cale has been
persistently singing the praises of marijuana across the decades, and much the
same can be said about Tom Petty. Both released best-selling 1990s albums:
Petty sang “You Don’t Know How It Feels” on Wildflowers (1996) and J. J. Cale
sang “Days Go By” on Guitar Man (1995): “When you light that funny
cigarette I Would you pass it back to me / I’m feeling a little down and out I
And it’ll keep me company.’4 Sheryl Crow has not been around as long as Petty
and Cale; she is an X-Generation thirty-year-old singer who stands between the
Boomers (1946-1 964) and the Millennium Generation (1984-2002). She can be
considered an older artist if one defines her from young people’s perspective as
anyone thirty-something. Her songs are well received among late-twenties-
plus career women, and her song, “If It Makes You Happy” was a top-selling
single in 1996; its title conveys how she lyrically deals with marijuana. The
fact that both Petty’s and Crow’s videos were frequently aired on MTV is
another indication that their audience is older than the heavy-music-listening
212 JOHNMARKERT

12-to-18-year-old market; MTV’s core audience is twenty-plus Gen-Xers (Dark

1998; Hay 1998).
While older, 30-plus-year-old artists are gearing their music to an audience
that is more accepting of marijuana, young musicians have a distinctly different
appraisal of the drug subculture. The music of this group is not just against
marijuana but any substance use whatsoever, Indeed, they decry drug use
vehemently. Two excerpts will have to suffice to show the extent of their hostil-
ity. The first song attacks the systemic problem associated with drug usage, an
appraisal found in nearly one-half the 1990s songs analyzed; the second song
says that if nothing else it’s against the law and not worth it, an appraisal found
in one-fifth of the anti-drug songs.

Inner city strugglin‘, motherfuckin’rat race

Condemned pressure cooker, that explodes in your face
Another neighborhood gets destroyed by the drug deal . . .
Who whacks who, don’t matter who gets hit
The space between the death of our friends is so close
This month it was neglect, our boy died of an overdose
Last month a gunshot, a typical story
That’s just the way it goes in a failed territory
No hope, just dope, and your chances are slim
To grow up and get out ’cause you’re already in
The vacuum of the street so powerful
Sucking you in it drains your mind by the hour fool
Still smoking dippers our friends are all dusted
Slave to a bottle of juice, fucking disgusted . . .
Biohazard, “Failed Territory” (State ofthe WorldAddress, 1994)

It’s Lucy in the sky and all kinds of apple pie

She giggles at the screen ’cos it looks so green
There’s carpets on the pavements
And feathers in her eye
But sooner or later, her new friends will realize
That Julie’s been working for the drug squad . . .
And it’s ten years for you
Nineteen for you
And you can get out in twenty-five
That is if you’re still alive . . .
The Clash, “Julie’s in the Drug Squad” (Give ’ern Enough Rope, 1978; Clush on Bmudwuy,
1991)

Unlike 1960s-1970s lyrics, nineties music such as Biohazard’s sees nothing good
with “dope.” Drugs are bad; there is no equivocation, no “okay” drugs, such as
marijuana or LSD. Numerous songs mention marijuana, but do so typically in
connection with other drugs, such as Misc’s song “No No”: “A lady that I know
just came from Columbia. . . Then she held out some marijuana. . .A lady that I
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 213

know just came from Murcia Spain . . . Then she held out a 10-pound bag of
cocaine.” The linkage of marijuana to other drugs in the music of the 1990s
assesses marijuana as a gateway drug. This gateway connection is supported in
much of the drug literature (see Goode 1999, pp. 227-31; Hamid 1998, p. 51;
Avis 1999, p. 103; Akers 1992, pp. 82-83; Pinger et al. 1998, pp. 29-30). In
itself, marijuana may not lead to harder drugs, but few involved with harder drugs
reached that point without previous, and generally heavy, marijuana involvement.
The problems of subsequent addiction are seen in many contemporary songs as
sucking one down, destroying one’s life. Certainly, inner city rap sees the systemic
problems that drugs cause, but the negative consequences and harm that mari-
juana does go beyond the confines of any one musical genre. These songs tend to
reflect a changing attitude toward drug use in general by younger people. This is
clearly seen in Table 4. The number of people 18-25 who smoked pot in the last
year has decreased by half between 1979 and 1990: from 47% to 25%. Regular
past-month usage has decreased even more sharply: from 35% to 13%. The
change is just as pronounced among heavy music listeners: 12-17-year-olds.This
group is perhaps the most susceptible to drug peer influence, and, along with the
peer group, music is a particularly strong socializing agent (Peterson and Kahn
1995; Adams-Price and Greene 1990). Much of the music this age group listens
to strongly conveys the problems of drugs, and doesn’t mince words by sidestep-
ping the issue or minimizing the problem of marijuana. For this group, as Tom
Waits unequivocally puts it in his album Black Rider (1993), “marijuana leads to
heroin.” Though most high school seniors in 1990 do not have a problem with
occasional (once or twice) use of marijuana, over three-fourths disapprove of
regular marijuana use and see it as harmful, twice the amount who viewed it with
disapproval ten years earlier (see Table 3). Music is certainly sending a message.
Some may feel that the message exaggerates the harm marijuana does. But for
young people trying to wrestle with drugs in general and the influence of drugs
on their life, messages sometimes have to be clear, unequivocal and hyperbolic:

When you’re dying-giving up hope

Living for smoking dope
Singin’ that same old song
Yeah yeah yeah it’s always the same
I got n-nothing in mind
I was trying a new adventure
Buyin’ that old peer pressure
Wasting my mind away but I said it just in time
No reason I was going mad
I was hating my mom and dad
Riding a sinking ship
Thank God I never did slip.
Operation Ivy, “I Got No” (Energy, 1990)
214 JOHNMARKERT

Clearly, the message by young people to young people in the 1990s is that
marijuana is a bad thing, on the one hand reflecting a changing attitude toward
marijuana by young people (see Table 3), on the other, promoting abstinence and
not giving in to peer pressure to use drugs.
Conclusion
The findings of this paper would indicate that popular music has been
generally hostile toward hard drugs (heroin and cocaine) and that younger
listeners today are being exposed to more negative images of marijuana and LSD
then older listeners. These findings depart dramatically from the corpus of
literature that appraises popular music and drugs. First, a substantial body of
literature sees popular music as encouraging its young listeners to abuse drugs
(Forsyth and Barnard 1997; “Survey reveals . . . ” 1999; Sloan 1996; Blackman
1996). And second, the age dichotomy that is noticed in marijuana lyrics in this
paper would suggest a decrease in marijuana usage should occur among young
people that does not appear to be sustained by drug statistics in the mid-1990s
(see Table 5).
The first issue is quickly addressed. There does not appear to have been any
analysis of music and drugs. It is just assumed that lyrics positively assess the
drug experience because young people listen to music and young people are
prone to drug experimentation. Such assumptions allow pundits like Thomas
(1997, p. 70) to boldly state, without providing any song substantiation, that “the
renewed celebration of drugs in the entertainment industry, particularly in the
lyrics of popular songs [is one reason for the recent ‘marijuana outbreak’
today].”
Statements like Thomas’s are made on a priori grounds, and the dubious
names of the various vested interest groups belie this point: American
Enterprise, Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education, Parents’ Music
Resource Center, and so forth. But professional assumptions regarding music
lyrics also abound. The a priori perspective of scholars is found less in the
music-drug connection than in the often-cited music-violence and music-
misogyny relationship. While neither of these topics was the subject of this
paper, their lyrical absence was apparent. This may suggest that a more thorough
content analysis of song lyrics pertaining to these themes be undertaken. One can
always find startling exceptions: the Grateful Dead and drugs, Tupac and
violence, 2 Live Crew and misogyny. The question is not whether some groups
sing about these issues but how prevalent they are dealt with in music overall. If
the present analysis of drugs is any indication, a contextual analysis of violence
and misogyny may find some unexpected social themes.’
The second issue needs to reconcile anti-marijuandanti-drug songs with the
increase in marijuana use some have observed in the 1990s. The problem is that
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 215

it is not clear how much drug use has changed. Two different articles by the same
author within months of each other indicate the extent of the confusion. An arti-
cle written by Christopher Wren for the New York Times in August (1997, p. A20)
reports on the decrease in marijuana use by teenagers, while his October (1997,
p. A18) article presents findings on the rise of drug use among teenagers. The
latter, more titillating statistic has gotten much of the attention. An excellent
illustration of the hyperbole surrounding drug misinformation is the brief news
bulletin that appeared in NationS Health. The editor’s sidebar announced that
marijuana use among high school seniors had increased “for the third year in a
row,” and stood at 41.7% in 1995 (“Alcohol, drug use . . . ” 1996). Comparing
this to the 1990 national survey of high school seniors, one finds that 41% had
tried marijuana (Goode, 1993, p. 96). The increase, then, is negligible: seven-
tenths of 1%.
Increases or decreases in drug use during the 1990s largely depend on one’s
reference point. As Table 5 indicates, drug use among 12-17-year-olds can be
considered to have decreased by 2.5% (1988 vs. 1995) or increased by 5.7%
(1992 vs. 1995). Generally, one can say that there has been an overall decrease
in drug use among young people over the last decade-plus. It does seem to have
leveled off, however, leading to some fluctuations on a year-to-year basis.
The present analysis should indicate that the younger age group, at the
early-middle-school/junior-highlevel, is more hostile to drugs than current high
school seniors. Attitudinal measures tend to bear this out. Students at earlier
grade levels have become slight& less disapproving toward drugs than they were
in 1990 (Bachman and Johnson 1998); still, they are substuntiaZ& more likely to
disapprove of drugs than students in 1979, and they still are more disapproving
toward drugs than high school seniors. This has carried over into use, as Table 5
clearly indicates. Younger people are much less likely to use drugs in 1995 than
a few years ago. This paper suggests that one reason for the change in attitudes

Table 5
Illegal Drug Use: Lifetime Prevalence

Age 1988 1992 1995

12-17 24.7% 16.5% 22.2%

18-25 58.9% 51.7% 45.8%
26-34 64.2% 60.8% 54.8%
35-t 23.0% 28.0% 27.9%
216 JOHN MARKERT

toward drugs is the anti-drug message that dominates music of this younger age
group. It would appear, then, that music serves didactically as a socializing
agent. This being the case, we might anticipate drug use should remain at its
present level, if in fact it doesn’t decrease in the years to come. This may be
particularly important because of the growing number of individuals in the at-
risk, 12-to-18 age group. Over the next decade-plus the under 18 age group will
rise from 69 million (1996) to 70.8 million in 2000, 71.9 million in 2005, and
72.5 million in 2010 (Statistic Abstracts, 1997, Tables 16 and 36). The at-risk age
group is increasing in size and will soon be entering the middle-school grades.
These young people are just beginning to move beyond the constraints of the
family. Individuals at this point are extremely vulnerable to peer influence and
music’s message. The current negative assessment of drugs by younger musi-
cians may serve to waylay drug involvement. Music’s lyrics need to be monitored
to ascertain whether the negative assessment in music persists, slackens or
intensifies, and how this and other social changes may affect drug-related
behavior in the years to come.

ENDNOTES

I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Stuart Harris and Ms. Dot Jenkins at Cumberland
University and to two anonymous reviewers at Sociological Inquily for their invaluable critical
comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I also wish to express my gratitude to a number of my
students who made special efforts to broaden my awareness of contemporary popular music:
Shannon Stevens, Angela Marthaler, and Jeanne Heinzelman.
‘The two Internet sources allowed cross-referencesby category and provided complete texts of
the lyrics. Eight months after the research was undertaken the sources no longer did either of these,
though by the time this article appears I hope the Internet providers will have resolved their differ-
ences with licensing groups, such as the American Society of Composers and Producers (ASCAP).
’LSD was a new drug in the early 1960s and neither the user nor the medical community was
fully aware of the problems associated with the LSD experience. The lack of professional support
services led to drug hotlines and free clinics to deal specifically with individuals experiencing bad
trips. As the problems associated with the LSD experience were reduced, both of these “street”
programs extended their services, first to other young people experiencing general, non-drug-related
problems, and then to broader, less age-specific demographic groups (see Markert, 1979).
’Montague (1996) conducted a study of drug use by audiences who attended three different
rock performances, all in Chicago: Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, and the Rolling Stones. All three of
these groups are older, established rock groups who perform for an older, 3G50 plus age group. The
Gratehl Dead audience had by far the heaviest illegal drug users (55% [RS 28%, PF 17%]) and al-
cohol abusers (85% [RS 7%, PF 7%]). The use of drugs at Grateful Dead concerts is further
documented by Weinstein (1991, p. 210), who reports “they are rather openly hawked in the parking
lots: ‘Shrooms! Tabs!’ yell the sellers.”
40fcourse, some older musicians changed their lyrics to fit new social exigencies. Hawkwind is
a good example. An early acid-rock band whose first recording was released in 1973, they modified
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 217

their pro-drug stance in the 1988 song “Reefer Madness” on Spirit of the Age: “Marijuana mushroom
is stalking the streets / He knows what he’s up to, he knows what he eats / He gobbles your body and
spits out your mind / If you don’t believe me then you must be blind.”
’Songs that deal with violence and sexism closely resemble songs that concern drugs. Many of
the rap songs that were examined for drug assessment in this paper revealed a parallel hostility to the
use of violence. Biohanard’s lyrics are an excellent illustration of this negative assessment of
violence. Two other cases are worth citing in this context. Tupac’s “Keep Ya Head Up” on Strictly 4
My N.I.G.G.A.Z.(1993), is an atypical album by Shakur. On his earlier 2Pacalypse Now (1992) there
are a number of excellent advocacy songs, like “Words of Wisdom” and “Young Black Male,” and the
two albums that followed Strictly were widely acclaimed for their musical innovation. In contrast to
the reaction to violence on Tupac’s Strictly album, 2 Live Crew drew fire for their misogynous lyrics.
Despite the attention, they were not a successful group, and, as Ron Wynn suggests, the whole issue
would have “run its course” quickly with their first album if it hadn‘t been for the attention from
censoring groups (Erlewine, 1997, p. 969). Even then they had a relatively modest career, which
peaked with the second album, As Nasty As They Wanna Be (1989).

REFERENCES

Adams-Price, Carolyn, and A. L. Greene. 1990. “Secondary Attachments and Adolescent Self-
Concept.” Sex Roles 22: 187-98.
Akers, R. L. 1992. Drugs, Alcohol, and Society: Social Structure, Process, and Policy. Belmont, CA.
Wadsworth.
“Alcohol, Drug Use Increases Among U.S. Youth.” 1996. Nation k Health 26:9.
Amett, Jeffrey J. 1996.Metalheads: Heavy Metal and Adolescent Alienation. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Ashley, Richard. 1975. Cocaine: Its Histov, Uses, and Effects. New York St. Martin’s Press.
Avis, H. 1999. Drugs & Life (4th edition). New York WCBMcGraw-Hill.
Bachman, Jerald G., and Lloyd D. Johnson. 1998. “Explaining Recent Increases in Students’
Marijuana Use.” American Journal of Public Health 88:887-91.
Barongan, C., and G. C. N. Hall. 1995. “The Influence of Misogynous Rap on Sexual Aggression
Against Women.” Psychologv Women b Quarterly 19:195-207.
Baumeister, Roy F. 1984. “Acid Rock A Critical Reappraisal and Psychological Commentary.”
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 16:339.
Blackman, S . J. 1996. “Has Drug Culture Become an Inevitable Part of Youth Culture? A Critical
Assessment of Drug Education.” Educational Review 48: 131-43.
Blair, John, and Stephen McParland. 1990. The Illustrated Discography of Hot Rod Music:
1961-1965. Ann Arbor, MI: Popular Culture, Ink.
Brazier, Richard. 1972. “The Industrial Workers of the World’s ‘Little Red Songbook.”’ Pp.6&71 in
The Sounds of Social Change, edited by R. Serge Denisoff and Richard A. Peterson. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Carnegie, M. D. 1995. “Jerry’s Kids.” American Spectator 28:56-57.
Carpenter,AnnMiller. 1972.“TheRailroadinAmerican Folklore, 1865-1920.”Pp. 103-19 in Diamond
Bessie and the Shepherd, edited by Wilson Hudson. Austin: Austin, Texas Folklore Society.
Chambers, D. M. 1996. And the Crooked Places Made Straight: The Strugglefor Social Change In
the 1960s. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Connors, Gerald J., and Victor Alpher. 1989. “Alcohol Themes within Country-Westem Songs.” The
International Journal of the Addictions (May 24):445-5 1.
218 JOHN MARKERT

Cooper, B. Lee, and Wayne S . Haney. 1997. Rock Music in American Popular Culture ZI. New York
Haworth Press.
. Rock Music in American Popular Culture. 1995. New York: Haworth Press.
“’Cop Killer’ Protests Produce Results.” 1992. Police Chief 59:21-22.
Costello, Mark, and David Foster Wallace. 1990. SigniJLing Rappers: Rap and Race in the Urban
Present. New York Echo Press.
Dark, Jane. 1998. “MTV Goes Gray.” Village Voice 43:75.
DeCurtis,Anthony, ed. 1992.Present Tense: Rock & Roll and Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
Dees, David, and Herman Vera. 1978. “Soundtracking Everyday Life: The Use of Music in
Redefining Situations.” Sociological Inquiry 48: 13341.
Denselow, Robin. 1990. When the Music’s Over: The Story of Political Pop. London: Faber and Faber.
DiMaggio, Paul, Richard A. Peterson, and Jack Esco Jr. 1972. “Country Music: Ballad of the Silent
Majority.” Pp. 38-56 in The Sounds of Social Change, edited by R. Serge Denisoff and Richard
A. Peterson. Chicago: Rand McNally.
“Does Censorship Make Business Sense?” 1994. Black Enterprise 24: 16-1 7.
Dorr, A. 1980. “When I was a Child I Thought as a Child.” Pp. 3 7 4 2 in Television and Social
Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children, edited by S . Withy and R. Abeles. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
DuRant, Robert H., and Ellen J. Rome. 1997. “Tobacco and Alcohol Use Behaviors Portrayed in
Music Videos: A Content Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health 87: 1131-36.
Epstein, J. F., and J. Gforoerer. 1997. Heroin Abuse in the United States. Washington, D C Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Center for Substance Abuse Research.
Epstein, J. F., D. J. Pratto, and J. K. Skipper Jr. 1991. “Teenagers, Behavioral Problems, and
Preferences for Heavy Metal and Rap Music: A Case Study of a Southern Middle School.”
Deviant Behavior 11:381-94.
Erlewine, Michael, ed. 1997. AMG All Music Guide to Rock (2nd edition). San Francisco: Miller
Freeman.
Farrell, James J. 1997. The Spirit of the Sixties: Making Postwar Radicalism. New York Routledge.
Fornatale, Peter, and Joshua Mills. 1986. “FM.” Pp. 240-55 in Americun Mass Media (3rd edition),
edited by Robert Atwan, Barry Orton, and William Vesterman. New York: Random House.
Forsyth, A., and M. Bamard. 1997. “Music Preference as an Indicator of Adolescent Drug Use.”
Addiction 92: 1317-26.
Fryxell, Dale. 1998. “Anger in Children.” Psychologv in the Schools 35:205-17.
Fuchs, Cynthia. 1998. “If I Had a Dick: Queers, Punks, and Alternative Acts.” Pp. 143-52 in
Mapping the Beat: Popular Music and Contemporary Theory, edited by Thomas Swiss, John
Sloop, and Andrew Herman. Malden, M A Blackwell.
Gans, Herbert J. 1966. “Popular Culture in America: Social Problems in a Mass Society or Social
Asset in a Pluralist Society?“ Pp. 549-620 in Social Problems: A Modern Approach, edited by
Howard S . Becker. New York Wiley.
Goode, Erich. 1999. Drugs in American Society (5th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
. 1993. Drugs in American Society (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamid A. 1998. Drugs in America: S o c i o l o ~ Economics,
, and Politics. Gaitherburg, Maryland:
Aspen Publishers.
Hansen, C. H., and R. D. Hansen. 1990. “The Influence of Sex and Violence on the Appeal of Rock
Music Videos.” Communication Research 17:212-34.
Hay, Carla. 1998. “As Labels Ponder Budgets, Expect Fewer Videos from Young Acts.” Billboard
110235.
Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.
Herd Denise. 1993. “Contesting Culture: Alcohol-Related Identity Movements in Contemporary
African-American Communities.” Contemporary Drug Problems 20739-59.
 DRUG LYRICS IN POPULAR MUSIC 219

Hersch, Paul. 1987. “The Perils of Rock ’n Roll.” Psychology Today 21:80.
Hibbard, Don J., and Carol Kaleialoha. 1983. “Anti-War Songs.” Pp. 55-60 in TheR & B Rock: A Guide
to the Social and Political Consequences of Rock Music. Englewood-Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kaiser, C. 1988. 1968 in America: Music, Politics, Chaos, Counterculture & the Shaping of a
Genemtion. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Kuskye, Robert, and Reed Larson. 1990. “The Use and Experience of the New Video Media among
Children and Young Adolescents.” Communication Research 17:107-30.
Laing, Dave. 1985. One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning of Punk Rock. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Lloyd, Fonda M. 1994. “Does Censorship Make Business Sense? Inner City Broadcasting Has Joined
the Battle against Violence in Music.” Black Enterprise 24:16-17.
Markert, John. 1979. “Bureaucratization of the Alternative Youth Programs of the Sixties: A Decade
of Change.” Group & Organization Studies 4:485-95.
Mathias, R. 1997. “NIDA Conference Aims ‘Preemptive Strike’ at Increased Heroin Use among
Nation’s Young People.” NIDA Notes 12:l-2.
McPherson, James, and Miller Williams, eds. 1976. Railroads: Trains and Tmin People in American
Culture. New York Random House.
McRobbie, A. 1991. Feminism and Youth Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Miller, Peter V 1997. “Review: Survey on Drug Abuse.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61:627-41.
Miller, Timothy. 1991. The Hippies and American Values. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Montague, Jim. 1996. “Drinking, Drugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll.” Hospitals & Health Networks 70:22.
Motti, R. 1994. “Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music.” Sociological Quarterly
35~85-102.
Nehring, Neil. 1997. Popular Music, Gender, and Postmodernism: Anger Is an Energy, Thousand
Oaks, C A Sage, 1997.
“Other U.S. News: Narcotics.” 1996. Facts on File 56:626.
Peterson, R. A., and Janet Kahn. 1995. “Media Preferences of Sexually Active and Inactive Youth.”
Sociological Imagination 32:29-43.
Pinger, R. R., W. A. Payne, D. B. Hahn, and E. J. Hahn. 1998. Drugs: Issuesfor Today (3rd edition).
New York WCBIMcGraw-Hill.
Plasketes, George M. 1989. “Rock on Reel: The Rise and Fall of the Rock Culture in America
Reflected in a Decade of ‘Rockumentaries.”’Qualitative Sociology 1255-71,
Ray, O., and C. Ksir. 1999. Drugs, Socieq, and Human Behaviot New York WCBNcGraw-Hill.
Robinson, John P., Robert Pilskolan, and Paul Hirsch. 1978. “Protest Rock and Drugs.” Journal of
Communication 26: 125-36.
Shapiro, Harry, and Caesar Glebbeek. 1991. Electric Gypsy: Jimi Hendrix. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Skeggs, Beverley, ed. 1995. Feminist Cultural Theory: Process and Production. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Skolnick, Arlene. 1991. Embattled Paradise: The American Family in an Age of Uncertainfy. New
York Basic Books.
Slick, Grace. 1990. “Highs and Lows.” Newsweek 1155-59.
Sloan, 0. J. 1996. “Music Industry Must Fight Drug Abuse.” Billboard 108:6.
Sommers-Flanagan, Rita, John Sommers-Flanagan, and Britta Davis. 1993. “What’s Happening on
Music Television? A Gender Role Content Analysis.” Sex Roles 28:745-53.
Stack, Gundlach. 1992. “Effect of Country Music on Suicide.” Social Forces 71:211-18.
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997. 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Census.
Storey, John. 1998. An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture (2nd edition). Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
220 JOHN MARKERT

Straw, Will. 1991. “Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular
Music.” Cultural Studies 5:368-88.
Strinati, Dominic. 1995. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London: Routledge.
Suggs, Donald M. 1994. “‘Gangsta Rap’-A Wake-Up Call.” The Crisis 101:3.
‘‘Survey Reveals Widespread Substance Use in Movies, Music.” 1999. Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
Weekly 11:18-19.
Tawa, Nicholas E. 1995. “Songs of the Early Nineteenth Century, Part 1: Early Song Lyrics and
Coping with Life.” American Music 13:l-26.
Thomas, Andrew Peyton. 1997. “Marijuana & Mea Culpas.” American Enterprise 8:70-71.
Tong, Rosemary. 1992. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. London: Routledge.
Tminski, J. 1994. “Today’s Music: Poetry or Pornography?” Corrections Today 56: 148-49.
Walby, Sylvia. 1990. Theorising Patriarch. Oxford Blackwell.
Walser, Robert. 1993. Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music.
Hanover, N H Wesleyan University Press.
Weber, William. 1994. “Beyond Zeitgeist: Recent Work in Music History.” Journal of Modern
History 66:32145.
Weinstein, Deena. 1991. Heavy Metal: A Cultural Sociology. New York Lexington Books.
Witchel, Alex. 1998. “Still a Rock ‘n’ Roll Mama.” New York Times 148 (October 18): 11.
Wren, Christopher S . 1997. “Drug Use by Young Teenagers is Found Up.’’ New York Times 147
(October 29): NO.
.“Fewer Youths Report Smoking Marijuana.” 1997. New York Times 147(August):A18.