There's obviously some truth in the article, that your environment does determine to some degree how likely you are to get addicted.
The findings of the studies are interesting, but he goes way too far in his conclusions, which aren't supported by any amount of evidence.
Claiming that chemical addictions are only responsible for 17.7% of any given addiction, based solely on the fact that 17.7% of people stopped smoking after using nicotine patches flies in the face of science, correlation/causation relationships and common sense. He just makes broad, sweeping assumptions and applies his misguided conclusions from one drug to all other drugs, which all have different physiological mechanisms and are more addictive.
A quick check of Wikipedia shows me that he has no background in the natural sciences, was fired and had awards withdrawn based on charges of plagiarism and edited the Wikipedia pages of those who criticised him, as well as his own to make him seem more important.
