* The Myth of Addiction. 2nd edition, by John Booth Davies. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. 183 pages, soft-cover.

I first heard of, and read, the first edition of this book in 1995 and I cannot emphasise enough the impact it had upon me with regard to clarifying my own mixed views regarding the status and value of the notion of 'addiction'. While the revisions made in this current edition are by no means substantial (such that, personally, I question the need for a second edition at this point in time), if this is the excuse, required to make the book available once more, then so be it. Davies' arguments seek to demolish the prevalent notion of addiction as something that happens to people, as a result of external factors such as pharmacological properties of a drug. Instead, he posits the notion 'that people take drugs because they want to and because it makes sense for them to do so given the choices available' (p. x). Further, he seeks to demonstrate how currently dominant notions of drug addiction, reinforced by user's selfreports, require critical attention, not least because a good deal of existing data suggests that what we - public and users alike - prefer to believe about drug taking and its consequences is largely inaccurate.

Davies' case, which relies substantially upon insights derived from various developments in 'attribution theory, (the exploration into the ways in which causality is explained by individuals) is a compelling one. What makes it of particular relevance to readers of this Journal is that its principal conclusions match very closely with a number of fundamental assumptions and hypotheses found within existential-phenomenological thought. Perhaps central among these is the notion of attributional bias: 'people ... make causal inferences about their behaviour by describing events and situations in particular ways. Furthermore, by explaining good or bad acts in terms of

of dispositional or situational factors, they can influence the kinds of verdicts that... [they] ... arrive at with regard to their behaviour', (P 115).

Davies' use of terms such as 'good' and bad, might well remind readers of R D Laing and Aaron Esterson. In line with this, Chapter 7 of the book is entitled 'Disease as the preferred explanation for "badness"'. In place of such preferences, Davies' text espouses a conception of drug use which restores the user to centre stage, and within which his/her motives and intentions within particular contexts become the focus for attention and future theoretical development, (p 55).

Throughout, the text's ideas and concerns are presented clearly and powerfully in a straightforward style. Nevertheless, while the issue of our understanding and use of terms such as addiction is both serious and significant, the hint provided by the author at the very start of his book that he can employ humour in an instructive manner ('I wrote this book because I wanted to. Nobody made me do it, and I did it on purpose...') is, sadly, not followed through. Among the various reviewers' quotes that appear on the back cover of this book, is one by Douglas Cameron which states, in part: 'As a result of the publication of "The Myth of Addiction", it is no longer possible to talk the language of addiction disease, having to have, compulsion, loss of control, expurgation of guilt without sensing the presence of John Davies looking on and forcing the question "what exactly do I think I am trying to explain?"' I am in complete agreement with this conclusion. Read the book and I suspect that you will be as well.

Ernesto Spinelli