So even if it's not true for everyone that's a practically useless observation because how are you going to find out it's not true for you without risking becoming instantly addicted?
I don't have the reference at hand, but the rates of problematic use in the population seem to mirror alcohol. A small single digit percent of people will absolutely have a horrible problem, 8-10% will engage in disordered use, ~10% will over use in some way, and 80% will never develop a problem at all.
Here's one showing only 5% of people filling opioid scripts go on to long term use.[1]
Another older study citing 2% of US adults regularly using opioids, while a further 29% use them infrequently. Other more recent studies I seen hold this pretty constant. [2]
Here [3] only 13% of elective surgery patients fill opioid scripts beyond 90 days, and "mental health disorders, and tobacco dependence or abuse were associated with prolonged opioid use". It's well known that people with one substance abuse issue tend to be at higher risk for developing others.
You could go on and on finding studies that show that relatively few people with high risk medical/mental health history go on to develop opioid addiction after using these substances. There doesn't seem to be any support for the idea that the average person can take these drugs once and become "hooked".
All that said, they are dangerous and have strong addictive potential so caution is warranted.
That you cannot imagine an approach doesn't mean an approach doesn't exist. It may be possible to form a generalized understanding of an individuals predisposition based on testing with other substances, just as one example.
You’re still taking a substantial risk when forming that generalized understanding, and then another substantial risk when you start making conclusions from that general understanding.
Ok, so basically, since we haven’t proven the opposite, we can’t be sure, regardless of how the situation appears. I think that’s a weak argument in a general sense, but point taken.
No, I'm not arguing that proof is necessary for certainty. I'm pointing out that the implied reasoning is akin to argument from ignorance. We don't have to take a position on a topic if we are ignorant, but we often do so when doing so can be used to justify existing biases.
