"Here's probably the most strict source on drugs saying that the addiction rate is 23%" I get what you are saying, but I don't think you're applying the genera

"Here's probably the most strict source on drugs saying that the addiction rate is 23%" I get what you are saying, but I don't think you're applying the general context: everyone doing heroin as common as they drink - that would lead to massive addiction and total health crisis. So it's not '1 game' of 50 000 users, it's every game. Frat parties, bars, dinner parties, 'netflix and chill', I mean pervasive open used of opioids. This is 'where people drink alcohol' - so now replace alcohol with opioids. 23% addiction in narrow circumstances, but considerably higher across the board. A 'University' that had widespread use of heroin - as widespread as alcohol - would crumble very quickly. Near 100% of the student body would be addicted. Nicotine is addictive to 100% of people if they smoke enough packs - the chemicals just do their job, and that means pushing the body to 'demand more'. For some, it means more smoking than others, and many would chose not to smoke enough to get hooked - but it will get you 100% of the time, with enough cigarettes. "d I think your ideas have an element of truth, but your approach to using unsubstantiated numbers and overall tone of self-assuredness is just kind of sad to see." No. Absolutely not - and you proved it yourself: a 23% addiction rate over a small sample would lead to considerably more over time. Can you imagine 23-70% of regular people addicted to heroin (because that's what would happen if they did heroin as much as people drank alcohol). '23% of the population hooked on heroin' (and this would be a low, conservative number) would be totally devastating to civilization - that's not an 'extreme' or 'irrational' position. It is 'extreme' and irrationally 'self assured' to posit that alcohol and heroin represent the same level of public health risk to society. They are totally different substances.