I’m asking this questions because I simply haven’t considered it enough to answer it.
Is it an action, or a substance? For instance, can you really be addicted to booze? I don’t think so. If a person buys a bottle of liquer and it sits in the closet 20 years, is that person a long-term, chronic alcoholic? I hope not. Maybe you can be addicted to drinking booze, but not to the booze itself. You have to drink it to get hooked, don’t you? This gets me thinking….Isn’t that kind of a better definition? You can’t be addicted to food, but you might be addicted to eating too much or too little.
That said, can you be addicted to benzos? No! Not if you are pharmacist and you only dispense them to the suckers who come by once a week. You have to put them in your mouth, as I figure. So if you’re a benzo addict, you’re addicted to taking them, consuming the pills. Bottle to mouth.
This is why people can’t seem to fully understand the addictive nature of therapy. You only see a psychiatrist once a month if that. You see this therapist once or even twice a week. Day treatment patients see their therapists daily. Yes you get hooked fast, and the addiction is so powerful it’s most likely lifelong. The medical profession’s refusal to understand the seriousness of this, insisting on calling it “health care” is a crime, since before our eyes, thousands are being forced into dependence and neediness.
They even claim it is healing, but what is healing about creating an addictive dependency on a hired person? What is healing about neediness where there once was strength and autonomy? They say these people cure. I have rarely seen a person go to therapy and actually end it, pronounced cured. They usually end it as “treatment failures,” or, “Sorry, that’s not covered anymore.”
If you start therapy, ten years from now you’ll still be in it. Wanna bet?