"Roger Schlafly" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > You ask a diabetic, and asthmatic, a hypertensive, an allergic, a
> migraineur
> > to "just stop taking your meds", and when they say, "no," are you going
to
> > say that they are addicts?
>
> There is a movement to redefine "addiction" so that you can only be
> addicted to something that is bad for you. That way, no prescribed
> drug could ever be addictive. (I don't think that such a change would
> be helpful.)
There may be such a "movement" afoot, but I don't believe any of these
respondents subscribe to it.
Addiction, by its very nature, implies an abuse of drugs, whether legally
prescribed or otherwise. The fundamental argument/debate in this thread is
whether this particular drug is likely to cause such abuse when taken in
prescribed dosages in the prescribed manner.
Virtually everybody but yourself seems to feel/believe/know that it is NOT
subject to abuse in virtually all cases where the person doesn't have
addictive traits in the first place. They are constantly asking you to
provide evidence that it is addictive within those parameters.
I would be curious to see any such evidence myself. Because I feel my mother
had hypochondriac tendencies, I myself have shied away from medication in
general for fear of becoming reliant on unnecessary drugs.
But that doesn't mean I'll turn them down if they seem efficacious - to me -
and are recommended/prescribed by my medical professionals.
> > You *are* stating categorically that you have, and will, *refuse all
> > medications*?
>
> No. I take something on rare occasions.
So then it's a matter of degree as to whether one is defined as "addicted"?
Do you take different medications each and every time you feel the occasion
to use them? Aspirin one time, acetameniphin the next? Tums one time,
Rolaids the next? I'm willing to bet that you tend to take the same
medicine, even the same brand, every time you DO feel the need for it,
correct?
Your concern seems overly-exaggerated to me. I am aware of no child who
demanded the return to Ritalin when removed from it simply because they miss
the rush. I see many posts here that say "if that doesn't work for you, try
this, this or this instead".
Unless you are defining addiction as "the desire (not chemically-compelled)
to ingest a substance for a particular effect", I just don't see your
concern.
If you do use the definition as above, perhaps you are confusing "desire"
with "apparent necessity". I think it safe to say that the majority of us
would happily forego medication for medically-proven alternatives, up to and
including surgery if neccessary. Few people want to live in a
chemically-altered state on a permanent basis.
But if that's what it takes for us, we'll do it - not because we want the
drug, but because without it we are demonstrably sub-par in one or more of
the three major life arenas, to our and other's detriment.
We were that way BEFORE we began taking the drug, and removing ourselves
from it causes no typical withdrawal symptoms (that I'm aware of).
You are the only person I'm aware of who defines "being normal" as
"addicted" because of the means used to achieve that normality. Most of our
"rush" comes from sheer excitement that we ARE acting normally.
And that wears off pretty quickly. We go on with our "new" lives, for the
most part stable and well-adjusted (after likely co-morbid symptoms have
been addressed), and think about our medication not at all until reminded to
take them.
If that's "addiction", I'll take it. It damned sure doesn't follow *my*
definition of it, though!
--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
