Although, a particular assumption might have been more eminent and widely accepted at a specific point of time in history; nevertheless, the other competing assumptions never disappeared. Not a single generation has been able to solve the mystery of addiction more than it could solve the affiliated mysteries of connections between mental and physical health, free will, and coercion. Moreover, it is extremely wrong to link criticism and ignorance with will power or compassion. In reality, the truth is much more complex and difficult to grasp. Numerous researches have illustrated the existence of an insistent American folklore related to addiction. In simple words, it says that social influence develops recurring poor choices that compel a drug addict to take more and more drugs. Furthermore, addicts can only discontinue drugs by learning self-control and self-discipline, possibly through treatment. Therefore, the American culture views addicts as unethical yet ill, blameworthy yet innocent, driven by will yet determined(White). As opposed to this, medical science explains drug problems, as “addiction is a disease like hypertension or diabetes”. Thus, we can conclude that addicts are vague and complex individuals for professionals who treat them. This cultural dilemma is depicted throughout the drug treatment history in America. Cultural norms restrict the probable solutions to a plight, and as they are slow to evolve in traditional ways so the imperative problem repeatedly occurs and is largely unsolved. The wide variety of possible remedies to a predicament will be chronically explored by new generations in the hope to gain more insight and find more efficient techniques of interference. History reveals that treatment even encompassed exhortation, compulsion, religious teachings, drugs that are more miraculous, communal help, and dictatorial professional help. The history of treatment in the United States reflects this cultural dilemma. Cultures limit the range of possible responses to a problem, and because they tend to change very slowly in fundamental ways, to the extent that an important problem recurs or remains unsolved, the range of possible responses will be explored repeatedly as new generations search for fresh insights and effective methods of intervention (Ammerman, Ott and Tarter). At various times, treatment has embraced exhortation and coercion, sermons and miracle drugs, democratic mutual aid, and autocratic professional prerogative simultaneously. The Pre-modern Age Modernity has been defined differently in consideration of alcohol and drug usage. For regular alcoholism, the modern age can be traced to the origin of Alcoholics Anonymous or AA back in 1935. However, assigning a specific time periods to drug abuse is more difficult; nonetheless, we can conclude that modern age for drug addiction was characterized by the consumption of methadone or heroine in 1965 and the enforcement of Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (Nara) during 1966. The words of alcoholism and alcoholic can be traced back to mid nineteenth century. However, these were not professionally used until the beginning of the twentieth century; and they did not become a part of vernacular until the swift development of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935. ‘Inebriety’ and ‘inebriate’ were more widely used during the pre-modern age, but they were mainly used to denote substance abusers(Miller and Carrol).