[reliablereason]

You have to use a very strange definition of "cause" for the articles title to be true.

If there was no chemical the addiction to the chemical would not be there. It is obvious.

The existence of the chemical is part of a hugely complicated causal tree that leads to addiction. The argument laid out in the article is a false dichotomy, which is denying one part of the causal tree(the existence of the drug) by pointing to one part of another part of the causal tree(social factors).

Real change (the end of the war on drugs) should come from facts not poorly laid out rhetorics.

[mordae]

> If there was no chemical the addiction to the chemical would not be there. It is obvious.

From my experience, users would find another way to compensate. Maybe gambling. Maybe self harm. Maybe hurting others.