[stratos2]

I think addiction has less to do with the 'drug' and more to do with the person. Be it heroin, pain killers, sex, gambling, smoking, or alcohol segments of society are able to use these in a way that does not interfere with their own life or those of people around them.

There are also people who use these as a means of escape or have limited coping resources. It is not that the cigarette is bad, or the pain killer is bad, or sex is bad.

In saying that, having a methadone dispensary four doors down from where I am sitting, I see first hand the obvious effects of drug addiction and how people struggle to escape it's grasp.

[andrewfelix]

Addiction is a physiological dependence. It has much more to do with your body than your personality.

[chii]

sure, physical addiction. But what drove those people to try the drug in the first place? its a set of circumstances - such as poverty, lack of other leasure activities etc.

[andrewfelix]

I was responding specifically to..."I think addiction has less to do with the 'drug' and more to do with the person.".

[chimeracoder]

Empirical evidence supports your first two paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

This experiment was not well-received in its day, but in recent years, the line of thought is becoming popular, as people who work in drug treatment realize that the paradigm is very helpful when treating people in recovery (ie, you have to identify the reason why people feel compelled to seek external relief, be it anorexia/bullemia/marijuana/alcohol/heroin, or else you're just patching over the symptoms).

As for your last point, I'd point out that what most people don't ever see are the people who use drugs responsibly and without any problem - there's a selection bias afoot which causes society to overestimate the harms associated with drugs (and underestimate the harms of the policies associated with them, since they also never see the people locked away).