I've learned a lot about addiction from listening to Dr. Drew Pinsky who co-hosts Loveline and is an addiction medicine specialist, and I feel the need to clarify some things about addiction based on some posts (most of which totally hit the nail on the head by the way).
Addiction is a specific disease state. That specific disease state is progressive and is clinically defined as "proceeding in the face of consequences." That disease state is identical regardless of the drug of choice, be it gambling, marijuana, sex, cocaine, opium, shopping, whatever, though obviously, some parts of treatment have to be adjusted to deal with uniqueness between various drugs of choice.
A certain biology and a unique gene predispose one to falling into this disease state. The addictive biology is like a switch, that once flipped CANNOT be reversed. Not by will, not by prayer, not by hope, not by JAIL, not by anything EXCEPT the person submitting willingly to a structured treatment program. Actual addicts cannot just CHOOSE to stop. They simply can't. It's not a matter of weak will.
A person with the addictive gene has a 50/50 chance of passing it on to their children. Drew has said that in studies of certain Cherokee indians and those of Irish decent, the presence of the gene was something OVER 50%!
Dr. Drew has best described addiction as the biological hijacking of the brain's survival mechanism (he says this occurs in the medial forebrain bundle). If you've been around true addicts, you know this is true because they will put using their drug of choice ABOVE survival.
The primary function of government is to make and enforce laws in the interests of public policy.
That is vague and wide enough to drive an open pit copper mine truck through. That "interests of public policy" stuff only applies at the state level because the federal government does not have the authority. Quit assuming that all "government" is the same, or part of one big whole, because it's not (at least under the founder's constitution).
The "compelling state interest" doctrine is the most insidious and subversive nonsense that I know of. It is extremely dangerous. It has been used to literally justify everything in the book that would otherwise be held unconstitutional by liberty minded courts. It says that "since drug users cost society, then society, via government power, has authority to do anything and everything to stop drug use" (which doesn't even work). If you accept the "compelling state interest" doctrine, then you are accepting the "logic" that society has a duty to rid itself of the presence of guns, because getting rid of guns really would reduce crimes with guns (crimes with knives etc go through the roof but that doesn't change the facts).
