In his paper, Sellman [1] divides the scientific evidence that impacts treatment for addictions into 10 principles. It is easy to follow and is a most welcome guide for those interested in treatment and a useful translation of scientific evidence for both the specialist and the non-specialist responsible for making decisions related to the funding of services and training of specialists and so on. The paper marshals evidence against mistaken conceptions about the nature of addiction and the effectiveness of treatment. It is often thought that one episode of treatment is enough and that relapse constitutes failure, conceptions that must be corrected if we want to reduce the treatment gap. This issue is reflected in the statement: ‘Addiction is a chronic relapsing disorder in the majority of people who present for help’. To this very interesting review of the issue I would add that treatment should be readily available because, as Sellman correctly states, ‘Change takes time’. The World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health Survey [2] documents the treatment gap in 17 developed and developing countries, revealing a wider deficit in the latter, where only a small proportion of cases had contact with treatment during the first year of onset of the disorder ranging from 0.9% in Mexico, to 2.8% in Nigeria and China. In the developed world the proportion was larger but still low, ranging from 6% in New Zealand to 18% in Spain. By age 50 years a larger proportion had been treated in these countries, yet an important gap is also visible: an average of 22% of cases in developing countries and 62% in the countries from the developed world had received treatment at that age [3]. Sellman states that ‘Addiction is fundamentally about compulsive behavior’, implying that drug intake among those with dependence is not a matter of volition. He goes further by stating that ‘Compulsive drug seeking is initiated outside of consciousness’. Although individuals will differ in their vulnerability to drug intake—as expressed by his statement that ‘addiction is about 50% heritable and complexity abounds’, as a result of which he proposes an interactive model of ‘nature via nurture, genes and environment intimately interconnected as a continuum’—the decision to experiment with drugs is a voluntary activity and thus reinforces the need to prevent exposure and provide the individual with abilities to counteract pressure to consume drugs. The need to tailor treatment to populations' special needs is expressed in the statement, ‘Most people with addictions who present for help have other psychiatric problems as well’. Sellman provides data on the rate of comorbidity for the population in drug treatment; data for the general population in various developed and developing countries [4] showed that 32% of people with alcohol dependence had an anxiety disorder, while the proportion with drug dependence was higher, totaling 45%, hence the need to provide treatment for both disorders under the same premises and tailor treatment to patients' needs. This is reflected in his statement ‘The more individualized and broad-based the treatment a person with addiction receives, the better the outcome’. To the issues reviewed in the statement ‘Different psychotherapies appear to produce similar treatment outcomes’, I would add that support programs are useful additional tools for sustaining abstinence in people receiving professional treatment. They play a key role in many developing countries. For instance, in Mexico 40% of people with substance dependence disorders received help only from self-help groups [5]. Evidence that treatment can be successful, provided motivation to change is included as a first step, inspires his statement, ‘ “Come back when you're motivated” is no longer an acceptable therapeutic response’. This is especially relevant, as availability of good treatment does not suffice. People on the road to severe dependence often deny their disease, and thus actions to bring treatment close to the person in need are a necessary complement. The law is a good strategy; other relevant experiences such as mass media campaigns aimed at reducing stigma, and actions to motivate people to seek treatment are not explored by the author. Accepting his challenge, I would say that two additional issues deserve a statement: differences between substances in dependence liability and the availability of medication. None.