Posted on 12/15/2016 7:14:25 AM PST by Kaslin
“How many things is it possible to be passionate about...”
It’s not about passion, it’s about principle. Some people only apply their “Constitutional conservative” principles to certain questions, then toss them out the window when it comes to others. That isn’t a matter of passion, it’s just hypocrisy.
What exactly qualifies as an “addict” and how one would tell an “addict” from a non-”addict”?
“What exactly qualifies as an “addict” and how one would tell an “addict” from a non-”addict”?”
Someone who is a substance abuser, typically someone physically dependent upon the regular use of a substance, more typically, someone dependent upon opioids in the context of this discussion.
How would you define/differentiate an “addict”?
The problem there is that definition covers coffee drinkers and sugar consumers (ironically it would not cover pot smokers), in addition to everyone hooked on pharmas. So we’re talking probably 2/3rds of the entire population who could in one sense or other qualify as an “addict”. And if “psychological addiction” (which is just another term for “habit”) is thrown into the mix, that would cover almost everybody.
I would contend that there is no way to define the word “addict” that would not either be so broad as to cover everybody, or so narrow as to apply to almost nobody, and that the word should be ditched as semantically ambiguous.
You don’t honestly think coffee is a problem.
Be serious if you want to have a serious discussion, fine, if not please don’t make light of a serious problem
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.