Spiking drinks is a sobering reality on US campuses, study says

A new study suggests that university students' drugged drink complaints are real, and represent a frequent problem faced on campuses.

Scott Sonner/AP/File
Students walk across campus at the University of Nevada, Reno. 'Spiked' or drugged drinks are a common problem on US campuses, according to a paper published Monday in the journal Psychology of Violence.

College students claiming to have been slipped a "spiked" or drugged drink may have been the victims of more than just their own overconsumption, as previous research has suggested.

While campus stories of spiked drinks are sometimes dismissed as overblown or even fictional, researchers led by associate University of South Carolina professor found that, from a pool of more than 6,000 students, 7.8 percent said they had been drugged and 1.4 percent said they or someone they knew had drugged another person. Other studies on the subject found estimates ranging from 6 to 8.5 percent of college students in the United States, while an Australian study reported one quarter of its participants having experienced a drugging.

"These data indicate that drugging is more than simply an urban legend," lead author Suzanne Swan said in a press release.

The "coercive" practice can include spiking drinks with other drugs, or simply adding more alcohol to a mixed drink or nonalcoholic beverage for reasons such as eliciting sex from a person, or for entertainment or a social boost. A 2007 study found that half of drug spikers had sexual motives, while 43 percent spiked drinks simply "for fun."

The new study by Professor Swan, published Monday in the journal Psychology of Violence, found that women were more likely to be targeted with a spiked drink than men. However, 21 percent of reported victims were male, and were more likely to report being drugged for fun, while female victims were more likely to have been drugged for sex-related reasons. Other less common motivations included attempts to change someone's mood, the desire put someone to sleep, or as a revenge tactic – all illegal.

"Even if a person is drugging someone else simply 'for fun' with no intent of taking advantage of the drugged person, the drugger is still putting a drug in someone else’s body without their consent – and this is coercive and controlling behavior," Swan said.

"Just as people have a fundamental right to consent to sexual activity, they also have the right to know and consent to the substances they ingest," she added.

The researchers noted that reported druggings can often be misidentified, or not reported at all.

"It must be noted that we have no way of knowing if the drugging victims were actually drugged or not, and many victims were not certain either," the researchers write in the report. "It is possible that some respondents drank too much, or drank a more potent kind of alcohol than they were accustomed to. Further, many common drugs, including over-the-counter and prescription drugs, interact with alcohol, increasing its effects."

The researchers also noted frequent memory loss associated with drink spikings, further complicating the reporting and confirmation process.

Swan's team concluded that, while information on the topic can be hard to come by and even unreliable, spiking is an issue frequently faced by both male and female college students. The researchers also highlighted the "clearly coercive" behavior linked to sexual and physical aggression and abuse, suggesting further study into the topic and the utilization of interventions for druggers.

"Clearly, much more research needs to done to further knowledge of this phenomenon," they said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.