ADDICTION VS DISEASE

[BUILD]

Substance abused problems AKA alcoholics / drug addicts.
Disease? Choice? Forced addiction? What do you consider addiction to be, and why?
(Being born into addiction because of your mother having substance problems does not count here)
(Forced into addiction through any type of event is also not included in this thread)

Me, personally, I consider it a choice. It may not be a choice to get addicted, it may not be a choice
made on your own, it may not be a choice that you have ever even thought about. For addiction
to start, you have to make the choice to try something, at some point something happened at some
point in life and someone tried the drug/alcohol, and because they liked it or just had an addictive
personality or felt it was good to help cope with problems they got addicted to it, or those things. In
the end of things, I do not believe the addiction itself is a disease, it can be a part of your personality
or you can just like something. The overall outcome is that it takes absolute will power to over come
from an addiction, un-like a disease which you're usually born with or obtain in life like cancer, you can
not just use will power and get rid of it.

I do feel bad for people like myself and others who struggle with substances here and there, or full blown addicts who are homeless and lost everything, but eventually people will want to change and
they will eventually change for themselves or will die to the addiction. Addiction in many ways can feel
like a disease, but the true reality in my opinion is that it is not.

What are your opinions?
I am excluding forced substance use.
I am excluding passed on substance use from mother.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Screenshot - dc45b22657874b1ed54fd6e33d2c5956 - Gyazo

There's the definition of disease. In my opinion it's a self-inflicted disease. Whether it was inflicted knowingly or not varies from person to person. I started out on 9 months worth of Dilaudid/Oxycodone for a really bad injury from my doctor, but I knew exactly what would happen if I continued taking them. I'd become physically dependent and it would become a problem at some point. I continued anyways... mostly out of curiosity but obviously also because I enjoyed being high as giraffe pussy, so I continued for years even after the prescriptions stopped coming.

Another person in my shoes, 9 months of strong painkillers for an injury, could find themselves in a similar situation but have no idea what effects these drugs have on them when used long-term. This was a more plausible scenario years ago when I was in that position as no one was really talking about the opioid "epidemic" back then. So lets say they continue their 9 months completely oblivious to what's going to happen, simply trusting the doctor to make them feel better. At the end of the 9 months the doctor cuts them off. On day one they say: "Wow this sucks not being on these pills." Day 2 the physical withdrawal symptoms start kicking in, their head's hurting and they're shitting their brains out and aching in muscles they didn't know existed. They try to ride it out, but a week later still nothing has changed. They're still unable to leave bed and are in horrible pain and unable to sleep. They've slept maybe 5 hours in the past week. Are we going to say that this person made a choice and deserves what's happening to them? Or say that they're wrong for going out and picking up some pills or dope to make the feeling go away? I say no, they found themselves in a shitty situation through no fault of their own... but also no one forced them to take the substances and it wasn't passed on from their mother using during their pregnancy.

I don't believe that certain people are predisposed to have absolutely no self-control. I believe that in most cases people are making a conscious choice/sacrifice to enjoy being high... as I was one of those people... but I also think that it's unfair to assume that everyone with a substance abuse problem made a choice that landed them there, and because of that they deserve no sympathy.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Substance abused problems AKA alcoholics / drug addicts.
Disease? Choice? Forced addiction? What do you consider addiction to be, and why?
(Being born into addiction because of your mother having substance problems does not count here)
(Forced into addiction through any type of event is also not included in this thread)

Easy! Almost none of us here are doctors, so our personal feelings don't matter. Medical science has the best say.

Me, personally, I consider it a choice. It may not be a choice to get addicted, it may not be a choice
made on your own, it may not be a choice that you have ever even thought about. For addiction
to start, you have to make the choice to try something, at some point something happened at some
point in life and someone tried the drug/alcohol, and because they liked it or just had an addictive
personality or felt it was good to help cope with problems they got addicted to it, or those things. In
the end of things, I do not believe the addiction itself is a disease, it can be a part of your personality
or you can just like something. The overall outcome is that it takes absolute will power to over come
from an addiction, un-like a disease which you're usually born with or obtain in life like cancer, you can
not just use will power and get rid of it.

You're right in that it's a choice to try something, and thanks for offering your opinion that addiction isn't a disease.

Unfortunately, there are 2 types of opinions:

1). Chocolate cake is delicious. (subjective)
2). The world is 6,000 years old. (non-subjective)

See the difference? Opinions cannot be objectively wrong, as they depend upon your subjective opinion. Beliefs, however, can be wrong, since they're often based upon bad information.

Here, your thought that addiction isn't a disease isn't an opinion, it's a belief. With beliefs, there's no room for what you personal, private thoughts are, there's only room for facts. Here's a fact: Generally, medical science considers addiction to be a literal disease. What research/data have you that challenges the full body of medical science?

I do feel bad for people like myself and others who struggle with substances here and there, or full blown addicts who are homeless and lost everything, but eventually people will want to change and
they will eventually change for themselves or will die to the addiction. Addiction in many ways can feel
like a disease, but the true reality in my opinion is that it is not.

Have you ever considered that you don't speak for everybody with substance abuse disorders or addictions? I applaud you if you can overcome your issues, but surely you understand that your experience doesn't apply to everybody?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Screenshot - dc45b22657874b1ed54fd6e33d2c5956 - Gyazo

There's the definition of disease. In my opinion it's a self-inflicted disease. Whether it was inflicted knowingly or not varies from person to person.

Hold on, you're inserting your opinion into the definition. Whether it's self-inflected has no bearing on the definition as you quoted it.

I started out on 9 months worth of Dilaudid/Oxycodone for a really bad injury from my doctor, but I knew exactly what would happen if I continued taking them. I'd become physically dependent and it would become a problem at some point. I continued anyways... mostly out of curiosity but obviously also because I enjoyed being high as giraffe pussy, so I continued for years even after the prescriptions stopped coming.

That's great, I'm glad you didn't get addicted.

Another person in my shoes, 9 months of strong painkillers for an injury, could find themselves in a similar situation but have no idea what effects these drugs have on them when used long-term. This was a more plausible scenario years ago when I was in that position as no one was really talking about the opioid "epidemic" back then. So lets say they continue their 9 months completely oblivious to what's going to happen, simply trusting the doctor to make them feel better. At the end of the 9 months the doctor cuts them off. On day one they say: "Wow this sucks not being on these pills." Day 2 the physical withdrawal symptoms start kicking in, their head's hurting and they're shitting their brains out and aching in muscles they didn't know existed. They try to ride it out, but a week later still nothing has changed. They're still unable to leave bed and are in horrible pain and unable to sleep. They've slept maybe 5 hours in the past week. Are we going to say that this person made a choice and deserves what's happening to them? Or say that they're wrong for going out and picking up some pills or dope to make the feeling go away? I say no, they found themselves in a shitty situation through no fault of their own...

In this situation, I'd agree. A person suffering huge lapses in judgment from lack of sleep/withdrawal symptoms! This is literally why the legal system has qualifiers like "insanity" or "extenuating circumstances".

but also no one forced them to take the substances and it wasn't passed on from their mother using during their pregnancy.

Who cares if it was passed on from their parents? Substances can still be addictive regardless of their parents genetics.

I don't believe that certain people are predisposed to have absolutely no self-control. I believe that in most cases people are making a conscious choice/sacrifice to enjoy being high... as I was one of those people... but I also think that it's unfair to assume that everyone with a substance abuse problem made a choice that landed them there, and because of that they deserve no sympathy.

That's very nice that you believe that, but unfortunately, your personal beliefs don't dictate reality. If you didn't have a hard time of it, congratulations. You don't set the standard for how everybody reacts to addictive substances, and you should know that.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Hold on, you're inserting your opinion into the definition. Whether it's self-inflected has no bearing on the definition as you quoted it.

There's room for opinion to be inserted into that definition. According to the definition, the only thing off limits (as far as causes go) is physical injury. Also I made it clear that it was my opinion. If I was trying to present a fictional definition for the word, why would I give you the real one to click before reading?

That's great, I'm glad you didn't get addicted.

What???

In this situation, I'd agree. A person suffering huge lapses in judgment from lack of sleep/withdrawal symptoms! This is literally why the legal system has qualifiers like "insanity" or "extenuating circumstances".



Who cares if it was passed on from their parents? Substances can still be addictive regardless of their parents genetics.

Re-read his OP. I was responding to him saying: "I am excluding substance use passed down from the mother."
I was simply saying that this example fits in the parameters he gave us in his original post.

That's very nice that you believe that, but unfortunately, your personal beliefs don't dictate reality. If you didn't have a hard time of it, congratulations. You don't set the standard for how everybody reacts to addictive substances, and you should know that.

I believe I'm taking a perfectly middle stance here and I've given reasons why. I don't see anything in this post about where you stand or why. You seem to be referencing the science a lot but I haven't seen a single study posted by you to back up your mystery stance.

I made it very clear throughout my post that I'm giving my beliefs/opinions on the topic and referencing my own experiences. Nowhere did I say "NOBODY ______" or "EVERYBODY ______"

I've sat in a room full of addicts for an hour at a time twice a month for the past 37 months, I'm just posting based on what I've gathered from my / what I know of their experiences.

 

[Shredderbeam]

There's room for opinion to be inserted into that definition.

Addiction is a disease. Disease is a medical condition. Medicine is science. Science is based on fact, never opinion. You can of course provide your opinion, but it's science that matters here.

According to the definition, the only thing off limits (as far as causes go) is physical injury. Also I made it clear that it was my opinion. If I was trying to present a fictional definition for the word, why would I give you the real one to click before reading?

You probably wouldn't give a real definition, but I have to wonder why you inserted your opinion into a matter of science. If this isn't your area of expertise, it's still okay to have an opinion, but as I said, it's science that matters, not opinions.

What???

Sorry if I was unclear - my point was that you seem to be saying "I became physically dependent on opiates, but I was able to shake it" - implying that if you can, anybody can.

Re-read his OP. I was responding to him saying: "I am excluding substance use passed down from the mother."
I was simply saying that this example fits in the parameters he gave us in his original post.

If I misunderstood your point, I apologize, but the last part of your original paragraph stated:

"they found themselves in a shitty situation through no fault of their own... but also no one forced them to take the substances and it wasn't passed on from their mother using during their pregnancy."

Which, to me, seems like placing the blame on the addicted person. That's what I take issue with.

I believe I'm taking a perfectly middle stance here and I've given reasons why. I don't see anything in this post about where you stand or why. You seem to be referencing the science a lot but I haven't seen a single study posted by you to back up your mystery stance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stance you're taking seems to be very much on the side of "addiction is the addicts fault".

My stance I'll make very clear - addiction is a medical disease, and it's extremely counter-productive to blame the addict.

Understanding Drug Use and Addiction
Drug addiction (substance use disorder) - Symptoms and causes

I made it very clear throughout my post that I'm giving my beliefs/opinions on the topic and referencing my own experiences. Nowhere did I say "NOBODY ______" or "EVERYBODY ______"

No, you never said "nobody" or "everybody", but you did seem to indicate that blame lies on the drug addict.

I've sat in a room full of addicts for an hour at a time twice a month for the past 37 months, I'm just posting based on what I've gathered from my / what I know of their experiences.

I actually do appreciate your posting since you have actual experience with this - too many people post about subjects that they know nothing about.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stance you're taking seems to be very much on the side of "addiction is the addicts fault".

I was confused at first, but I just scrolled up to my first post and I think I see where the issue is now. In my first paragraph I said "It's a disease, but it's a self-inflicted disease, whether it was inflicted knowingly or not etc etc"
I was rushing through the post (through both posts actually)
That should've said "It is OFTEN a self-inflicted disease"

I do agree that it is a disease, and it's certainly SOMETIMES self-inflicted, do you disagree that it's OFTEN self-inflicted?

A person with psychotic illness may not necessarily be the one at fault for clawing their own eyes out... maybe it was just a bad roll of the dice that they were born with the brain that they have, but the wounds would still be considered self-inflicted.

It is MY BELIEF that the disease is not the addiction itself, it's the physical dependency or withdrawal symptoms. Someone can be addicted to smoking marijuana, but since that isn't necessarily a disorder of structure or function in a human I don't believe it'd be considered a disease. Compare that to the effects of opioid dependency where the user has two options (there are more than two options but these are the ones that don't require medical intervention):
Continue using and numb the senses, risk death, impair judgement, etc.
Or stop using and deal with the horrible physical pain and consequences that come along with that.

Addiction is a disease. Disease is a medical condition. Medicine is science. Science is based on fact, never opinion. You can of course provide your opinion, but it's science that matters here.

Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed on all points
EXCEPT for the implication that I inserted my own opinion into the definition. I was just using your words in my last post when I said "There's room for opinion to be inserted into that definition."
What I meant by that is: The definition does not fully cover the topic. It tells us WHAT a disease is, but it does not tell us HOW the disease comes about, except for the rule that it cannot be caused by physical injury. That leaves all other causes for the disease (in this case, addiction) available if we're only looking at the definition. If there's science that disproves my above belief about when an addiction becomes a disease, I'm open to see that. If there's science that says the disease is not OFTEN self-inflicted but only SOMETIMES self-inflicted, I'm open to see that.

In other words.... it is my BELIEF that the disease is often self-inflicted. You made the distinction between beliefs/opinions in a post last week if I'm not mistaken.. I just scrolled up and it looks like I said opinion, but that's my belief. I've always used the two interchangeably in the past but I see now that there's a difference.
I'm open to change my beliefs but my current belief is based on what I've been told by hundreds of the people that we're discussing in this thread.

You probably wouldn't give a real definition, but I have to wonder why you inserted your opinion into a matter of science. If this isn't your area of expertise, it's still okay to have an opinion, but as I said, it's science that matters, not opinions.

Above

Sorry if I was unclear - my point was that you seem to be saying "I became physically dependent on opiates, but I was able to shake it" - implying that if you can, anybody can.

Nah, I was saying that I made a choice to continue even after I realized that it would become a problem. Usually people will give you the speech about how they didn't know what was coming, they got cut off on their prescriptions and suddenly started feeling horrible. I just wanted to make it clear that some people do foresee what's going to happen if they continue their drug use but choose to do so anyways.

If I misunderstood your point, I apologize, but the last part of your original paragraph stated:

"they found themselves in a shitty situation through no fault of their own... but also no one forced them to take the substances and it wasn't passed on from their mother using during their pregnancy."

Which, to me, seems like placing the blame on the addicted person. That's what I take issue with.

My stance I'll make very clear - addiction is a medical disease, and it's extremely counter-productive to blame the addict.

Understanding Drug Use and Addiction
Drug addiction (substance use disorder) - Symptoms and causes

That's the opposite of what I was saying, hence the part about "through no fault of their own." Now, as I stated above, there are definitely people who can be blamed for their addiction, myself included. Since I had already made that case I wanted to also explain a scenario where the addict is NOT the one to blame. It's not as simple as always blaming the addict or never blaming the addict. Some people need to hear that they're fucking up before they can make the decision to change, others we need to have empathy for rather than pointing a finger in their face and saying "lol shouldn't have taken the drugs idiot." Scientific data is gathered from many, but when it comes to treatment I believe it's best to treat the individual.

Also I'd like to point out that the "Causes" listed in your second link are "Genetics" and "Environment." I challenge you to find me one thing about humans that's not caused by either genetics or their environment. I personally can't think of a single thing. If we can't assign blame for things that stem from those two causes then we can never assign blame anywhere.

No, you never said "nobody" or "everybody", but you did seem to indicate that blame lies on the drug addict.

Above. It certainly can lie on the drug addict, and many "clean addicts" will tell you the same thing.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I was confused at first, but I just scrolled up to my first post and I think I see where the issue is now. In my first paragraph I said "It's a disease, but it's a self-inflicted disease, whether it was inflicted knowingly or not etc etc"
I was rushing through the post (through both posts actually)
That should've said "It is OFTEN a self-inflicted disease"

I do agree that it is a disease, and it's certainly SOMETIMES self-inflicted, do you disagree that it's OFTEN self-inflicted?

A person with psychotic illness may not necessarily be the one at fault for clawing their own eyes out... maybe it was just a bad roll of the dice that they were born with the brain that they have, but the wounds would still be considered self-inflicted.

It is MY BELIEF that the disease is not the addiction itself, it's the physical dependency or withdrawal symptoms. Someone can be addicted to smoking marijuana, but since that isn't necessarily a disorder of structure or function in a human I don't believe it'd be considered a disease. Compare that to the effects of opioid dependency where the user has two options (there are more than two options but these are the ones that don't require medical intervention):
Continue using and numb the senses, risk death, impair judgement, etc.
Or stop using and deal with the horrible physical pain and consequences that come along with that.


Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed on all points
EXCEPT for the implication that I inserted my own opinion into the definition. I was just using your words in my last post when I said "There's room for opinion to be inserted into that definition."
What I meant by that is: The definition does not fully cover the topic. It tells us WHAT a disease is, but it does not tell us HOW the disease comes about, except for the rule that it cannot be caused by physical injury. That leaves all other causes for the disease (in this case, addiction) available if we're only looking at the definition. If there's science that disproves my above belief about when an addiction becomes a disease, I'm open to see that. If there's science that says the disease is not OFTEN self-inflicted but only SOMETIMES self-inflicted, I'm open to see that.

In other words.... it is my BELIEF that the disease is often self-inflicted. You made the distinction between beliefs/opinions in a post last week if I'm not mistaken.. I just scrolled up and it looks like I said opinion, but that's my belief. I've always used the two interchangeably in the past but I see now that there's a difference.
I'm open to change my beliefs but my current belief is based on what I've been told by hundreds of the people that we're discussing in this thread.


Above


Nah, I was saying that I made a choice to continue even after I realized that it would become a problem. Usually people will give you the speech about how they didn't know what was coming, they got cut off on their prescriptions and suddenly started feeling horrible. I just wanted to make it clear that some people do foresee what's going to happen if they continue their drug use but choose to do so anyways.


That's the opposite of what I was saying, hence the part about "through no fault of their own." Now, as I stated above, there are definitely people who can be blamed for their addiction, myself included. Since I had already made that case I wanted to also explain a scenario where the addict is NOT the one to blame. It's not as simple as always blaming the addict or never blaming the addict. Some people need to hear that they're fucking up before they can make the decision to change, others we need to have empathy for rather than pointing a finger in their face and saying "lol shouldn't have taken the drugs idiot." Scientific data is gathered from many, but when it comes to treatment I believe it's best to treat the individual.

Also I'd like to point out that the "Causes" listed in your second link are "Genetics" and "Environment." I challenge you to find me one thing about humans that's not caused by either genetics or their environment. I personally can't think of a single thing. If we can't assign blame for things that stem from those two causes then we can never assign blame anywhere.


Above. It certainly can lie on the drug addict, and many "clean addicts" will tell you the same thing.

I have to apologize - I think I misunderstood every single point you made, lol. Thank you for your response - I can agree with everything that you've said so far!

 

[BobCob]

its sad

 

[henlobeter]

I would never consider it a disease. I’ve done my fair share of drugs and it was always my choice. Would never blame it on it being a disease. Seems like a bit of a cop-out. But hey whatever people wanna put in their bodies they can

I think mental illness is a huge thing people should pay more attention to. That could play a bigger part on why someone would keep going back to the drug. I don’t think it’s fair to call that

But that’s just an opinion, tons of people consider it a disease. I just can’t agree.

This could all be an argument of semantics though. Depends on what people consider a ‘disease’

 

[Rivenstarz]

Im a bit unsure on this one, from my experience, its a choice but after an amount of time, its an addiction not to stop.

I can freely choose if i decide to do it or not, but if im weak and im exposed to it for a while, i struggle mentaly to say no.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I would never consider it a disease. I’ve done my fair share of drugs and it was always my choice. Would never blame it on it being a disease. Seems like a bit of a cop-out. But hey whatever people wanna put in their bodies they can

To make sure that I'm understanding you, you're saying that YOU always chose whether or not to use drugs, therefore, in OTHER people, you wouldn't call it a disease?

Im a bit unsure on this one, from my experience, its a choice but after an amount of time, its an addiction not to stop.

No worries, there's actually no need to struggle on this. Medical science is 100% clear that it's a disease!

 

[Rivenstarz]

To make sure that I'm understanding you, you're saying that YOU always chose whether or not to use drugs, therefore, in OTHER people, you wouldn't call it a disease?



No worries, there's actually no need to struggle on this. Medical science is 100% clear that it's a disease!

I gave my reply to @BUILD, its my opinion, the point of,this thread was for @BUILD to hear other opinions.

My answer was directed towards the op, not for you to argue or force your opinion.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I gave my reply to @BUILD, its my opinion, the point of,this thread was for @BUILD to hear other opinions.

My answer was directed towards the op, not for you to argue or force your opinion.

The description of this sub-forum reads: "Intelligent discussions. Share your thoughts on a range of contentious issues, debating your views intelligently with other members".

Emphasis mine. It's literally a debate forum, lol.

I also wasn't "forcing" my opinion, I was telling you what the scientific consensus is.

 

[Rivenstarz]

Your completly missing the point.

Ive replied to the question “ I “ was asked.

At no point does it mention, comparing ideas.

I just replied to the op, with my opinion and your jumping in with your shit.

If thats what you think then thats for you and the op to discuss, not me and you.

Ive gave my opinion to the person who asked for it.
Not you.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Here's another (more debatable) question:
Are Suboxone users "clean?"

I saw a meme saying they weren't the other day. I think the only people that think that are either 1: People who bought one off a friend to get high when they didn't need it and ended up puking for 2 days straight so now they think Buprenorphine is the strongest drug known to man or 2: Old people.

NA people will say you're not clean if you're on Suboxone. I disagree. I guess it comes down to how you define "clean," but a Suboxone user isn't getting high if they actually need it. It just keeps the withdrawals away and allows you to slowly (or quickly) ween yourself off so that you can go into the withdrawals with a clear head. I've always said it's a miracle drug... and I believe the people who say you're "not clean" if you're on it either don't understand it or are just hateful people in general who want to discount another person's progress.

What's everyone else think?

 

[henlobeter]

@Shredderbeam
I had reply typed out giving my reasons on why I don't consider it a disease, but googling it to source stuff showed that it actually is considered a disease in the medical world. I can't argue with science, I'll take an L on that one

It's called 'Substance use disorder'. I can't argue with that, but what I can say is that I don't agree with anyone that uses the fact that it's a disease as an excuse to justify taking drugs

I don't consider it a traditional disease but what do I know lol I dont know shit about medicine

edit: fixed poor formatting

 

[Shredderbeam]

Your completly missing the point.

Ive replied to the question “ I “ was asked.

At no point does it mention, comparing ideas.

I just replied to the op, with my opinion and your jumping in with your shit.

If thats what you think then thats for you and the op to discuss, not me and you.

Ive gave my opinion to the person who asked for it.
Not you.

No, I fully understood the point. It doesn't matter what your thoughts were while posting - again, you posted in a literal debate sub, and it's not my fault if you didn't know that.

Here's another (more debatable) question:
Are Suboxone users "clean?"

I saw a meme saying they weren't the other day. I think the only people that think that are either 1: People who bought one off a friend to get high when they didn't need it and ended up puking for 2 days straight so now they think Buprenorphine is the strongest drug known to man or 2: Old people.

NA people will say you're not clean if you're on Suboxone. I disagree. I guess it comes down to how you define "clean," but a Suboxone user isn't getting high if they actually need it. It just keeps the withdrawals away and allows you to slowly (or quickly) ween yourself off so that you can go into the withdrawals with a clear head. I've always said it's a miracle drug... and I believe the people who say you're "not clean" if you're on it either don't understand it or are just hateful people in general who want to discount another person's progress.

What's everyone else think?

That's a good question. I think it depends on how you define "clean". If clean means that you're not dependent on something, or that you're recovering, then I think that suboxone users should be considered clean, though to be fair I don't know a ton about opiate addictions.

@Shredderbeam
I had reply typed out giving my reasons on why I don't consider it a disease, but googling it to source stuff showed that it actually is considered a disease in the medical world. I can't argue with science, I'll take an L on that one

It's called 'Substance use disorder'. I can't argue with that, but what I can say is that I don't agree with anyone that uses the fact that it's a disease as an excuse to justify taking drugs

I don't consider it a traditional disease but what do I know lol I dont know shit about medicine

edit: fixed poor formatting

I appreciate you looking into it with an open mind.

I definitely agree with you about using it as an excuse, though. That's just denial.

 

[BellyFlopper]

its both, you made the choice but it is a disease and should be treated as such you cant just kick the cup

 

[Curate]

I think every situation is different and it's a mix of both. Your genes can give you an elevated chance at getting addicted as well as your environment / upbringing etc. Personal will power effects it, but where does your personal will power come from. Sometimes that's what people need, is something to live for