XPost: uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com   
      
   Noticed at Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:23:08 +0100: Aidy informed us:   
      
   > "M_P"  wrote in message   
   > news:f15925b4-8132-4895-b842-387cd7649d52@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >> The link I clicked said they're the same, as I quoted ... and thus   
   >> supports my statement.   
   >   
   > It said that dependency was to be addicted, the other link demonstrated that   
   > addiction does not require dependency (or at least dependence was not   
   > mentioned as a prerequisite).  My original point (agian).   
   >   
   > "> [You] You can't be addicted without being dependent   
   >   
   > [Me] Maybe you should consult your dictionary."   
   >   
   > If you can't understand what "the same" means then maybe you should go back   
   > to high school?   
      
      
   Give it a rest, Aidy, you're just digging yourself in deeper.   
      
   --   
   Dr John Watson   
   Baker Street   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)