The point is valid but I am not so sure the line between recreation and use is so clear cut. Take pain patients for example. If they are not getting enough pill

The point is valid but I am not so sure the line between recreation and use is so clear cut. Take pain patients for example. If they are not getting enough pills from their doctor they’ll get them on the street. Is that person a patient or an addict? At what specific dosage does one crossover? Obviously everyone in the medical profession has a huge stake in dividing the world into two groups, patients and druggies, and so most will set the cutpoint low. The incentives all reinforce such behaviour; you could go to jail for being too liberal in handing out pain meds. So, despite the appearance of there being two groups, heavy use addicts and low use patients, I don’t think reality is so simply bifurcated. I think the appearance of two groups is largely an artifact of the system. Doctors restrict dosages artificially and if someone claims to need more pain pills and maybe seeks another doctors to proscribe them, that person will be reclassified by his doctor from being a legitimate patient to being a drug addict. Scott implies there are no edge cases but that’s because the system starts with that assumption. Definitions are everything.