Yeah, I think the article presents a good point, logically speaking. But I think it's brash to ignore the history of the "pseudoaddiction" term, which is a tool of FUD.

Of course it exists and makes sense, this was marketed to doctors. They're not dumb. Pseudoaddiction is real and important, which is why it's such a good marketing tool.

It's a really tough problem. That's why I think considering both sides is incredibly important. I'm not trying to bash the article, just provide a different perspective on why pseudoaddiction might have been bashed in the press.

edit: Apparently reading a book doesn't make me an expert! I'm realizing that it's actually pseudoaddiction that's getting bashed right now. Which makes sense, given the context of the article. I was still thinking about it from the lens of opioids being over-prescribed but it seems the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Sorry for muddying the discussion.