B. The Contemporary Conventional Wisdom
Since 1964, Soldier's Disease, in essence, was mentioned in about 100 works by drug experts, half of these since 1973.11 It was also mentioned in several studies by prestigious government agencies and Drug and Crime Commissions.12 Among the experts are many renowned critics of U.S. drug policies -- including Edward Brecher, Alan Dershowitz, John Kaplan, Arnold Trebach and Norman Zinberg. In the early 1970's a few writers questioned the factuality of Soldier's (Kramer, 1971 and 1972; Swatos, 1972; Musto, 1973; and Quinones, 1975), but shortly thereafter they were rebutted in a detailed historical analysis. (Courtwright, 1978 and 1982)13 Since the mid- 1970's the mention of Soldier's Disease has diminished, maybe because the critics had an impact or because most experts stopped probing the roots of U.S. drug policy after the early 1970's.
Soldiers Disease is, however, still mentioned by many experts ... and no one, yet, has responded to Courtwright.
Though briefly stated, a consistent theme involving three components is reiterated by almost all the cited drug experts, the only variation being in the synonyms used. First, morphine in particular, and opiates in general, were administered by naive doctors "indiscriminately" (also termed " promiscuous", "imprudent", "uncontrolled", "overdosage", "ignorant", etc.). Second, as a consequence of such medical naivete, addiction among soldiers was massive (also termed "prevalent", "commonplace", "thousands", wholesale usage", "rampant", etc.). Third, so widespread was the addiction among soldiers and veterans that it became known as Soldier's Disease (also termed "army disease", "soldier's illness", or "soldier's sickness."),14
The only clear disagreement is the few who estimate the number of addicted Civil War veterans. Some claim 45,000 (Ashley, 1972 and 1978; Geis, 1973; Health PAC, 1970; and Kenny, 1972); others 400,000. (H. Jones and Jones, 1977; Lingeman, 1969; Schwartz, 1980; Starkey, 197 1; Summers et. al., 1975; and Westin and Shaffer, 1972) Since no writer in either camp provides one clue for their claim, the possibility that both estimates arose out of the thin air circa 1970 is not ruled out.
Is today's conventional wisdom about Soldier's Disease an intellectual version of the children's game of Telephone where a simple message, after innumerable repetitions, becomes distorted and a new "catchy" message takes on a life of its own ... or have recent writers captured the essence of opiate addiction in a past era? That depends on the evidence during and just after the Civil War.
There are only so many you can choose from.
You seem to be taken with Courtwright, and it appears this individual is David T. Courtwright who is affilliated with the University of North Florida, but what he actually wrote doesn't seem to be available online unless you care to buy one of his books.
I'm not interested in reading quotes from the Druglibrary.org out of context. That website is exactly what I mean when I point out Libertarians who have been scouring the bowels of history looking for evidence to support their pet theories about how harmless is drug addiction. If they have statement's against interest, i'll buy those, but nothing they say in favor of their agenda is credible in my opinion.
But you want me to buy his alleged conclusions as reported by you or the druglibrary.org people? I don't think so. This is not my first rodeo, and misleading or out of context quotes are all too common on this topic.
You may think I want to spend several days reading books cited in your links, but I assure you I do not. That fake quote I found the other day also came from some guy who wrote a book. It came from this guy, also known as the "Emperor of Hemp."
I'll believe something is scholarly and objective when I can find out more about who wrote it and what was their agenda, and then only after i've read it myself, not just seen bits and pieces from other people with agendas.