The disease concept of addiction originated with the temperance movement during the 19th century with a man named Dr. Benjamin Rush. Rush had speculated that those who drank alcohol excessively were 'diseased'. Dr Rush - whose deep anti-drug sentiments would eventually lead him on a passionate anti-alcohol crusade - used his disease idea to promote a prohibitionist political campaign. It is interesting to note that this very same Dr. Benjamin Rush was also convinced that dishonesty, political dissention, and being african american (i.e. 'negro-ism') were diseases as well.
The disease propaganda grew, and was endorsed by the religious cult of A.A. It was heavily pushed by a devout 12-stepper named Marty Mann and backed by a dubious scientist by the name of E.M. Jellinek, who was happy to falsify research with a group of drunks who had been handpicked by Mann (the 12 stepper). He was later asked by officials of Yale University to refute these findings which had not stood up whatsoever to actual science. The voodoo pharmacology did not stop here. As one might expect, the disease concept was eagerly capitalized upon by the American Medical Association, setting the stage for the development of a multibillion dollar annual "treatment" industry.
To this day, the disease concept of addiction has not been supported by any factual research, and remains recognized in the DSM thanks to the progressive semantic elasticity of major medical & public health organizations.
The year is 2011, and a major proportion of americans continue whole-heartedly believe that the use of any "drug"; including heroin, LSD, cocaine, even marijuana - results in imminent destruction, insanity, criminality, or death. Meanwhile - the liquor, the beer and wine, the highly caffeinated starbucks beverage, the st. johns wort, and the prozac; which they consume on a daily basis - all are either drugs or contain one or more drugs. It is perplexing to hear anyone actually debate this, and try to draw the arbitrary distinctions between "caffeine, beer, wine, etc" and "drugs".
Babies are not born addicted to drugs and are not biologically or developmentally capable of addiction to drugs. Babies whose mothers have taken narcotics such as morphine may be born with a physiological dependence to the drug and subsequently experience some physical agitation and sickness in the absence of the drug, though this is easily remedied with gradually reduced doses of the substance until they are drug free. Infants lack the cortical neuronal-connections necessary to develop an actual addiction to narcotics or anything else for that matter, and the symptoms experienced by babies are extremely mild compared to those experienced by an adult with an actual addiction to such substances. "Addicted Babies" is a phrase used by alarmist scumbags and vapid hags whose general intention is to invoke the superstitious misconception of a baby who is born doomed to the inevitability of life-long involuntary self destruction.