Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. What the government needs to do is provide options for addicts to re-learn how to cope with life without resorting to their addiction.
I reject this statement. Even if people are more prone to addiction, that doesn't excuse their choices. Otherwise you could excuse serial killers by saying "Oh well, his brain was wired that way. He got derived sexual satisfaction from torture and killing. He couldn't control his actions; he's not responsible for his choices."
Once you blame genetics, then suddenly nobody has accountability for anything. "Oh, he did X? He didn't have a choice, his brain was wired that way."
It's incredible to me how quickly we support, nurture, even worship people who are born into extremely good circumstances with all the advantages of the modern age, who are able to exercise common sense and ethical behavior (did they deserve it?), while others are blamed and despised when they were born into extremely poor circumstances, disadvantage after disadvantage (did they deserve it?)
Context differs wildly and yet everyone is held to the same standards and expectations, when we're all just barely evolved higher intelligence, with severely flawed wetware. It's fucking ridiculous.
A serial killer is not locked up because he or she is a serial killer but to protect the rest of us who are not. A drug user is locked up because he or she is a drug user, not because the rest of us need protection from a near-comatose stoner.
This is not in line with contemporary, mainstream medical thoughts on the topic.
There are some people who are genetically and/or biologically prone to addictive behaviors, but that's not to say that those behaviors will necessarily manifest (or, if they do manifest, that they will manifest as drug addictions). And even that's a far cry from this broad claim about addiction and addicts in general.
You seem to be counting as "addicts" some people who have never experienced the thing they are supposedly addicted to.
There might be a meaningful classification here. But if so, the word "addict" doesn't point at it.
also, not an expert by any stretch of imagination, from what I understand though some drugs, like meth for example can get just about anyone addicted to them after one-two uses.
As for preventing use, good luck!
As for "legal drugs" vs. street - you're not seriously comparing the Desoxyn dosage some kid with add would get prescribed to him with a dosage a user would smoke are you?
Not only is this the dominant view in the various recovery communities, it's supported by considerable scientific evidence - for example, addiction is well known to be inheritable, and childhood trauma is very strongly established as being predictive of addiction in later life.
I take it you don't know many addicts, especially former addicts with a mature perspective on their own addiction. There are some really good books written by folks who've been addicted and gotten over it that could clue you in on how addiction works.
> you're not seriously comparing the Desoxyn dosage
Most meth addicts start with a dose that helps them, emotionally or as a performance enhancer for work, school, sex, etc. These doses are roughly the same as those prescribed for ADHD and narcolepsy. Eventually, meth stops helping and takes control - this is the hallmark of addiction.