I didn't open the link (at work, and about to leave) but seeing as how it's got a dot-gov address I'm not inclined to have a whole lotta faith in it.... nomsayin'?
Yeah I think that's what it means ---- that if the substance is interrupted, the body reacts.
If the body doesn't react to interruption ... then the substance isn't addictive. If interruption has no impact --- then how is the subject "addicted"?
The antagonist here tried to turn the argument into the addictED rather than the addictIVE, but that's what it was. He couldn't win that argument, so he blew smoke.
I understand...and relate to...a distrust of a gov site. However, any groups working with addicts will agree with the content of my link above. If you use a substance for which you have cravings (not to alleviate dope sickness, just a craving) and it interferes with other important aspects of life (your freedom, your employment, the welfare of your loved ones, etc.) - your high is your priority - then it's an addiction.
Sure you can become "addicted" to anything, but those things are not necessarily addictive. IOW, that is your own problem and things should not be against the law because certain people have poor will power.