"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" wrote
I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational
people: ...

You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe
they were and maybe they weren't. The study only says that they
all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.

No, the study says that they continued to avail themselves of the drugs when
given the option.

"After 7 days they had the option of stopping the medication or continuing
for 3 more weeks. All the
patients reported that the drug helped and all chose to continue taking it."

Your sentence construction implies the patients were given the opportunity
to try to "get off" of the drugs and failed at the attempt. AFAIK, one
cannot personally fail at something if one doesn't attempt to try in the
first place.

They were given two choices. They made their choice. Whether the choice was
"coerced" by addiction or for the reason(s) as stated is something that
cannot be honestly determined without you personally testing and
interviewing the patients.

You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive.
The opposite conclusion is more likely.


I disagree, obviously. There is insufficient data regarding YOUR assertion,
but at least one verifiable fact supporting those who disagree with your
assertion. The study states the patients *chose* to continue, and chose
because of feeling that the drug "helped". You are adding speculation that
they in actuality had no choice due to addiction - but that IS all that it
is: speculation, and not fact (as reported in the study).

You may draw your own "likely" conclusion based on whatever outside facts or
rationale you wish, but this particular study doesn't bear out your
conclusion.

Either you accept the study as factual and accurate in relaying their
observations, in which case you accept the patient's assertion that they
made their choice as stated and not out of addiction, or you reject the
study as factual or complete - in which case, without sufficient facts you
can make no conclusions directly related to the study results, you can only
"conclude" that the study itself was flawed in your estimation. Or at best
decide that the results are contradictory to other studies.

Finally, note the phrasing of the patient's statements - the drug "helped".
Not "caused a craving". Not "made them feel great". It helped lessen the
severity of the cancer treatment side effects.

The desire for cessation or alleviation of severely life-affecting symptoms
and the use of medication towards that end does not affirm nor deny the
possibility of addiction in and of itself, I agree - but if the observers
AND the patients report only that the use of the drug appears desirable
because it helps alleviate other symptoms, then it's more likely they aren't
addicted - as the study is phrased.

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.