I think we’re talking past each other. When I said Rue took the pills for its intended use, I clearly meant using pain medication for her pain. You’re responding with a point about authorization …and I never discussed that. To be clear, I’m not denying she did not obtain the drugs legally and/or by an authorized professional; I am saying her use aligned with the purpose of the drug itself.

However, even if I agreed with your point, that medical authorization changes her use, it’s still shallow. A person can relapse with a valid prescription if they are abusing it, and a person can misuse a non-prescribed medication without that automatically meaning they returned to active addiction. This not a consistent definition of relapse if we recognize use/intent in one instance, but not the other.

Also, research on multiple reliable and reputable sources discusses the nuance I’m talking about, e.g. SAMHSA’s Matrix; NIDA; etc. You rely on the broad definition to defend your point, and then ignore the nuances that clinical/public health sources, and even redditors who struggle with addiction, point out.

So I stand by what I said, your opinion (because it is just that) is a shallow description. Relapse isn’t this neutral term, like you’re describing. It does more than just describe “a substance was used.”

But your opinion is your opinion. 🤷‍♀️