Addiction and responsibility

Abstract

X he subject of addiction has attracted increasing interest over the past decade from moral philosophers (W tson, 1999; Wallace, 1999), legal th orists (Corrado, 2000a, 2000b; M rse, 1 9), nd, most intriguingly, from economists (Becker, 1992; B cker a Mur hy, 1988) and other social scientist (Els er, 19 a, 1999b; lst r an Sk g, 1999). Am ng the factors that explain this escalating i t llectual n ere t i addic on a h cr ck ep d mic beginni in the mid-1980 (w ic rigge ed the latest drug wa ); the surgeon general's 1988 report on nicotine addiction; advances in the science of addiction, especially in neuroscience; tobacco litigation predicated on the addictiveness of nicotine; and continuing public debate on the premises of the nation's policies toward users of illicit drugs. The advances in neuroscience serve as my point of departure in this paper. Remarkable scientific achievements over the past 25 years especially in the last decade have significantly advanced our understanding of addiction in a variety of respects. First, neuroscientists have discovered the neural circuits activated by using addictive drugs the brain's common pathways of addiction and have thereby intensified the search for pharmacological treatments (McLellan et al., 2000: 1691). Leshner (1997: 46) has summarized the scientific findings: