Final answer:
The argument against drug use, framing addiction as a disease compromising freedom and contributing to crime, draws from the complex interaction between brain biochemistry and social factors. Alternative approaches to prohibition may include legalization and harm reduction strategies, responding to a broader understanding of addiction as a medical rather than moral issue.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument that drugs should be prohibited due to their addictive nature and the potential for social corruption is one that draws support from a view that sees drug addiction as a disease that removes free will and can lead to an increase in crime. Addiction to drugs is indeed a condition where the individual engages in compulsive use of a substance despite harmful consequences. This compulsive behavior is often due to changes in the brain's biochemistry, specifically the action of dopamine, which plays a significant role in the reward and pleasure centers of the brain. The argument also touches on the social implications of addiction, including the propensity of addicts to commit crimes to support their habits and the broader societal costs of drug use.
Prohibiting drug use is one approach to reducing these negative impacts; however, modern perspectives often suggest alternatives such as legalization, decriminalization, regulation, or harm-reduction strategies. For instance, the medicalization of addiction has shifted societal views from a stigma of personal fault to understanding substance abuse as a medical issue, potentially leading to more compassionate treatment options. Societal understanding evolves as we learn more about the biochemistry of addiction and the complex socioeconomic factors involved.