Posted by Ilene on February 8, 2004, at 12:06:14
In reply to Re: Thank you for that..., posted by Chairman_MAO on February 2, 2004, at 11:59:20
Mao, I have a lot of time on my hands...
The distinction between addiction and dependence is important in understanding the phenomenon, but focussing on the behavioral side doesn't lessen the problems of physiological dependence.
(Nicotine and alcohol are our biggest socio/medical problems, obviously, but prohibition was already tried. Public health campaigns and taxation are working, somewhat. Smoking is down now, compared to where is was in the 1950s and 60s. I don't know about drinking rates, but people are certainly aware of the need to have a designated driver. At least some people. My aunt was killed by a drunk.
I found an effective way to explain the power of my irrational depressive and anxious thinking. It only works with smokers and other, ahem, "addicts" (substance-dependent persons?). I told my friend to think rationally about her cigs. She could tell herself how smoking wasn't good for her, how it had rotted her lungs (she's got emphysema) and given her cataracts, and how she wasn't going to pick up another cigaret. Does it work? Need I say more?)
The distinction between addiction and dependence fails certain real-life tests. I've read that barbituates and alcohol are so powerful that abrupt discontinuation can be fatal. So, how does that differ from the facetious O2 addiction? (Other than that barb/alc intake began volitionally.)
BTW, the Inquistion had no power over Jews. Only over heretics, which included Jews who had been "convinced" to convert.