The premise of this article (that "Once an addict always an addict" is false when evaluated from a rational, scientific standpoint) is flawed from the start bec

The premise of this article (that "Once an addict always an addict" is false when evaluated from a rational, scientific standpoint) is flawed from the start because the phrase isn't _meant_ to be a rational, scientific claim. The phrase is a contextual, emotional expression. Sometimes it's used to express frustration that even after years of work and/or progress, an addict might still _feel_ urges and have to deploy coping mechanisms against them. Other times it's a way of empathizing with someone who is a victim of a relapsed addict's maladaptive behavior. Still other times it's a mantra for recovered addicts to stay vigilant. The repeated references to "victimization" are a red flag to me that anything this author has to say about addiction isn't inclusive of everyone's (e.g. my own) lived experience of addiction. Admitting the difficulty and struggle of being an addict does not weaken me and prevent me from working towards recovery.