Substance addiction affects millions of individuals worldwide and yet there is no consensus regarding its conceptualisation. Recent neuroscientific developments fuel the view that addiction can be classified as a brain disease, whereas a different body of scholars disagrees by claiming that addictive behaviour is a choice. These two models, the Brain Disease Model and the Choice Model, seem to oppose each other directly. This article contends the belief that the two models in the addiction debate are polar opposites. It shows that it is not the large amount of addiction research in itself what sets the models apart, but rather their extrapolated conclusions. Moreover, some of the most fiercely debated aspects - for instance, whether or not addiction should be classified as a disease or disorder - are irrelevant for the conceptualisation of addiction. Instead, the real disagreement is shown to revolve around capacities. Discussing addiction-related capacities, especially regarding impaired control, rather than the assumed juxtaposition of the two models can be considered the true addiction debate. More insight into the extent to which the capacities of the addicted individual were affected would be highly useful in various other areas, especially legal responsibility.

物质成瘾影响全球数以百万计的人，但是关于其概念化尚无共识。最近的神经科学发展助长了这样的观点，即成瘾可以归类为脑病，而另一批学者则不同，他们认为成瘾行为是一种选择。脑疾病模型和选择模型这两个模型似乎彼此直接相对。本文认为，关于成瘾性辩论的两种模式是截然相反的。它表明，使模型脱颖而出的本身并不是大量的成瘾研究，而是它们的推断结论。此外，一些最激烈辩论的方面-例如，是否将成瘾归类为疾病或病症-与成瘾的概念化无关。取而代之的是，真正的分歧表现为围绕能力。讨论成瘾相关的能力，特别是关于控制能力受损的能力，而不是假定两种模型的并列，可以认为是真正的成瘾辩论。在其他各个领域，尤其是法律责任方面，更深入地了解成瘾者的能力受到影响的程度将非常有用。