zlacker

>This distinction is extremely important, because it allows for addiction without substance dependence to be taken just as seriously, and properly treated and addressed clinically or by other means.

Here's where you seem confused. The article is not saying this. It is explicitly saying that medications which one builds up a tolerance to and experiences withdrawal symptoms from are not addictive.

>The DSM-5 referred to the confusion over this issue, stating that “’Dependence’ has been easily confused with the term ‘addiction’ when, in fact, the tolerance and withdrawal that previously defined dependence are actually very normal responses to prescribed medications that affect the central nervous system and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an addiction.” Public Health England makes the same distinction.

You are claiming the article's distinction between addiction and dependence is discussed in order to make a claim about substance abuse and addiction without dependence. This is not in the text at all. What the heck?

I have the decades of domain specific knowledge and time spent reading neuroscience journal articles to know that I don't have to read between the lines of the article here. It's not an opaque or jargon hidden meaning. It's quite plain: dependence is not addiction. Not, "addiction can happen without dependence" which is not addressed or relevant to the paper or this HN discussion about caffeine.

>>superk+(OP)
I completely agree that the article only makes one very specific and narrow point, that dependence and addiction are separate things. The rest of what I wrote is, like you said, not in the article at all, but is context I am adding in attempt to explain my point.

It seems like we’re talking past each other somehow, perhaps one or the other of us misunderstood what the other is saying, but I don't see any value in continuing further.