Posted by linkadge on August 24, 2010, at 10:36:49
In reply to Re: Meds: Addiction vs. Medical Dependence, posted by emmanuel98 on August 23, 2010, at 21:35:49
You also cannot always associate addiction with addict.
The medical community speaks candidly about "nicotine addiction". This is in spite of the fact that most people do not require ever increasing doses of nicotine and there can be some therapeutic effects from nicotine (i.e. anxiolysis).
How is paxil any less addictive? You see its all about whether the medical community wants you on the drug or off the drug.
Many years ago, the cigarette companies argued "Smoking is not addictive. Its habbit forming, but not addictive". Why? Because they were protecting their profits.
Now, the drug companies argue, "paxil is not addictive, you may not be able to discontinue (i.e. habbit forming) but its not addictive"
Why? Because they are protecting their profits.The only difference between a pack a day smoker and a 20mg a day paxiler is that one is at elevated risk of getting cancer. That, and that alone is why people get away with classifying smoking as addictive, simply because it is deemed by the medical community as a "bad thing", and hence diserving of a word with more negative connotation.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:959454
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100821/msgs/959633.html