If a person can easily quit something, they were never really addicted, right? Isn't an addiction much more than a mere habit? And isn't the habit in question required to have a negative influence and seriously interfere with an individual's life before we can call it true addiction?

It bothered me that the author seems to lump decisions, habits and addictions together..using a study on horsetrack betting (?) to somehow equate with studies on "junkies and crackheads". I missed the point entirely. And withdrawal from caffeine is absolutely no comparison to what a person withdrawing from heavy alcohol use or herion abuse experiences. Withdrawing without medical intervention can be deadly under some circumstances. Not a headache or feelings of sluggishness. The detox process can be a dangerous ordeal. And, as we all know, rehab treatment doesn't always work for a multitude of reasons...the whole relapse isssue and cyclical nature of addiction are important aspects to mention in a discussion of this kind.

Maybe the difference is "not of kind but of degree", as stated in the article, but the difference is important nonetheless. And going cold turkey is not a decision many people can make without serious risk during his or her "rational decision" to quit. Chemical dependency is not a mere habit to be broken over the course of a day or two. Or during a vacation in the Welsh countryside...give me a break. Coffee addiction...now I've heard everything.

The issue of mental health never came up but it's important to remember that the main element of addiction is compulsion: need, hunger, craving, etc. Whatever the term is, it isn't in the "rational" category when we're trying to understand addictive behavior and addictive personality types. A lot of what seems to go on with abusers, for lack of a better label, is substitution...substituting one chemical substance for another or one negative behavior for another. A coping mechanism.

Some therapy models address this: the idea of substituting a healthy, positve pattern for an unhealthy, negative one. It seems so easy and rational. And self-motivating. We should all be so full of self-love and self-appreciation! In a rational world. That would make perfect sense! And that is why this model often fails and misses the point entirely: people become addicted to chemical substances to ease anxiety and depression. Addicts don't choose to be addicts.

Economics is all about preserving self interest and promoting oneself, it seems. But I can't seem to place this particular human behavior in an economic model. It just won't fit. I don't find a hidden logic or gain any understanding. Only more questions. Why would somebody choose addiction? What is the benefit? Is addictive behavior a means to an end? I can only see it as slow suicide. And that certainly isn't playing the game rationally in my rule book.