This is a good counterpoint and it's all true for once a person has become addicted. I think the original post and similar arguments stem from the thinking that

This is a good counterpoint and it's all true for once a person has become addicted. I think the original post and similar arguments stem from the thinking that before the person took drugs for the first time they made a choice to do so they knew what they were getting into. However the same could be said for people who have STDs and that's still called a disease. Same is true for people who might travel to a country with malaria, if they contract it, it's still a disease but they didn't have to go. I'm guessing people are more willing to be lenient in those cases because there's only a possibility of risk, whereas taking heroin or something seems more reckless. I think there is anger/judgement around someone for having decided to get into this, perhaps it should be a crime before the person is an addict but no longer a crime after they are addicted. Anyway I agree that it still has to be called a disease, you're point helped me come round to this. It's a disease once addicted, but it's not the moment before the decision is made to have it for the first time.