Schaler says that no one has been able to find a cause of the addiction disease in autopsies or medical exams. He says that one of the only treatments for the disease of addiction is therapy in the form of talking to someone. The success rate for this treatment is not much different from those who stop using drugs on their own.

He believes that most people begin abusing drugs because of what he calls problems in living: childhood sexual abuse, poverty, losing a job, and so on. Many people start, stop or moderate their drug use on their own, without intervention. This would not work for someone who has a true medical disease like cancer. Schaler also points out that, contrary to demonstrating a lack of willpower, many drug abusers demonstrate incredibly strong willpower and planning skills as they manipulate those around them and execute various crimes to obtain money for drugs.

He also suggests that it is not helpful to use the disease model because it implies that people have no control or free will in regard to their drug abuse. He says that research has shown that if someone believes they have control over their behavior, then they are in fact more likely to control their behavior.

In this respect, he believes that drug prohibition is harmful because incarcerating drug abusers only creates more problems in living. Schaler believes that even if people had regulated access to their drug of choice, many of them would still eventually stop using drugs on their own.

I don't agree with everything that he says, but some of his ideas make sense to me. However, I also feel like I don't know enough about the science of addiction to fully commit to either the free will model or the disease model.

What do you think?