I disagree, this author is clearly trying to make the case that the idea that addiction being "progressive" is wrong. That is definitely minimizing addiction.
A perfectly reasonable counter to his arguments is the possibility that the data isn't terribly accurate. The data concerning people "classified as addicts" vs the hypothetical set of data for "actual addicts" might look very different (could we actually obtain this). The problem of classifying addicts or even really defining the term is very open as of now. Using datasets for addicts with the same confidence as datasets concerning those suffering from breast cancer for instance is foolish. The gray area as to whether someone does or does not have breast cancer is very small when compared to that same gray area with addiction.
My own experience shows that there are addicts who never get better, progressively get worse and tend to die very sad deaths. My family is riddled with this type of addict. The possibility that the author is not suffering from the exact same condition that my family members are afflicted with is not really considered. He spends one or two sentences describing how bad his addiction was as proof to the contrary but this is just shirking the real issue of identification. So yes, I think through the author's narrow-minded approach they are indeed treading dangerously on minimizing addiction and the "negative impact of drugs."
A perfectly reasonable counter to his arguments is the possibility that the data isn't terribly accurate. The data concerning people "classified as addicts" vs the hypothetical set of data for "actual addicts" might look very different (could we actually obtain this). The problem of classifying addicts or even really defining the term is very open as of now. Using datasets for addicts with the same confidence as datasets concerning those suffering from breast cancer for instance is foolish. The gray area as to whether someone does or does not have breast cancer is very small when compared to that same gray area with addiction.
My own experience shows that there are addicts who never get better, progressively get worse and tend to die very sad deaths. My family is riddled with this type of addict. The possibility that the author is not suffering from the exact same condition that my family members are afflicted with is not really considered. He spends one or two sentences describing how bad his addiction was as proof to the contrary but this is just shirking the real issue of identification. So yes, I think through the author's narrow-minded approach they are indeed treading dangerously on minimizing addiction and the "negative impact of drugs."