Oops. Too late.
I looked into the definition of addiction. You can find 20 different sources with 20 different definitions. I ran into the following quite a bit -- the only problem is that they're looking at addiction from the "prescribed opiate for pain" side, very similar to Rush's situation. I'm not sure of the applicability to say, a recreational drug user, although it would appear to cover it.
The American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine recognize the following definitions and recommend their use:
I. Addiction Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use,compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.
II. Physical Dependence Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.
III. Tolerance Tolerance is a state of adaptation in which exposure to a drug induces changes that result in a diminution of one or more of the drug’s effects over time.
What is important to note is that they're not tying physical dependence or tolerance to addiction. Addiction may or may not include physical dependence or tolerance.
First, that definition really is a change from the classic definition, perhaps in order to further causes such as the one you mentioned, anti-tobacco. I don't argue with the definitions of the components--I believe I posted something similar this weekend.
Second, I have to suspect the motivations of the organizations you quoted, or at least the Addiction organization. It seems to me that they have an economic motivation to change the definition--which they indisputably have done.
The more "addicts", the more patients who are eligible for and come under the care of the members of this organization. For the pain medicine people, certainly the more dangerous the treatment by people outside their societies, the more their societies benefit. I realize that that is an ad hominem argument. But in this case, I believe it is appropriate.
I think, if you disagree, that we will continue to disagree. I will take the conservative position of regarding tradition and classic definitions as the wiser choice.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4543017.htm
Oops. Too late.
President Kennedy needed pills to survive each day, historian says
By TRACY CONNOR, New York Daily News, Nov. 17, 2002
NEW YORK - Racked with pain, President John F. Kennedy turned to a cornucopia of drugs - including painkillers, stimulants and anti-anxiety pills, his secret medical records reveal.
Historian Robert Dallek got unprecedented access to documents from the last eight years of JFK's life for his upcoming biography, "An Unfinished Life."
He found that at various times Kennedy took codeine, Demerol and methadone for pain, the stimulant Ritalin and anti-anxiety drugs meprobamate and Librium, The New York Times reported on Sunday.
The records also showed that Kennedy took barbiturates to help him sleep, thyroid hormone, the blood derivative gamma globulin and the anti-diarrhea agent Lomotil.
At the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was taking antibiotics for a urinary tract infection, medicine for colitis, salt tablets and hydrocortisone and the male hormone testosterone to build up his strength and energy.
The medicine - as many as eight drugs a day at times - helped Kennedy cope with chronic and debilitating back pain, irritable bowel syndrome and the adrenal deficiency Addison's disease.
He also had high cholesterol, and osteoporosis left him with three fractured vertebrae that prevented him from putting on his own shoes without help.
The records show that Kennedy's ailments were far more serious than he and his doctors had publicly acknowledged. They included details of nine secret hospital stays for back and stomach illnesses between 1955 to 1957.
Discussing his findings in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Dallek said Kennedy's secrecy about his poor health could be seen as "another stain" on his character.
But he noted that the medical records exposed the "quiet stoicism of a man struggling to endure extraordinary pain and distress."
Dallek, a Boston University professor, examined the medical files with the help of Washington internist Dr. Jeffrey Kelman.
"The most remarkable thing was the extent to which Kennedy was in pain every day of his presidency," Kelman said.