In a recent New York Times story, health reporter Jan Hoffman describes methamphetamine as irresistible, suggesting it is so pharmacologically compelling that using it inexorably leads to an addiction that is nearly impossible to escape. She also notes that people addicted to meth often will stop using it in exchange for small financial rewards ranging from $10 to $65.
The contradiction at the heart of Hoffman's story illustrates the folly of viewing drug addiction as a straightforward chemical reaction that can be reliably produced by combining a brain with a psychoactive agent. That take unsurprisingly appeals to hard-line drug warriors. But it is also embraced by many people who advocate a kinder, gentler "public health" approach to substance abuse.
Both versions are biologically reductive, gliding over the personal, social, and economic factors that explain why some people use a given drug occasionally while others become so absorbed with it that it dominates their lives. A drug-focused understanding of addiction is fundamentally dehumanizing because it treats people as passive victims rather than autonomous agents who respond to circumstances and incentives.
