569548d9   
   XPost: uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article  "Aidy"  writes:   
   >"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).   
      
   Dependence and addiction are frequently used as synonyms.  But many people,   
   like me, separate dependence and addiction so that "dependence" implies a   
   psychological component, and "addiction" implies a physical component.  It is   
   very difficult to become addicted without first establishing a dependence.   
      
   And people with no dependence usually don't have a problem breaking a   
   purely physical addiction.   
      
   A true addiction normally requires both the psychological dependence as well   
   as the physical addiction.   
      
   >"> [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?   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "Most rock jouralism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't   
    talk for people who can't read."   
   					-Frank Zappa   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)