There is such a thing as addiction to marijuana. He may or may not have it, and it may or may not have something to do with his actions here, but it does exist.

Some people in the comments at that link are trying to make a distinction between "physically" and "psychologically" addictive. This is a common belief, but medically, there are no such distinctions. Addiction is defined as continued use despite consequences, and whatever the mechanism, it occurs with marijuana in some people.

That is not the definition of abuse. Per DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse addiciton:

"One of the following must be present within a 12 month period: (1) recurrent use resulting in a failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home; (2) recurrent use in situations which are physically hazardous (e.g., driving while intoxicated); (3) legal problems resulting from recurrent use; or (4) continued use despite significant social or interpersonal problems caused by the substance use."

I know that we technically-minded people like to be precise in our wording, but I think that "continued use despite consequences" is a reasonable summary of that exhaustive definition. :)

Medically this is untrue. You need to understand the actual definition of "addiction" before making statements like this.

i believe mike was fighting for any excuse of his action.

knowing stefan (a small bit) i can only agree that he is one of the most charming, smart and helpful people in the london scene. that offense is super-far out of character for him

as a journalist... his job is the very OPPOSITE of "fighting for any excuse for his action." REALLY weak