Addiction is a disease and should only be a health issue and not a criminal issue.

I think I'm starting to see your disconnect between addiction and crime a bit more clearly now. Perhaps a set of examples will help set this misinterpretation straight for you and anyone reading this: 1) A person with an addictive tendency towards alcohol has a drink (we do not punish that person, nor would we punish a non-addict leaning one). The same person has many drinks and becomes addicted over time. He begins to neglect his family and goes to the bar every night instead of coming home (we don't send that person to jail, nor would we put to jail a non-addict who did the same). That person gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and is caught just before or after killing someone from behind the wheel (the now criminal offender gets punished as equally as a non addict behind the wheel intoxicated). 2) A person with an addictive leaning tendency towards meth does meth in the privacy of his abode (if caught he would be equally as in trouble for his offense as a non addictive leaning person would be). That person decides to go out in public and gets in a verbal confrontation leading into them assaulting a person (addict or no ... they both would be punished equally if found to be under the influence of the drug). Fact is these people you're victimizing are not being punished for their addiction in any way by the state. Their punishment for the addiction comes in the form of natural consequences, but no one is going out of their way to punish for those. The actual crimes being committed under the influence, however, are what's being punished. And part of the reason we MUST punish addicts for those crimes in similar manner is because of the very reason you mentioned above! Fairness to non-addicts. Someone performing the same exact crime as a non-addict should not be punished any more harshly than an addicted person. I simply cannot stress that enough. They may not be bad people because of their "disease". They become bad people by in light of that disease, usually revealed to them after their first offense, becoming repeat offenders of criminal activity. What I suggest isn't too harsh though. If a repeat offender does not feel the graveness of their offense in their first punishment, I only advocate that that punishment be ramped up. It should also be done in an equal manner to which you would punish a non-addict for the same crime. I don't believe we should be giving anyone a free ticket from their transgressions because they have a genetic flaw. The damages they cause are equally as devastating to a community. Their tendency to be repeat offenders, in fact, makes them almost more of a risk to society. In the most extreme left leaning sense, if you could predict a persons risk to society in the manner you claim is possible (by knowing that they are genetically predispositioned to be addicted and commit criminal acts) why would you not try to eliminate those people and genes from infecting the population? Giving them a chance through the prison system to remediate is actually quite the humane approach. I don't think "we're really scared of is the pain and suffering we see in a helpless addict", but rather scared of the pain and suffering they are capable of inflicting on us. I don't think its at all unreasonable to be guarded around a person who is a known addict and repeat offender of a potentially deadly crime. There is nothing unreasonable about holding on to the idea that they could potentially fall again. In fact it's only logical to do so. In closing, addicts can have their medical help if they commit themselves and show a commitment to breaking their habit. None of their circumstance, however, should protect them from fair and equal justice for their crimes. None of it should be the burden of the state. Being an addict does not automatically make you comparable to a person with heart disease or cancer or any of the other forms of disease Pro tried to tie in. The difference lies in the addicts personal choices.