"normal" or "good", either way you become a "culturally acceptable" drug addict who must purchase a prescription for a drug made specifically for the purpose of creating a market of addicts.

Well yeah it's "culturally acceptable" because of they low abuse potential, which is to say there are real actual differences that go into making it culturally acceptable. No one is crushing up their SSRIs and snorting them and going in to sex work to pay for the habit the same way heroin users do, because, well it's not a drug addiction as recognized by the psychiatric industry.

>psychiatric industry

The same people reaping massive profits are telling you whether or not you should think of these drugs as 'normal' or not.

Nothing is normal about a lifetime addiction - whether the high you get is a party high, or a "I am feeling normal, where normal has been defined for me by a high priest who actually happens to also be my pimp" ..

My life-long addiction to food and water and oxygen would like to disagree.

So in order to support your facetious argument all you've done is declare that all pharmaceuticals are the equivalent to nourishment.

"Pharmaceuticals == Food, doubleplusgood, wrongthink rectified!"

Just like a junkie would.

I see we're onto name calling. I'm tapping out, thanks.

If you can't see how frothy-mouthed proselytising of life-long addiction to mind-altering drugs makes you a junkie or a pimp then yes, you should tap out of this discussion.

Not that I have anything against junkies, they just shouldn't be giving other people mental health advice.