Our management of the problems created by drug use is demonstrably deficient; in most areas it is probably not too much to claim that it is totally ineffective or, even worse, counter-productive. What we do effectively is confined to approaches that have been used from time immemorial. In degree we achieve less today than some communities have managed in the distant past. No community has done better than the ancient Hebrews and Chinese and few fare as well today. This fact alone suggests that our understanding of the problems has advanced no further than the insights expressed in the Bible or on ancient Chinese bronzes. Perhaps we have to wait for the original thinker who will break the bonds of our preconceptions and introduce the brilliant light of a totally new way to visualise the problem. Our past history suggests that this will not be until most of us are on the very brink of that same discovery, else the innovative inspiration will pass unheeded or positively spurned. That being the case, what comfort or hope can we obtain from the events of the past decade reflected in the pages of Drug and Alcohol Dependence. History provides some clue to the future, but history received little attention in the past decade, perhaps because we have been so intent on repeating the errors of the past with monotonous regularity. The cyclic fluctuations in drug use over the ages served as the model to explain the gradual decrease in drug use among men attending a Drug Rehabilitation Centre [ 11. Interesting and plausible, but not the explanation advanced by others who came across similar data. A reduction in drug use over time among addicts prescribed heroin at London clinics was attributed to the ‘impact made by the advent of the clinics’ [ 21. Sadly, the ‘improvement’ was not reflected in any change in their employment record. In another study, a similar improvement among amphetamine abusers led to the argument that they were a different species to the opiate abusers, who had become worse [ 31. The improvement in another series of injectors of heroin, given treatment within the community as part of a management policy that eschewed narcotis, was compared invidiously with a group of addicts who became worse when maintained on narcotics away from the local environment [4]. Not strictly comparable, but leading to an opposite conclusion, another study used the improvement observed among addicts on a methadone main
Read full abstract