Addiction can LEAD to OC behavior, but addiction to opiate painkillers (in this example) is a physical fact. It is not a behavior; it is a biological fact clinically observable through the servere medical reaction which happens when these drugs are suddenly withdrawn from long time users. (Which is not to deny there CAN be a psychological addiction as well; but the physical fact of biological dependence is VERY real. If you don't believe me, visit a local de-tox facility. Those folks aren't shaking because they want to!)
Yes, of course I have a certain lens. I am a long term user of prescription painkillers - under the care of ONE doctor, a psychiatrist whose experience with drug addiction goes back to treatment programs during the Vietnam War. (Once it became apparent I might be on painkillers for a long time, I wanted to make sure someone was "in charge" who knew what he was doing.) There is no doubt that I am physically addicted to these painkillers - and obviously I have talked seriously with my doctor about them. When I asked him directly about this he said: "You're not a druggie; you don't take this stuff to get high; you take what you need to be functional". When I got a spinal stimulator implanted, I was able to halve the amount of painkillers I took (and was glad to, because the CNS depressive efffects of painkillers are NOT pleasant if you ARE trying to function. In my case, I must also take an anti-narcolepsy drug to counter these side effects.)
So I find the original author is painting with far too broad a brush. Certainly there is a problem with people who take these substances in greater quantity than needed or to address an inability to cope with life, or to experience a sense of exhiliration. But the author seems to pay scant attention to differentiate the two behavior sets.
I think the problem comes in trying to use the term addiction to refer to 2 very different things. There is a physical addiction which is a side effect of taking these medications for a period of time; there is a completely different problem with a psychological addiction and the progression from druge USE to drug ABUSE. The author is clearly focused on the second problem but, I find, is less careful than he should be in differentiating a physical addiction from a pattern of self-destructive and anti-social behavior which he refers to as "addiction" with no other qualifiers. Of course, the person in a self-destructive spiral ALSO has a physical addiction).
We have enough of a nanny state as it is - I am not interested in giving the government any more ammunition than it already has to interfere with medical decisions which should be between a patient and responsible doctor.
Addiction is in fact an obsessive compulsive behavioral pattern. That is most established in addiction research so I will not argue the point with you here.
The fact that there is a clear physical dependency does not negate such a psychologic phenomenon but rather supports it. Such dichotomous perspective would disintegrate a highly integrated biological/psychological system.
There is no need to be defensive. I was not posting the article AT YOU, nor was it written AT YOU. Your reaction, however, is very interesting.
Finally, the author never made any statements that could be construed as advocating a governmental policy of any kind. There was no need to bring in the “nanny state” comments. The article was written to help people realize if they have an addiction. If that is a sensitive subject for you, you might want to take a look at that. Perhaps it is because you have been wrongly accused in the past that you are so sensitive. But nothing has been written here that points the finger at you.