Hacker News Reader

Comment by School-Cotton | Hacker News Reader

There is no requirement for laws to use words with the same meaning as they’re used in one specific niche publication. “Addictive” is a normal English word; it doesn’t exclusively belong to psychiatry.

View on HN

Addiction was a meaningful word long before the DSM

Correct, which is why the DSM doesn’t get to define what it means for all English-speakers.

They're not? They're Defining what it means in a medical setting so we can all have a standard set of evaluating principles to work and diagnose from in order to ensure a standard level of care is achieved across all those under their care.

I don't agree with DSM decisions but I don't have to in order to see this basic nuance about their purpose.

Sure, but this law is not a “medical setting”.

Exactly. As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality. It's just an ignorant meme of misclassification; like people saying "the internet isn't working" just because their monitor is unplugged. Imagine legislation to "protect the internet" and require by law that all monitors remain plugged in at all times. That is how stupid this reads. The internet working may just mean "monitor displays browser" in common usage, but it doesn't actually mean that and making law based on popular usage is very, very bad.

> As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality.

I didn’t say anything like that. I said they’re perhaps using the word in a way that is broader than it’s used in medical jargon. That’s not the same thing as saying the word is meaningless or has nothing to do with reality.

> this law is not a “medical setting”.

And from other posts it's clear that you and those behind this legislation care nothing for science of medical standards when drafting law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com