David,

There are several problems/quesitons that my query intended to bring to
light and discussion.  Over the years, I have hammered out an
understanding (for myself, not necessarily for anyone else, Ron) that
when used in my context of academic interest, "drug" denotes "a
psychoactive substance."

This has two obvious weaknesses:  (1) why not add/substitute
"mood-altering"?  (2) what about "process addictions" such as gambling
and sex?  And a third, perhaps:  (3) Must the use of the "drug" have, on
balance, negative effects on the taker's life.

My response to the first is that getting cut off in traffic is also "a
mood-altering" experience, and so can be a glass of cool water on a hot
day.  As to (2), I am one of those who is of the opinion that we become
"addicted" to some substance produced in our own bodies, and certain
processes as well as certain substances can trigger the release of that
"natural" substance.  As to (3), I think those who intend to do so
explicitly mention that their research includes or excludes caffeine,
chocolate, refined sugar, etc. in their initial "statement of the topic."

But I do think we have to think along these or similar lines if we are
ever going to really communicate with each other.  I am convinced that
ever discussion of "drug" dependency or use or whatever should begin
with a clarification, "By 'drug,' I mean . . . ."

And I am positive that some humanities-trained
chemist-philosopher-biologist  can come up with a better
concept/definition that mine.  I just want to get the conversation
started, lest we continue to plow deeper and deeper into our stand-still
hole.

ernie