"Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can."
So he built a nice environment and put some addicted rats in there with the option of using water with or without morphine and they rarely chose the water with morphine. This is in 1974. How is this not more widely known? It seems to contradict not only a ton of drug studies, but a ton of research altogether. Are we making decisions based on facts that represent a shitty rat life instead of a happy human life? How far can you really extrapolate results from animal studies, especially when the environment isn't taken into consideration?