[ConservingFreedom]

it represents a significant number of casualties

There is no direct relationship between percentage of likelihood accounted for by genes, and the range of values for the likelihood itself. It's entirely possible for one subgroup to have a 25% likelihood of addiction, a different subgroup (with different nongenetic factors but the same proportion of genetically susceptible people) to have a 1% likelihood of addiction, and for genetic factors to account for about half of the likelihood of addiction. (Details of calculation available on request.)

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no direct relationship between percentage of likelihood accounted for by genes, and the range of values for the likelihood itself. It's entirely possible for one subgroup to have a 25% likelihood of addiction, a different subgroup (with different nongenetic factors but the same proportion of genetically susceptible people) to have a 1% likelihood of addiction, and for genetic factors to account for about half of the likelihood of addiction. (Details of calculation available on request.)

We can look at calculations after you explain what percentage of the population it is okay to destroy. My answer is none, but as for you, like the old joke goes, "We've already figured out what sort of girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price."

So what's your price?