Arguments For Choice Sound arguments for drug addiction being a personal choice appear to be sparse in the literature. Indeed, most of what comes up arguing for choice is based on theory and circumstantial evidence, rather than empirical evidence. Reinarman (2005) cites a couple of theories: the attribution theory by Davies (1992) and another by Cohen (2000). According to the attribution theory, society has deemed addiction a disease in order to take blame and responsibility off of addicts, and to excuse their behavior. According to the latter, calling addiction a disease rather than a choice is simply a myth, promulgated to society as if it were religious fear-mongering and is no more sound than “flat-earth” theory (p. 310). Furthermore, he makes historical references to back up his arguments, citing the fact that heavy drinking was tradition during all time periods up until the modernization (and thus individualization) of the West, which set to represent people who used substances (in this example, alcohol) as people afflicted with some sort of disease, leaving them unaccountable for their actions.…show more content… 314). He does make one point that, citing research from MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969), people tend to lean into the expectations of drug-induced behavior learned from their respective culture rather than their objective experience (for example, when people believe they have had an alcoholic beverage, and thus act drunk). He argues that this makes it difficult to discern what is the “lived experience” of a person and what is the consequence of existing in a culture that may have shaped them to behave in a certain way (Reinarman, 2005, p.
