Cigarettes are also highly addictive.

Here, you take it, will you?

But it's a hugely addictive drug.

Now, healthcare providers often assume that these conditions are primary perhaps the cause of addiction but never really the result of an addiction.

Political office, it seems, is more addictive than heroin.

This is also when they are the most vulnerable to addiction, but there is another risk.

Drugs of abuse would come in, and they would change the way you value the world.

And cigarette makers have learned how to manipulate the properties of their product to make it maximally addictive.

Drugs are not by themselves addictive, because most people who try most drugs never become addicted.

My definition of addiction is any behavior that gives you temporary relief, temporary pleasure, but in the long term causes harm, has some negative consequences and you can't give it up, despite those negative consequences.

This supports the world view that we are 'hardwired' in some way and that even subtle nuances of behavior, such as an inclination for addiction, is genetic or instinctual in some way.

And it's got the three main characteristics of addiction tolerance, you need to see them more, and more, and more withdrawals and last, relapse.

Built on a youth for youth concept, it also mobilizes university and college students to play a part in disseminating information on the harmful effects of drug abuse.

Now I don't just mean in the field of daft macho Edwardian style derring do, but also in the fields of pancreatic cancer, there is something addictive about this, and in my case, I think polar expeditions are perhaps not that far removed from having a crack habit.

Such an approach lies in stark contrast to the approaches of social cognitive theory to addiction and indeed, to behavior in general which holds human beings regulate and control their own environmental and cognitive environments, and are not merely driven by internal, driving impulses.