Whose decision is it, if not the person who opts to become addicted and continue that addiction?
People like to personify addiction, as if there is some outside force controlling the person, but this is to discount and discard every single addict who decided to clean themselves up. I know lots of addicts who chose to continue, and I know lots of addicts who chose to stop.
Don't personify the addiction: the brain of an addict is still that person's brain, and their decisions are still their own, even if they are de-legitimized in your own opinion due to their addiction. There is literally no one else who could possibly be responsible for the decisions of that human's brain and actions than that human being.
What goes in to our own bodies when we are not coerced by another person is our own decision, full stop.
I know one person who says of herself that some days she just can't go into the city. Because she knows on those days she'd get hooked again if she were to pass a place where she used to shoot. And she talks about "it", that urge, in the third person.
I fully "discount" her judgment in some areas and she would agree. Like I can't reason you into holding your breath for longer than a minute, I can't reason her into ignoring the urge. I would not treat as "legitimate" a decision she takes following that urge. Whether she stays clean or not depends a lot on her surroundings. Does that put responsibility on her friends? You bet.
> I know one person who says of herself that some days she just can't go into the city. Because she knows on those days she'd get hooked again if she were to pass a place where she used to shoot.
If one can opt out (by eg not going into the city), one can also opt in.
Looks like you wanted to build an argument but lost steam after one sentence. Here, let me continue for you: "So if she chooses to go to the city, it will be her decision and consequently her responsibility when she inevitably gets hooked again."
Oh but you see, it's her friends that give her the freedom not to go to the city: If they weren't there, she wouldn't have that choice.
>I know lots of addicts who chose to continue, and I know lots of addicts who chose to stop.
I highly doubt you know any addicts full stop.
>Don't personify the addiction: the brain of an addict is still that person's brain, and their decisions are still their own
I just can't even, are you a scientologist or something? I have literally never encountered arguments like yours. Truly outlandish.
"Addiction exerts a long and powerful influence on the brain that manifests in three distinct ways: craving for the object of addiction, loss of control over its use, and continuing involvement with it despite adverse consequences. While overcoming addiction is possible, the process is often long, slow, and complicated."
"...we recognize addiction as a chronic disease that changes both brain structure and function."
I saw no mention of addictive drug use. Whippits and mushrooms isn't going to throw you off the deep end. Something else was going on. Pills/meth/crack/coke? Those can lock you into addiction and rewrite your brain and you will not be in control.
People like to personify addiction, as if there is some outside force controlling the person, but this is to discount and discard every single addict who decided to clean themselves up. I know lots of addicts who chose to continue, and I know lots of addicts who chose to stop.
Don't personify the addiction: the brain of an addict is still that person's brain, and their decisions are still their own, even if they are de-legitimized in your own opinion due to their addiction. There is literally no one else who could possibly be responsible for the decisions of that human's brain and actions than that human being.
What goes in to our own bodies when we are not coerced by another person is our own decision, full stop.