Seems like most places I go, especially those places bent toward drug intolerance, I find the words depedence and addiction used interchangably. Not only is this practice sometimes confusing, it's also lending a lot of undue support to drug prohibitionists. Addiction is the bad word. Addiction causes violence and destruction of property. Addiction causes the user to completely ignore his surroundings, living only for the feelings the drug gives him. Addiction consumes all of the user's time and energy, not allowing him to focus on anything but getting more of the drug. The effects are never quite enough to satisfy the addict, he is always attempting to find ways to make the next high better than the last. With addiction, the user is not a productive member of society when the drug is available, and a threat to society when it isn't. Even if the drug is constantly available, eventually the addict finds himself at a dead end, with no where to go but jail or the grave. Sometimes there's help on that way to that dead end, many times there's not. Dependence, whether physical, psychological, or both, is simply a side-effect of the drug. Dependence is a reason to keep taking the drug, but if the drug is readily available it is of little consequence. Once the user acheives a certain level of pleasure or comfort he no longer needs or wishes to take more of the drug. The user can live a full, productive life, in some situations more productive than without the drug. It is only when the drug is withheld from the user that dependence poses a threat of focusing on drug acquisition, distracting him from issues which he would otherwise address. Dependence can be caused by many forms of drugs, whether they are used for pleasure or medical purposes, but does not automatically cause the user to be addicted. Can dependence cause addiction? Not really, but yes, sort of. Some people will take an 'addictive' drug for many years, not so much for it's effects but to avoid withdrawl symptoms. This is especially prevelent in alcohol and nicotine use. We say they're addicted when in truth they're just satisfying the dependency. Many times with alcohol addiction, though, the person is described as having a dependency when it truely is an addiction. From this vantage it would appear addiction could be caused by dependency. It seems the application of this pseudo-logic to drugs presently sanctioned by society is leading to this confusion. The truth is, anything that is capable of bringing pleasure or comfort to a person can be addictive. Gambling, food, sex, even exercise. A drug should not be considered to be addictive simply because it causes unpleasant symptoms when discontinued. Nor should drugs that exibit positive medical or recreational benefits be withheld from responsible users. There will always be drug abuse, whether the drugs are offered freely or rooted out through clandestine contacts. We just need to accept that, and focus on the treatment of such addictions, instead of trying to prevent the inevitable. In other words, we need to treat addiction, not abolish drugs that cause dependency.
