I've really avoided jumping back into this thread because it was absolutely not my intent to start infighting or any sort of controversy (though I suppose perhaps I should have assumed something like that would happen) and I'm totally on board with shutting it down to avoid further issue.
However, before that happens, I would like to clarify my intent with this - which was to describe addiction in a way that refutes the idea that it's "weakness" or "lack of self control" rather than some kind of biological process (disease, illness, whatevs). I would also like to say that I understand the point of view that it doesn't matter what you call it to fight it...but I think that FOR SOME PEOPLE it in fact CAN be important to try to define your condition. At least to some - it was to me, and that's probably why I'm in the line of work I'm - I like to understand how things work and in my line of work, to "solve a problem" (for lack of a better phrase), it's important to understand what goes wrong in that problem. I really do get the point that it's ultimately not what you call it, but how you deal with it. But in the treatment of MY disease (I'm going to stick with calling it that, if you all won't mind), it was important for me to figure out what it was first. That's all! Thanks for all the feedback, points of view, etc. I do enjoy hearing what others think even (and especially) when they disagree!