We’re now in the rational choice theory framework

I feel I need to explain something understanding the way of describing the addiction discourse may seem strange. First of all, let’s recall we’re now in the rational choice theory framework at don’t take into account such determinants as compulsivity and weak will of a human. It surely makes our schemes a bit abstract, but in return it makes us definitely sure what this choice may be. We’ll talk about one of the alternatives here, for we can view the addiction as a voluntary act emphasizing the social foundations or even evident preference to get euphoria in an artificial way (that’s how alcohol and other drugs affect the reward center) to other life strategies viewed by the public as more wholesome, useful and rational. Instant and easy adjustable pleasure really has great chances to become the overarching idea and the main driving force of behavior. Moreover, this search of euphoria, as we said before, is the main goal of any activity for many. There is nothing wrong to get great satisfaction from work done, the successful completion of a transaction, the recognition of one’s scientific achievements, etc. But the situation with the chemical addiction is different. A person falls morally, can wear old and dirty clothes, eat poorly, feel contempt from people known and unknowns and still at the same time be happy, although with a chemical support. What can we offer this person instead? Even in the best of the best – little. We meant it by giving the above example with migrants going to a distant shore for happiness. Even the safest world is cruel and evil. It’s evident that the social lift where the repentant addict goes at the best outcome will stop at a lower level that could be if there had been no alcohol as a drug in the addict’s life. Nobody is even going to guarantee him or her a possibility of significant elevation. The only thing to offer this person is humility. The open question is for what and for the sake of whom.