| Gnizmo said: As has been said countless times, Wikipedia is simply wrong on this. Common usage is different, but that doesn't change what a true addiction is. The two concepts are as different as night and day to people who actually deal with adiction. Without a physical component there is no addiction. Disagree if you like, but I have an army ofdcotrs tha say I am right. |
QFT.
If we were to ban everything that is "addictive", we would have to ban food too, and television, and video games, and sex, and masturbation. Basing your argument on the fact that something is psychologically addictive is about the dumbest argument you could make to be against something.
If its not physically addictive, its no more addictive than anything else without a physically addictive component to it.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
