No it's not. That's a lazy way of thinking. Addiction isn't that simple, and deluding yourself into thinking it's that simple does yourself a disservice. It's not a moral failing, it's a disease.
And it's not lazy or delusional to claim addiction is as simple as being a disease?
If anything, that's a more lazy approach than saying it's a failing of self-control, which is itself a complicated and complex issue (hence my paragraphs and qualifications and whatnot above).
Writing it off as "a disease" removes all agency from the individual involved, whose lack of self-control is probably why they're addicted in the first place. That's true regardless of whether or not the addiction itself is a disease or a lack of self-control.
Saying "it's a disease" is also hugely insulting to the many people who have broken addictions by improving their self control. Even if you consider it a "disease", every person who has accomplished this has proven that the cure sometimes really is "improve your self-control".
And if that works in some cases, how can you prove whether or not it will work in another case without trying it first?
Self control is not 'simple', nor did I say anything about a 'moral failing'. 'Deluding yourself' by arguing against a position you imagined does yourself a disservice and just seems like a simple straw-man.
