Can you trust a recovered drug addict?

Some people don't relapse once they've recovered, so they can be trusted

Question: Can you trust a recovered drug addict?
Position‹3 of 3: Sometimes you can trust a recovered drug addict, it depends.
Argument1 of 3›: Some people don't relapse once they've recovered, so they can be trusted

There are some people that don’t relapse after they have recovered because they have gained control of their addiction. Having control over their addiction makes them trustworthy, as they are not being controlled by it anymore.

The argument

Recovered addicts that don't relapse are trustworthy people. One of the aspects of a recovered addict that makes them trustworthy is that they do not want to unravel the progress they've made. As a result, there is an incentive for recovered addicts not to relapse. To do this, recovered addicts will ensure that they continue their routines and/or treatments that prevent them from relapsing. Achieving this frame of mind takes effort and varies from person to person. For some people, it takes a substantial change or event for it to take place. The case of Pastor Robby Gallaty is one such example, who was able to beat his addiction after going to rehab and converting to Christianity. An argument can be made that in addition to realizing that Gallaty needed to change and to keep that change in his life, finding religion helped reinforce his desire to prevent another relapse from occurring. His faith in Christianity serves him by keeping him honest, in turn making him trustworthy. Cases like these, however, are not universal. Despite being recovered, there is always the chance that a person can relapse. It depends on the person since some argue that addiction is a spectrum disorder. It's nature as a spectrum disorder makes it difficult to gauge who is potentially trustworthy and who isn't. At the same time, it does not mean that recovered addicts that are trustworthy don't exist.

Premises

[P1]Recovered addicts who don't relapse have a strong incentive to maintain the routines and mindset that protect their progress, which makes them trustworthy. [P2] Some recovered addicts, like Pastor Robby Gallaty, undergo substantial life changes that reinforce their commitment and keep them honest. [P3] Although addiction is a spectrum and relapse is always possible, this variability does not preclude the existence of trustworthy recovered addicts. [C] Therefore, you can sometimes trust a recovered drug addict, depending on the individual and their circumstances.

Counter-arguments

Counter to the idea that recovered addicts are trustworthy because they don't relapse, it may not be possible for an addict never to relapse again. The rationale behind this idea is that addiction is like a disease the addict has no control over. If the addict has no control over his/her disease, then they cannot control if and when they relapse. It then becomes a matter of whether or not they can manage their addiction effectively.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The reasoning runs in a circle. Not having relapsed is offered both as the evidence of trustworthiness and as what the incentive is supposed to explain, so the premise identifies the outcome with its own cause. [Rejecting P2] A single case shows that it happens, not how often or under what conditions. The premise also treats a particular conversion as the mechanism, when what the example shows is that some people find something that works for them. [Rejecting P3] This concedes the point at issue. If relapse remains possible and the variability is irreducible, then whether a given person will hold is exactly what cannot be known in advance — which is what extending trust would require. [Rejecting C] Trustworthiness is a broader property than abstinence. Someone can maintain recovery and still be unreliable, and someone can relapse without being dishonest, so the premises track the wrong thing.