Drug Abuse pp 15-24 | Cite as

Introductory Address Drug Dependence — Putting History on the Agenda

  • Griffith Edwards
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 20)


The objection will be heard that our own times are too fraught usefully to allow diversion of energies to historical study. We may plead that we have no time to tarry, that we must build the next hospital, write the research protocol, draft the new legislation. But the historian (if we pause to listen to him) forces questions such as these — what scientific truths or old wives tales, what culture bound or generation determined illusions, accidents, vanities are the actual ideas dictating all this mass of action in which we propose so hurriedly to engage?


Royal Commission Select Committee Penal System Home Office Compulsory Treatment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batten, G. H. M. 1894 Opium Commission. Report of the Royal Commission on Opium. Vol 1. Appendix 1, 133–146 London: H. M. S. O.Google Scholar
  2. Cherns, A.B. (1968) Human Relations 21, 313–325. The use of the social sciences. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edkins, — (First name not recorded). 1894 Opium Commission. First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium. Historical note on opium and the poppy in China. Appendix II. London: H. M. S. O.Google Scholar
  4. Francis, C.R. (1882). Medical Times and Gazette, 1, 87–89. On the value and use of opium.Google Scholar
  5. Hawks, D. V. (1971). Social research as a determinant of social policy. Paper read to the Second International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependence, Baden, Austria.Google Scholar
  6. Home Office 1968 Cannabis Report by the Advisory Committee on drug dependence. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  7. Home Office 1971 Habitual Drunken Offenders: report of the Working Party. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  8. Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1894. Report, Vol. 1. Simla: Government Central Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical use of Drugs. 1970. Interim Report. Canadian Government.Google Scholar
  10. Lewin, L. (1931) Phantastica: narcotic and stimulating drugs. Trans. P. H. A. Wirth, from the second German edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Traubner.Google Scholar
  11. Mayor’s Committee on Marihuana (1944). The Marihuana problem in the City of New York. Jacques Caltell Press, Lancaster Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Ministry of Health 1961. Drug addiction: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Health 1965. Drug addiction: The second report of the Interdepartmental Committee. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  14. Opium Commission 1894. Report of the Royal Commission on Opium Vol 1. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  15. Opium Commission 1895. Report of the Royal Commission on Opium Vol. 7. London, H.M S.O.Google Scholar
  16. Republic of South Africa 1970. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the abuse of drugs (Government publication).Google Scholar
  17. Select Committee 1834. Report from the Select Committee on Inquiry into drunkenness. British Parliamentary Papers 559, Vol. 8.Google Scholar
  18. Wood Renton, A. (1896). J Ment. Sei. 42, 85-96. On recent proposals regarding habitual drunkards and other offenders.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Griffith Edwards
    • 1
  1. 1.Addiction Research UnitInstitute of PsychiatryLondonUK

Personalised recommendations