I coordinate two teams of committed therapists working with adult and youth substance abusing populations in Montreal. I would simply like to comment on how hard it has been for me to accept the implications of theliterature on therapy outcome. Trained as a cognitive-behaviorist, i have always tended to assume the 'cure' lies in a highly structured, intensive intervention in which the client learns from us how to cope. After attending several workshops by people like Scott Miller, William Miller and other acolytes of the Motivational Enhancement approach and hearing the same message from recent congresses (e.g., the recent day on 'Reaching teens through brief interventions' sponsored by Brown University, the message is finally penetrating (to the relief of some of my staff). It has been humbling to realize the hold my own a priori assumptions about what works in therapy has had on me. What was most striking was my perception of myself as being open-minded as befits a good student of the Boulder school. IN retrospect, I was flexible enough until a cherished assumption (i.e., CBT is best) came into play. Oh, well...We are now incorporating MET and solution-focused interventions into our program and will shortly conduct a study investigating the efficacy of MET in a 'real-life' substance-abuse setting.'. Thenk you for opening this forum. I hope it stimulates others to carefully reconsider their assumptions about Tx efficacy. dfross