Numbers would make the statement even more meaningful - but even without them, all sane readers will agree that the American Society of Addiction Medicine knows more about addiction than you do.
They are considerably less authoritative on the subject of medicines in general:
there is no "Medical marijuana" because the plant parts in question fails to meet the standard requirements for approved medicines,
A substance can have medical value without being "approved" - and the Institute of Medicine has reported that marijuana does.
Marijuana has many serious, negative health effects.
So does chemotherapy - but it's appropriate when the disease being treated is even worse.
As I pointed out in my previous response, their statement does not contradict my position. Depending by what they mean by it, it may very well reinforce my point. In China addiction rose to the point that by 1900 about half of China's male population was addicted to Opium. If the "genetic factor" mentioned works out to about 50% of any given population, then that would correspond to what history tells us happened in China.
A substance can have medical value without being "approved" - and the Institute of Medicine has reported that marijuana does.
The point here is that you cannot hold up an organization as an "expert" only when you think they are supporting your position, and then dismiss their expertise when their position goes clearly against you.